Abstract
AbstractSince the 1940s, patch tests in healthy volunteers (Human Predictive Patch Tests, HPPTs) have been used to identify chemicals that cause skin sensitization in humans. Recently, we reported the results of a major curation effort to support the development of OECD Guideline 497 on Defined Approaches (DAs) for skin sensitization (OECD in Guideline No. 497: Defined Approaches on Skin Sensitisation, 2021a. https://doi.org/10.1787/b92879a4-en). In the course of this work, we compiled and published a database of 2277 HPPT results for 1366 unique test substances (Strickland et al. in Arch Toxicol 97:2825–2837, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-023-03530-3). Here we report a detailed analysis of the value of HPPT data for classification of chemicals as skin sensitizers under the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). As a result, we propose the dose per skin area (DSA) used for classification by the GHS to be replaced by or complemented with a dose descriptor that may better reflect sensitization incidence [e.g., the DSA causing induction of sensitization in one individual (DSA1+) or the DSA leading to an incidence of induction in 5% of the tested individuals (DSA05)]. We also propose standardized concepts and workflows for assessing individual HPPT results, for integrating multiple HPPT results and for using them in concert with Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) data in a weight of evidence (WoE) assessment. Overall, our findings show that HPPT results are often not sufficient for deriving unambiguous classifications on their own. However, where they are, the resulting classifications are reliable and reproducible and can be integrated well with those from other skin sensitization data, such as the LLNA.
Funder
United States National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health
Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR)
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference20 articles.
1. Chiu WA, Slob W (2015) A unified probabilistic framework for dose–response assessment of human health effects. Environ Health Perspect 123(12):1241–1254. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409385
2. Draize JH (1959) Dermal toxicity. In: Appraisal of the safety of chemicals in foods, drugs and cosmetics, Chapter 6, pp 46–59. The Association of Food & Drug Officials of the United States, Austin, Texas, USA. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3596550;view=1up;seq=5. Last accessed 2023 Nov 25
3. Griem P, Goebel C, Scheffler H (2003) Proposal for a risk assessment methodology for skin sensitization based on sensitization potency data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 38(3):269–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2003.07.001
4. Griffith JF (1969) Predictive and diagnostic testing for contact sensitization. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 14(Suppl. 3):90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0041-008X(69)80014-1
5. Hoffmann S, Kleinstreuer N, Alépée N, Allen D, Api AM, Ashikaga T, Clouet E, Cluzel M, Desprez B, Gellatly N, Goebel C, Kern PS, Klaric M, Kühnl J, Lalko JF, Martinozzi-Teissier S, Mewes K, Miyazawa M, Parakhia R, van Vliet E, Zang Q, Petersohn D (2018) Non-animal methods to predict skin sensitization (I): the Cosmetics Europe database. Crit Rev Toxicol 48(5):344–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2018.1429385
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献