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

Plant extracts, polymers and new approach methods: Practical experience with skin sensitization assessment

Over the last decade, research into methodologies to identify skin sensitization hazards has led to the adoption of several non-animal methods as OECD test guidelines. However, predictive accuracy beyond the chemical domains of the individual validation studies remains largely untested. In the present study, skin sensitization test results from in vitro and in chemico methods for 12 plant extracts and 15 polymeric materials are reported and compared to available in vivo skin sensitization data. Eight plant extracts were tested in the DPRA and h-CLAT, with the 2 out of 3 approach resulting in a balanced accuracy of 50%. The balanced accuracy for the 11 plant extracts assessed in the SENS-IS was 88%. Excluding 5 polymers inconclusive in vitro, the remainder, assessed using the 2 out of 3 approach, resulted in 63% balanced accuracy. The SENS-IS method, excluding one polymeric material due to technical inapplicability, showed 68% balanced accuracy. Although based on limited numbers, the results presented here indicate that some substance subgroups may not be in the applicability domains of the method used and careful analysis is required before positive or negative results can be accepted.

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.

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

Four years on since the last cross sector workshop, experience of the practical application and interpretation of several non-animal assays that contribute to the predictive identification of skin sensitisers has begun to accumulate. Non-animal methods used for hazard assessments increasingly are contributing to the potency sub-categorisation for regulatory purposes. However, workshop participants generally supported the view that there remained a pressing need to build confidence in how information from multiple methods can be combined for classification, sub-categorisation and potency assessment. Furthermore, the practical experience gained over the last few years, highlighted the overall high potential value of using the newly validated methods and testing strategies, but also that limitations for certain substance/product classes may become evident with further use as had been the case with other new regulatory methods. As the available information increases, review of the data and collated experience could further determine strengths and limitations leading to more confidence in their use. Finally, the need for a substantial and universally accepted dataset of non-sensitisers and substances of different sensitising potencies, based on combined human and in vivo animal data for validation of methods and test strategies was re-emphasised.

One science-driven approach for the regulatory implementation of alternative methods: A multi-sector perspective

EU regulations call for the use of alternative methods to animal testing. During the last decade, an increasing number of alternative approaches have been formally adopted. In parallel, new 3Rs-relevant technologies and mechanistic approaches have increasingly contributed to hazard identification and risk assessment evolution. In this changing landscape, an EPAA meeting reviewed the challenges that different industry sectors face in the implementation of alternative methods following a science-driven approach. Although clear progress was acknowledged in animal testing reduction and refinement thanks to an integration of scientifically robust approaches, the following challenges were identified: i) further characterization of toxicity pathways; ii) development of assays covering current scientific gaps, iii) better characterization of links between in vitro readouts and outcome in the target species; iv) better definition of alternative method applicability domains, and v) appropriate implementation of the available approaches. For areas having regulatory adopted alternative methods (e.g., vaccine batch testing), harmonised acceptance across geographical regions was considered critical for broader application. Overall, the main constraints to the application of non-animal alternatives are the still existing gaps in scientific knowledge and technological limitations. The science-driven identification of most appropriate methods is key for furthering a multi-sectorial decrease in animal testing.

Fragrances Categorized According to Relative Human Skin Sensitization Potency

Background

The development of non-animal alternatives for skin sensitization potency prediction is dependent upon the availability of a sufficient dataset whose human potency is well characterized. Previously, establishment of basic categorization criteria for 6 defined potency categories, allowed 131 substances to be allocated into them entirely on the basis of human information.

Objectives

To supplement the original dataset with an extended range of fragrance substances.

Methods

A more fully described version of the original criteria was used to assess 89 fragrance chemicals, allowing their allocation into one of the 6 potency categories.

Results

None of the fragrance substances were assigned to the most potent group, category 1, whereas 11 were category 2, 22 were category 3, 37 were category 4, and 19 were category 5. Although none were identified as non-sensitizing, note that substances in category 5 also do not pass the threshold for regulatory classification.

Conclusions

The combined datasets of >200 substances placed into potency categories solely on the basis of human data provides an essential resource for the elaboration and evaluation of predictive non-animal methods.

Non-animal assessment of skin sensitization hazard: Is an integrated testing strategy needed, and if so what should be integrated?

There is an expectation that to meet regulatory requirements, and avoid or minimize animal testing, integrated approaches to testing and assessment will be needed that rely on assays representing key events (KEs) in the skin sensitization adverse outcome pathway. Three non-animal assays have been formally validated and regulatory adopted: the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA), the KeratinoSens™ assay and the human cell line activation test (h-CLAT). There have been many efforts to develop integrated approaches to testing and assessment with the "two out of three" approach attracting much attention. Here a set of 271 chemicals with mouse, human and non-animal sensitization test data was evaluated to compare the predictive performances of the three individual non-animal assays, their binary combinations and the "two out of three" approach in predicting skin sensitization potential. The most predictive approach was to use both the DPRA and h-CLAT as follows: (1) perform DPRA - if positive, classify as sensitizing, and (2) if negative, perform h-CLAT - a positive outcome denotes a sensitizer, a negative, a non-sensitizer. With this approach, 85% (local lymph node assay) and 93% (human) of non-sensitizer predictions were correct, whereas the "two out of three" approach had 69% (local lymph node assay) and 79% (human) of non-sensitizer predictions correct. The findings are consistent with the argument, supported by published quantitative mechanistic models that only the first KE needs to be modeled. All three assays model this KE to an extent. The value of using more than one assay depends on how the different assays compensate for each other's technical limitations. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitisation: Moving closer to replacing animal testing

This article outlines the work of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that led to being jointly awarded the 2015 Lush Black Box Prize. The award-winning work centred on the development of 'The Adverse Outcome Pathway for Skin Sensitisation Initiated by Covalent Binding to Proteins'. This Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) has provided the mechanistic basis for the integration of skin sensitisation-related information. Recent developments in integrated approaches to testing and assessment, based on the AOP, are summarised. The impact of the AOP on regulatory policy and on the Three Rs are discussed. An overview of the next generation of the skin sensitisation AOP module in the OECD QSAR Toolbox, based on more-recent work at the Laboratory of Mathematical Chemistry, is also presented.

Skin Sensitisation, Adverse Outcome Pathways and Alternatives

For toxicologists who are in any way associated with skin sensitisation, the last two decades have seen a series of fundamental changes. We have migrated from old-style guinea-pig assays, via the refined and reduced Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA), to witness the imminent dominance of in vitro and in silico methods. Yet, over the same period, the use of the output data for human safety assurance has evolved from ‘black box’ risk assessment, via the quantitative risk assessment enabled by the LLNA measurement of potency, to a new period of relative uncertainty. This short review will endeavour to address these topics, all the while keeping a focus on three essential principles: a) that skin sensitisation potential is intrinsic in the molecular structure of the chemical; b) that test methods should have a mechanistic foundation; and finally c) that the only reason for undertaking any skin sensitisation work has to be the protection of human health.

State of the art in non-animal approaches for skin sensitization testing: from individual test methods towards testing strategies

The hazard assessment of skin sensitizers relies mainly on animal testing, but much progress is made in the development, validation and regulatory acceptance and implementation of non-animal predictive approaches. In this review, we provide an update on the available computational tools and animal-free test methods for the prediction of skin sensitization hazard. These individual test methods address mostly one mechanistic step of the process of skin sensitization induction. The adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for skin sensitization describes the key events (KEs) that lead to skin sensitization. In our review, we have clustered the available test methods according to the KE they inform: the molecular initiating event (MIE/KE1)-protein binding, KE2-keratinocyte activation, KE3-dendritic cell activation and KE4-T cell activation and proliferation. In recent years, most progress has been made in the development and validation of in vitro assays that address KE2 and KE3. No standardized in vitro assays for T cell activation are available; thus, KE4 cannot be measured in vitro. Three non-animal test methods, addressing either the MIE, KE2 or KE3, are accepted as OECD test guidelines, and this has accelerated the development of integrated or defined approaches for testing and assessment (e.g. testing strategies). The majority of these approaches are mechanism-based, since they combine results from multiple test methods and/or computational tools that address different KEs of the AOP to estimate skin sensitization potential and sometimes potency. Other approaches are based on statistical tools. Until now, eleven different testing strategies have been published, the majority using the same individual information sources. Our review shows that some of the defined approaches to testing and assessment are able to accurately predict skin sensitization hazard, sometimes even more accurate than the currently used animal test. A few defined approaches are developed to provide an estimate of the potency sub-category of a skin sensitizer as well, but these approaches need further independent evaluation with a new dataset of chemicals. To conclude, this update shows that the field of non-animal approaches for skin sensitization has evolved greatly in recent years and that it is possible to predict skin sensitization hazard without animal testing.

Biology-inspired microphysiological system approaches to solve the prediction dilemma of substance testing

The recent advent of microphysiological systems - microfluidic biomimetic devices that aspire to emulate the biology of human tissues, organs and circulation in vitro - is envisaged to enable a global paradigm shift in drug development. An extraordinary US governmental initiative and various dedicated research programs in Europe and Asia have led recently to the first cutting-edge achievements of human single-organ and multi-organ engineering based on microphysiological systems. The expectation is that test systems established on this basis would model various disease stages, and predict toxicity, immunogenicity, ADME profiles and treatment efficacy prior to clinical testing. Consequently, this technology could significantly affect the way drug substances are developed in the future. Furthermore, microphysiological system-based assays may revolutionize our current global programs of prioritization of hazard characterization for any new substances to be used, for example, in agriculture, food, ecosystems or cosmetics, thus, replacing laboratory animal models used currently. Thirty-six experts from academia, industry and regulatory bodies present here the results of an intensive workshop (held in June 2015, Berlin, Germany). They review the status quo of microphysiological systems available today against industry needs, and assess the broad variety of approaches with fit-for-purpose potential in the drug development cycle. Feasible technical solutions to reach the next levels of human biology in vitro are proposed. Furthermore, key organ-on-a-chip case studies, as well as various national and international programs are highlighted. Finally, a roadmap into the future is outlined, to allow for more predictive and regulatory-accepted substance testing on a global scale.