ECVAM sponsored a formal validation study on three in vitro tests for skin irritation, of which two employ reconstituted human epidermis models (EPISKIN™, EpiDerm™), and one, the skin integrity function test (SIFT), employs ex vivo mouse skin. The goal of the study was to assess whether the in vitro tests would correctly predict in vivo classifications according to the EU classification scheme, “R38” and “no label” (i.e. non-irritant). 58 chemicals (25 irritants and 33 non-irritants) were tested, having been selected to give broad coverage of physico–chemical properties, and an adequate distribution of irritancy scores derived from in vivo rabbit skin irritation tests. In Phase 1, 20 of these chemicals (9 irritants and 11 non-irritants) were tested with coded identities by a single lead laboratory for each of the methods, to confirm the suitability of the protocol improvements introduced after a prevalidation phase. When cell viability (evaluated by the MTT reduction test) was used as the endpoint, the predictive ability of both EpiDerm and EPISKIN was considered sufficient to justify their progression to Phase 2, while the predictive ability of the SIFT was judged to be inadequate. Since both the reconstituted skin models provided false predictions around the in vivo classification border (a rabbit Draize test score of 2), the release of a cytokine, inter-leukin-1α (IL-1α), was also determined. In Phase 2, each human skin model was tested in three laboratories, with 58 chemicals. The main endpoint measured for both EpiDerm and EPISKIN was cell viability. In samples from chemicals which gave MTT assay results above the threshold of 50% viability, IL-1α release was also measured, to determine whether the additional endpoint would improve the predictive ability of the tests. For EPISKIN, the sensitivity was 75% and the specificity was 81% (MTT assay only); with the combination of the MTT and IL-1α assays, the sensitivity increased to 91%, with a specificity of 79%. For EpiDerm, the sensitivity was 57% and the specificity was 85% (MTT assay only), while the predictive capacity of EpiDerm was not improved by the measurement of IL-1α release. Following independent peer review, in April 2007 the ECVAM Scientific Advisory Committee endorsed the scientific validity of the EPISKIN test as a replacement for the rabbit skin irritation method, and of the EpiDerm method for identifying skin irritants as part of a tiered testing strategy. This new alternative approach will probably be the first use of in vitro toxicity testing to replace the Draize rabbit skin irritation test in Europe and internationally, since, in the very near future, new EU and OECD Test Guidelines will be proposed for regulatory acceptance.

No abstract

Following the formal acceptance of the local lymph node assay (LLNA) as an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) guideline in April 2002, the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) informed notifiers that this was now the method of choice for the assessment of skin sensitization potential under the EU notification scheme for new industrial chemicals (NONS). This paper summarizes the experience of the HSE for the 2-year period immediately following the issuing of this statement, during which 48 LLNA study reports were assessed for notification purposes. The issues discussed here include adherence to the OECD guideline, interpretation of results, and classification outcomes. Generally, notifying laboratories followed the OECD guideline successfully, with regard to the sex/ strain/numbers of mice used, the precise process used for measurement of cell proliferation, and the use of recommended vehicles and positive controls. Initially, use of the individual animal approach (measuring the cell proliferation in each animal rather than for a pooled dose group) highlighted problems caused by technical inexperience, but these were overcome by practice. Toxicity or irritation were found to be minor factors in dose selection; more important was the choice of vehicle to correctly maximize the test substance concentration, while maintaining appropriate application properties. Contrary to concerns that the LLNA would prove to be less sensitive or more sensitive than the traditionally used Guinea Pig Maximization Test (GPMT), the proportion of new substances classified as skin sensitizers was within the range observed in previous years. Although the sample size is relatively small, the experience of the HSE indicates that the LLNA is satisfactory for routine regulatory use.

The ECVAM-funded skin irritation validation study (SIVS) was initiated in 2003, with the aim to evaluate whether the EpiDerm™, EPISKIN™ and the SIFT alternative methods were able to reliably identify skin irritant and non-irritant chemicals, and could therefore be candidates for replacing the rabbit Draize test for skin irritation. The primary goal of the study was to evaluate the predictive capacity of the assays with regard to the EU classification system, which employs the risk phrases, “R38”, for skin irritants, and “no label” for non-irritants. A secondary objective was the retrospective analysis of the data, to assess whether the in vitro tests would be able to discriminate between strong irritants (category 2), mild irritants (category 3) and non-irritants (no category), as defined by the OECD and United Nations proposal for a Globally Harmonised System (GHS) for the classification and labelling of dermal irritancy. A Chemicals Selection Sub-Committee (CSSC) was appointed to identify test chemicals to be used in the SIVS, for which existing, high quality in vivo data were available, with which to correlate the in vitro measurements. Since chemicals from the European Centre for the Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) database of reference chemicals for skin irritation/skin corrosion had been extensively used in preceding studies, the CSSC made use of novel sources for potential test chemicals. The first source of chemicals screened was the New Chemicals Database (NCD), which is the central archive within the EU notification scheme for ‘new’ commercial chemicals. Data registered in the NCD originate from standard assays, submitted in compliance with the legislation which regulates the marketing of industrial chemicals, and are subject to quality assurance by the competent authorities of the EU Member States. In addition, to obtain ‘existing’ chemicals which were readily available from major manufacturing and/or distribution sources, additional databases were surveyed, such as the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) database maintained by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the ECETOC database, with the exclusion of the chemicals used in the previous optimisation and prevalidation phases. A total of approximately 3500 chemicals from the NCD and 1600 from the additional databases were screened. Pre-determined selection criteria were applied, primarily to ensure the quality of the in vivo data and the practicability of their use in testing. Overall, the number of chemicals fulfilling the CSSC selection criteria was found to be limited, particularly in the case of GHS category 2 chemicals. However, a total set of 60 chemicals were selected and proposed to the Management Team of the SIVS for independent coding and supply to the participating laboratories. The selected chemicals: i) represented statistically justified sample sizes for distinguishing R38 from no-label chemicals; ii) provided a balanced representation of the three GHS categories, to allow for the post hoc evaluation of th...

For many regulatory authorities, the local lymph node assay (LLNA) is the preferred assay for the predictive identification of skin-sensitizing chemicals. It is the initial requirement for sensitization testing within the new REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemical substances) regulations in the European Union. The primary reasons for the preferment of the LLNA are the animal welfare benefits it provides compared with traditional guinea-pig methods (refinement and reduction of animal usage) and the general performance characteristics of the assay with regard to overall reliability, accuracy, and interpretation. Moreover, a substantial published literature on the LLNA is available making it appropriate for use as a benchmark against which new approaches, including in vitro alternatives, can be evaluated and validated. There is, therefore, a view that the LLNA represents the 'gold standard' for skin sensitization testing. However, although this is probably correct, it is important to recognize and acknowledge that in common with all other predictive tests (whether they be validated or not), the LLNA has limitations, in addition to strengths, some of which were mentioned above. Arguably, it is the limitations (e.g., the occurrence of false positive and false negative results) of test methods that are most important to understand. With respect to the LLNA, these limitations are similar to those associated with guinea-pig skin sensitization methods. Among these are the occurrence of false positive and false negative results, susceptibility of results to changes in vehicle, and the possibility that interspecies differences may confound interpretation. In this commentary, these issues are reviewed and their impact on the utility of the LLNA for identification, classification, and potency assessment of skin sensitizers are considered. In addition, their relevance for the future development and validation of novel in vitro and in silico alternatives is explored.