Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • 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

. 2010 ; 62 (2) : 109-116.

Language English Country Denmark

Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Validation Study

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

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...