Updating the Dermal Sensitisation Thresholds using an expanded dataset and an in silico expert system

Detailed aggregate exposure analysis shows that exposure to fragrance ingredients in consumer products is low: Many orders of magnitude below thresholds of concern

The Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (RIFM) and Creme Global Cremeglobal.com partnered to develop an aggregate exposure model for fragrance ingredients. The model provides a realistic estimate of the total exposure of fragrance ingredients to individuals across a population. The Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) and Dermal Sensitization Threshold (DST) were used to demonstrate the magnitude of low exposure to fragrance materials. The total chronic systemic, inhalation, and dermal 95th percentile exposures on approximately 3000 fragrance ingredients in RIFM's inventory were compared to their respective TTC or DST. Additionally, representative fragrance ingredients were randomly selected and analyzed for exposure distribution by product type (i.e., cosmetic/personal care, household care, oral care, and air care) and route of exposure. It was found that 76 % of fragrance ingredients fall below their respective TTC limits when compared to 95th percentile systemic exposure, while 99 % are below inhalation TTC limits. The lowest 95th percentile aggregate exposure by product type was from household care products, then air care, and oral care products. The highest exposure was from personal care/cosmetic products. The volume of use for most fragrance ingredients (63 %) was <1 metric ton, estimating that environmental exposure to fragrance ingredients is likely low.

A botanical reference set illustrating a weight of evidence approach for skin sensitization risk assessment

Recent years have seen an increase in the use of botanicals and natural substances (BNS) in consumer products such as cosmetics and household care products. Most work conducted to date to assess botanicals for human safety has focused their use as dietary supplements and thus on systemic toxicity. However, the induction of skin sensitization is a possible adverse effect of natural products in particular those that come into skin contact, especially for cosmetics that remain on the skin and are not rinsed off following use. Assessments of BNS ingredients are often challenging for a number of reasons: the BNS are complex mixtures that can be of mostly unknown composition; the composition can be highly variable even within the same plant species and dependent on how processed; the physical form of the BNS raw material can vary from a highly concentrated powdered extract to a liquid extract containing only a small percentage of the BNS; testing of the BNS raw materials in New Approach Methods (NAM) has uncertainty as these methods are often not developed or validated for complex mixtures. In this study, a reference set of 14 selected BNS which span the range of skin sensitization potential was complied. These data were used in a Weight of Evidence (WoE) approach to evaluate their skin sensitization potential with each of the data rich BNS being classified as either having strong evidence of inducing skin sensitization based on human topical use history, animal data, clinical data, composition data and NAM data, or having some but more limited (weak) evidence of inducing skin sensitization, or having strong evidence of no skin sensitization potential. When available data have sufficient potency related information, sensitization potency assessment is also provided based on WoE, classifying these BNS as either strong, moderate, or weak sensitizers, or non-sensitizers. An outline for a BNS skin sensitization risk assessment framework is proposed starting with exposure-based waiving and WoE assessment for higher exposures. In addition to demonstrating the application of the WoE approach, the reference set presented here provides a set of 'data rich' botanicals which cover a range of sensitization potencies that could be used for evaluating existing test methods or aid in the development of new predictive models for skin sensitization.

Diseases from the Spectrum of Dermatitis and Eczema: Can "Omics" Sciences Help with Better Systematics and More Accurate Differential Diagnosis?

Researchers active in the field of inflammatory skin diseases from the spectrum of dermatitis and eczema are well aware of a considerable overlap in the clinical pictures and proposed sets of diagnostic criteria for these diseases, which can hardly be overcome through the clinical or epidemiological research. In effect, patients are included in studies based on vague and overlapping criteria, while heterogeneous study populations may, in turn, lead to non-representative outcomes and continued confusion. In this narrative review, a systematics of diseases from the spectrum of dermatitis and eczema is proposed based on the origins of causative factors and the pathomechanisms involved. Difficulties in differentiating between these diseases are discussed, and the extent to which advances in the "omics" sciences might help to overcome them is considered. Of all the "omics" research in this field, more than 90% of the published papers were devoted to atopic dermatitis, with a striking underrepresentation of other diseases from the spectrum of dermatitis and eczema, conditions which collectively exceed the rates of atopic dermatitis by far. A greater "omics" research effort is urgently needed to tackle other dermatitides, like allergic, irritant and protein contact dermatitis, as well as radiation, seborrheic, stasis or autoimmune dermatitis. Atopic dermatitis findings should be validated not only against healthy donors but also other dermatitides. A clinic-oriented approach is proposed for future "omics" studies in the field of dermatitis and eczema.

Identification and characterization of forced degradation products of 5-hydroxymethyl-2-furaldehyde (5-HMF) by HPLC, LC-LTQ/Orbitrap and NMR studies

5-Hydroxymethyl-2-furaldehyde (5-HMF) is a kind of aldehyde compound with highly active furan ring, which is generated by dehydration of glucose, fructose, and other monosaccharides. It widely exists in drugs, foods, health products, cosmetics, and traditional Chinese medicine preparations with high sugar content. Due to the toxicity, the concentration of 5-HMF was always monitored to identify non-conformities and adulteration, as well as ensure the process efficiency, traceability and safety in foods or drugs in the pharmacopoeias of various countries. Herein, a comprehensive forced degradation study was performed to characterize the degradation products (DPs) of 5-HMF under hydrolytic (neutral, acidic, and alkaline) degradation, oxidative, thermal, humidity, and photolytic degradation conditions. A total of five degradants were identified, and two of them (DP-3 and DP-5) were novel DPs first reported in our study. Major DPs (i.e., DP-1 and DP-2) with relatively high peak areas were isolated using semi-preparative HPLC and characterized by LC-LTQ/Orbitrap and NMR. 5-HMF was only stable in alkaline hydrolysis condition. In addition, the degradation pathways and mechanism of these DPs were also explained using LC-LTQ/Orbitrap. In silico toxicity and metabolism behavior of the DPs were evaluated using Derek Nexus and Meteor Nexus software, respectively. The predicted toxicity data indicated that both the drug 5-HMF and its DPs bear the potential of hepatotoxicity, mutagenicity, chromosome damage, and skin sensitisation. Our research may be beneficial for the quality control and suitable storage conditions of 5-HMF.

The Skin Sensitisation of Cosmetic Ingredients: Review of Actual Regulatory Status

All cosmetics products must be safe under foreseeable conditions of use. Allergenic responses are one of the most frequent adverse reactions noted for cosmetics. Thus, the EU cosmetics legislation requires skin sensitisation assessment for all cosmetics ingredients, including the regulated ones (for which the full toxicological dossier needs to be analysed by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS)) and those (perceived as less toxic) which are assessed by industrial safety assessors. Regardless of who performs the risk assessment, it should be carried out using scientifically and regulatory body-accepted methods. In the EU, reference methods for chemical toxicity testing are defined in the relevant Annexes (VII-X) of the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Regulation. Recommendations for Skin Sensitization (Skin Sens) testing are provided in Annex VII, and this particular endpoint information is required for all EU-registered chemicals. Historically, in vivo animal and human methods have been used. Both raise ethical doubts, and some of them cause practical problems in the objective analysis of skin sensitising potency. Previous decades of huge effort have resulted in the regulatory acceptance of the alternative Skin Sens IATA (Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment) and NGRA (Next Generation Risk Assessment). Regardless of the testing issues, a serious sociological problem are observed within the market: the consumer assumes the presence of strong sensitisers in cosmetics formulations and insufficient risk management tools used by the industry. The present review aims to provide an overview of methods for assessing skin sensitisation. Additionally, it aims to answer the following question: what are the most potent skin sensitisers used in cosmetics? The answer considers the mechanistic background along with the actual regulatory status of ingredients and practical examples of responsible industry solutions in the area of risk management.

Risk management of skin sensitisers: A commentary

Historically, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to chemicals encouraged hazard identification improvements, more sophisticated risk assessment and implementation of regulatory strategies, including banning of specific sensitising substances. The validation process applied to hazard identification methods demonstrates their accuracy; their use to characterise sensitiser potency facilitates quantitative and transparent risk assessment. Diagnostic patch testing at dermatology clinics worldwide delivers feedback showing where risk assessment/management has been insufficient or did not target the exposure of concern, thereby facilitating improvements. When urgent action to protect human health was required, regulations limited/banned, specific skin sensitisers. This can be seen in practice with the fragrance industry, a known source of ACD, thus requiring risk management, usually restrictions to limit allergy induction, and very rarely specific bans on ingredients. Experience and development of more sophisticated tools, e.g. to assess aggregate exposure from multitude of consumer product types, has led to repeated adaptation of risk assessment and promulgation of updated fragrance use limits. Although targeted control may not always lead to rapid change in the overall clinical picture, it is preferable to a blanket undifferentiated regulatory control of all sensitisers, resulting in unwarranted restrictions for many uses of no health concern, with consequent substantial socio-economic impacts.

Semiquantitative sensitization safety assessment of extractable and leachables associated with parenteral pharmaceutical products

Extractable and leachables (E&Ls) associated with parenteral pharmaceutical products should be assessed for patient safety. One essential safety endpoint is local or systemic sensitization. However, there are no regulatory guidelines for quantitative sensitization safety assessment of E&Ls. A semiquantitative sensitization safety assessment workflow is developed to refine the sensitization safety assessment of E&Ls associated with parenteral pharmaceutical products. The workflow is composed of two sequential steps: local skin sensitization and systemic sensitization safety assessment. The local skin sensitization step has four tiers. The output from this step is the acceptable exposure level for local sensitization (AEL_ls) and this safety threshold can be used for local sensitization safety assessment. From the derived AEL_ls, the systemic sensitization safety assessment at step 2 proceeds in 2 tiers. The output from this workflow is the derivation of acceptable exposure level for systemic sensitization (AEL_ss). When the estimated human daily exposure (HDE) is compared with the AEL_ss, the margin of exposure is calculated to determine the sensitization safety of E&Ls following parenteral administration. The current work represents an initial effort to develop a scientifically robust process for sensitization safety assessment of E&Ls associated with parenteral pharmaceutical products.