Information derived from sensitization test methods: test sensitivity, false positives and false negatives

Predictive toxicology tests for the prospective identification of skin‐sensitizing chemicals are well known and have been used for many years. However, of these, only the local lymph node assay (LLNA) has actually undergone formal independent assessment to determine the accuracy of the predictions, particularly with respect to the likelihood of false positives and false negatives. Often, efforts to increase the sensitivity of a test (reducing false negatives) tend to increase the number of false positives. In this short review, these issues are discussed in particular relation to the 3 predictive tests available in regulatory toxicology, the guinea‐pig maximization test, the occluded patch test of Buehler and the LLNA. A key perspective is that no predictive test is without limitations; having a good appreciation of these limitations is necessary for making the best use of the information derived from these methods.

[1]  D. Basketter,et al.  Utility of historical vehicle‐control data in the interpretation of the local lymph node assay , 2003, Contact dermatitis.

[2]  G Frank Gerberick,et al.  A review of the scientific basis for uncertainty factors for use in quantitative risk assessment for the induction of allergic contact dermatitis , 2002, Contact dermatitis.

[3]  A. Kligman,et al.  Allergic contact dermatitis in the guinea pig : identifications of contact allergens , 1970 .

[4]  I Kimber,et al.  The local lymph node assay in practice: a current regulatory perspective , 2006, Human & experimental toxicology.

[5]  S. Seidenari,et al.  Monitoring levels of preservative sensitivity in Europe , 2002, Contact dermatitis.

[6]  I. Kimber,et al.  Use of the local lymph node assay for the estimation of relative contact allergenic potency , 2000, Contact dermatitis.

[7]  E. Buehler.  A rationale for the selection of occlusion to induce and elicit delayed contact hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. A prospective test. , 1985, Current problems in dermatology.

[8]  K. Landsteiner,et al.  STUDIES ON THE SENSITIZATION OF ANIMALS WITH SIMPLE CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS. II , 1936, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[9]  H. Maibach,et al.  Contact allergy predictive tests in guinea pigs. , 1985, Current problems in dermatology.

[10]  W S Stokes,et al.  Validating new toxicology tests for regulatory acceptance. , 1998, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[11]  C. Zachariae,et al.  Methyldibromo glutaronitrile: clinical experience and exposure‐based risk assessment , 2003, Contact dermatitis.

[12]  S. Seidenari,et al.  Repeated open application test with methyldibromo glutaronitrile, a multicentre study within the EECDRG , 2005, Contact dermatitis.

[13]  Michael Balls,et al.  The Principles of Validation and the ECVAM Validation Process , 2002, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[14]  G Frank Gerberick,et al.  Application of the risk assessment paradigm to the induction of allergic contact dermatitis. , 2003, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[15]  B. Gruvberger,et al.  Recommendation to include methyldibromo glutaronitrile in the European standard patch test series , 2005, Contact dermatitis.

[16]  B. Gruvberger,et al.  Sensitization studies in the guinea pig with the active ingredients of Euxyl® K 400 , 1988, Contact dermatitis.

[17]  D. Basketter,et al.  Local lymph node assay: validation assessment for regulatory purposes. , 2000, American journal of contact dermatitis : official journal of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.

[18]  D A Basketter,et al.  Skin sensitization--a critical review of predictive test methods in animals and man. , 1991, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[19]  D. Basketter,et al.  The value and limitations of rechallenge in the guinea pig maximization test , 1996, Contact dermatitis.

[20]  G F Gerberick,et al.  An interlaboratory evaluation of the Buehler test for the identification and classification of skin sensitizers , 1996, Contact dermatitis.

[21]  I. Kimber,et al.  Sulphanilic acid: divergent results in the guinea pig maximization test and the local lymph node assay , 1992, Contact dermatitis.

[22]  John McFadden,et al.  Identification and classification of skin sensitizers: identifying false positives and false negatives , 2006, Contact dermatitis.

[23]  Frank Gerberick,et al.  Predictive identification of human skin sensitization thresholds , 2005, Contact dermatitis.

[24]  I Kimber,et al.  Local lymph node assay: validation assessment for regulatory purposes. , 2000, American journal of contact dermatitis : official journal of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.

[25]  J. Johansen,et al.  Methyldibromoglutaronitrile in rinse‐off products causes allergic contact dermatitis: an experimental study , 2004, The British journal of dermatology.

[26]  E. Buehler,et al.  DELAYED CONTACT HYPERSENSITIVITY IN THE GUINEA PIG. , 1965, Archives of dermatology.

[27]  I Kimber,et al.  Strategies for identifying false positive responses in predictive skin sensitization tests. , 1998, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[28]  I Kimber,et al.  Skin sensitisation testing--new perspectives and recommendations. , 2001, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[29]  Carl Westmoreland,et al.  A future approach to measuring relative skin sensitising potency: a proposal , 2006, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.

[30]  D. Basketter,et al.  A critical commentary and updating of the guinea pig maximization test , 1995, Contact dermatitis.

[31]  J Hilton,et al.  The murine local lymph node assay. , 1995, Methods in molecular biology.

[32]  B. Hausen.  The sensitizing potency of Euxyl® K 400 and its components 1,2‐dibromo‐2,4‐dicyanobutane and 2‐phenoxyethanol , 1993, Contact dermatitis.

[33]  Ian Kimber,et al.  The suitability of hexyl cinnamic aldehyde as a calibrant for the murine local lymph node assay , 2001, Contact dermatitis.

[34]  David A. Basketter,et al.  Evaluation of the skin sensitizing potency of chemicals by using the existing methods and considerations of relevance for elicitation , 2005, Contact dermatitis.

[35]  J. Geier,et al.  Isopropyl myristate recommended for aimed rather than routine patch testing , 2004, Contact dermatitis.

[36]  Ian Kimber,et al.  Compilation of Historical Local Lymph Node Data for Evaluation of Skin Sensitization Alternative Methods , 2005, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[37]  G F Gerberick,et al.  A skin sensitization risk assessment approach for evaluation of new ingredients and products. , 2000, American journal of contact dermatitis : official journal of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.

[38]  R J Fielder,et al.  Local lymph node assay - validation, conduct and use in practice. , 2002, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.