Updating the Dermal Sensitisation Thresholds using an expanded dataset and an in silico expert system.

The Dermal Sensitisation Thresholds (DST) are Thresholds of Toxicological Concern, which can be used to justify exposure-based waiving when conducting a skin sensitisation risk assessment. This study aimed to update the published DST values by expanding the size of the Local Lymph Node Assay dataset upon which they are based, whilst assigning chemical reactivity using an in silico expert system (Derek Nexus). The potency values within the expanded dataset fitted a similar gamma distribution to that observed for the original dataset. Derek Nexus was used to classify the sensitisation activity of the 1152 chemicals in the expanded dataset and to predict which chemicals belonged to a High Potency Category (HPC). This two-step classification led to three updated thresholds: a non-reactive DST of 710 µg/cm2 (based on 79 sensitisers), a reactive (non-HPC) DST of 73 µg/cm2 (based on 331 sensitisers) and an HPC DST of 1.0 µg/cm2 (based on 146 sensitisers). Despite the dataset containing twice as many sensitisers, these values are similar to the previously published thresholds, highlighting their robustness and increasing confidence in their use. By classifying reactivity in silico the updated DSTs can be applied within a skin sensitisation risk assessment in a reproducible, scalable and accessible manner.

Benchmarking performance of SENS-IS assay against weight of evidence skin sensitization potency categories.

Potency determination of potential skin sensitizers in humans is essential for quantitative risk assessment and proper risk management. SENS-IS is an in vitro test based on a reconstructed human skin model, that was developed to predict the hazard and potency of potential skin sensitizers. The performance of the SENS-IS assay in potency prediction for 174 materials was evaluated for this work. The potency used as a benchmark was determined based on the weight of evidence approach, by collectively considering all well-established test data, including human, animal, in chemico, in vitro, and in silico data. Based on this weight of evidence approach, the dataset was composed of 5, 19, 34, 54, and 38 extreme, strong, moderate, weak, and very weak sensitizers, respectively, as well as 24 non-sensitizers. SENS-IS provided good prediction of the skin sensitization potency for 85% of this dataset, with precise and approximate prediction on 46% and 39% of the 174 materials, respectively. Our evaluation showed that SENS-IS provides a good approximation of the skin sensitization potency.

Weight of Evidence Approach for Skin Sensitization Potency Categorization of Fragrance Ingredients.

BACKGROUND: Reliable human potency data are necessary for conducting quantitative risk assessments, as well as development and validation of new nonanimal methods for skin sensitization assessments. Previously, human skin sensitization potency of fragrance materials was derived primarily from human data or the local lymph node assay. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to define skin sensitization potency of fragrance materials via weight of evidence approach, incorporating all available human, animal, in vitro, in chemico, and in silico data. METHODS: All available data on 106 fragrance materials were considered to assign each material into 1 of the 6 defined potency categories (extreme, strong, moderate, weak, very weak, and nonsensitizer). RESULTS: None of the 106 materials were considered an extreme sensitizer, whereas a total of 6, 23, 41, and 26 materials were categorized as strong, moderate, weak, and very weak sensitizers, respectively. Ten materials lacked evidence for the induction of skin sensitization. CONCLUSIONS: Skin sensitization potency categorization of the 106 fragrance materials based on the described weight of evidence approach can serve as a useful resource in evaluation of nonanimal methods, as well as in risk assessment.

Derivation of the no expected sensitization induction level for dermal quantitative risk assessment of fragrance ingredients using a weight of evidence approach.

Some fragrance ingredients may have the potential to induce skin sensitization in humans but can still be safely formulated into consumer products. Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) for dermal sensitization is required to determine safe levels at which potential skin sensitizers can be incorporated into consumer products. The no expected sensitization induction level or NESIL is the point of departure for the dermal QRA. Sensitization assessment factors are applied to the NESIL to determine acceptable exposure levels at which no skin sensitization induction would be expected in the general population. This paper details the key steps involved in deriving a weight of evidence (WoE) NESIL for a given fragrance ingredient using all existing data, including in vivo, in vitro, and in silico. Read-across can be used to derive a NESIL for a group of structurally similar materials when data are insufficient. When sufficient target and read-across data are lacking, exposure waiving threshold (the DST) may be used. We outline the process as it currently stands at the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials Inc. (RIFM) and provide examples, but it is dynamic and is bound to change with evolving science as new approach methodologies (NAMs) are actively incorporated.

Use of alternative test methods in a tiered testing approach to address photoirritation potential of fragrance materials.

The safety assessment of fragrance materials for photoirritation utilized by The Research Institute for Fragrance Materials has recently been modified and is described in detail. Materials demonstrating significant absorbance in the ultraviolet and visible light (UV/VIS) range (290-700 nm) may present a concern for photoirritation and require further investigation. If there are no photoirritation data or data are insufficient, then data on read-across materials are considered before a tiered approach for testing begins. The hazard-based 3T3-Neutral Red Uptake (NRU) Phototoxicity Test (OECD TG 432) is used as a first-tier assay; if it predicts photoirritation, it is followed by the reconstructed human epidermis (RhE) phototoxicity assay (OECD TG 498). The RhE phototoxicity assay is used to determine a No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) for photoirritation that is used in a confirmatory human photoirritation test. Data are presented on 108 fragrance materials exhibiting significant UV/VIS absorbance and evaluated in the 3T3-NRU Phototoxicity Assay. Twenty-one materials were predicted to be phototoxic; twenty were evaluated in the RhE Phototoxicity Assay to establish a NOEL. Fourteen materials were then evaluated in a confirmatory human phototoxicity test. The tiered testing approach presented represents a scientifically pragmatic method to minimize the likelihood of photoirritation from fragrance materials.

Fragrance Skin Sensitization Evaluation and Human Testing: 30-Year Experience.

BACKGROUND: The human repeated insult patch test (HRIPT) has a history of use in the fragrance industry as a component of safety evaluation, exclusively to confirm the absence of skin sensitization at a defined dose. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to document the accumulated experience from more than 30 years of conducting HRIPTs. METHODS: A retrospective collation of HRIPT studies carried out to a consistent protocol was undertaken, with each study comprising a minimum of 100 volunteers. CONCLUSIONS: The HRIPT outcomes from 154 studies on 134 substances using 16,512 volunteers were obtained. Most studies confirmed that at the selected induction/challenge dose, sensitization was not induced. In 0.12% of subjects (n = 20), there was induction of allergy. However, in the last 11 years, only 3 (0.03%) of 9854 subjects became sensitized, perhaps because of improved definition of a safe HRIPT dose from the local lymph node assay and other skin sensitization methodologies, as well as more rigorous application of the standard protocol after publication in 2008. This experience with HRIPTs demonstrates that de novo sensitization induction is rare and becoming rarer, but it plays an important role as an indicator that toxicological predictions from nonhuman test methods (in vivo and in vitro methods) can be imperfect.