Insights into the quantitative relationship between sensitization and challenge for allergic contact dermatitis reactions.

The ability of chemical or pharmaceutical agents to induce allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is of major health and regulatory concern. As such, tests to identify their sensitizing capacity, such as the guinea pig maximization test and the more recently developed local lymph node assay, are broadly used. Ideally, for risk assessment it is useful to translate results from animal data into establishing safe or no-effect levels for occupational or environmental agents. This, of course, would require consideration of the quantitative relationships between sensitizing and challenge doses as well as other exposure conditions. In the present studies, we modeled two sensitizers, 2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene and squaric acid dibutyl ester, over a large range of concentrations using the LLNA and more traditional tests that measure both sensitization and elicitation responses. Both the sensitization and challenge phases provided similar dose-response curves, demonstrating a threshold followed by a shallow linear increase and eventual plateau at increasing doses. Extending earlier studies by P. S. Friedmann (1994, Immunotoxicology and Immunopharmacology, pp. 589-616, Raven Press, New York) in humans, we observed that the minimum dose required to elicit sensitization or challenge was not static, but rather reflected a "sliding-scale." That is, as the sensitization dose was increased, the concentration required to elicit a challenge response was decreased. Correspondingly, as the challenge dose was increased, the dose required for sensitization was lessened. Taken together, these findings indicate that there is a need to consider dose-response relationships for sensitization and challenge in establishing minimum exposure levels for chemicals that cause ACD.

[1]  A Goossens,et al.  The time-dose-response relationship for elicitation of contact dermatitis in isoeugenol allergic individuals. , 2001, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[2]  D. Basketter,et al.  Toxicology of Contact Dermatitis: Allergy, Irritancy and Urticaria , 1999 .

[3]  H. Maibach,et al.  Propylene glycol dermatitis: re‐evaluation of an old problem , 1994, Contact dermatitis.

[4]  G F Gerberick,et al.  The importance of exposure estimation in the assessment of skin sensitization risk , 2000, Contact dermatitis.

[5]  H. Salo,et al.  The repeated open application test (ROAT) , 1986, Contact dermatitis.

[6]  I. Kimber,et al.  Anamnestic responses to contact allergens: Application in the murine local lymph node assay , 1991, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.

[7]  P. Frosch,et al.  The repeated open application test: suggestions for a scale of evaluation , 1998, Contact dermatitis.

[8]  R. Bronaugh,et al.  Dose-response relationship in skin sensitization. , 1994, Food and Chemical Toxicology.

[9]  J. M. Smith,et al.  Kathon biocide: manifestation of delayed contact dermatitis in guinea pigs is dependent on the concentration for induction and challenge. , 1983, The Journal of investigative dermatology.

[10]  S. Wakelin,et al.  The effect of patch duration on the elicitation of para‐phenylenediamine contact allergy , 1998, Contact dermatitis.

[11]  B. Lushniak The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. , 1995, Dermatologic clinics.

[12]  I Kimber,et al.  Thresholds in contact sensitization: theoretical and practical considerations. , 1999, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[13]  M. Robinson,et al.  Evaluation of the Primary Skin Irritation and Allergic Contact Sensitization Potential of Transdermal Triprolidine , 1991 .

[14]  J. Heylings,et al.  Sensitization to 2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene: influence of vehicle on absorption and lymph node activation. , 1996, Toxicology.

[15]  J Carpenter,et al.  Bootstrap confidence intervals: when, which, what? A practical guide for medical statisticians. , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  J. Dean Immunotoxicology and immunopharmacology , 1994 .

[17]  M. Robinson,et al.  Preclinical skin sensitization testing of antihistamines: guinea pig and local lymph node assay responses. , 1996, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[18]  I Kimber,et al.  Contact allergenic potency: correlation of human and local lymph node assay data. , 2001, American journal of contact dermatitis : official journal of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.

[19]  W Slob,et al.  A quantitative method for assessing the sensitizing potency of low molecular weight chemicals using a local lymph node assay: employment of a regression method that includes determination of the uncertainty margins. , 2000, Toxicology.

[20]  A M Kligman,et al.  The identification of contact allergens by human assay. 3. The maximization test: a procedure for screening and rating contact sensitizers. , 1989, The Journal of investigative dermatology.

[21]  J Hilton,et al.  Further evaluation of the local lymph node assay in the final phase of an international collaborative trial. , 1996, Toxicology.

[22]  J. Rees,et al.  Low‐dose exposure to antigen induces sub‐clinical sensitization , 1990, Clinical and experimental immunology.

[23]  I. Kimber,et al.  The local lymph node assay: Results of a final inter‐laboratory validation under field conditions , 1992, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.

[24]  I. Kimber,et al.  A murine local lymph node assay for the identification of contact allergens , 2004, Archives of Toxicology.