Toxicological Sciences 59, 198-208 (2001)
Copyright © 2001 by the Society of Toxicology
FORUM |
Skin Sensitization Testing in Potency and Risk Assessment
a Zeneca Central Toxicology Laboratory, Alderley Park, Macclesfield, Cheshire SK10 4TJ, United Kingdom; b SEAC Toxicology Unit, Unilever Research, Colworth, Beds MK44 1LQ, United Kingdom; c Asta Medica, Kantstrasse 2, D-33790, Halle-Kuensebeck, Germany; d ECETOC, Avenue E Van Nieuwenhuyse 4, B-1160 Brussels, Belgium; e L'Oreal Recherche, 1 Avenue Eugene Schueller, F-93601 Aulnay-sous-Bois, France; f Union Carbide Benelux n.v., Noorderlaan 147, B-2030, Antwerp, Belgium; g Procter and Gamble, Temselaan 100, B-1853 Strombeek-Bever, Belgium; h Henkel KGaA, Henkelstrasse 67, D-40191, Duesseldorf, Germany; i Bayer AG, Friedrich Ebert Strasse 217–333, D-42096 Wuppertal, Germany; j Exxon Biomedical Sciences Inc., Mettlers Road CN 2350, East Millstone, New Jersey 08875–2350; and k BASF Aktiengessellschaft, D-67056 Ludwigshafen, Germany
The purpose of this article is to review, and make recommendations for, the use of relevant skin sensitization test methods, for the purposes of determination of relative potency and the threshold dose necessary for the induction of skin sensitization, and for risk assessment. In addressing the first area, the utility of three guinea pig tests (the guinea pig maximization test, the occluded patch test, and the open epicutaneous test) of the local lymph node assay (LLNA) and of human volunteer testing for the assessment of relative potency and identification of thresholds for sensitization were considered. The following conclusions were drawn. (1) Although attempts have been made to modify the guinea pig maximization test for the purposes of deriving dose-response relationships, this method is usually unsuitable for determination of relative sensitizing potency. (2) Guinea pig methods that do not require the use of adjuvant and which employ a relevant route of exposure (the occluded patch test and the open epicutaneous test) are more appropriate for the assessment of relative skin-sensitizing potency. (3) The LLNA is suitable for the determination of relative skin sensitizing potency, and the adaptation of this method for derivation of comparative criteria such as EC3 values (the estimated concentration of test chemical required to induce a stimulation index of 3 in the LLNA) provides an effective and quantitative basis for such measurements. (4) For all the methods identified above, potency is assessed relative to other chemical allergens of known skin sensitizing potential. The estimation of likely threshold concentrations is dependent upon the availability of suitable benchmark chemicals of known potency for human sensitization. (5) Human testing (and specifically, the Human Repeat Insult Patch Test) can provide information of value in confirming the absence of skin sensitizing activity of formulations and products under specific conditions of use and exposure. Based on the above, the following recommendations are made. (1) If results are already available from suitable guinea pig tests, then judicious interpretation of the data may provide information of value in assessing relative skin sensitizing potency. This option should be explored before other analyses are conducted. (2) The LLNA is the recommended method for new assessments of relative potency, and/or for the investigation of the influence of vehicle or formulation on skin sensitizing potency. (3) Whenever available, human skin sensitization data should be incorporated into an assessment of relative potency. With respect to risk assessment, the conclusion drawn is that all the available data on skin-sensitizing activity in animals and man should be integrated into the risk-assessment process. Appropriate interpretation of existing data from suitable guinea pig studies can provide valuable information with respect to potency, as the first step in the development of a risk assessment. However, for de novo investigations, the LLNA is the method favored for providing quantitative estimations of skin-sensitizing potency that are best suited to the risk assessment process. Finally, human testing is of value in the risk assessment process, but is performed only for the purposes of confirming product safety.
Key Words: skin sensitization; sensitization potency; risk assessment; guinea pig tests; local lymph node assay; human sensitization.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. A. J. Vanoirbeek, M. Tarkowski, J. L. Ceuppens, E. K. Verbeken, B. Nemery, and P. H. M. Hoet Respiratory Response to Toluene Diisocyanate Depends on Prior Frequency and Concentration of Dermal Sensitization in Mice Toxicol. Sci., August 1, 2004; 80(2): 310 - 321. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. J. Vanoirbeek, C. Mandervelt, A. R. Cunningham, P. H. M. Hoet, H. Xu, H. M. Vanhooren, and B. Nemery Validity of Methods to Predict the Respiratory Sensitizing Potential of Chemicals: A Study with a Piperidinyl Chlorotriazine Derivative That Caused an Outbreak of Occupational Asthma Toxicol. Sci., December 1, 2003; 76(2): 338 - 346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I Kimber, R J Dearman, G F Gerberick, R Roggeband, and D A Basketter Designation of substances as skin sensitizing chemicals: a commentary Human and Experimental Toxicology, August 1, 2003; 22(8): 439 - 443. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Schnuch, H Lessmann, K-H Schulz, D Becker, T. L Diepgen, H Drexler, S Erdmann, M Fartasch, H Greim, P Kricke-Helling, et al. When should a substance be designated as sensitizing for the skin (`Sh') or for the airways (`Sa')? Human and Experimental Toxicology, August 1, 2002; 21(8): 439 - 444. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|