Ascorbic acid specifically reduces the misclassification of nonirritating reactive chemicals in the OptiSafe™ macromolecular eye irritation test

Further optimisation of a macromolecular ocular irritation test (OptiSafeTM)

PURPOSE

OptiSafeTM (OS) is a shelf stable, nonanimal test for ocular irritation. A recent database search found that half of the OS false positive (FP) materials were associated with reactive oxygen chemistries but were not eye irritants in vivo (based on historical rabbit studies by other groups). We hypothesized that naturally occurring tear antioxidants protect the eye from reactive chemistries in vivo and that specific tear chemistries might help explain why some materials are FP for nonanimal tests but are reported as nonirritants in the live animal. To test this hypothesis, a prior study evaluated tear antioxidants and found that the tear antioxidant ascorbic acid, added at human physiological tear levels to the OS test, specifically reduced the measured values for these FPs but did not reduce the true-positive rate. Based on these findings, the OS test method was further optimized. The purpose of the current study was to comprehensively evaluate the performance of the further optimized test method for detection of ocular irritants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The OS test measures chemically induced damage to macromolecules and relates these measured values to ocular irritancy. To improve the performance of OS, we made updates to the material to be tested physiochemical handling procedures, prediction model, and test method to include tear-level concentrations of ascorbic acid. We then retested the 78 chemicals from the prior OS-coded validation study in triplicate and compared the accuracy of the 'nonirritant versus irritant' prediction for the further optimized method with the prior results.

RESULTS

We report that for the detection of 'nonirritant' versus 'irritant' (GHS NC versus categories 2B/A and 1) test substances, the further optimized OS test with ascorbic acid compared with the original version has a FP rate that is reduced from 40.0 to 22.2%, the false-negative (FN) rate remains at 0.0%, and the accuracy improved from 80.3% to 89.2%.

CONCLUSION

A comparison to OECD-adopted tests demonstrates that the further optimized OS test, like the original method, has a higher accuracy and lower FN rate for the detection of 'nonirritants' versus 'irritants' (GHS Category NC versus 2B/A and 1) than the other eye irritation tests (BCOP, EpiOcularTM Eye Irritation Test, ICE, Ocular Irritection®, and STE).

Expansion of the application domain of a macromolecular ocular irritation test (OptiSafe™)

The OptiSafe (OS) test is shelf-stable, macromolecular eye irritation test that does not include any animal ingredient or component ("vegan"). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the test's accuracy for an expanded application domain for both the original and recently updated OS method. This study involved the testing of additional ocular corrosives and previously excluded foaming agents ("surfactants") using both the original and updated OS methods and then combining these data with prior validation data for a total of 147 chemicals. Predictivity was evaluated by a statistical comparison of the OptiSafe predictions with historical in vivo "Draize" rabbit eye data for the same chemicals (from public databases). We report that for the detection of chemicals not requiring classification for eye irritation [Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) No Category], the accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity were 92.8%, 79.6%, and 100.0%, respectively, for the updated method; for the detection of chemicals inducing extreme eye damage/corrosion (GHS Category 1), the accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity were 79.4%, 71.8%, and 91.7%, respectively, for the updated method. Results indicate that both the original and updated methods have a high accuracy for the expanded application domain that included ocular corrosives and surfactants.