National Academies Press: OpenBook

Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment (2002)

Chapter: 4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation

« Previous: 3 Outline of the Overall Process for Evaluation of Dietary Supplement Ingredients
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

4
Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation

In any scientific evaluation there are different categories of data that are useful and that could be termed as key factors to consider. It is helpful to collect and sort relevant information according to these categories. This chapter describes the different types of scientific evidence and other information, herein termed “factors,” thought to be most useful when screening, setting priorities, and conducting a critical safety evaluation of a dietary supplement ingredient. Different factors contribute to each step of the framework process to a different degree, and different sources of information are necessary to examine and evaluate the factors in the various steps of the process.

DESCRIPTION AND USE OF KEY FACTORS

This chapter includes a description of each factor, limitations when considering the different types of information grouped under the factor, and suggestions for how each factor is used in each step of the process. In addition, the different sources of information for each factor are outlined in Table 4–1. These sources of information may change over time and new sources may be added. It is likely that, with use, the systematic approach described in this report will eventually evolve into an increasingly efficient and effective system as experience and an accumulating database inform and organize the process.

Of the key factors described below (human data, animal data, biological activity of related substances, and in vitro data), the primary factor that contributes to decision making at all steps of the framework is the evidence of harm in humans. This is provided by data collected in observational studies and clinical trials, spontaneously reported adverse events, and other sources of information about the consequences of use in humans. Whether or not the ingredient is new, and thus safety cannot be ascertained as readily, is also considered in the screening/flagging step. This is classified as the “new ingredient status” question.

In the descriptions below, each factor is defined, a rationale for its use provided, and limitations in the use of these types of data are described. A general description of how each factor can be used at each step of the process is then outlined, including a description of the appropriate information sources to consider at each step in the process—ranging from easily obtainable information for the screening/flagging step to an increasingly comprehensive information collection for the priority-setting and critical safety evaluation steps. Finally,

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

TABLE 4–1 Sources of Information for Key Factors and Modifiersa

Key Factors and Modifiers

Screening/Flagging

Priority Setting

Monograph/Critical Evaluation

Key factors

Human data

Serious adverse events:

MedWatch

Poison Control Center

Cursory search in scientific and medical literature including IBIDS, Medline, Toxline

Letters to the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition

Sources listed at left

Secondary reviews

Sources listed at left

All available sources, including:

Published case reports—available through MedLine or other literature

Unpublished safety information requested from published clinical studies

Unpublished safety information requested from manufacturers

Prepublication safety information requested from clinical trials

Discovery materials from tort litigation

Animal data

Consider under “Other Concerns”

Literature searches (e.g., IBIDS, MedLine, Toxline, Embase)

Database searches (e.g., NAPRALERT, Poisindex, Naurac)

Secondary reviewsb

Sources listed at left

Data voluntarily provided by industry

Data provided by animal poison control centersc

Biological activity of structurally related or taxonomically related substances

Consider under “Other Concerns”

Poisonous plants (Kingsbury, 1964)

NAPRALERT

Sources listed at left

Data voluntarily provided by industry

In vitro data

Consider under “Other Concerns”

Literature searches (e.g., IBIDS, MedLine, Toxline, Embase)

Database searches (e.g., NAPRALERT, Poisindex, Naurac)

Secondary reviews

Sources listed at left

Data voluntarily provided by industry

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

Modifiers

Prevalence of use

Industry estimates of production and sales (e.g., U.S. Consumer [2000])

Surveys describing supplement use

Large-scale, cross-sectional data collection (e.g., the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals, the Food and Drug Administration)

Sources listed at left

Not applicable

Vulnerable groups

Same sources as key factors (human data, animal data, structure/chemotaxonomy, in vitro)

Same sources as key factors

Same sources as key factors

New ingredient status

75-day advance notifications

Not applicable

Not applicable

aThese information sources are likely to change over time.

b Secondary reviews include Commission E monographs, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality evidence-based reports, American Herbal Products Association monographs, Natural Medicine Comprehensive Database, World Health Organization monographs, Dietary Reference Intakes by the Institute of Medicine, and National Toxicology Program reviews.

c The Animal Poison Control Center of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) will provide database information on its cases if requested by the Food and Drug Administration (Personal communication, S. Hanson, ASPCA Animal Poison Control Center, May 17, 2002).

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

overarching guiding principles are presented to explain the scientific basis for the suggested use of each factor throughout the framework. These guiding principles will again be emphasized in the critical safety evaluation process described in Chapter 6.

Key Factor: Data from Humans and Clinical Evidence of Harm

To identify possible concerns regarding safety, it is essential to examine data and information on undesired effects that may have occurred in humans. These undesired effects are referred to as adverse events, a term that does not imply that a particular substance caused the event, but simply indicates that the untoward effects observed were associated with its use and might be related to the ingested substance (ICH, 1996). Information about the occurrence of adverse events in humans is obviously the data most relevant to the supplement ingredient in other humans. Information about adverse event occurrence in humans has its own limitations, however, and must therefore be interpreted carefully. This section describes different sources of information about data on adverse effects of dietary supplement ingredients in humans and considerations for using the different types of available information.

When human data suggest risk, these are the most relevant data for consideration of human safety. However, it is anticipated that applicable human data from experimental studies, observational studies, spontaneous reports, and historical use sources often will not be available. As discussed below, the limitations in using available human data often lead to its value only as a signal generator, but even weak data may be useful in this capacity.

Information about untoward effects associated with the use of supplement ingredients may come from experimental studies designed to examine the efficacy or safety of a substance, epidemiological studies, case reports or series, spontaneous adverse event reports to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or to poison control centers, or anecdotal reports in the history of the substance’s use. Each of these sources provides a different type of potentially valuable information.

Clinical Trials

It is helpful to first consider the ideal source of data and then consider limitations of other sources of data. If available, the “gold standard” for determining the safety of an ingested substance is considered by many to be the randomized, controlled clinical trial (RCT) that is designed to assess safety as well as efficacy.

The ideal RCT would enroll a sufficient number of subjects who are systematically monitored for a sufficient amount of time to detect a wide array of adverse effects or physiological changes that might warrant concern. It is the usual practice in an RCT to query subjects for possible adverse events at defined intervals and to record and evaluate these events as “definitely,” “probably,” “possibly,” or “not” related to the ingested substance (ICH, 1995). The use of randomization and control groups enables scientists to determine the likelihood that adverse effects are actually due to the substance rather than to confounding factors. Limits to the generalizability of the study include the statistical power of the study to detect adverse events, differences between the study and target populations, and differences between how a substance is administered during the RCT and its actual use by the general population.

Most RCTs are designed to assess beneficial effects. Thus, in general, efficacy results are more reliably reported than safety data (Ioannidis and Lau, 2001). Although those conducting efficacy trials are expected to observe and report adverse reactions, the extent and detail of this

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

reporting is highly variable (Ioannidis and Lau, 2001). In some cases, however, investigators may be able to supply unpublished data useful in the safety evaluation, even if the published results do not contain all the available information about adverse events (Ioannidis et al., 2002).

While investigators may be able to provide unpublished additional data, characteristics of the study design itself may limit usefulness in predicting safety because even large studies may lack sufficient statistical power to detect adverse events of low incidence. Adverse events generally occur at rates much lower than desired effects (FDA, 1995). Clinical trials generally are designed to detect one primary endpoint, thus secondary events, such as adverse effects, will typically be inadequately reported (Ioannidis and Lau, 2001). A major cause of an incomplete safety evaluation is that the unexpected adverse events may not be noticed by the subject or detected by the investigator if they fall outside the investigator protocol.

For these reasons, a study to test the effects of a supplement ingredient on mood, for example, may not detect potentially dangerous cardiovascular effects if heart function is not monitored. Even if investigators are alert for adverse effects, the limited number of subjects, the limited duration, and the unrepresentative nature of populations studied limit the sensitivity in detecting adverse events that would occur infrequently, after extended exposure, or in subpopulations. For example, events that occur at the rate of 1 in 1,000 would require a study with at least 3,000 subjects at risk to have a 95 percent chance of being detected (Lewis, 1981).

Although RCTs can be limited in their sensitivity, they do provide valuable information when adverse events are detected. Information from clinical studies is strengthened by the following information (Counsell, 1997; ICH, 1995; Moher et al., 2001):

  • demographic information on the study population;

  • inclusion and exclusion criteria to determine if the results are generalizable;

  • description of the condition or disease and comorbidities of the study population;

  • description of the intervention (supplement ingredient [composition], dose, and duration of exposure);

  • list of prior and concomitant ingested substances, including dietary supplements and drugs; and

  • description of the adverse event including temporal relationship to ingestion of supplement ingredient (response to discontinuation or rechallenge).

Observational Epidemiological Research

As discussed above, a limitation inherent to many RCTs is that size and duration limit sensitivity to detect adverse events (FDA, 1995). Latent or delayed effects that occur long after exposure may not be detected. Information about these latent and infrequent effects often comes from observational or epidemiological studies that retrospectively or prospectively examine the effects of ingested substances on large populations. Like RCTs, the value of observational studies also depends on the endpoints examined. For example, if a study evaluates the incidence of cancer, death, or liver damage but does not evaluate anemia, the study is unlikely to detect interference with iron absorption.

For the endpoints examined, cohort studies using registries and other sources of information about large populations are a valuable source of safety information about ingested substances such as pharmaceutical drugs. These types of studies would likely be informative about the safety of particular dietary supplement ingredients, but unfortunately there are few studies of

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

this type conducted on them. The type of information needed to conduct such studies is rarely available for supplement ingredients because their use is not systematically tracked in a manner similar to use of prescription drugs.

Non-Study Information: Spontaneously Reported Adverse Events

Adverse events that are spontaneously reported to FDA, poison control centers, or as case reports or case series in the medical literature are also important sources of information. Generally, these voluntary spontaneous reports are made by consumers, physicians, or pharmacists who notice an untoward effect following ingestion of a substance. It is assumed that adverse effects most likely to be attributed to the ingested substance are unusual, persistent, or severe, and occur shortly following ingestion. Thus, effects that are not noticeable enough to garner attention are unlikely to be associated with the ingestion of the ingredient and thus unlikely to be reported to FDA or another data-collecting entity. Given these limitations, it is not surprising that the total rate of spontaneous adverse-event reporting is very low (OIG, 2001), and that even fewer reports are made to FDA (Chyka and McCommon, 2000).

It has been estimated that adverse events spontaneously reported to FDA account for only 1 percent of serious drug reactions that occur outside the parameters of clinical studies (Scott et al., 1987). It is unknown if spontaneous adverse event reporting may be even less frequent with dietary supplements, because it is unknown if consumers are less likely to associate dietary supplements with untoward effects than to associate drugs with untoward effects.Unlike drugs, supplement manufacturers and distributors are not required to share with FDA the adverse event reports they receive (CFSAN, 2001a; OIG, 2001). Nonetheless, MedWatch and other sources of reported serious adverse effects will often be the first line of evidence that indicates a substance might warrant a higher priority review. Even when reports are inadequately documented and causation difficult to assess, the reports should serve as sentinel events that alert regulators and the medical community to potential adverse effects of a product.

In summary, when they exist, spontaneous reports of adverse events and published case reports are useful for generating hypotheses about relationships between supplement ingredients and untoward effects. However, due to the nature of adverse event reporting, especially for dietary supplement ingredients, a lack of reports does not imply that a dietary supplement ingredient is safe. Similarly, the existence of adverse event reports does not, without extensive critical evaluation of the reports, establish a causal relationship between the adverse event and the ingredient.

Non-Study Information: Historical Use

Experience from generations of use in humans is often referred to as evidence of safety for modern day supplements that bear resemblance to substances used historically. Some botanicals, for example, have had a long history of medicinal use in many cultures.

Historical use is of less importance when relevant clinical, epidemiological, or animal toxicity data exist. For many supplements, however, the amount of scientific and experimental data that exists ranges from scant to nil. Recognizing that a full range of data is unlikely to be available for many dietary supplement ingredients, historical use may be taken into account as a limited surrogate measure for toxicity in the absence of relevant scientific and experimental data. In doing so, it is important to consider the relevance of the traditional use to the current use. Historical information is only useful if the product in question is not so far removed from

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

BOX 4–1
Questions to be Answered When Considering Relevance of Information About Historical Use

  • Is the supplement ingredient one that was commonly used within the context of a traditional medical system?

  • If the supplement ingredient is a botanical, is the part of the plant marketed the same as the part that was traditionally used?

  • Is the preparation a crude preparation, extract, or concentrate; a selected fraction; an isolated compound; or a mixture of these? How similar is the current preparation to that used traditionally?

  • Are current intake levels or recommended intake levels clearly different from traditional use?

  • Is the modern duration of use consistent with historical use?

  • Is the modern indication consistent with historical use?

  • If there are traditional cautions in the use of the supplement ingredient, are these cautions typically heeded?

  • Are there other reasons to expect a different toxicity profile for the modern formulation than for the traditional preparations?

the original plant use as to constitute a distinct entity. For example, a whole root extract that was traditionally used for three days to treat a cold is not comparable to a fraction of a leaf extract promoted for long-term use to treat cancer. The discussion in this section focuses on questions to help assess how to consider the relevance of information about traditional use. These questions are listed in Box 4-1 and are explained in more detail below.

If the supplement ingredient is a botanical, is the part of the plant marketed the same as the part that was traditionally used? Safety comparisons for botanicals can only be made when the same plant part used in traditional preparations is used in the modern preparation. Seeds, roots, leaves, and other parts may have distinct safety profiles due to different composition. For this reason, this report defines the specific plant part as the ingredient under question. Indication of safe use of one plant part should not be used as prima facie evidence that other plant parts might also be used safely.

Is the preparation a crude preparation, extract, or concentrate; a selected fraction; an isolated compound; or a mixture of these? The method of preparation can have an impact on an ingredient’s safety. This is most clearly illustrated in botanicals with traditional medicinal uses. Traditionally, most orally ingested medicinal herbs were administered as crude aqueous extractions of plant parts that were soaked, steeped, or boiled in water. Today’s supplements are often sold in a different form—as encapsulated dried herbs, fluid extracts, solid extracts (such as capsules or tablets), or foodstuffs containing herbal extracts. While these modem formulations are not equivalent to traditional preparations and may not have exactly the same effect as teas and infusions, they could have safety profiles similar to traditional preparations. A botanical with a history of benign use in infusions may or may not manifest new toxic effects when concentrated, lyophilized, or encapsulated. Teas (infusions) are typically extracts prepared from dried plant materials, while lyophilized plants are made from whole fresh materials. The chemical composition and concentrations could be sufficiently different between the two forms to result in different safety profiles. Even if dried and lyophilized materials were identical in all respects, an infusion of a botanical should not be thought of as necessarily comparable to whole

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

dried botanicals because the chemistry of the extract (tea) may be different. Differences in safety profiles could also be expected for alcoholic extracts of plants with known toxic components. Alcohol draws out different compounds, so alcohol extracts may contain a higher concentration of toxic compounds than aqueous extracts. An example is wormwood (Artemisia absinthium), which in an aqueous extract contains little thujone (a neurotoxin) (Tegtmeier and Harnischfeger, 1994), but may contain substantial amounts of thujone in alcohol extracts. Additionally, isolated compounds may be dissimilar to traditional plant extracts in safety, as could extracts to which isolated compounds (e.g., yohimbine, ephedrine, hypericin) have been added.

Are current intake levels or recommended intake levels clearly different from traditional use? A frequently quoted axiom of toxicology from Paracelcus is that “dose makes the poison.” Unfortunately, differences in traditional and modern formulations render dose comparisons difficult or even impossible. In the rare cases where active compounds or groups of compounds are known and have been quantified (e.g., kavalactones in kava [Piper methysticum], ephedrine alkaloids in Ephedra sinica), doses can be compared. In most cases, however, dosing comparisons are so imprecise that it should probably only be attempted in cases where the modern formulation is clearly providing doses that are orders of magnitude higher than traditional doses. For example, consumption of a culinary herb in small amounts in cooked food may have different effects than medicinal consumption of large amounts of the same herb, rendering a safety extrapolation from culinary to supplemental use inappropriate.

Is the modern duration of use consistent with historical use? Is the modern indication consistent with historical use? The duration of use is another component of dosage that should be considered. Acute, short-term, and long-term intakes all have different safety implications. A lack of adverse events reported for an herb traditionally used only for a few days has little relevance to safety of the same herb chronically ingested. When considering how the current duration of use compares to traditional duration of use, it may be helpful to also consider whether the modern day indication is consistent with traditional indications. The modern uses of some botanicals, especially for nonmedical indications such as memory enhancement and ergogenics, for example, might lead consumers to use supplements chronically that were never used chronically in traditional medicine.

If there are traditional cautions in the use of the supplement ingredient, are these cautions typically heeded? Some dietary supplement ingredients, such as some botanicals, were traditionally prescribed by practitioners knowledgeable about contraindications to their use. It is scientifically appropriate to take contraindications in traditional use into account when considering the safety of the ingredient. If, for example, an ingredient traditionally contraindicated for pregnant women is currently being marketed to pregnant women or frequently consumed by pregnant women due to its expected effects, then FDA should be more concerned about the safety of this ingredient.

In summary, it is clear from these questions that historical use, even widespread historical use, is no guarantor of long-term safety. Historical use information is very useful when it describes a relationship between untoward effects and an ingested substance. It is less useful in predicting harmful effects, especially those effects that do not occur immediately following exposure. However, in the absence of scientific or experimental data, historical use may provide indirect evidence for lack of serious acute harmful effects, and it may be useful to compare with current cautions and exposures (intake levels and duration). Because little other data may be

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

available for many ingredients, it is important to judge the relevance of traditional use information to current use conditions.

Causation in the Consideration of Adverse Events

For adverse events from any type of study or nonstudy source, ascertaining whether or not a causal relationship exists between the adverse events and the ingestion of the ingredient is likely to be a challenging aspect of considering human data. At the screening/flagging step of the process, ingredients should be flagged without a burdensome evaluation of actual causation. At the priority-setting step to a limited degree, and in the critical evaluation step to a much greater degree, the evidence should be evaluated for causation. Generally accepted causation criteria for assessing the relationship between adverse events and drugs are outlined by Sackett and colleagues (1991). These criteria, listed below, should generally be applicable to other ingested substances as well, including dietary supplement ingredients.

  • The adverse effect is well accepted as an adverse reaction.

  • There is no good alternative candidate (unexplained exacerbation or recurrence of underlying illness).

  • The timing is as expected for an adverse reaction to this compound.

  • The blood level or other biomarker provides unequivocal evidence of overdose.

  • The adverse effect improves suitably if the individual is not rechallenged with the compound.

  • The adverse effect unequivocally recurs or is exacerbated on rechallenge.

These causation criteria and the quality and documentation of the data will be helpful in weighting the information collected about adverse events reported, but it is not necessary for causation to be clearly demonstrated or refuted during any step of the process.

The different types of human data discussed in the sections above are considered in all steps of the framework, but the degree to which the data are evaluated varies significantly with each step. The differences are summarized below and discussed further in Chapters 5 and 6.

Use of Human Data in the Screening/Flagging and Priority-Setting Steps

There are several primary differences in how human data are considered at each step. The first difference is that in the screening/flagging step, the occurrence of serious adverse events, rather than all adverse events, is used to flag ingredients that should be considered in the priority-setting step. This distinction is made because including nonserious adverse events in the screening could serve to dilute the efforts with untoward consequences that are nuisances or inconveniences (flatulence or halitosis, for example), but do not cause morbidity or mortality. Serious adverse events are defined in the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice issued by the International Committee on Harmonization (ICH, 1996) and endorsed by FDA (FDA, 2002). A serious adverse event is an untoward effect that is a death, life-threatening event, initial or prolonged hospitalization, disability, congenital anomaly, birth defect, or other important medical event (ICH, 1996). In contrast to the screening/flagging step, serious and nonserious adverse events are considered in the priority-setting and critical safety evaluation steps.

The second difference in how human data are considered at the screening/flagging and priority-setting steps is the degree to which causation is considered. As described above, the

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

term adverse event encompasses all untoward effects that may be associated with the supplement ingredient, even if the ingredient has not been demonstrated to actually cause the effect. At the screening/flagging step, the relationship of the adverse event and the ingredient (i.e., the causality) is considered to some degree, but it is considered less at this step than in the priority-setting and critical safety evaluation steps when more information and resources are available to examine causality. That is, ingredients are flagged in the screening/flagging step if a causative relationship between the ingredient and the adverse event cannot easily be ruled out.

The level of information gathering at each step also varies. For the screening/flagging step, readily or easily obtainable sources of information about serious adverse events should be explored. Data sources could include MedWatch and the Poison Control Center database that collect adverse event reports from consumers, pharmacists, physicians, and hospitals. A cursory search of the medical literature should also be conducted to determine if there are any reports of serious adverse events associated with supplement ingredients.10

At the priority-setting step, FDA should invest additional effort into weighing the strength of the evidence that a relationship exists between the supplement ingredient and the adverse event. Although the consideration of causation at this stage is not comprehensive, the reviewer makes some judgments about the strength of the evidence.

Historical use information may also be used in the screening/flagging and priority-setting steps. The screening/flagging step is focused on responding to indicators of concern, rather than on considering information that may suggest an ingredient is safe. To the degree that historical use information provides insight into possible concerns or subpopulations that may be harmed by the ingredient, it would be considered in these two steps of the process. As stated above, historical use information can be considered as a surrogate indicator that acute serious toxic effects are unlikely when other, more relevant safety information is not available. During the priority-setting step, it therefore may be appropriate for the reviewer to consider relevant historical use information to determine if it provides insight into areas of concern; such consideration may influence the priority score (see Chapter 5 for the proposed scoring system).

Use of Human Data in the Critical Safety Evaluation Step

The purpose of the critical safety evaluation step is to consider all of the available and relevant information about possible effects of the ingredient on humans, and to consider these data in the context of other types of data collected (e.g., animal or in vitro). Available information should be collected, which includes published case reports available through the National Library of Medicine databases and other sources. Also, clinical investigators may have adverse event information that was not published. This information should be solicited, as well as adverse event information from federal agency-sponsored studies in progress and materials discovered by plaintiff lawyers in tort litigation. Importantly, the manufacturers and distributors of ingredients that reach the critical safety evaluation stage should also be asked to provide data voluntarily on adverse events reported to them or other relevant evidence they have regarding safety evaluation.11

10  

For example, the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed, available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi; TOXNET, available at http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/; and EMBASE, available at http://www.embase.com/.

11  

Manufacturers and distributors are always welcome to submit adverse event reports and other safety information. They are specifically requested to submit data after the priority-setting step because at this step additional effort can be expended to request information about specific ingredients in the Federal Register and/or via letters to individual manufacturers and distributors, if they are known.

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

In the critical safety evaluation step, experts will weigh the evidence and consider the likelihood that a substance poses a risk to human health. At this point, consideration of human adverse event data in relation to the other factors, such as animal, in vitro, and biological activity of related substances, will provide an overall picture of what is known about the ingredient’s safety and may provide plausible biological explanations for reported human adverse events for which causation is not clear.

While it is hoped that eventually all dietary supplement ingredients will reach the critical safety evaluation step, given the large number of dietary supplement ingredients, it is unlikely that those ingredients for which significant safety concerns have not been raised will reach this step in the near future. Thus, ingredients that have been safely used historically are unlikely to be reviewed unless other information leads to questions about their safety.

Information about the historical use of an ingredient will be the most useful during the critical safety evaluation step, when it can be considered along with the in-depth analysis of potential for harm derived from other information. In this step, historical use information will be considered to the degree that the historical use is similar to current use. The historical use information should not be considered as more important than the scientific evidence, but it may be appropriate to take information about the history of use into account if it is relevant to understanding the likelihood of the potential harm being considered and it is relevant to current use conditions. For example, it would be important to determine whether the potential harm being considered would be expected to have been detected during years of previous use. In such cases, historical use information may mitigate concerns to some degree.

Guiding Principle for Human Data

A credible report of a serious adverse event in humans that is associated with use of a dietary supplement ingredient raises concern about the ingredient’s safety and requires further information gathering and evaluation. A final judgment about the safety of the supplement ingredient, however, will require consideration of the totality of the evidence. Historical use should not be used as prima facie evidence that the ingredient does not cause harm. It may be appropriate, however, to give considerable weight to a lack of adverse events in large, high-quality, randomized clinical trials or retrospective or prospective cohort studies that are adequately powered and designed to detect adverse effects.

Key Factor: Animal Data

Animal testing provides invaluable evidence about the potential for ingested substances to cause harm in humans. Thus, studies on animals are regularly employed as an important step in attempting to predict untoward effects of these substances on humans (see, for example, Redbook 2000 [CFSAN, 200 1b] or guidance documents for new drugs [CDER, 2002). They are powerful because controlled studies can be conducted to predict effects that might not be detectable with customary use by humans until they lead to harmful results. Animal studies serve as important signal generators and, in some cases, may stand alone as indicators of unreasonable risk.

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

Different types of animal studies provide different types of information relevant to considering the safety of a dietary supplement ingredient and can be classified as either traditional toxicology data or safety pharmacology studies. FDA’s Redbook II describes several different types of toxicology studies that are typically conducted in assessing the safety of food additives and other ingested substances (see Table 4–2) (CFSAN, 1993). These studies are applicable to evaluating most ingested substances, including dietary supplement ingredients, irrespective of what is known about their biological activities. It is not anticipated that animal data of each type will be available for each dietary supplement ingredient. However, consideration of the typical study protocols enables the animal data that is available to be placed in perspective regarding the type of information gleaned from the different study designs and the types of data that are often available for other ingested substances.

One type of animal study is the acute toxicity study.12 In acute (single dose) and subacute (repeated doses) toxicity testing, animals are treated with increasing amounts of the test substance to determine the dose that induces overt abnormalities (i.e., toxic effects). The resulting abnormalities might be at the level of organs (detected by gross examination or by observing behavioral changes), cells (detected by histological examination such as light or electron microscope analysis of fixed tissue samples), or subcellular structures (detected in biochemical studies such as enzyme assays or protein analysis). In another example, chronic toxicity testing (and in subchronic toxicity testing, which is not as lengthy as chronic toxicity testing), the test substance is typically administered to animals on a daily basis for 3 to 24 months (depending on the species) to characterize possible longer-term toxicity.

When conducting animal studies, blood levels of the test substance and its active metabolites are often determined. These blood levels are used to provide evidence that the test substance was absorbed, to describe the dose-response curve, and to determine whether the metabolites formed in the test animal are qualitatively and quantitatively similar to those formed in humans. If the metabolites formed in the animals are not the same as those formed in humans, the results may be less meaningful and testing with other species should be considered.

Genetic, reproductive, developmental, and behavioral toxicity studies, as well as other types of studies provide further information regarding the toxicity of the test substance.

In addition to traditional animal toxicity testing, safety pharmacology testing is also conducted in various animal species in order to detect alterations in physiological functions at doses lower than those used to elicit overt toxic effects detected in animal toxicity testing. The S7A Safety Pharmacology Studies for Human Pharmaceuticals issued by FDA defines safety pharmacology studies as “those studies that investigate the potential undesirable pharmacodynamic effects of a substance on physiological functions in relation to exposure in the therapeutic range and above” (ICH, 2001). Safety pharmacology testing generally focuses on endpoints that differ from those examined in classic toxicity testing. It is designed to detect harmful effects in a “core battery” of vital organ systems, which include the cardiovascular, central nervous, and respiratory systems.

Safety pharmacology studies may detect potentially harmful physiological responses such as arrhythmias, blood pressure changes, and alterations in blood gases in nonrodent species—changes that would be difficult to observe in rodent species. When appropriate, supplemental safety pharmacology studies beyond the core battery is used to evaluate potential adverse effects in the renal/urinary, autonomic nervous, gastrointestinal, immune, skeletal muscle, and endocrine systems.

12  

See descriptions of acute, short-term, subchronic, one-year, and chronic toxicity tests in Table 4–2.

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

TABLE 4–2 Toxicity Studies in Laboratory Animals

Types of Studies

Protocols Typically Used in Studies

Purpose of Study/Information Gleaned

Acute Toxicity Tests

Single dose (limit test, up to 5 g/kg body weight or 5 m1/kg body weight) followed by 14-day observation period

Estimate acute lethality, if appropriate, for test substance

Monitor food consumption, weight change, lethargy, changes in behavior

Main focus: observe the symptoms and recovery of test animals

Identify possible target organs

Estimate dose range for other studies

Species used: typically rat

Short-Term Toxicity Tests

Daily dosing regimen is repeated for 14 or 28 days

At least three and up to five different doses are used

Observe general signs of toxicity: change in consumption of diet or water, change in body weight; hematology, clinical chemistry and limited urinalysis (prestudy and at termination); neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity studies, as appropriate; gross necropsy findings and microscopic findings

Identify target organs

Refine dose range for further studies

Establish the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) for some endpoints

Species used: usually rat but other species such as mouse, dog, or miniature swine may be used

Subchronic Toxicity Tests

Daily dosing regimen is repeated for longer period, typically 90 days (up to 12 months, depending on species)

Observations: same as for short-term tests described above

Identify target organs

Refine dose range for further studies

Establish NOAEL for additional endpoints

Species used: usually rat, mouse, or dog

One-Year Toxicity Tests (nonrodent)

Similar to subchronic studies extended to 12 months

At least three dose levels are used

Observe general signs of toxicity: change in consumption of diet or water, change in body weight; hematology, clinical chemistry, and urinalysis (prestudy, at 3-month intervals, and at termination); gross necropsy and microscopic findings

Observe specific signs of toxicity, if appropriate

Characterize possible toxicity of the test substance in a nonrodent species

Establish NOAEL in a nonrodent species

Species used: usually dog

Chronic Toxicity Tests (rodent)

Similar to subchronic studies extended up to 24 months, depending on species

At least three dose levels are used; the high dose should be the maximum tolerated dose (MTD)

Observe general signs of toxicity, as described above

Observe specific signs of toxicity, if appropriate

Characterize possible long-term toxicity of the test substance in rodents

Determine whether test substance is toxic when administered to rodents in regularly repeated oral doses for the major portion of the lifetime of the test animal

Species used: two rodents, usually rat and mouse

At least 25 female and male surviving to the end of the study

 

SOURCE: Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN, 1993, 200 1b).

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

In addition to information provided by laboratory animal studies, veterinary toxicology information may also prove useful in examining the potential effect of an ingredient on humans. Information is available on the effects of veterinary intoxication, similar to human adverse event reports. Serious adverse events reported in animals, such as livestock, may provide helpful information. For example, effects associated with ingestion of several plants were reported in livestock many years ago. Animal poison control centers, as well as a search of the veterinary literature, may provide this type of information.

Importance of Quality Data

While all animal experiments may be informative, the nature of the experimental design, the quality of the methodology, and the statistical significance of the results need to be taken into consideration in weighting the evidence. Recommendations for well-designed safety tests using animals are described in the FDA Redbook (CFSAN, 1993, 2001b). Specifically, the most ideal information will come from animal studies that are consistent with the guidelines listed in Box 4-2, recognizing that other data may be valuable as well.

Extrapolations from Animal Studies

Several considerations are important when extrapolating from animal data to predict effects on humans. Factors that can affect interpretation include interspecies physiological variability and differences in routes of exposure, dose levels, animal health, nutrition, and treatment. Testing substances in more than one species increases the likelihood that information related to effects in humans will be identified, and the more genetically diverse the examined species (e.g., one rodent and one nonrodent study), the more likely at least one of these will model human physiology.

The relevance of animal studies to human safety is also improved when treatment of the animal most closely resembles conditions experienced by humans and does not result in excessive stress. A healthy, inbred animal species is most likely to result in data that are

BOX 4–2
Characteristics of Good Animal Studies

A good animal study is one that:

  • uses Good Laboratory Practices;

  • is specifically designed as a toxicity, safety pharmacology, or safety study and includes sufficiently large doses to detect toxicity;

  • uses unanesthetized, unrestrained animals on a semipurified diet;

  • fully characterizes the composition and formulation of the test substance;

  • uses a species that has pharmacodynamics similar to humans (bioavailability, distribution, metabolism, excretion);

  • estimates blood or other tissue levels to assure absorption;

  • conducts clinical chemistry, blood, and urine analysis;

  • uses more than a single species (that might respond differently than humans); and

  • administers the test substance orally.

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

reproducible and reliable. Accreditation of laboratory facilities provides reasonable assurance that the animals are being treated according to established guidelines (ILAR, 1996).

In considering animal data generated in other countries, it is important to recognize that animal care accreditation is not globally harmonized. Animal data derived from studies in nonaccredited laboratories that do not follow good laboratory practices may be difficult to interpret or reproduce, possibly because animals are housed under stressful conditions, fed nonstandard diets, or have parasites or diseases that may confound the data interpretation.

Finally, the amount administered and tissue levels of a substance in test animals are important to consider when assessing the relevance of animal studies to human safety. One of the unique and powerful approaches of animal testing is the system of administering high amounts of a substance over a short time period. This allows the prediction of possible effects following prolonged human exposure and prediction of possible effects on particularly sensitive subpopulations. Many studies focused on toxicity will evaluate increasing doses until signs of toxicity are seen. While the amount administered may not appear relevant at first glance, organ toxicities at elevated intake levels in acute or subchronic studies can be indicative of toxicities that may develop at lower doses during chronic use of the ingredient.

Studies carried out using very different amounts or formulations from those being marketed must be carefully interpreted. High-dose effects can be useful in predicting potential for similar low-dose effects in humans, but these studies serve as indicators of risk or concern that should be considered in the context of other data when possible. Finally, animals that are given substances using intragastric or oral administration provide the ideal model to predict human toxicity or harm associated with a dietary component, but data following administration by other routes should not be disregarded.

As with any type of scientific study, it is important to remember that a lack of observed or reported detrimental effects in an animal study does not indicate that a particular substance is safe. Animal data should only be used to predict human effects that are relevant to the endpoints examined in the animals. For example, if an animal study only reported how many animals died or exhibited gross toxic effects following short-term administration of an ingredient, it is not acceptable to conclude that this ingredient does not cause cancer following chronic intake by humans. In summary, the sensitivity of the animal experiments to detect particular effects is of utmost importance to consider when extrapolating from animal studies to humans.

Use of Animal Data in the Screening/Flagging Step

In order to create a rapid review system and to avoid lengthy data searches during the screening/flagging step, animal and other nonclinical data are not designated as a separate, independent factor for this step. These data are considered in this step to the extent that they come to FDA’s attention under the umbrella of “other concerns,” that is, without overt information-seeking action on the part of FDA.

Use of Animal Data in the Priority-Setting Step

The goal in considering animal data at this step is to set a higher priority on flagged ingredients for which animal data suggest there may be safety concerns. In this step, the scientific literature should be systematically searched for evidence of harmful effects in animals for all flagged ingredients (including ingredients flagged for other reasons). Sources for primary scientific literature include IBIDS, MedLine, Toxline, AGRICOLA, and other scientific

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

literature databases. Other databases, such as NAPRALERT, focus on natural products and also may be useful for searching for evidence of adverse effects observed in animal studies. Finally, it is important to consult several secondary or tertiary reviews that may cite older (pre-1960s) or foreign data not found in the main database.

After gathering information, the evaluation of animal data should be focused on two aspects: the evidence of possible risk, of which the quality and quantity of the data are components, and the seriousness of the potential harm suggested by the data. Points to consider when assessing the quality of the data are outlined above. The data are more meaningful when the dose and ingested form can appropriately be extrapolated from animal data to human effects, as outlined above.

In addition to assessing the evidence of possible risk, it is very important to consider the seriousness of effects suggested by the animal studies. Clearly, animal studies that predict serious harm or death warrant more attention than those that predict mild, self-limiting effects on humans. Certain chronic animal toxicity or biological activity data should be considered as immediate cause for high priority, regardless of the presence of high-quality human data suggesting no acute toxicity. This is because human exposure may need to be prolonged before such toxicities would be detected without the benefit of animal data, or the source of such detrimental effects may very difficult to detect except with animal studies. Animal studies that warrant special concern are those that indicate the following potential effects in humans:

  • evidence of cancer;

  • reproductive system effects;

  • developmental toxicity effects, including teratology;

  • acute organ toxicities; and

  • cardiovascular, respiratory, and central nervous system effects.

Use of Animal Data in the Critical Safety Evaluation Step

The goal of the critical safety evaluation step is to conduct an in-depth consideration of the value of the available animal data in predicting harm to humans in the context of data from other factors. If animal data are a central focus of the in-depth safety evaluation, expert opinion in the interpretation of animal data will be sought. Such expert opinion will help ensure that the data are appropriately reviewed in the context of all information available regarding the ingredient.

Industry and the other public communities should be invited to submit animal study information for ingredients that reach the critical safety evaluation stage. If manufacturers or distributors have conducted animal studies on their products, these data should be made available on a voluntary basis by manufacturers at this stage, if not before. Veterinary toxicology information may also provide useful information; cases reported to the animal poison control centers should also be solicited.

Guiding Principle for Animal Data

Even in the absence of human adverse events, evidence of harm from laboratory animal studies can be indicative of potential harm to humans. This indication may assume greater importance if the route of exposure is similar (e.g., oral), the formulation is similar, and more than one species shows the same toxicity.

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

Key Factor: Bioactivity of Structurally Related and Taxonomically Related Substances

Complete information on safety-related effects of each dietary supplement ingredient will not be available. Consideration of risk may therefore be facilitated by understanding the biological activity of related substances. It is not possible to define all the different ways that substances may be “related.” Substances with similar chemical structures, such as ephedrine and amphetamine, are structurally related, as are substances that stimulate or inhibit activity at the same cellular receptors or other biological targets, even if their chemical structures are not obviously similar in the strictest sense. Similarity of dietary supplement ingredients to biologically active metabolic intermediates such as cytokines or hormones may also be important if the actions of metabolic intermediates provide clues about the activity of the dietary supplement ingredients. Finally, it is possible to gain insight into the activity of a plant-derived substance by considering the activity of other plants in the same plant family or genus.

For some dietary supplement ingredients, reviewing the biological activity of individual chemical components or related chemicals will be straightforward and will lead easily to hypotheses about the action of the dietary supplement ingredient being considered. If the biological activity of related substances suggests concern that the dietary supplement ingredient may be harmful, these concerns should be considered.

In other cases it may be more difficult to identify substances related to the dietary supplement ingredient that could be used to predict biological activities. In these cases, if an ingredient’s chemical components are known, it may be useful to employ systematic computational approaches to formulate hypotheses about biological activities of the chemical constituents, as described below. In the case of botanical ingredients, it is appropriate to review information about the individual chemical components to determine if any of the constituents raise concerns and to review information about taxonomically related plants. These approaches are described in the next few paragraphs.

Systematically Considering Biological Activity of Structurally Related Substances

The physical-chemical properties and biological effects of a substance are derived from its chemical structure. If the chemical structure of a dietary supplement is known, but additional insight into the biological activity is needed, then it may be helpful to consider the information about the biological activity of structurally related substances. It is assumed that the biological effects of chemicals, including toxic effects, are implicit in their molecular structures. On this basis, computational programs have been developed to predict the biological activity of chemicals by comparing their chemical structures with other well-characterized compounds.

Computer programs designed to assist in predictive toxicology are useful in predicting a chemical’s potential propensity for causing particular effects. For example, The Open Practical Knowledge Acquisition Toolkit program (AIAI, 2002) uses chemical structures and a variety of models to estimate carcinogenicity and teratogenicity, among other toxicological endpoints, and is used by the Cosmetic Industry Review in setting priorities for review. An endorsement or comparative evaluation of individual programs is beyond the scope of this report, but these programs in general are believed to have value in providing insight into the potential for a dietary supplement ingredient to demonstrate toxicological outcomes not adequately addressed by available experimental data. Computational prediction is most useful for predicting biological activities of pure compounds.

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Considering the Chemical Composition of Botanical Ingredients

As discussed in Chapter 3, for the purposes of this framework, a plant part (e.g., fruit, root) is considered as one dietary supplement ingredient, but of course this one ingredient is composed of many individual phytochemicals. It is well known that biological effects are tied to specific pharmacophores, or chemical structures, and that certain chemical structures are known to trigger a toxicological response. For this reason, it is helpful in predicting the toxicity of botanical ingredients to know if they contain such compounds. Thus, documentation of the chemical constituents known to be present in a botanical ingredient may enable safety predictions to be made based the presence of compounds known to be hazardous. For example, the presence of certain compounds, such as those listed in Box 4-3, can often point to a potential toxicity of a specific botanical product.

In addition to examining chemical composition profiles of botanical ingredients for the presence of chemicals associated with harm, much information can also be gained by reviewing what is known about plants that are taxonomically related to the dietary supplement ingredient under consideration. A number of genera of plants are often associated with toxic compounds (e.g., Liliaceae are known to contain cardiac glycosides, Euphorbiaceae are known to contain phorbol esters and toxic diterpenes). The ability to anticipate the presence of specific classes of compounds based on plant family or genus may be helpful in predicting potential toxicity. For example, if the botanical belongs to a genus known to contain certain compounds for which there is a toxic potential, one could presume that the same compounds might exist and pose a problem in the ingredient under question, unless there is reason to think otherwise.

The utilization of taxonomic relationships to predict composition and potential toxicity has its limitations. Not all genera of a given family will contain similar toxic components. Therefore, knowledge of taxonomy, phytochemistry, and pharmacognosy is ideally used as a tool to complement other data such as bioavailability, pharmacokinetics, and toxicological evaluation. Furthermore, the concentration of these compounds in the final product must be considered, as well as the plant part being utilized and the manner of preparation, processing, and formulation. The goal is to consider two likely scenarios that could provide some guidance regarding the possible toxicity a botanical dietary supplement ingredient: where a known constituent of the plant is structurally similar to a known toxic compound, and where a plant genus or species is (or is closely) related to a known toxic plant.

BOX 4–3
Examples of Potentially Hazardous Compounds

  • alkaloids (usually active on the central nervous system as well as other organs or systems of the body)

  • cardenolides/bufadienolides (usually cardiotoxic)

  • colchicine-like compounds (toxic at very low doses)

  • cyanide-containing compounds

  • nitrophenathrenes (aristolochic acid, mutagens, carcinogens)

  • nitrosamines (carcinogens)

  • phorbol esters (irritants, tumor promoters)

  • pyrrolizidines (liver toxins, carcinogens)

  • urushiol-related compounds (poison ivy-type compounds, severe irritants)

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Use of Bioactivity of Related Substances in the Screening/Flagging Step

Consideration of the bioactivity of related substances is not a separate, independent factor of the initial screening/flagging step. It is expected that ingredients that cause concern based on their structural or taxonomic similarity to harmful compounds or plants will come to FDA’s attention through secondary reviews highlighting the potential for safety problems or through other mechanisms of expressed public concern.

Use of Bioactivity of Related Substances in the Priority-Setting Step

Information about the biological activity of related substances may be utilized as a predictor of possible harm, and therefore a reason for considering a supplement ingredient as higher priority. In gathering information for the priority-setting process, sources such as databases (e.g., the American Chemical Society’s Chemical Abstracts Service) and texts with information about biological activities of phytochemicals and plants will be useful in examining whether the ingredient’s chemical structure or plant’s genus and species indicates a potential for harm. Computational approaches that predict possible toxicological endpoints based on chemical structure may be used for dietary supplement ingredients with identified major chemical components.

When considering the potential for botanically-based supplement ingredients to cause concern, several key sources of information should be consulted in the priority-setting stage. Texts that list poisonous plants by plant family, genus, and species are helpful in identifying harmful ingredients. Poisonous Plants of the United States and Canada (Kingsbury, 1964) is a good example that lists examples of harmful plants and also contains information helpful in identifying related plants. Databases (e.g., NAPRALERT) provide pharmacological and toxicological information about plant compounds that is helpful in identifying potential toxic substances by the taxa of botanicals.

Use of Bioactivity of Related Substances in the Critical Safety Evaluation Step

In the critical safety evaluation, information derived from comparison to the biological activity of related substances should be considered as part of the totality of the evidence. For example, if the information suggests a plausible mechanism of harm and could explain the human adverse events reported, then it may be appropriate to find that the ingredient is not safe. If structure and taxonomic prediction data are a central focus of the critical safety evaluation, expert opinion in the interpretation of such information will be sought. Such expert opinion will help ensure that the data are appropriately reviewed in the context of all information available about the supplement ingredient.

Guiding Principle for Structurally Related and Taxonomically Related Substances

The presence of a constituent that is structurally similar to known toxic or potentially harmful compounds or a plant that is taxonomically related to known toxic plants suggests increased risk, and therefore higher priority, unless there is evidence that the compound is not toxic or harmful, the compound is present in concentrations that will not lead to harm, or there is other evidence supporting the safety of the ingredient.

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

Key Factor: In Vitro Data

In vitro studies are defined here as studies not conducted in humans or other whole animals. A wide range of in vitro experimental systems are used to gain insight into the risk of adverse clinical effects of compounds. These systems include isolated cells, microorganisms, subcellular components, and isolated organs. In vitro assays often focus on measuring effects on cells and subcellular targets such as enzymes, receptors, and DNA. The primary advantage of conducting in vitro studies is that their reductionist approach allows insight into a compound’s mechanisms of action that might be more difficult to obtain in a whole animal study, making in vitro studies useful screening tools. They are also generally more rapid and less expensive, leading to a greater amount of this type of data being available in the literature.

As mentioned above, it is the reductionist approach of in vitro studies that makes them powerful and inexpensive assays useful for learning about effects and mechanisms of actions of compounds. The reductionist approach of in vitro assays, however, requires that reviewers of these studies carefully consider their limitations and caveats. It is very important, for example, to consider whether the compound applied to the in vitro system is similar in identity and concentration to the compound that reaches the target (e.g., tissue, receptor, subcellular component) in the human. After a substance is ingested, the metabolic fate of the compound and the amount of the biologically active compound that actually reaches the target site is dependent on a multitude of processes including absorption, distribution within the body, metabolism by liver and intestinal enzymes, and rate of excretion. Knowledge of an ingredient’s pharmacokinetics and in vivo metabolism will allow the most appropriate interpretation of the relevancy of the dose used in the in vitro tests.

Botanical extracts provide an example of how important it is to consider bioavailability of the ingested substances. When applied to cells in vitro, these extracts often contain polyphenolic compounds (e.g., tannins and related compounds) that may reversibly or irreversibly bind to subcellular components such as enzymes, signal transduction factors, and receptors where they cause effects. In a human, however, these compounds can bind to the food bolus or be metabolized by gastrointestinal enzymes, becoming unavailable for absorption, and therefore not exert the same effects on receptors and enzymes (Bravo, 1998; Yang et al., 2001). Another example of problematic interpretation can be in hepatocyte cultures that do not always support expression of metabolizing enzymes, causing some data to be misleading. In contrast, some cell cultures are established specifically to evaluate metabolism of substances and can provide useful information. All cell types do not respond similarly to a single substance, even when the cells originate from the same organ; one cell type may exclude or excrete a compound whereas another cell will not, and another may behave differently due to its unique biochemical pathways.

In the drug development world, results from some in vitro assays are considered predictive enough of toxicological problems that the assays are used to screen compounds in development and influence decisions about further development. For example, assays have been developed to identify compounds that may contribute to the development of torsades depointes cardiac arrhythmia by slowing cardiac repolarization. Drugs that may potentially contribute to this condition can be identified by in vitro experiments conducted with isolated organs and measurement of potassium channel activity in isolated cells (Liu et al., 1998; Wang et al., 1998; Zabel and Franz, 2000).

It is also possible to use in vitro assays to anticipate which dietary supplement ingredients may contribute to supplement-drug interactions by studying the effects of a dietary supplement

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

BOX 4–4
Useful In Vitro Assays

  • apoptosis induction

  • ATP synthesis inhibition

  • cell cycle effects

  • cell proliferation effects

  • cell transformation effects

  • cholinergic effects

  • cholinesterase inhibition or induction

  • cytolytic effects

  • cytotoxic effects

  • detoxification enzyme inhibition or induction

  • DNA damage

  • Epstein-Barr virus activation

  • histaminergic effects

  • hormone receptor binding studies

  • immunosuppressant effects

  • mitochondrial respiration inhibition

  • mitogenic effects

  • parasympatholytic and parasympathomimetic effects

  • pharmacokinetic alterations

  • phototoxicity effects

  • prooxidation effects

  • sympatholytic/sympathomimetic effects

ingredient on cytochrome P450 enzymes, which are important in the liver metabolism of drugs and supplements (Budzinski et al., 2000; Obach, 2000; Piscitelli et al., 2000). In vitro assays that assess enzymes, receptors, tissues, or other biological endpoints that might provide useful information in the context of other data are listed in Box 4-4. As additional in vitro assays are developed and validated, they will be useful in identifying which dietary supplement ingredient may potentially be associated with risk.

Because of the difficulties that often exist in their interpretation, it is often appropriate to use in vitro data as hypothesis generators or potential indicators of harmful health effects rather than as stand-alone demonstrated indicators that in themselves suggest possible risk. However, some in vitro assays, when carefully conducted and interpreted, provide valuable information beyond simply reinforcing observations from other systems or generating hypotheses. When the relationship between the results of an in vitro assay and actual clinical or animal outcomes has been demonstrated, thus validating the predictive value of the assay, then the in vitro assay warrants careful attention.

Use of In Vitro Data in the Screening/Flagging Step

In vitro data are not a separate, independent factor of the initial screening/flagging step. It is expected that in vitro data that raise concerns about the safety of a supplement ingredient will come to FDA’s attention through secondary reviews or other outlets for expression of public concern.

Use of In Vitro Data in the Priority Setting Process

Information about in vitro effects can be obtained from many of the same sources used to locate animal data. These sources include literature databases and secondary and tertiary reviews. As with the other factors, at this step it is important to consider what the in vitro data suggest about the risk and seriousness of possible harm.

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Use of In Vitro Data in the Critical Evaluation Step

The same information sources used for the priority-setting step should be searched in greater depth for the critical safety evaluation. In addition, industry and other public communities should specifically be queried for any in vitro data on the safety of the ingredient being evaluated.

As discussed above, some in vitro effects in themselves raise substantial concerns about potential for harm. These effects, as well as other in vitro assays with less clinical validation and independent predictive value, become very important in assessing biological plausibility of observations made or predicted by other systems, such as animal, human, or structural association. While it is not necessary to determine a rational mechanism of harm to determine that an ingredient is potentially unsafe, it is valuable to identify possible mechanisms that explain the totality of the data. In vitro studies can be very useful and irreplaceable in this regard. If in vitro data are a central focus of the critical safety evaluation, expert opinion in the extrapolation of in vitro data will be sought. Such expert opinion will help ensure that the data are appropriately reviewed in the context of all information available regarding the ingredient.

Guiding Principle for In Vitro Data

In vitro studies can serve as signals of potential harmful effects in humans, but not as independent indicators of risk unless an ingredient causes an effect that has been associated with harmful effects in animals or humans and there is evidence that the ingredient or its metabolites are present at physiological sites where they could cause harm. Alone, in vitro data should serve only as hypotheses generators and as indicators of possible mechanisms of harm when the totality of the data from the different factors is considered.

MODIFYING FACTORS

In addition to the key factors that explicitly contribute to the screening/flagging and priority-setting steps, prevalence of use and vulnerability of subpopulations are considered as modifying factors. These two factors must be considered when evaluating the different types of scientific evidence. Both are considered to some extent in the screening/flagging step and when setting priorities for evaluation. Prevalence of use in the general population, however, is not a factor considered during the critical safety evaluation.

Prevalence of Use in the Population

The number of individuals who could be at risk of harm due to overall use of the dietary ingredient in the United States (or “prevalence of use”) can be estimated from various types of data that provide estimates of the relative popularity of different ingredients. Across the wide variety of dietary supplement ingredients that are currently available, there is a wide range of usage patterns in the population. Some ingredients are used only rarely or by a small fraction of the population, while others are used by a considerable fraction. Dietary supplements that are readily available or are consumed or marketed for common concerns and conditions are more likely to result in a high level of usage, while those that are less widely available, used only

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

rarely, or used by few consumers would be expected to result in a low level of exposure on a population basis.

Estimating prevalence of use allows a qualitative consideration of population exposure and therefore how much of the population may be at risk if an ingredient is harmful—a factor that is important in optimizing the impact of a rigorous safety evaluation on public health. That is, from a public health perspective, it is more logical to first allocate resources to evaluation of potentially harmful ingredients that have the potential to harm many people before evaluating those ingredients that may only affect a small fraction of the population (assuming other information is equivalent).

Relative consumption and prevalence of use of various dietary supplement ingredients in the general population can be estimated from two types of data. One type is industry estimates of production or sales. Dietary supplement industry publications such as the Nutrition Business Journal provide such data. Additionally, manufacturers and distributors collect production data, unit sales data, and total sales information in dollars as a normal component of business operations. The industry may be willing to make this information available.

Neither unit sales nor total sales data are ideal, but both can serve as proxy indicators useful in developing a qualitative understanding about prevalence of use. Unit sales data, especially, allow a rough comparison of relative potential use among different ingredients, serving as a surrogate marker of actual use of each ingredient—information that is usually not readily available. One limitation with the use of sales figures, however, is that these numbers are often collected and collated by methods that make cross-category comparisons difficult. This is important to keep in mind when estimating relative ingredient use.

The second type of data about prevalence of use is that collected in surveys about supplement use. Increasingly, national surveys that have traditionally collected information from a large number of persons regarding health issues and conventional food consumption information are also collecting valuable information about specific supplement use. An example is the expanded monitoring efforts of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Although it may be several years before this information is available, the expanded data collection will provide more detailed and useful information than is currently available.

Such surveys can provide data on prevalence of use in the general population as well as in specific population groups. Most surveys also ask subjects about patterns of use and other information that is helpful in estimating the effect of potential adverse effects on a population. Although some publications based on such surveys group supplement ingredients into broad categories (e.g., vitamins, botanicals) for the purpose of data analysis, other sources of information are likely to list specific ingredients or products. Even when data on specific ingredients are not included in the published articles, such data might have been collected and might be available from the investigators upon request.

One deficiency of older survey data sets is that frequency of use information was rarely collected (i.e., differentiating supplement use for only short intermittent periods versus chronic use). This type of information is important because it augments the evaluation of total sales figures. Some ingredients that are widely sold may be used less frequently than others. Whether a substance is used for short periods of time or chronically is particularly important in evaluation of safety, because a product or ingredient that is used intermittently will usually pose a smaller or different type of risk than one used chronically.

Another limitation of available information is in the collection and interpretation of data on combination products or ingredients that are typically used in combination products (in addition

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

to formulation and sales as a single-ingredient product). Obtaining reasonably accurate estimates of usage of ingredients that are largely consumed as components of combination products may be more difficult but may be available from manufacturers of raw ingredients or if registration procedures for dietary supplement ingredients, similar to that currently required for drugs, is implemented at some point in the future.

Prevalence of Use as a Modifying Factor in the Screening/Flagging Step

Information about prevalence of use is not considered as a key factor, but it is used as a modifying factor for human data. Prevalence of use is considered in the screening of human data in that it may mitigate or exacerbate concern. That is, if an ingredient is widely used but few adverse events are spontaneously reported, it is less likely to be flagged than a rarely used ingredient with a similar number of spontaneously reported adverse events.

Prevalence of Use as a Modifying Factor in the Priority-Setting Step

The prevalence of use is considered in the priority-setting step only in establishing relative rank within a Priority Group. Within each Priority Group (explained in Chapter 5), items that are widely used are moved to the top of that Priority Group.

Prevalence of Use as a Modifying Factor in the Critical Evaluation Step

Prevalence of use is not considered in the critical safety evaluation step.

Guiding Principle for Prevalence of Use Data

Ingredients that are widely used by the general population should be given higher priority for critical safety evaluation than less widely used ingredients with similar degrees of safety concerns. This is consistent with the public health goal of producing the most impact from limited resources.

Use by Vulnerable Subpopulations

When considering the safety of supplement ingredients or other substances, it is important to consider that some individuals may be particularly vulnerable to adverse effects from certain supplement ingredients. Vulnerable subpopulations can be defined as groups of individuals who are more likely to experience an adverse event related to the use of a particular dietary supplement ingredient, or individuals in whom such events are more likely to be serious in comparison with the general population. Characteristics that contribute to such vulnerability may be physiological, disease-related, or due to other aspects, such as therapeutic interventions that are commonly utilized by the subgroup.

An example of a physiological characteristic that results in an individual’s increased susceptibility compared to the general population is the change in the capacity for metabolism of various dietary supplement ingredients across the lifespan. Changes in metabolism may lead to variable concentrations of active compounds at sites of action and result in different responses.

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

For example, elderly individuals are a potential vulnerable subpopulation for some ingredients in that aging is associated with changes in the ability to digest, metabolize, or excrete some ingested substances (Munro, 1989; Rosenberg et al., 1989). Supplement ingredients that are normally cleared by, or altered by, the kidney or liver may potentially pose a greater risk to this subgroup than to a younger population. This factor should be considered for supplements specifically directed toward an older population. Children also metabolize some chemical substances differently than do adults, which for certain supplement ingredients might make children more susceptible to adverse effects and should be taken into consideration for any supplements marketed toward children. Likewise, differences in metabolism between children and adults may make children more resistant to adverse effects of certain substances (Guzelian et al., 1992). Infants have limited hepatic function that may make them particularly susceptible to certain hepatotoxic substances. Other age-related changes may involve receptors or kinetic parameters such as the volume of distribution. Physiological changes that occur during pregnancy may also influence susceptibility to adverse effects associated with particular supplement ingredients.

In addition to life stages that may alter responses to ingested substances, the presence of disease may also result in enhanced susceptibility to adverse effects from particular ingredients. For example, hepatitis or renal disease can significantly alter xenobiotic clearance, allowing compounds that are normally cleared rapidly to accumulate to toxic levels. People who are prescribed critical medications to be used on a chronic basis may be at greater risk of harm from drug interactions with various supplement ingredients. For example, people living with HIV/AIDS or other chronic diseases may be taking drug combinations that may interact with supplement ingredients, such as St. John’s Wort, that alter cytochrome P450 activity (Ernst, 1999; Piscitelli et al., 2000).

Interactions between drugs and dietary supplements may be of particular concern when both are recommended for the same pathology and are thus potentially taken at the same time. For example, vitamin E supplements, which are often recommended to patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease, may have an interaction with statin drugs (Brown et al., 2001).

Disease or pre-existing conditions, such as hypertension, cardiac arrhythmias, or other early stages of cardiovascular disease, can also be expected to exacerbate susceptibility to products that specifically affect the organ exhibiting the disease or condition. Another example is the potential for supplements that affect insulin and glucose regulation to affect persons with diabetes. Thus, factors such as age, disease, pre-existing conditions, ethnicity, gender, or history of specific xenobiotic exposure such as pesticides can alter supplement exposure by altering pharmacodynamics and clearance of a drug. Alternatively, these factors may alter the dose-response, causing certain individuals to be more sensitive to a specific supplement than the majority of the population.

The paragraphs above describe several general reasons for particular susceptibilities. In addition, special concerns are warranted for supplement ingredients that may have teratogenic effects. Fetuses may be harmed if exposed to dangerous substances in utero as may infants if exposed to substances released into human milk. A well-known example is the teratogenicity of high doses of vitamin A and related retinoids in the periconceptual period (Eckoff and Nau, 1990; Lammer et al., 1985; Rothman et al., 1995). Animal studies or chemical characteristics may provide clues that fetuses or infants are particularly susceptible to other supplement ingredients as well.

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

In summary, certain segments of the population may be particularly susceptible to the effects of some supplement ingredients for a variety of reasons. When reviewing data, it is important to ask if ingredients are more likely to cause harmful effects to particular subgroups of the population. In the proposed framework, “vulnerable groups” are described as a modifying factor, in that whether identifiable subpopulations are particularly susceptible to harm should always be taken into consideration when assigning screening and priority-setting scores (see Chapter 5 for more details).

Vulnerable Subpopulation Information as a Modifying Factor in the Screening/Flagging Step

In examining the human data used to screen/flag dietary supplement ingredients, the reviewer should consider if the dietary supplement ingredient is being used by subpopulations that are particularly susceptible to serious adverse effects.

Vulnerable Subpopulation Information as a Modifying Factor in the Priority-Setting and Critical Safety Evaluation Steps

Particular susceptibility of identifiable subgroups of the population is taken into account when considering the scientific evidence (human, animal, structure/chemotaxonomy, and in vitro evidence) in this step, as noted in the description of scoring provided in Chapter 5.

Guiding Principle for Vulnerable Subpopulation Data

When data indicate that an identifiable Subpopulation may be especially sensitive to adverse effects from a certain supplement ingredient, then this higher level of concern should be taken into account when scoring the ingredient.

New Ingredient Status

A new dietary supplement ingredient is one that was introduced to the U.S. market after October 1994, when the Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act was implemented. In this proposed framework, the notification of intent to market a new dietary supplement ingredient by a manufacturer automatically moves the ingredient through the screening/flagging step and on to the priority-setting step. Noting new ingredient status allows the ingredient to be considered during the priority-setting process in relation to other new ingredients and other ingredients flagged in the first step of the process.

If the new ingredient has been used in other countries there may be a considerable amount of clinical, animal, and in vitro data; data on serious adverse events; or data on usage patterns. If this type of information is not available, it is expected that considering the biological activity of related substances will be helpful in setting priorities in Step Two of the process. If the new dietary supplement ingredient is marketed after the 75-day notification period, more data may become available, and the priority level of the ingredient may change.

The rationale behind channeling all new ingredients directly into the priority-setting process is that the limited information on the other factors, especially human data, is no indication of

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

safety because the ingredient has not been marketed in the United States. Thus, the direct channeling of all new products to the priority-setting step assures that scientific data and theoretical prediction of harm are considered by the framework to some degree.

Use of New Ingredient Status in the Screening/Flagging Step

Consideration of new ingredient status in the screening/flagging step does not require that FDA actively collect information. The 75-day notification, which comes to FDA directly from the manufacturer, indicates that the item should be flagged and moved forward to the priority-setting step, simply by virtue of being a new ingredient about to enter the market.

Use of New Ingredient Status in the Priority-Setting and Critical Safety Evaluation Steps

New ingredient status is not considered in the priority-setting step or in the critical safety evaluation of an ingredient. The new ingredient status simply moves it into the priority-setting process, where the evaluation of evidence of the other key factors occurs.

SUMMARY

In summary, several different key factors and modifying factors should be taken into consideration when evaluating the safety of dietary supplement ingredients. The four primary key factors (data from humans and clinical evidence of harm, animal data, bioactivity of structurally related and taxonomically related substances, and in vitro data) contribute to different extents in the two first steps of the proposed process, screening/flagging and priority-setting, as compared to their contribution to the third step, the critical safety evaluation. The same holds true for the two modifying factors (prevalence of use in the population and use by vulnerable subpopulations). In Chapter 5, the processes for screening/flagging and priority-setting are described, with more suggestions about how different types of data are appropriately weighted when setting priorities. A systematic approach to this weighting process is described. After ingredients are categorized and prioritized, in-depth safety evaluations should be conducted for the ingredients with the greatest safety concerns (and which thus have the highest priority scores). Chapter 6 outlines a system for conducting these reviews and also revisits the guiding principles underlying the consideration of different types of data that were first outlined in this chapter.

REFERENCES

AIAI (Artificial Intelligence Applications Institute). 2002. TOPKAT—The Open Practical Knowledge Acquisition Toolkit. Online. University of Edinburgh. Available at http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/-jkk/topkat.html. Accessed June 19, 2002.


Bravo L. 1998. Polyphenols: Chemistry, dietary sources, metabolism, and nutritional significance. Nutr Rev 56:317–333.

Brown BG, Zhao XQ, Chait A, Fisher LD, Cheung MC, Morse JS, Dowdy AA, Marino EK, Bolson EL, Alaupovic P, Frohlich J, Albers JJ. 2001. Simvastatin and niacin, antioxidant vitamins, or the combination for the prevention of coronary disease. N Engl J Med 345: 1583–1592.

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

Budzinski JW, Foster BC, Vandenhoek S, Arnason JT. 2000. An in vitro of human cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibition by selected commercial herbal extracts and tinctures. Phytomedicine 7:273–282.


CDER (Center for Drug Evaluation and Research). 2002. Guidance Documents. Online. Food and Drug Administration. Available at http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm. Accessed May 2, 2002.

CFSAN (Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition). 1993. Toxicological Principles for the Safety Assessment of Direct Food Additives and Color Additives Used in Food. Draft Redbook II. Washington, DC: CFSAN, Food and Drug Administration.

CFSAN. 2001a. Overview of Dietary Supplements. Online. Food and Drug Administration. Available at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/-dms/ds-oview.html. Accessed February 22, 2002.

CFSAN. 2001b. Toxicological Principles for the Safety of Food Ingredients. Redbook 2000. Online. Food and Drug Administration. Available at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/-redbook/red-toca.html. Accessed June 19, 2002.

Chyka PA, McCommon SW. 2000. Reporting of adverse drug reactions by poison control centers in the US. Drug Safety 23:87–93.

Counsell C. 1997. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 127:380–387.


Eckhoff C, Nau H. 1990. Vitamin A supplementation increases levels of retinoic acid compounds in human plasma: Possible implications for teratogenesis. Arch Toxicol 64:502–503.

Ernst E. 1999. Second thoughts about safety of St John’s wort. Lancet 354:2014–2016.


FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 1995. Clinical Therapeutics and the Recognition of Drug-Induced Disease. A MedWatch Continuing Education Article. Online. Available at http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/articles/dig/rcontent.htm. Accessed February 25, 2002.

FDA. 2002. Good Clinical Practice in FDA-Regulated Clinical Trials. Online. Available at http://www.fda.gov/oc/gcp/guidance.html. Accessed February 25, 2002.


Guzelian PS, Henry CJ, Olin SS, eds. 1992. Similarities and Differences Between Children and Adults: Implications for Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: ILSI Press.


ICH (International Conference on Harmonisation). 1995. Guidance for Industry. E3. Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports. Rockville, MD: Drug Information Branch, CDER, FDA.

ICH. 1996. Guidance for Industry. E6. Good Clinical Practice: Consolidated Guidance. Rockville, MD: CDER, FDA.

ICH. 2001. Guidance for Industry. S7A. Safety Pharmacology Studies for Human Pharmaceuticals. Rockville, MD: Division of Drug Information, CDER, FDA.

ILAR (Institute of Laboratory Animal Research). 1996. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Washington, DC: National Academy Press,

Ioannidis JPA, Lau J. 2001. Reporting of the safety of medications in randomized trials in neglected: An evaluation of 7 medical areas. J Am Med Assoc 285:437–443.

Ioannidis JPA, Chew P, Lau J. 2002. Standardized retrieval of side effects data for meta-analysis of safety outcomes: A feasibility study in acute sinusitis. J Clin Epidemiol 55:619–626.


Kingsbury JM. 1964. Poisonous Plants of the United States and Canada. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

Lammer EJ, Chen DT, Hoar RM, Agnish ND, Benke PJ, Braun JT, Curry CJ, Fernhoff PM, Grix AW Jr, Lott IT, Richard JM, Sun SC. 1985. Retinoic acid embryopathy. N Engl J Med 313:837–841.

Lewis JA. 1981. Post-marketing surveillance: How many patients? Trends Pharmacol 2:93–94.

Liu XK, Katchman A, Ebert SN, Woosley RL. 1998. The antiestrogen tamoxifen blocks the delayed rectifier potassium current, IKr, in rabbit ventricular myocytes. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 287:877–883.


Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. 2001. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 1:2–8.

Munro HN. 1989. The challenges of research into nutrition and aging. Introduction to a multifaceted problem. In: Munro HN, Danford DE, eds. Nutrition, Aging, and the Elderly. New York: Plenum. Pp. 1–21.


Obach RS. 2000. Inhibition of human cytochrome P450 enzymes by constituents of St. John’s Wort, an herbal preparation used in the treatment of depression. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 294:88–95.

OIG (Office of Inspector General). 2001. Adverse Event Reporting for Dietary Supplements. An Inadequate Safety Valve. OEI-01–00–00180. Boston, MA: OIG, Food and Drug Administration.


Piscitelli SC, Burstein AH, Chaitt D, Alfaro RM, Falloon J. 2000. Indinavir concentrations and St John’s wort. Lancet 355:547–548.

Prevention Magazine. 2001. Consumer Use of Dietary Supplements. Emmaus, PA: Rodale.


Rosenberg IH, Russell RM, Bowman BB. 1989. Aging and the digestive system. In: Munro HN, Danford DE, eds. Nutrition, Aging, and the Elderly. New York: Plenum. Pp. 43–60.

Rothman KJ, Moore LL, Singer MR, Nguygen UDT, Mannino S, Milunsky B. 1995. Teratogenicity of high vitamin A intake. N Engl J Med 333:1369–1373.


Sackett DL, Haynes BR, Tugwell P. 1991. Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine. Boston: Little, Brown. Pp. 283–302.

Scott HD, Rosenbaum SE, Waters WJ, Colt AM, Andrews LG, Juergens JP, Faich GA. 1987. Rhode Island physicians’ recognition and reporting of adverse drug reactions. Rhode Island Med J 70:311–316.


Tegtmeier M, Harnischfeger G. 1994. Methods for the reduction of thujone content in pharmaceutical preparations of Artemisia, Salvia and Thuja. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 40:337–340.


U.S. Consumer Supplement Use Summary 1999. 2000. Online. Nutrition Business Journal. Available at http://www.nutritionbusiness.com/sub/consume.xls. Accessed March 1, 2002.


Wang WX, Ebert SN, Liu XK, Chen YW, Drici MD, Woosley RL. 1998. “Conventional” antihistamines slow cardiac repolarization in isolated perfused (Langendorff) feline hearts. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 32:123–128.


Yang CS, Landau JM, Huang MT, Newmark HL. 2001. Inhibition of carcinogenesis by dietary polyphenolic compounds. Annu Rev Nutr 21:381–406.


Zabel M, Franz MR. 2000. The electrophysiological basis of QT dispersion: Global or local repolarization? Circulation 101:E235–E236.

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"4 Factors Considered in Screening, Setting Priorities, and Safety Evaluation." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10456.
×
Page 76
Next: 5 Framework Steps One and Two: Screening/Flagging and Priority Setting »
Proposed Framework for Evaluating the Safety of Dietary Supplements -- For Comment Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!