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.

During the past 20 years the EU legislation for the notification of chemicals has focussed on new chemicals and at the same time failed to cover the evaluation of existing chemicals in Europe. Therefore, in a new EU chemicals policy (REACH, Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals) the European Commission proposes to evaluate 30,000 chemicals within a period of 15 years. We are providing estimates of the testing requirements based on our personal experiences during the past 20 years. A realistic scenario based on an in-depth discussion of potential toxicological developments and an optimised "tailor-made" testing strategy shows that to meet the goals of the REACH policy, animal numbers may be significantly reduced below 10 million if industry would use in-house data from toxicity testing, which are confidential, if non-animal tests would be used, and if information from quantitative structure activity relationships (QSARs) would be applied in substance-tailored testing schemes. The procedures for evaluating the reproductive toxicity of chemicals have the strongest impact on the total number of animals bred for testing under REACH. We are assuming both an active collaboration with our colleagues in industry and substantial funding of the development and validation of advanced non-animal methods by the EU Commission, specifically in reproductive and developmental toxicity.

During the past decade, several validation studies have been conducted on in vitro methods for discriminating between skin irritating and non-irritating chemicals. The reconstructed human skin models, EpiDerm and EPISKIN, provided the most promising results. Based on experience of the similar performance of the two skin models, it was suggested that a common test protocol and prediction model should be developed for the prediction of skin irritation potential with the two models. When the EPISKIN protocol was applied with the EpiDerm model, an acceptable specificity (80%) was achieved, whereas the sensitivity (60%) was low. In 2003, the EPISKIN protocol was further refined by extending the post-incubation period following exposure to test chemicals. This extension and additional technical improvements to the EpiDerm protocol were evaluated with 19 chemicals from the prevalidation study. With the new test design, high sensitivity (80%) and specificity (78%) were obtained. The statistical probability for correct classifications was high, so the test was considered to be ready for formal validation. However, since test optimisation had been conducted with the same test chemicals as were used in the ECVAM prevalidation study, it was decided that the optimisation of the protocol had to be verified with a new set of chemicals. Thus, in the current study, 26 additional chemicals (10 rabbit irritants and 16 non-irritants), which had previously been selected and tested by L'ORΈAL with EPISKIN, were evaluated in three independent experiments with EpiDerm. With this unbalanced testing set, a specificity of 94%, and a sensitivity of 60% were obtained, while the positive and negative predictivity and accuracy remained almost unchanged (around 80%) in comparison to the in vivo rabbit data. Overall, 45 chemicals (20 irritants and 25 non-irritants) were tested according to the final protocol. The resulting high positive (82%) and negative predictive values (79%) confirmed the reliability (accuracy of 80%) of the improved test protocol of the EpiDerm model.

No abstract

No abstract