Immune function testing for the identification and characterisation of immunotoxicity in rodents

Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects-2010

The 7th amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive prohibits to put animal-tested cosmetics on the market in Europe after 2013. In that context, the European Commission invited stakeholder bodies (industry, non-governmental organisations, EU Member States, and the Commission's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) to identify scientific experts in five toxicological areas, i.e. toxicokinetics, repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity, skin sensitisation, and reproductive toxicity for which the Directive foresees that the 2013 deadline could be further extended in case alternative and validated methods would not be available in time. The selected experts were asked to analyse the status and prospects of alternative methods and to provide a scientifically sound estimate of the time necessary to achieve full replacement of animal testing. In summary, the experts confirmed that it will take at least another 7-9 years for the replacement of the current in vivo animal tests used for the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients for skin sensitisation. However, the experts were also of the opinion that alternative methods may be able to give hazard information, i.e. to differentiate between sensitisers and non-sensitisers, ahead of 2017. This would, however, not provide the complete picture of what is a safe exposure because the relative potency of a sensitiser would not be known. For toxicokinetics, the timeframe was 5-7 years to develop the models still lacking to predict lung absorption and renal/biliary excretion, and even longer to integrate the methods to fully replace the animal toxicokinetic models. For the systemic toxicological endpoints of repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity, the time horizon for full replacement could not be estimated.

In vitro testing for direct immunotoxicity: state of the art

Immunotoxicity is defined as the toxicological effects of xenobiotics including pharmaceuticals on the functioning of the immune system and can be induced in either direct or indirect ways. Direct immunotoxicity is caused by the effects of chemicals on the immune system, leading to immunosuppression and subsequently to reduced resistance to infectious diseases or certain forms of nongenotoxic carcinogenicity.In vitro testing has several advantages over in vivo testing, such as detailed mechanistic understanding, species extrapolation (parallelogram approach), and reduction, refinement, and replacement of animal experiments. In vitro testing for direct immunotoxicity can be done in a two-tiered approach, the first tier measuring myelotoxicity. If this type of toxicity is apparent, the compound can be designated immunotoxic. If not, the compound is tested for lymphotoxicity (second tier). Several in vitro assays for lymphotoxicity exist, each comprising specific functions of the immune system (cytokine production, cell proliferation, cytotoxic T-cell activity, natural killer cell activity, antibody production, and dendritic cell maturation). A brief description of each assay is provided. Only one assay, the human whole blood cytokine release assay, has undergone formal prevalidation, while another one, the lymphocyte proliferation assay, is progressing towards that phase.Progress in in vitro testing for direct immunotoxicity includes prevalidation of existing assays and selection of the assay (or combination of assays) that performs best. To avoid inter-species extrapolation, assays should preferably use human cells. Furthermore, the use of whole blood has the advantage of comprising multiple cell types in their natural proportion and environment. The so-called "omics" techniques provide additional mechanistic understanding and hold promise for the characterization of classes of compounds and prediction of specific toxic effects. Technical innovations such as high-content screening and high-throughput analysis will greatly expand the opportunities for in vitro testing.

Regulatory immunotoxicology: does the published evidence support mandatory nonclinical immune function screening in drug development?

Recent immunotoxicity guidance documents from the EU CHMP and the US FDA apply significantly different weightings to immune function testing; whereas the former mandates (as a starting point) incorporation of immune function tests (IFTs) to screen for immunotoxic potential in sub-chronic rodent toxicity studies, the more cautious 'for cause' FDA approach recommends the use of IFTs only when warranted by evidence obtained from conventional nonclinical and/or clinical studies. Conclusions from detailed evaluations of several key drugs, including salmeterol and some opioids, challenge the notion that data on these examples support the need for IFTs to detect unintended immunosuppression. Given the virtual absence of convincing pharmaceutical examples and the rarity of unintended immunosuppression, routine immune function testing of all new pharmaceuticals is not considered justified. Resources currently being employed in this manner in an attempt to detect a seemingly rare phenomenon would appear to be better applied to the development of reliable predictive assays for drug hypersensitivity, which is known to cause significant patient morbidity. Any moves towards a globally harmonised guideline that recommends the use of concern-based IFTs, need ideally to be accompanied by the establishment of appropriate historical control reference intervals and interpretation criteria to support a reliable weight-of-evidence approach to data evaluation.