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

被引:10
作者
Basketter, D. [1 ]
Beken, S. [2 ]
Bender, H. [3 ]
Bridges, J. [4 ]
Casati, S. [5 ]
Corvaro, M. [6 ]
Cuvellier, S. [7 ]
Hubesch, B. [8 ,9 ]
Irizar, A. [10 ]
Jacobs, M. N. [11 ]
Kern, P. [12 ]
Lamplmair, F. [13 ]
Manou, I [14 ]
Mueller, B. P. [15 ]
Roggeband, R. [12 ]
Rossi, L. H. [16 ]
机构
[1] DABMEB Consultancy Ltd, Sharnbrook M44 1PR, Beds, England
[2] European Med Agcy, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[3] Hjb Consulting, Bonn, Germany
[4] Univ Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, England
[5] European Commiss, Joint Res Ctr JRC, Ispra, Italy
[6] Corteva Agrisci, Rome, Italy
[7] COSMED, Aix En Provence, France
[8] Hubesch Consult BVBA, Sint Pieters Leeuw, Belgium
[9] European Chem Ind Council Cefic, Brussels, Belgium
[10] Int Fragrance Assoc IFRA, Geneva, Switzerland
[11] Publ Hlth England, Chilton, England
[12] Procter & Gamble Serv Co NV SA, Strombeek Bever, Belgium
[13] European Commiss, Brussels, Belgium
[14] European Partnership Alternat Approaches Anim Tes, Brussels, Belgium
[15] Symrise AG, Holzminden, Germany
[16] European Chem Agcy, Helsinki, Finland
关键词
Skin sensitisation; In vitro alternatives; Hazard assessment; Potency measurement; LYMPH-NODE ASSAY; PREDICTION; VALIDATION; HAZARD;
D O I
10.1016/j.yrtph.2020.104767
中图分类号
DF [法律]; D9 [法律]; R [医药、卫生];
学科分类号
0301 ; 10 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页数:5
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2016, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 2, Effects of Biotic Systems, DOI DOI 10.1787/9789264264762-EN
[2]  
Basketter D, 2000, DEV AN VET, V31, P395
[3]   Local lymph node assay - validation, conduct and use in practice [J].
Basketter, DA ;
Evans, P ;
Fielder, RJ ;
Gerberick, GF ;
Dearman, RJ ;
Kimber, I .
FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY, 2002, 40 (05) :593-598
[4]   Applying non-animal strategies for assessing skin sensitisation report from an EPAA/cefic-LRI/IFRA Europe cross sector workshop, ECHA helsinki, February 7th and 8th 2019 [J].
Basketter, David ;
Azam, Philippe ;
Casati, Silvia ;
Corvaro, Marco ;
Ezendam, Janine ;
Griem, Peter ;
Hubesch, Bruno ;
Irizar, Amaia ;
Kern, Petra ;
Manou, Irene ;
Mehling, Annette ;
Rossi, Laura H. .
REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY, 2019, 109
[5]   Alternatives for skin sensitisation: Hazard identification and potency categorisation: Report from an EPAA/CEFIC LRI/Cosmetics Europe cross sector workshop, ECHA Helsinki, April 23rd and 24th 2015 [J].
Basketter, David ;
Ashikaga, Takao ;
Casati, Silvia ;
Hubesch, Bruno ;
Jaworska, Joanna ;
de Knecht, Joop ;
Landsiedel, Robert ;
Manou, Irene ;
Mehling, Annette ;
Petersohn, Dirk ;
Rorije, Emiel ;
Rossi, Laura H. ;
Steiling, Winfried ;
Teissier, Silvia ;
Worth, Andrew .
REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY, 2015, 73 (02) :660-666
[6]   The evolution of validation: a commentary [J].
Basketter, David A. ;
Kimber, Ian ;
Hartung, Thomas .
CUTANEOUS AND OCULAR TOXICOLOGY, 2010, 29 (01) :1-3
[7]   Nothing is perfect, not even the local lymph node assay: a commentary and the implications for REACH [J].
Basketter, David A. ;
McFadden, John F. ;
Gerberick, Frank ;
Cockshott, Amanda ;
Kimber, Ian .
CONTACT DERMATITIS, 2009, 60 (02) :65-69
[8]   Putting the parts together: Combining in vitro methods to test for skin sensitizing potentials [J].
Bauch, Caroline ;
Kolle, Susanne N. ;
Ramirez, Tzutzuy ;
Eltze, Tobias ;
Fabian, Eric ;
Mehling, Annette ;
Teubner, Wera ;
van Ravenzwaay, Bennard ;
Landsiedel, Robert .
REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY, 2012, 63 (03) :489-504
[9]   International regulatory requirements for skin sensitization testing [J].
Daniel, Amber B. ;
Strickland, Judy ;
Allen, David ;
Casati, Silvia ;
Zuang, Valerie ;
Barroso, Joao ;
Whelan, Maurice ;
Regimbald-Krnel, M. J. ;
Kojima, Hajime ;
Nishikawa, Akiyoshi ;
Park, Hye-Kyung ;
Lee, Jong Kwon ;
Kim, Tae Sung ;
Delgado, Isabella ;
Rios, Ludmila ;
Yang, Ying ;
Wang, Gangli ;
Kleinstreuer, Nicole .
REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY, 2018, 95 :52-65
[10]   State of the art in non-animal approaches for skin sensitization testing: from individual test methods towards testing strategies [J].
Ezendam, Janine ;
Braakhuis, Hedwig M. ;
Vandebriel, Rob J. .
ARCHIVES OF TOXICOLOGY, 2016, 90 (12) :2861-2883