A critical analysis of the rabbit eye irritation test variability and its impact on the validation of alternative methods

Ocular irritation reversibility assessment of a laundry detergent using the Porcine Corneal Opacity Reversibility Assay (PorCORA): a focused study

Consumer product manufacturers utilise a spectrum of alternative ocular irritation assays, as these tests do not require the use of live animals. Despite their usefulness, no regulatory-accepted assay assesses the reversibility of ocular damage, a key criterion of GHS ocular classification, like the rabbit eye test (i.e., Draize Rabbit Eye Test [DRET]) . The Porcine Corneal Opacity Reversibility Assay (PorCORA), an ex vivo intact corneal tissue culture model, predicts the reversibility of damage by ocular irritants. Inclusion of the damage reversibility endpoint in the PorCORA supplements other alternative test methods for ocular irritation, by assessing induced eye damage and the ability of this damage to reverse (heal) without the use of live animals to distinguish between Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) ocular classifications. In this focused study, results of a Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability (BCOP) test of a laundry detergent, neat and 10% dilution, (product mixture from S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. [SCJ]) classified the product into GHS Category 1; however, the BCOP test cannot assess the reversibility of ocular damage. The laundry detergent was evaluated using the PorCORA, where ocular damage induced by the detergent was fully reversed within seven days. Evaluation of the reversibility of ocular damage using the PorCORA in this focused study can add strength to the weight-of-evidence (WoE) analysis approach in ocular hazard assessment. This WoE approach strengthens the argument that the PorCORA can be used to supplement BCOP data, and that this laundry detergent is not an irreversible eye irritant.

Retrospective evaluation of the eye irritation potential of agrochemical formulations

Multiple in vitro eye irritation methods have been developed and adopted as OECD health effects test guidelines. However, for predicting the ocular irritation/damage potential of agrochemical formulations there is an applicability domain knowledge gap for most of the methods. To overcome this gap, a retrospective evaluation of 192 agrochemical formulations with in vivo (OECD TG 405) and in vitro (OECD TG 437, 438, and/or 492) data was conducted to determine if the in vitro methods could accurately assign United Nations Globally Harmonized System for Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) eye irritation hazard classifications. In addition, for each formulation the eye irritation classification was derived from the classification of the contained hazardous ingredients and their respective concentration in the product using the GHS concentration threshold (CT) approach. The results herein suggest that the three in vitro methods and the GHS CT approach were highly predictive of formulations that would not require GHS classification for eye irritation. Given most agrochemical formulations fall into this category, methods that accurately identify non-classified agrochemical formulations could significantly reduce the use of animals for this endpoint.

Assessing Biocompatibility of Face Mask Materials during COVID-19 Pandemic by a Rapid Multi-Assays Strategy

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, scientific authorities strongly suggested the use of face masks (FMs). FM materials (FMMs) have to satisfy the medical device biocompatibility requirements as indicated in the technical standard EN ISO 10993-1:2018. The biologic evaluation must be confirmed by in vivo tests to verify cytotoxicity, sensitisation, and skin irritation. Some of these tests require an extensive period of time for their execution, which is incompatible with an emergency situation. In this study, we propose to verify the safety of FMMs combining the assessment of 3-[4,5-dimethylthiazolyl-2]-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) with quantification of nitric oxide (NO) and interleukin-6 (IL-6), as predictive markers of skin sensitisation or irritation based on human primary fibroblasts. Two hundred and forty-two FMMs were collected and classified according to spectrometer IR in polypropylene, paper, cotton, polyester, polyethylene terephthalate, 3-dimensional printing, and viscose. Of all FMMs tested, 50.8% passed all the assays, 48% failed at least one, and only 1.2% failed all. By a low cost, rapid and highly sensitive multi assays strategy tested on human skin fibroblasts against a large variety of FMMs, we propose a strategy to promptly evaluate biocompatibility in wearable materials.

A proposal for a new in vitro method for direct classification of eye irritants by cytotoxicity test - Preliminary study

None of the in vitro method are suitable for directly classifying of a substance as an eye irritant (category 2). They can classify substance as category 1 (serious eye damage) or as "no category" (not requiring classification). The aim of this study was to develop a new method for direct classification of a substance as category 2. Cytotoxicity Assay to Assess Eye Irritation (CEI) was performed on fibroblast - HDFn cell line with 36 substances. 5 concentrations of all substances and neat substances were applied directly to the cells. After 30 min, medium was added and cells were incubated at 37 °C. The next day, the cytotoxicity assay was performed (MTT assay in the first run and NRU assay in the second run). Based on viability and IC50 value (concentration with 50 % viability) a substance could be classified in category 2, category 1, and as "no category". The results obtained were referred to ECHA database. This new method had high sensitivity (53.8-88.9 %), specificity (73.9-100.0 %) and accuracy (69.4-88.9 %) in the classification to all categories. It effectively classifies not only substances in category 2 but also in category 1 and substances that do not require classification.

Validation of the OptiSafe™ eye irritation test

PURPOSE

OptiSafe is an in chemico test method that identifies potential eye irritants based on macromolecular damage following test chemical exposure. The OptiSafe protocol includes a prescreen assessment that identifies test chemicals that are outside the applicability domain of the test method and thus determines the optimal procedure. We assessed the usefulness and limitations of the OptiSafe test method for identifying chemicals not requiring classification for ocular irritation (i.e. bottom-up testing strategy).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventeen chemicals were selected by the lead laboratory and tested as an independent study. Ninety-five unique coded chemicals were selected by a validation management team to assess the intra- and interlaboratory reproducibility and accuracy of OptiSafe in a multilaboratory, three-phased validation study. Three laboratories (lead laboratory and two naïve laboratories) evaluated 35 chemicals, with the remaining 60 chemicals evaluated by the lead laboratory only. Test method performance was assessed by comparing classifications based on OptiSafe results to classifications based on available retrospective in vivo data, using both the EPA and GHS eye irritation hazard classification systems. No prospective in vivo testing was conducted.

RESULTS

Phase I testing of five chemicals showed that the method could be transferred to naïve laboratories; within-lab reproducibility ranged from 93% to 100% for both classification systems. Thirty coded chemicals were evaluated in Phase II of the validation study to demonstrate both intra- and interlaboratory reproducibility. Intralaboratory reproducibility for both EPA and GHS classification systems for Phase II of the validation study ranged from 93% to 99%, while interlaboratory reproducibility was 91% for both systems. Test method accuracy for the EPA and GHS classification systems based on results from individual laboratories ranged from 82% to 88% and from 78% to 88%, respectively, among the three laboratories; false negative rates ranged from 0% to 7% (EPA) and 0% to 15% (GHS). When results across all three laboratories were combined based on the majority classification, test method accuracy and false negative rates were 89% and 0%, respectively, for both classification systems, while false positive rates were 25% and 23% for the EPA and GHS classification systems, respectively. Validation study Phase III evaluation of an additional 60 chemicals by the lead laboratory provided a comprehensive assessment of test method accuracy and defined the applicability domain of the method. Based on chemicals tested in Phases II and III by the lead laboratory, test method accuracy was 83% and 79% for the EPA and GHS classification systems, respectively; false negative rates were 4% (EPA) and 0% (GHS); and false positive rates were 40% (EPA) and 42% (GHS). Potential causes of false positives in certain chemical (e.g. ethers and alcohols) or hazard classes are being further investigated.

CONCLUSION

The OptiSafe test method is useful for identifying nonsurfactant substances not requiring classification for ocular irritancy. OptiSafe represents a new tool for the in vitro assessment of ocular toxicity in a tiered-testing strategy where chemicals can be initially tested and identified as not requiring hazard classification.

Assessment of the Eye Irritating Properties of Chemicals by Applying Alternatives to the Draize Rabbit Eye Test: The Use of QSARs and In Vitro Tests for the Classification of Eye Irritation

Huggins has reported on the current situation relating to the development of alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test with rabbits, and an ECVAM Working Group have reviewed the efforts needed in order to replace this animal test within the next 10 years by using the results of non-animal assessment methods. Our report reviews regulatory experience gained over the last 20 years with the EU chemicals notification procedure with respect to the assessment of eye lesions observed in Draize tests. The nature of eye lesions and their importance for classification and labelling of possible hazards to human eyes are evaluated and discussed, with a view to promoting the development of specific in vitro assays which are able to discriminate between eye damage, moderate eye irritation, and minor irritation effects which are completely reversible within a few days. Structural alerts for the prediction of eye irritation/corrosion hazards to be classified and labelled according to international classification criteria, are presented, which should be validated in accordance with internationally agreed (OECD) principles for (Q)SAR system validation. Physicochemical limit values for prediction of the absence of any eye irritation potential relevant for human health can make available a definition of the applicability domains of alternative methods developed for the replacement of the Draize eye irritation test.

Performance of the Neutral Red uptake assay in the COLIPA international validation study on alternatives to the rabbit eye irritation test

The neutral red uptake (NRU) assay was included as part of the COLIPA international validation trial of in vitro alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test. In a blind trial, 55 substances were tested at four laboratories. Following testing, a prediction of the in vivo Draize modified maximum average score (MMAS) for each substance was made by each laboratory using a prediction model relating mean NR(50) value (concentration causing 50% reduction in NRU from that of untreated control cells) to MMAS. Following statistical analysis of the results and breaking of the code, assessment of the results and further analysis was carried out by the participating laboratories. This paper presents the conclusions with regard to the NRU assay. The initial trial analysis indicated that the interlaboratory reproducibility of results of the NRU assay was good. However, there was a poor correlation between observed and predicted MMAS (using the proposed prediction model) when all the test substances were analysed together (r=0.246). Data analysis of subsets of substances indicated that the best predictions were for pure surfactants only (r=0.843) although this data did not fit within the limits of the prediction model. The NRU assay therefore appears to have limited use as a complete Draize replacement. A further examination of the COLIPA trial data may identify combinations of assays which may be more useful than the individual assays which, like NRU, have been shown to be poor predictors of eye irritation.

Comparison of preservative-induced toxicity on monolayer and stratified Chang conjunctival cells

Preservatives are used in ocular medications to prevent microbial contamination. The use of benzalkonium chloride (BAC), the most widely used preservative in ocular medications, has been scrutinized with a number of studies indicating its toxicity to monolayer cultures of corneal and conjunctival epithelial cells. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the toxicity of BAC and other preservatives and common components of ocular formulations on monolayer and stratified air-lifted cultures of Chang conjunctival cells. Air-lifting Chang cells grown on transwell filters increased stratification as assessed by transepithelial electrical resistance and histology. Unlike monolayer cultures in which ocular medications containing BAC caused near complete loss of cell viability, stratified, air-lifted cultures were not affected by the presence of BAC in ocular medications with up to 30-min exposures. Stratification shifted the dose-response curve to the right for benzalkonium chloride, thimerosal, chlorhexidine digluconate, potassium sorbate and EDTA. These results demonstrate that stratification significantly affects cell viability of Chang conjunctival cells in response to preservatives and additives of ophthalmic preparations.

In vitro alternatives to the use of animals in ocular toxicology testing

Chemical substances, including household products, industrial chemicals, and cosmetics, must be tested for ocular toxicity or irritancy so that the public can be assured of their safety or warned of dangers associated with their use. The in vivo Draize test is the standard method used to meet this requirement; however, this test is coming under increasing criticism on scientific and ethical grounds. This has led to the development of a large number of proposed in vitro tests, some of which are routinely used to screen chemicals in toxicology laboratories. This review addresses regulations governing ocular irritancy testing and the current status of the movement toward use of alternative methods. Such methods include the use of cultured cells, hen's eggs, isolated animal eyes and corneas, human corneal epithelial cell lines, and the recently developed in vitro corneal equivalent models. The protocols for these methods are outlined, and their endpoints are described with respect to prediction of in vivo responses. The tests are evaluated in the context of the outcomes of validation studies and acceptance by regulatory agencies. While several of these tests yield useful information concerning ocular irritancy, to date, no in vitro alternative test has been validated as a replacement for the Draize test. If the goal of replacing the in vivo test while protecting the public from chemical eye injury is to be achieved, further development and improvement of alternative tests, as well as establishment of a human ocular toxicity data base, are required.

Evaluation of eye and skin irritation of arginine-derivative surfactants using different in vitro endpoints as alternatives to the in vivo assays

Arginine-derivative surfactants constitute a novel class of surfactants, which can be regarded as an alternative to conventional surfactants. Prior to human exposure, it is necessary to assess their irritation potential. The classical in vivo evaluation of the irritancy potential via the Draize test has been extensively criticized. In that regard, a great number of in vitro alternatives have been developed. Erythrocytes were chosen as the target cells for eye irritation assessment and hemolysis and hemoglobin denaturation were selected as appropriate endpoints. For skin irritancy assessment, the keratinocyte cell line NCTC 2544 was used and different in vitro endpoints were measured: two cytotoxicity assays (NRU and MTT) and the synthesis of the proinflammatory cytokine IL-1alpha. The eye and skin Draize tests were also performed for comparative purposes. The results point out that, according to in vivo and in vitro assays, the new arginine-derivative surfactants have lower eye and skin irritation potential than the synthetic surfactant SDS. Furthermore, in vitro methods were also able to detect differences in irritancy among the new surfactants not noticeable by the Draize tests, indicating that in vitro methods can be more sensitive than the in vivo test, offering the opportunity to detect subtle differences in irritancy.

Performance of porcine corneal opacity and permeability assay to predict eye irritation for water-soluble cosmetic ingredients

The purpose of this paper is to report on the ability of an in-house porcine corneal opacity and permeability assay (PCOP) to predict eye irritation for cosmetic ingredients. Preliminary studies showed that the PCOP assay could accurately predict eye irritation class for liquid and water soluble materials. To broaden our experience a larger study on 50 cosmetic ingredients of this group was conducted. A prediction model (PM) was obtained based on only one endpoint-permeability measured after 30-min exposure O.D.30. This PM allows to distinguish nonirritating compounds (if O.D.30 < 0.35) from irritating (if O.D.30 > or = 0.35). Forty-nine of the 50 ingredients tested in the PCOP assay were accurately classified. The agreement was high (concordance 98%-kappa = 0.96). For 43 of the test substances an equation PM was obtained to predict the MAS. Despite satisfactory statistical coefficients this algorithm is not recommended due to wide 95% confidence intervals. These results confirm the usefulness of the PCOP for water-soluble cosmetic ingredients to discriminate nonirritants (MAS < or = 15) and irritants (MAS >15). For this type of ingredients the PCOP seems to be better than the BCOP to predict irritation class. Future work will be done to compare the BCOP and PCOP performances and to develop an appropriate protocol for water insoluble compounds.

The immunohistochemical characterisation of an SV40-immortalised human corneal epithelial cell line

Alternatives to the Draize rabbit eye irritation test are currently being investigated. Because of morphological and biochemical differences between the rabbit and the human eye, continuous human cell lines have been proposed for use in ocular toxicology studies. Single cell-type monolayer cultures in culture medium have been used extensively in ocular toxicology. In the present study, an SV40-immortalised human corneal epithelial (HCE) cell line was characterised immunohistochemically, by using 13 different monoclonal antibodies to cytokeratins (CKs), ranging from CK3 to CK20. The results from the monolayer HCE cell cultures were compared with those from the corneal epithelium of human corneal cryostat sections. Previous studies have shown that the morphology of the HCE cell is similar to that of primary cultured human corneal epithelial cells, and that the cells express the cornea-specific CK3. In the study reported here, we show that the cell line also expresses CKs 7, 8, 18 and 19. These CKs are typically expressed by simple epithelial cells, and are not found in the human cornea in vivo. Therefore, the monolayer HCE cell line grown in culture medium does not express the CK pattern that is typical of human corneal epithelium. This should be taken into consideration when using HCE cell cultures in similar single cell-type experiments for ocular toxicology.

The use of bootstrap resampling to assess the variability of Draize tissue scores

The acute dermal and ocular effects of chemicals are generally assessed by performing the Draize skin and eye tests, respectively. Because the animal data obtained in these tests are also used for the development and validation of alternative methods for skin and eye irritation, it is important to assess the inherent variability of the animal data, since this variability places an upper limit on the predictive performance that can be expected of any alternative model. The statistical method of bootstrap resampling was used to estimate the variability arising from the use of different animals and time-points, and the estimates of variability were used to determine the maximal extent to which Draize test tissue scores can be predicted.