The 7th amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive prohibits to put animal-tested cosmetics on the market in Europe after 2013. In that context, the European Commission invited stakeholder bodies (industry, non-governmental organisations, EU Member States, and the Commission's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) to identify scientific experts in five toxicological areas, i.e. toxicokinetics, repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity, skin sensitisation, and reproductive toxicity for which the Directive foresees that the 2013 deadline could be further extended in case alternative and validated methods would not be available in time. The selected experts were asked to analyse the status and prospects of alternative methods and to provide a scientifically sound estimate of the time necessary to achieve full replacement of animal testing. In summary, the experts confirmed that it will take at least another 7-9 years for the replacement of the current in vivo animal tests used for the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients for skin sensitisation. However, the experts were also of the opinion that alternative methods may be able to give hazard information, i.e. to differentiate between sensitisers and non-sensitisers, ahead of 2017. This would, however, not provide the complete picture of what is a safe exposure because the relative potency of a sensitiser would not be known. For toxicokinetics, the timeframe was 5-7 years to develop the models still lacking to predict lung absorption and renal/biliary excretion, and even longer to integrate the methods to fully replace the animal toxicokinetic models. For the systemic toxicological endpoints of repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity, the time horizon for full replacement could not be estimated.

The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) proposes to make the validation process more flexible, while maintaining its high standards. The various aspects of validation are broken down into independent modules, and the information necessary to complete each module is defined. The data required to assess test validity in an independent peer review, not the process, are thus emphasised. Once the information to satisfy all the modules is complete, the test can enter the peer-review process. In this way, the between-laboratory variability and predictive capacity of a test can be assessed independently. Thinking in terms of validity principles will broaden the applicability of the validation process to a variety of tests and procedures, including the generation of new tests, new technologies (for example, genomics, proteomics), computer-based models (for example, quantitative structure–activity relationship models), and expert systems. This proposal also aims to take into account existing information, defining this as retrospective validation, in contrast to a prospective validation study, which has been the predominant approach to date. This will permit the assessment of test validity by completing the missing information via the relevant validation procedure: prospective validation, retrospective validation, catch-up validation, or a combination of these procedures.

In a previous study of prevalidation, a standard operating procedure (SOP) for two independent in vitro tests (human and mouse) had been developed, to evaluate the potential hematotoxicity of xenobiotics from their direct and the adverse effects on granulocyte-macrophages (CFU-GM). A predictive model to calculate the human maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was set up, by adjusting a mouse-derived MTD for the differential interspecies sensitivity. In this paper, we describe an international blind trial designed to apply this model to the clinical neutropenia, by testing 20 drugs, including 14 antineoplastics (Cytosar-U, 5-Fluorouracil, Myleran, Thioguanine, Fludarabine, Bleomycin, Methotrexate, Gemcitabine, Carmustine, Etoposide, Teniposide, Cytoxan, Taxol, Adriamycin); two antivirals (Retrovir, Zovirax,); three drugs for other therapeutic indications (Cyclosporin, Thorazine, Indocin); and one pesticide (Lindane). The results confirmed that the SOP developed generates reproducible IC90 values with both human and murine GM-CFU. For 10 drugs (Adriamycin, Bleomycin, Etoposide, Fludarabine, 5-Fluorouracil, Myleran, Taxol, Teniposide, Thioguanine, and Thorazine), IC90 values were found within the range of the actual drug doses tested (defined as the actual IC90). For the other 10 drugs (Carmustine, Cyclosporin, Cytosar-U, Cytoxan, Gemcitabine, Indocin, Lindane, Methotrexate, Retrovir, and Zovirax) extrapolation on the regression curve out of the range of the actual doses tested was required to derive IC90 values (extrapolated IC90). The model correctly predicted the human MTD for 10 drugs out of 10 that had "actual IC90 values" and 7 drugs out of 10 for those having only an extrapolated IC90. Two of the incorrect predictions (Gemcitabine and Zovirax) were within 6-fold of the correct MTD, instead of the 4-fold range required by the model, whereas the prediction with Cytosar-U was approximately 10-fold in error. A possible explanation for the failure in the prediction of these three drugs, which are pyrimidine analogs, is discussed. We concluded that our model correctly predicted the human MTD for 20 drugs out of 23, since the other three drugs (Topotecan, PZA, and Flavopiridol) were tested in the prevalidation study. The high percentage of predicitivity (87%), as well as the reproducibility of the SOP testing, confirm that the model can be considered scientifically validated in this study, suggesting promising applications to other areas of research in developing validated hematotoxicological in vitro methods.

No abstract

This is the 54th report of a series of workshops organised by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM). The main objective of ECVAM, as defined in 1993 by its Scientific Advisory Committee, is to promote the scientific and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods which are of importance to the biosciences, and which reduce, refine or replace the use of laboratory animals. One of the first priorities set by ECVAM was the implementation of procedures that would enable it to become well informed about the state-of-the-art of non-animal test development and validation, and of opportunities for the possible incorporation of alternative methods into regulatory procedures. It was decided that this would be best achieved through a programme of ECVAM workshops, each addressing a specific topic, and at which selected groups of independent international experts would review the current status of various types of in vitro tests and their potential uses, and make recommendations about the best ways forward.A workshop on Metabolism: a bottleneck in in vitro toxicological test development, was held at