Number of animals for sequential testing

Age and Sex Variation in the Duration of Action and Corneal Touch Threshold (CTT) following Instillation of 0.5% Topical Ophthalmic Proparacaine and Tetracaine Hydrochlorides

PURPOSE

We investigated the effect of age and sex on corneal touch threshold (CTT) and duration of action following administration of 0.5% topical ophthalmic proparacaine and tetracaine hydrochlorides.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, subject-masked, crossover study design was used. Two hundred and forty human volunteers were enrolled in the study. Corneal touch threshold (CTT) was determined using a Cochet-Bonnet esthesiometer. CTT was measured every 15 seconds for the first 1-minute and at 5-minute intervals subsequently for a period of 40 minutes after the application of each anesthetic. CTT and duration of action of the ophthalmic solutions were tested for statistical significance using repeated measures ANOVA.

RESULTS

The total duration of effect was 20 minutes for females and 25 minutes for males for both anesthetics. The total duration of the effect of both solutions decreased with increasing age; however, elderly participants had the longest duration (5 minutes) of the maximal effect (minimum CTT) of the two ophthalmic preparations. There was a significant influence of sex, F (2.39, 569.65) = 2.86, p=0.04; F (3.48, 828.19) = 4.41, p=0.003, and age, F (4.78, 566.18) = 8.97, p < 0.001; F (7.19, 852.56) = 20.55, p < 0.001 on CTT following application of proparacaine hydrochloride and tetracaine hydrochloride, respectively.

CONCLUSION

CTT and duration of anesthetic effect after instillation of 1 drop of 0.5% proparacaine hydrochloride and 0.5% tetracaine hydrochloride vary based on sex and age.

Using fewer animals to identify chemical eye hazards: revised criteria necessary to maintain equivalent hazard classification

U.S. Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) regulations specify eye safety testing procedures and hazard classification criteria for substances regulated by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Current regulations require up to three sequential 6-animal tests. Testing consistent with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guideline for eye irritation/corrosion, which specifies 3 animals, can also be submitted to US agencies. However, current FHSA regulations do not provide criteria to classify results from 3-animal tests. An analysis was conducted to determine criteria using results from 3-animal tests that would provide equivalent labeling to FHSA regulations. The frequency that FHSA requirements identify substances as ocular irritants was compared with the frequency that a criterion of either ≥ 1/3 or ≥ 2/3 positive animals would identify these substances. A database of rabbit eye tests was also used to estimate over- and underprediction rates for each criterion. In each instance, a criterion of ≥ 1/3 positive animals more closely matched the expected outcome based on FHSA requirements, while a criterion of ≥ 2/3 positive animals identified far fewer irritants. Using a classification criterion of ≥ 1/3 positive animals provided equivalent or greater eye hazard labeling as current FHSA requirements, while using 50-83% fewer animals.

The Draize eye test

Hundreds of substances are used daily that can damage eyesight. People's eyes are open to accidental or intentional exposure during the production, transportation, use, and disposal of chemical preparations. Ensuring the safety of consumer products was born during the mid twentieth century in the aftermath of chemical warfare research, and was motivated by the hazards of unsafe cosmetics. Justified by an exigency for public protection, the Draize eye test became a governmentally endorsed method to evaluate the safety of materials meant for use in or around the eyes. The test involves a standardized protocol for instilling agents onto the cornea and conjunctiva of laboratory animals. A sum of ordinal-scale items of the outer eye gives an index of ocular morbidity. Advances in ocular toxicology are challenging the validity, precision, relevance, and need of the Draize eye test. Preclinical product-safety tests with rabbits and other mammals also raise ethical concerns of animal wellbeing. Some use the Draize test as a rallying point for how animals are treated in science and industry. A battery of cellular systems and computer models aim to reduce and ultimately to replace whole-animal testing. Molecular measures of ocular toxicity may eventually allow comprehensive screening in humans. The Draize eye test was created and refined for humanitarian reasons and has assuredly prevented harm. Its destiny is to be progressively supplanted as in vitro and clinical alternatives emerge for assessing irritancy of the ocular surface.

Evaluation of eye irritation potential: statistical analysis and tier testing strategies

Eye irritation testing, specifically the Draize test, has been the centre of controversy for many reasons. Several alternatives, based on the principles of reduction, refinement and replacement, have been proposed and are being used by the industry and government authorities. However, no universally applicable, validated non-animal alternative(s) is currently available. This report presents a statistical analysis and two testing approaches: the partial least squares multivariate statistical analysis of de Silva and colleagues from France, the tier-testing approach for regulatory purposes described by Gerner and colleagues from Germany, and the three-step tier-testing approach of the US Interagency Regulatory Alternatives Group described by Gupta and Hill. These approaches were presented as three separate papers at the November 1993 Interagency Regulatory Alternatives Group (IRAG) Workshop on Eye Irritation Testing; they have been summarized and combined into the following three-part report. The first part (de Silva et al.) presents statistical techniques for establishing test batteries of in vitro alternatives to the eye irritation test. The second (Gerner et al.) and third (Gupta and Hill) parts are similar in that they stage assessment of information by using a combination of screening information and animal testing to effect reductions in animal use and distress.