-
Something wrong with this record ?
Comparison of human skin irritation patch test data with in vitro skin irritation assays and animal data
D. Jírová, D. Basketter, M. Liebsch, H. Bendová, K. Kejlová, M. Marriott, H. Kandárová
Language English Country Denmark
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Validation Study
NLK
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
from 1975-02-01 to 1 year ago
Wiley Online Library (archiv)
from 1997-01-01 to 2012-12-31
- MeSH
- Animal Testing Alternatives standards MeSH
- Biological Assay standards MeSH
- Irritants adverse effects diagnostic use MeSH
- False Positive Reactions MeSH
- Cosmetics adverse effects diagnostic use MeSH
- Rabbits MeSH
- Skin drug effects MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Patch Tests standards MeSH
- Predictive Value of Tests MeSH
- Skin Irritancy Tests standards MeSH
- Animals MeSH
- Check Tag
- Rabbits MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Animals MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
- Validation Study MeSH
BACKGROUND: Efforts to replace the rabbit skin irritation test have been underway for many years, encouraged by the EU Cosmetics Directive and REACH. Recently various in vitro tests have been developed, evaluated and validated. OBJECTIVE: A key difficulty in confirming the validity of in vitro methods is that animal data are scarce and of limited utility for prediction of human effects, which adversely impacts their acceptance. This study examines whether in vivo or in vitro data most accurately predicted human effects. METHODS: Using the 4-hr human patch test (HPT) we examined a number of chemicals whose EU classification of skin irritancy is known to be borderline, or where in vitro methods provided conflicting results. RESULTS: Of the 16 chemicals classified as irritants in the rabbit, only five substances were found to be significantly irritating to human skin. Concordance of the rabbit test with the 4-hr HPT was only 56%, whereas concordance of human epidermis models with human data was 76% (EpiDerm) and 70% (EPISKIN). CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm observations that rabbits overpredict skin effects in humans. Therefore, when validating in vitro methods, all available information, including human data, should be taken into account before making conclusions about their predictive capacity.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc12025227
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20130222234944.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 120816s2010 dk f 000 0#eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2009.01640.x $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)20136894
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a dk
- 100 1_
- $a Jírová, Dagmar $7 xx0087784 $u National Institute of Public Health, Srobárova 48, Prague 10, Czech Republic. jirova@szu.cz
- 245 10
- $a Comparison of human skin irritation patch test data with in vitro skin irritation assays and animal data / $c D. Jírová, D. Basketter, M. Liebsch, H. Bendová, K. Kejlová, M. Marriott, H. Kandárová
- 520 9_
- $a BACKGROUND: Efforts to replace the rabbit skin irritation test have been underway for many years, encouraged by the EU Cosmetics Directive and REACH. Recently various in vitro tests have been developed, evaluated and validated. OBJECTIVE: A key difficulty in confirming the validity of in vitro methods is that animal data are scarce and of limited utility for prediction of human effects, which adversely impacts their acceptance. This study examines whether in vivo or in vitro data most accurately predicted human effects. METHODS: Using the 4-hr human patch test (HPT) we examined a number of chemicals whose EU classification of skin irritancy is known to be borderline, or where in vitro methods provided conflicting results. RESULTS: Of the 16 chemicals classified as irritants in the rabbit, only five substances were found to be significantly irritating to human skin. Concordance of the rabbit test with the 4-hr HPT was only 56%, whereas concordance of human epidermis models with human data was 76% (EpiDerm) and 70% (EPISKIN). CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm observations that rabbits overpredict skin effects in humans. Therefore, when validating in vitro methods, all available information, including human data, should be taken into account before making conclusions about their predictive capacity.
- 650 _2
- $a alternativy testů na zvířatech $x normy $7 D000826
- 650 _2
- $a zvířata $7 D000818
- 650 _2
- $a biotest $x normy $7 D001681
- 650 _2
- $a kosmetické přípravky $x škodlivé účinky $x diagnostické užití $7 D003358
- 650 _2
- $a falešně pozitivní reakce $7 D005189
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a dráždivé látky $x škodlivé účinky $x diagnostické užití $7 D007509
- 650 _2
- $a náplasťové testy $x normy $7 D010328
- 650 _2
- $a prediktivní hodnota testů $7 D011237
- 650 _2
- $a králíci $7 D011817
- 650 _2
- $a kůže $x účinky léků $7 D012867
- 650 _2
- $a testy kožní dráždivosti $x normy $7 D023422
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
- 655 _2
- $a validační studie $7 D023361
- 700 1_
- $a Basketter, David
- 700 1_
- $a Liebsch, Manfred
- 700 1_
- $a Bendová, Hana $7 xx0160868
- 700 1_
- $a Kejlová, Kristina $7 xx0160869
- 700 1#
- $a Marriott, Marie
- 700 1#
- $a Kanďárová, Helena. $7 xx0188308
- 773 0_
- $w MED00001225 $t Contact dermatitis $x 1600-0536 $g Roč. 62, č. 2 (2010), s. 109-116
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20136894 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y m
- 990 __
- $a 20120816 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20130222235145 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 947269 $s 782573
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2010 $b 62 $c 2 $d 109-116 $i 1600-0536 $m Contact dermatitis $n Contact Dermatitis $x MED00001225
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20120816/10/02