A quantitative approach to assess the potency of skin sensitizers in the elicitation phase

Skin sensitisation elicitation: Evaluation of the general threshold and considerations for use

BACKGROUND

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is an immune response to chemical haptens, involving induction and elicitation phases. Quantitative risk assessment (QRA) reviewing the skin sensitisation potential for all ingredients and using chemical-specific induction thresholds for skin allergens remains the current best approach for the safety evaluation of consumer products. However, elicitation thresholds have utility in secondary protection for pre-sensitised consumers.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to (1) review the current elicitation threshold database, (2) evaluate whether predicted relationships between chemical induction and elicitation potencies enable elicitation threshold prediction and (3) discuss elicitation threshold utility as a secondary method of consumer protection.

METHODS

In total, 28 publications (with 39 elicitation datasets) were included in non-linear regression analysis to derive elicitation thresholds for 22 allergens, including fragrances, preservatives and metals.

RESULTS

The median elicitation threshold (ED10) for the expanded database was 0.95 μg/cm2, which supports previously published general elicitation thresholds. The derived ED10 for each chemical had only weak to moderate correlation with corresponding induction thresholds, thus limiting suitability as the predictive model.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment of current EU fragrance allergen labelling and sensitiser labelling under the globally harmonised system in the context of general and chemical-specific elicitation thresholds shows that current practices are health protective.

Quantitative Risk Assessment of Dermal Sensitization Potential Following Use of Shampoo Products Containing the Formaldehyde Releasing Preservative DMDM Hydantoin

Historically, formaldehyde was used as a preservative in personal care products to extend product shelf-life; however, given its skin sensitization potential it has been phased out of use and replaced with formaldehyde-releasing preservatives, such as Dimethyloldimethyl hydantoin (DMDMH). A relationship has been established between positive patch test results following exposure to DMDMH and previous sensitization to formaldehyde. Upon direct contact with the skin, formaldehyde can react with skin proteins and cause an acute inflammatory reaction, which may progress to skin sensitization following repeated exposure. This quantitative risk assessment (QRA) aimed to assess the risk of skin sensitization induction following use of shampoo products containing the maximum allowable concentrations of DMDMH in formulation (1% w/v), translating to a free formaldehyde concentration of 0.02%. To determine a margin of safety (MOS) for exposure to DMDMH from use of shampoo products, consumer exposure levels (CEL) were estimated based on typical use scenarios and then benchmarked against an acceptable exposure level (AEL). The AEL was derived using a weight of evidence approach where a range of no expected sensitization induction levels (NESILs) was utilized. The MOS values for a shampoo product containing 1% DMDMH (.02% formaldehyde) was above 1 for the typical use scenario indicating a low likelihood of skin sensitization induction among healthy individuals. Thus, it can be concluded that shampoo products containing DMDMH at or below current allowable concentrations are not expected to increase the risk of skin sensitization induction.

Derivation of the no expected sensitization induction level for dermal quantitative risk assessment of fragrance ingredients using a weight of evidence approach

Some fragrance ingredients may have the potential to induce skin sensitization in humans but can still be safely formulated into consumer products. Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) for dermal sensitization is required to determine safe levels at which potential skin sensitizers can be incorporated into consumer products. The no expected sensitization induction level or NESIL is the point of departure for the dermal QRA. Sensitization assessment factors are applied to the NESIL to determine acceptable exposure levels at which no skin sensitization induction would be expected in the general population. This paper details the key steps involved in deriving a weight of evidence (WoE) NESIL for a given fragrance ingredient using all existing data, including in vivo, in vitro, and in silico. Read-across can be used to derive a NESIL for a group of structurally similar materials when data are insufficient. When sufficient target and read-across data are lacking, exposure waiving threshold (the DST) may be used. We outline the process as it currently stands at the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials Inc. (RIFM) and provide examples, but it is dynamic and is bound to change with evolving science as new approach methodologies (NAMs) are actively incorporated.

Nickel: Intrinsic Skin Sensitization Potency and Relation to Prevalence of Contact Allergy

Nickel remains the most commonly identified contact allergen. However, it has proven difficult to demonstrate significant skin-sensitizing activity for nickel in toxicology tests, which typically have indicated a weak skin sensitization potential. Information indicates that in vivo assays are not predictive of dermal sensitization hazard or potency for nickel due to a human-specific mechanistic route for nickel sensitization that animals lack. A similar rationale will apply to in vitro alternatives-although these currently have limited ability to determine intrinsic potency. Generally, in silico methods are not designed for metal allergens and cannot contribute to the analysis. For ethical reasons, human experimental work has been limited, with a single study suggesting moderate potency. Accordingly, it seems reasonable to conclude that the high frequency of contact allergy to nickel in humans is a function of both its intermediate potency coupled with a high level of dermal exposure, particularly to damaged/inflamed skin.

Building confidence in skin sensitisation potency assessment using new approach methodologies: report of the 3rd EPAA Partners Forum, Brussels, 28th October 2019

Skin sensitising substances that induce contact allergy and consequently risk elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) remain an important focus regarding the replacement of animal experimentation. Current in vivo methods, notably the local lymph node assay (LLNA) refined and reduced animal usage and led to a marked improvement in hazard identification, characterisation and risk assessment. Since validation, regulatory confidence in the LLNA approach has evolved until it became the first choice assay in most regulated sectors. Currently, hazard identification using the LLNA is being actively replaced by a toolbox of non-animal approaches. However, there remains a need to increase confidence in the use of new approach methodologies (NAMs) as replacements for LLNA sensitiser potency estimation. The EPAA Partners Forum exchanged the current state of knowledge on use of NAMs in various industry sectors and regulatory environments. They then debated current challenges in this area and noted several ongoing needs. These included a requirement for reference standards for potency, better characterisation of applicability domains/technical limitations of NAMs, development of a framework for weight of evidence assessments, and an increased confidence in the characterisation of non-sensitisers. Finally, exploration of an industry/regulator cross-sector user-forum on skin sensitisation was recommended.

Risks of Allergic Contact Dermatitis Elicited by Nickel, Chromium, and Organic Sensitizers: Quantitative Models Based on Clinical Patch Test Data

Risks of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from consumer products intended for extended (nonpiercing) dermal contact are regulated by E.U. Directive EN 1811 that limits released Ni to a weekly equivalent dermal load of ≤0.5 μg/cm² . Similar approaches for thousands of known organic sensitizers are hampered by inability to quantify respective ACD-elicitation risk levels. To help address this gap, normalized values of cumulative risk for eliciting a positive ("≥+") clinical patch test response reported in 12 studies for a total of n = 625 Ni-sensitized patients were modeled in relation to observed ACD-eliciting Ni loads, yielding an approximate lognormal (LN) distribution with a geometric mean and standard deviation of GM_Ni = 15 μg/cm² and GSD_Ni = 8.0, respectively. Such data for five sensitizers (including formaldehyde and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) were also ∼LN distributed, but with a common GSD value equal to GSD_Ni and with heterogeneous sensitizer-specific GM values each defining a respective ACD-eliciting potency GM_Ni /GM relative to Ni. Such potencies were also estimated for nine (meth)acrylates by applying this general LN ACD-elicitation risk model to respective sets of fewer data. ACD-elicitation risk patterns observed for Cr(VI) (n = 417) and Cr(III) (n = 78) were fit to mixed-LN models in which ∼30% and ∼40% of the most sensitive responders, respectively, were estimated to exhibit a LN response also governed by GSD_Ni . The observed common LN-response shape parameter GSD_Ni may reflect a common underlying ACD mechanism and suggests a common interim approach to quantitative ACD-elicitation risk assessment based on available clinical data.