Skin irritation testing in man for hazard assessment — evaluation of four patch systems

York, Michael; Basketter, D.A.; Cuthbert, Jennifer A.; Neilson, Louise

doi:10.1177/096032719501400906

Cited by 32 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This population variation will need to be addressed in the development of an acceptable standarized human patch test protocol for ascertaining the irritation potential of a substance. Several systems, designed to overcome these limitations, are currently being assessed (5).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variation in response of human skin to irritant challenge

et al. 1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A major obstacle to the establishment of a protocol for in vivo irritant skin testing in humans is the apparent variability of responses between individuals. This study of the threshold response of normal human skin to a standard irritant (sodium lauryl sulfate 0.3-10%), in a group of 22 subjects, revealed a marked interindividual variation in their threshold reaction. The results demonstrate that this phenomenon does exist and that it will have to be allowed for in future human irritant test systems or assays.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variation in response of human skin to irritant challenge

et al. 1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The question of racial differences in skin reactivity is taking on increasing importance in view of the global marketing of skin and beauty care, cosmetic and fragrance, paper, and laundry and cleaning products and the resulting increase in the racial diversity of the global consumer population. Pre-market skin safety testing and risk assessment involve a variety of clinical test methods to evaluate the potential of a new chemical or formulation to produce unacceptable adverse skin effects (sensory irritation, objective irritation, sensitization) in selected numbers of volunteer test subjects (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16). While it has been recommended that one include volunteers of relevant age, sex, and race in clinical skin safety studies (17,18), limitations in access to such diverse test subjects and the small number of contract clinical test facilities, often finds study populations that are generally disproportionately comprised of Caucasian, middle-aged female subjects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Population differences in skin structure and physiology and the susceptibility to irritant and allergic contact dermatitis: implications for skin safety testing and risk assessment

Robinson

1999

Contact Dermatitis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Skin safety testing and risk assessment utilize a comparative toxicological approach whereby the inherent toxicity (irritation or sensitization) is related to exposure to determine the potential risk to a consumer population. However, consumers cover a broad spectrum of individual characteristics in terms of skin types and functions, as well as their basic habits and practices in use of consumer products. Thus, we try to use very conservative estimates for both inherent susceptibility to the toxic effect as well as the potential worst‐case exposures. While the inherent variation can be considerable even within a country, it is magnified even further when products are marketed globally. Questions have arisen, therefore, as to whether a skin safety testing approach conducted locally or regionally can adequately predict for adverse effects for the global consumer. A good deal of speculation exists that population differences are real and should mandate population‐specific safety testing prior to marketing products in certain regions of the world. In an attempt to address this question, this review has summarized extensive literature covering basic skin biology and function and susceptibility to irritant and allergic skin responses. Throughout this literature, there are individual studies demonstrating population differences in skin properties or in the responsiveness to chemical insult. Some of the research on this topic has pointed fairly convincingly to a demonstrable population difference. The best example of this is the tendency for blacks to have a lesser skin reactivity than Caucasians, likely due to a more impenetrable barrier. In contrast, the comparative data for Caucasians and Asians, for males and females, and for different age clusters are far less compelling. In terms of tendencies, there are little data to support any real difference in skin barrier function or in skin irritation responsiveness between Caucasians and Asians or between males and females. Comparing different age profiles, there does appear to be a slight decline in reactivity to irritants among the elderly (> 65 years). Susceptibility to skin sensitization tends to be more related to exposure than any inherent susceptibility, though some data exist to suggest a slightly increased sensitivity in females versus males. On the basis of these data, standard procedures for skin safety testing and risk assessment can be considered relatively conservative. Most clinical skin safety studies are conducted in test populations that are comprised primarily of female Caucasians between the ages of 18 and 65 years. If anything, the skin reactivity “character” of this population cohort tends to skew toward the more reactive. This is not to say that population‐specific safety testing should not be done. There may be important reasons to pursue a population‐specific testing strategy in certain situations, perhaps due to regional, sex‐specific, or age‐specific marketing or to satisfy a regulatory or external relations need. However, there is yet no scienti...

show abstract

“…A 4‐h course has been described by Basketter et al. , 35–38 but mainly used for testing irritation hazard potential of chemicals. Also, others suggest that test protocols vary from 1 to 7 h 17,35,36,38,39 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, 35–38 but mainly used for testing irritation hazard potential of chemicals. Also, others suggest that test protocols vary from 1 to 7 h 17,35,36,38,39 . Further investigations are necessary to evaluate and optimize the combination of application time and concentration, 9,16,20,21,40,41 our data assuming, however, between SLS 2% and 5% for 4 h.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%