Does Irritation Potency Contribute to the Skin Sensitization Potency of Contact Allergens?

Safety Assessment of Alkanoyl Lactyl Lactate Salts as Used in Cosmetics

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) reviewed the safety of 10 alkanoyl lactyl lactate salts. These ingredients have the surfactant function in cosmetics in common. The Panel reviewed data relevant to the safety of these ingredients, and concluded that these 10 ingredients are safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in the safety assessment when formulated to be nonirritating and nonsensitizing, which may be based on a quantitative risk assessment (QRA) or other accepted methodologies.

Use of guinea pig data to obtain starting points for skin sensitisation risk assessment - A commentary

The increasing drive to understand the likelihood of skin sensitisation from plant protection products (PPPs) in workers and the general public has resulted in recent initiatives to establish a quantitative risk assessment (QRA) methodology applicable to these products and their exposure scenarios. The effective evaluation of skin sensitising substances requires not only the identification of that toxicological hazard, but also determination of relative sensitising potency. Typically, this has been achieved by interpretation of local lymph node assay (LLNA) dose response data, delivering what is known as the EC3 value. This permitted regulatory division of skin sensitisers into defined potency sub-categories, but more importantly enabled derivation of a no expected sensitisation induction level (NESIL) as the point of departure for QRA. However, for many existing substances there is no LLNA data, only older guinea pig results exist. To avoid additional (in vivo) testing, an approach has been outlined to employ guinea pig data and existing regulatory guidelines on the determination of potency sub-categorisation to provide a guinea pig based NESIL. The approach adopts a conservative extrapolation from LLNA NESIL benchmarks to deliver points of departure as the basis for the type of QRA process already in successful use by other industries.

Specificity of the local lymph node assay (LLNA) for skin sensitisation

The local lymph node assay (LLNA) has provided a large dataset against which performance of non-animal approaches for prediction of skin sensitisation potential and potency can be assessed. However, a recent comparison of LLNA results with human data has argued that LLNA specificity is low, with many human non-sensitisers, particularly hydrophobic chemicals, being false positives. It has been suggested such putative false positives result from hydrophobic chemicals causing cytotoxicity, which induces irritancy, in turn driving non-specific lymphocyte proliferation. This paper finds that the apparent reduced specificity of the LLNA largely reflects differences in definitions of the boundaries between weak skin sensitisers and non-sensitisers. A small number of LLNA false positives may be due to lymphocyte proliferation without skin sensitisation, but most alleged 'false' positives are in fact very weak sensitisers predictable from structure-activity considerations. The evidence does not support the hypothesis for hydrophobicity-induced false positives. Moreover, the mechanistic basis is untenable. Sound LLNA data, appropriately interpreted, remain a good measure of sensitisation potency, applicable across a wide hydrophilicity-lipophilicity range. The standard data interpretation protocol enables detection of very low levels of sensitisation, irrespective of regulatory significance, but there is scope to interpret the data to give focus on regulatory significance.

Mouse Model of Irritant Contact Dermatitis

Background

Irritant contact dermatitis is a common inflammatory skin disease characterized by skin barrier dysfunction, eczematous dermatitis, and chronic itching. This disease severely affects the quality of life. Considering that the current treatment approaches are not ideal, more extensive research is needed to develop new treatments. Mainly, a mouse model is needed to investigate the effectiveness of new drugs to treat this disease.

Objectives

This study was conducted to create a mouse model of irritant contact dermatitis.

Methods

In the current study, we used BALB/c female mice to prepare a mouse model of irritant contact dermatitis. To induce irritant contact dermatitis, we used a dinitrochlorobenzene mixture with acetone/olive oil as an irritant. After 10 days of application, the mouse skin tissue was isolated and examined in terms of histopathology.

Results

The introduced protocol created an irritant contact dermatitis model clinically and histopathologically.

Conclusions

In the present study, we introduced a new protocol using a mixture of dinitrochlorobenzene and acetone/olive oil to create an irritant contact dermatitis model. Mouse models have been extensively used to discover the complex mechanisms of irritant contact dermatitis and provide a preclinical platform before conducting clinical interventional research on humans to evaluate a new therapeutic approach. However, one should always look for models that cause the least pain and suffering in the animal and simultaneously are simple and reliable for the desired studies. Thus, our protocol is a new approach that can be effective and painless in creating a model of irritant contact dermatitis.

Contact dermatitis

Contact dermatitis (CD) is among the most common inflammatory dermatological conditions and includes allergic CD, photoallergic CD, irritant CD, photoirritant CD (also called phototoxic CD) and protein CD. Occupational CD can be of any type and is the most prevalent occupational skin disease. Each CD type is characterized by different immunological mechanisms and/or requisite exposures. Clinical manifestations of CD vary widely and multiple subtypes may occur simultaneously. The diagnosis relies on clinical presentation, thorough exposure assessment and evaluation with techniques such as patch testing and skin-prick testing. Management is based on patient education, avoidance strategies of specific substances, and topical treatments; in severe or recalcitrant cases, which can negatively affect the quality of life of patients, systemic medications may be needed.

Comparison of the skin sensitization potential of 3 red and 2 black tattoo inks using interleukin-18 as a biomarker in a reconstructed human skin model

BACKGROUND

During the last decade, the number of people with ≥1 tattoo has increased noticeably within the European population. Despite this, limited safety information is available for tattoo inks.

OBJECTIVES

To test the skin sensitization potential of 5 tattoo inks in vitro by using reconstructed human skin (RHS) and the contact sensitization biomarker interleukin (IL)-18.

METHODS

Two red and 3 black tattoo inks, 1 additive (Hamamelis virginiana extract) and 1 irritant control (lactic acid) were tested. The culture medium of RHS (reconstructed epidermis on a fibroblast-populated collagen hydrogel) was supplemented with test substances in a dose-dependent manner for 24 hours, after which cytotoxicity (histology; thiazolyl blue tetrazolium bromide assay) and skin sensitization potential (IL-18 secretion; enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) were assessed.

RESULTS

All but 1 ink showed cytotoxicity. Notably, 1 red ink and 1 black ink were able to cause an inflammatory response, indicated by substantial release of IL-18, suggesting that these inks may be contact sensitizers.

CONCLUSIONS

The in vitro RHS model showed that 4 tattoo inks were cytotoxic and 2 were able to cause an inflammatory IL-18 response, indicating that an individual may develop allergic contact dermatitis when exposed to these tattoo inks, as they contain contact sensitizers.

Preliminary performance data of the RHE/IL-18 assay performed on SkinEthic™ RHE for the identification of contact sensitizers

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performances of the RHE/IL-18 assay using the SkinEthic^™ RHE model for the identification of contact sensitizers.

METHODS

A set of 18 substances and mixtures was tested on this epidermal model, following the RHE/IL-18 protocol. The final results of the assay were obtained following 5 interpretation schemes, to determine the optimal prediction model for this assay with this specific test system. The data were analysed with a special focus on the basal level of IL-18 release and on the performance obtained with respect to three different gold standards: LLNA, HRIPT and an integrated reference, constructed from all available results.

RESULTS

No important differences were found in the performance levels depending on the three gold standards. The performances obtained with the SkinEthic^™ RHE model support that this model may be considered as an alternative to different reconstructed epidermis models (EpiDERM^™ , EpiCS^™ and VUMC-EE) for the performance of RHE/IL-18 assays.

CONCLUSION

The prediction model to be used was refined, and more substances have to be tested in order to gather enough data for this evaluation and to determine the right criteria applicable for this assay using the SkinEthic^™ RHE test system.

Potential health effects associated with dermal exposure to occupational chemicals

There are a large number of workers in the United States, spanning a variety of occupational industries and sectors, who are potentially exposed to chemicals that can be absorbed through the skin. Occupational skin exposures can result in numerous diseases that can adversely affect an individual's health and capacity to perform at work. In general, there are three types of chemical-skin interactions of concern: direct skin effects, immune-mediated skin effects, and systemic effects. While hundreds of chemicals (metals, epoxy and acrylic resins, rubber additives, and chemical intermediates) present in virtually every industry have been identified to cause direct and immune-mediated effects such as contact dermatitis or urticaria, less is known about the number and types of chemicals contributing to systemic effects. In an attempt to raise awareness, skin notation assignments communicate the potential for dermal absorption; however, there is a need for standardization among agencies to communicate an accurate description of occupational hazards. Studies have suggested that exposure to complex mixtures, excessive hand washing, use of hand sanitizers, high frequency of wet work, and environmental or other factors may enhance penetration and stimulate other biological responses altering the outcomes of dermal chemical exposure. Understanding the hazards of dermal exposure is essential for the proper implementation of protective measures to ensure worker safety and health.

Irritant contact dermatitis

Irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) is the most common form of contact dermatitis. It represents the cutaneous response to the toxic/physical effects of a wide variety of environmental agents. Nowadays, it is recognized that irritancy does not represent a single monomorphous entity but rather a complex biologic syndrome with diverse pathophysiology and clinical manifestations. The clinical presentation is highly variable depending on several factors, including properties and strength of the irritant, dose, duration and frequency of exposure, environmental factors, and skin susceptibility. The pathophysiological mechanism depends on activation of the innate immune system and involves skin barrier disruption, cellular changes, and release of proinflammatory mediators that directly recruit and activate T lymphocytes. The diagnosis of irritant contact dermatitis is often clinical, and involves a comprehensive history and examination, as well as the exclusion of allergic contact dermatitis with patch testing. Recent advances in understanding the pathogenesis as well as better awareness of the clinical significance of ICD will lead to a improved care for our patients.

Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects-2010

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.

A potential in vitro epidermal equivalent assay to determine sensitizer potency

Most in vitro assays aim to distinguish sensitizers from non-sensitizers. Few aim to classify sensitizers according to potency. Here, we describe a potential method for classifying sensitizers according to their irritant potency with the aid of in house epidermal equivalents (EE). Sixteen sensitizers were applied topically in a dose response to EE for 24h. The EE-EC(50) value (effective chemical concentration required to reduce cell viability by 50%) and the EE-IL-1α(10)(×) value (chemical concentration which increases IL-1α secretion by 10-fold) were calculated. From 16 sensitizers, EE-EC(50) and/or EE-IL-1α(10×) values were obtained from 12 skin sensitizers. EE-EC(50) and IL-1α(10×) values decreased in proportion to increasing sensitizer potency. The in vitro assay correlated with existing in vivo mouse and human sensitization data (LLNA, HRIPT), and showed low intra- and inter-experimental variability. Additionally DNCB and resorcinol were correctly assessed as extreme and moderate sensitizers using commercial EE (EST1000™ and RHE™). In conclusion, our data supports the view that irritancy may in part be a factor determining sensitizer potency. Since this assay does not distinguish sensitizers from non-sensitizers, its potential application is in a tiered strategy, where Tier 1 identifies sensitizers which may then tested in Tier 2, this assay, which determines sensitizer potency.

Assessment of chemical skin-sensitizing potency by an in vitro assay based on human dendritic cells

The skin-sensitizing potential of chemicals is an important concern for public health and thus a significant end point in the hazard identification process. To determine skin-sensitizing capacity, large research efforts focus on the development of assays, which do not require animals. As such, an in vitro test has previously been developed based on the differential expression of CREM and CCR2 transcripts in CD34(+) progenitor-derived dendritic cells (CD34-DC), which allows to classify chemicals as skin (non-)sensitizing. However, skin sensitization is not an all-or-none phenomenon, and up to now, the assessment of relative potency can only be derived using the in vivo local lymph node assay (LLNA). In our study, we analyzed the feasibility to predict the sensitizing potency, i.e., the LLNA EC3 values, of 15 skin sensitizers using in vitro data from the CD34-DC-based assay. Hereto, we extended the in vitro-generated gene expression data set by an additional source of information, the concentration of the compound that causes 20% cell damage (IC20) in CD34-DC. We statistically confirmed that this IC20 is linearly independent from the gene expression changes but that it does correlate with LLNA EC3 values. In a further analysis, we applied a robust linear regression with both IC20 and expression changes of CREM and CCR2 as explanatory variables. For 13 out of 15 compounds, a high linear correlation was established between the in vitro model and the LLNA EC3 values over a range of four orders of magnitude, i.e., from weak to extreme sensitizers.

Nothing is perfect, not even the local lymph node assay: a commentary and the implications for REACH

For many regulatory authorities, the local lymph node assay (LLNA) is the preferred assay for the predictive identification of skin-sensitizing chemicals. It is the initial requirement for sensitization testing within the new REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemical substances) regulations in the European Union. The primary reasons for the preferment of the LLNA are the animal welfare benefits it provides compared with traditional guinea-pig methods (refinement and reduction of animal usage) and the general performance characteristics of the assay with regard to overall reliability, accuracy, and interpretation. Moreover, a substantial published literature on the LLNA is available making it appropriate for use as a benchmark against which new approaches, including in vitro alternatives, can be evaluated and validated. There is, therefore, a view that the LLNA represents the 'gold standard' for skin sensitization testing. However, although this is probably correct, it is important to recognize and acknowledge that in common with all other predictive tests (whether they be validated or not), the LLNA has limitations, in addition to strengths, some of which were mentioned above. Arguably, it is the limitations (e.g., the occurrence of false positive and false negative results) of test methods that are most important to understand. With respect to the LLNA, these limitations are similar to those associated with guinea-pig skin sensitization methods. Among these are the occurrence of false positive and false negative results, susceptibility of results to changes in vehicle, and the possibility that interspecies differences may confound interpretation. In this commentary, these issues are reviewed and their impact on the utility of the LLNA for identification, classification, and potency assessment of skin sensitizers are considered. In addition, their relevance for the future development and validation of novel in vitro and in silico alternatives is explored.

Assuring Consumer Safety without Animal Testing: A Feasibility Case Study for Skin Sensitisation

Allergic Contact Dermatitis (ACD; chemical-induced skin sensitisation) represents a key consumer safety endpoint for the cosmetics industry. At present, animal tests (predominantly the mouse Local Lymph Node Assay) are used to generate skin sensitisation hazard data for use in consumer safety risk assessments. An animal testing ban on chemicals to be used in cosmetics will come into effect in the European Union (EU) from March 2009. This animal testing ban is also linked to an EU marketing ban on products containing any ingredients that have been subsequently tested in animals, from March 2009 or March 2013, depending on the toxicological endpoint of concern. Consequently, the testing of cosmetic ingredients in animals for their potential to induce skin sensitisation will be subject to an EU marketing ban, from March 2013 onwards. Our conceptual framework and strategy to deliver a non-animal approach to consumer safety risk assessment can be summarised as an evaluation of new technologies (e.g. ‘omics’, informatics), leading to the development of new non-animal ( in silico and in vitro) predictive models for the generation and interpretation of new forms of hazard characterisation data, followed by the development of new risk assessment approaches to integrate these new forms of data and information in the context of human exposure. Following the principles of the conceptual framework, we have been investigating existing and developing new technologies, models and approaches, in order to explore the feasibility of delivering consumer safety risk assessment decisions in the absence of new animal data. We present here our progress in implementing this conceptual framework, with the skin sensitisation endpoint used as a case study.