Alternatives for skin sensitisation: Hazard identification and potency categorisation: Report from an EPAA/CEFIC LRI/Cosmetics Europe cross sector workshop, ECHA Helsinki, April 23rd and 24th 2015.

In the two years since the last workshop report, the environment surrounding the prediction of skin sensitisation hazards has experienced major change. Validated non-animal tests are now OECD Test Guidelines. Accordingly, the recent cross sector workshop focused on how to use in vitro data for regulatory decision-making. After a review of general approaches and six case studies, there was broad consensus that a simple, transparent stepwise process involving non-animal methods was an opportunity waiting to be seized. There was also strong feeling the approach should not be so rigidly defined that assay variations/additional tests are locked out. Neither should it preclude more complex integrated approaches being used for other purposes, e.g. potency estimation. All agreed the ultimate goal is a high level of protection of human health. Thus, experience in the population will be the final arbiter of whether toxicological predictions are fit for purpose. Central to this is the reflection that none of the existing animal assays is perfect; the non-animal methods should not be expected to be so either, but by integrated use of methods and all other relevant information, including clinical feedback, we have the opportunity to continue to improve toxicology whilst avoiding animal use.

[1]  Frank Gerberick,et al.  Nothing is perfect, not even the local lymph node assay: a commentary and the implications for REACH , 2009, Contact dermatitis.

[2]  B. Pipy,et al.  Contact sensitizers modulate the arachidonic acid metabolism of PMA-differentiated U-937 monocytic cells activated by LPS. , 2011, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[3]  D. Basketter,et al.  In vitro approaches to the identification and characterization of skin sensitizers. , 2013, Cutaneous and ocular toxicology.

[4]  João Barroso,et al.  Categorization of Chemicals According to Their Relative Human Skin Sensitizing Potency , 2014, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[5]  W. Russell,et al.  Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research , 2011, PloS one.

[6]  D. Basketter,et al.  In Vitro Approaches to the Identification and Characterization of Skin Sensitizers , 2007 .

[7]  Robert Landsiedel,et al.  Non-animal test methods for predicting skin sensitization potentials , 2012, Archives of Toxicology.

[8]  R. Landsiedel,et al.  Evaluation of an optimized protocol using human peripheral blood monocyte derived dendritic cells for the in vitro detection of sensitizers: Results of a ring study in five laboratories. , 2015, Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA.

[9]  Valérie Zuang,et al.  Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects—2010 , 2011, Archives of Toxicology.

[10]  Nathalie Alépée,et al.  The Myeloid U937 Skin Sensitization Test (U-SENS) addresses the activation of dendritic cell event in the adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitization. , 2015, Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA.

[11]  Petra Kern,et al.  A dataset on 145 chemicals tested in alternative assays for skin sensitization undergoing prevalidation , 2013, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.

[12]  M. A. Wouters,et al.  Potential role of glutathione in evolution of thiol-based redox signaling sites in proteins , 2015, Front. Pharmacol..

[13]  Claude Auriault,et al.  Genes specifically modulated in sensitized skins allow the detection of sensitizers in a reconstructed human skin model. Development of the SENS-IS assay. , 2015, Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA.

[14]  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.

[15]  W S Stokes,et al.  ICCVAM evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay. Conclusions and recommendations of an independent scientific peer review panel. , 2001, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[16]  Silvia Casati,et al.  Skin sensitisation--moving forward with non-animal testing strategies for regulatory purposes in the EU. , 2013, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[17]  Petra S Kern,et al.  Assessing skin sensitization hazard in mice and men using non-animal test methods. , 2015, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[18]  Yuri Dancik,et al.  Bayesian integrated testing strategy to assess skin sensitization potency: from theory to practice , 2013, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.

[19]  Janine Ezendam,et al.  Evaluating the performance of integrated approaches for hazard identification of skin sensitizing chemicals. , 2014, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[20]  Martina Klaric,et al.  Systematic evaluation of non-animal test methods for skin sensitisation safety assessment. , 2015, Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA.

[21]  Casati Silvia,et al.  EURL ECVAM Recommendation on the human Cell Line Activation Test (h-CLAT) for skin sensitisation testing , 2015 .

[22]  Takao Ashikaga,et al.  Evaluation of combinations of in vitro sensitization test descriptors for the artificial neural network‐based risk assessment model of skin sensitization , 2015, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.

[23]  T. Knudsen,et al.  A roadmap for the development of alternative (non-animal) methods for systemic toxicity testing. , 2012, ALTEX.

[24]  Maree T. Smith,et al.  In vitro methods for hazard assessment of industrial chemicals – opportunities and challenges , 2015, Front. Pharmacol..

[25]  Robert Landsiedel,et al.  LuSens: a keratinocyte based ARE reporter gene assay for use in integrated testing strategies for skin sensitization hazard identification. , 2014, Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA.

[26]  Chanita Kuseva,et al.  Towards AOP application--implementation of an integrated approach to testing and assessment (IATA) into a pipeline tool for skin sensitization. , 2014, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[27]  Robert Landsiedel,et al.  Putting the parts together: combining in vitro methods to test for skin sensitizing potentials. , 2012, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[28]  Andreas Natsch,et al.  Predicting skin sensitizer potency based on in vitro data from KeratinoSens and kinetic peptide binding: global versus domain-based assessment. , 2015, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.