Cosmetics Europe compilation of historical serious eye damage/eye irritation in vivo data analysed by drivers of classification to support the selection of chemicals for development and evaluation of alternative methods/strategies: the Draize eye test Reference Database (DRD).

A thorough understanding of which of the effects assessed in the in vivo Draize eye test are responsible for driving UN GHS/EU CLP classification is critical for an adequate selection of chemicals to be used in the development and/or evaluation of alternative methods/strategies and for properly assessing their predictive capacity and limitations. For this reason, Cosmetics Europe has compiled a database of Draize data (Draize eye test Reference Database, DRD) from external lists that were created to support past validation activities. This database contains 681 independent in vivo studies on 634 individual chemicals representing a wide range of chemical classes. A description of all the ocular effects observed in vivo, i.e. degree of severity and persistence of corneal opacity (CO), iritis, and/or conjunctiva effects, was added for each individual study in the database, and the studies were categorised according to their UN GHS/EU CLP classification and the main effect driving the classification. An evaluation of the various in vivo drivers of classification compiled in the database was performed to establish which of these are most important from a regulatory point of view. These analyses established that the most important drivers for Cat 1 Classification are (1) CO mean ≥ 3 (days 1-3) (severity) and (2) CO persistence on day 21 in the absence of severity, and those for Cat 2 classification are (3) CO mean ≥ 1 and (4) conjunctival redness mean ≥ 2. Moreover, it is shown that all classifiable effects (including persistence and CO = 4) should be present in ≥60 % of the animals to drive a classification. As a consequence, our analyses suggest the need for a critical revision of the UN GHS/EU CLP decision criteria for the Cat 1 classification of chemicals. Finally, a number of key criteria are identified that should be taken into consideration when selecting reference chemicals for the development, evaluation and/or validation of alternative methods and/or strategies for serious eye damage/eye irritation testing. Most important, the DRD is an invaluable tool for any future activity involving the selection of reference chemicals.

State-of-the-art of 3D cultures (organs-on-a-chip) in safety testing and pathophysiology.

Integrated approaches using different in vitro methods in combination with bioinformatics can (i) increase the success rate and speed of drug development; (ii) improve the accuracy of toxicological risk assessment; and (iii) increase our understanding of disease. Three-dimensional (3D) cell culture models are important building blocks of this strategy which has emerged during the last years. The majority of these models are organotypic, i.e., they aim to reproduce major functions of an organ or organ system. This implies in many cases that more than one cell type forms the 3D structure, and often matrix elements play an important role. This review summarizes the state of the art concerning commonalities of the different models. For instance, the theory of mass transport/metabolite exchange in 3D systems and the special analytical requirements for test endpoints in organotypic cultures are discussed in detail. In the next part, 3D model systems for selected organs--liver, lung, skin, brain--are presented and characterized in dedicated chapters. Also, 3D approaches to the modeling of tumors are presented and discussed. All chapters give a historical background, illustrate the large variety of approaches, and highlight up- and downsides as well as specific requirements. Moreover, they refer to the application in disease modeling, drug discovery and safety assessment. Finally, consensus recommendations indicate a roadmap for the successful implementation of 3D models in routine screening. It is expected that the use of such models will accelerate progress by reducing error rates and wrong predictions from compound testing.

Retrospective analysis of the Draize test for serious eye damage/eye irritation: importance of understanding the in vivo endpoints under UN GHS/EU CLP for the development and evaluation of in vitro test methods.

For more than two decades, scientists have been trying to replace the regulatory in vivo Draize eye test by in vitro methods, but so far only partial replacement has been achieved. In order to better understand the reasons for this, historical in vivo rabbit data were analysed in detail and resampled with the purpose of (1) revealing which of the in vivo endpoints are most important in driving United Nations Globally Harmonized System/European Union Regulation on Classification, Labelling and Packaging (UN GHS/EU CLP) classification for serious eye damage/eye irritation and (2) evaluating the method's within-test variability for proposing acceptable and justifiable target values of sensitivity and specificity for alternative methods and their combinations in testing strategies. Among the Cat 1 chemicals evaluated, 36-65 % (depending on the database) were classified based only on persistence of effects, with the remaining being classified mostly based on severe corneal effects. Iritis was found to rarely drive the classification (<4 % of both Cat 1 and Cat 2 chemicals). The two most important endpoints driving Cat 2 classification are conjunctiva redness (75-81 %) and corneal opacity (54-75 %). The resampling analyses demonstrated an overall probability of at least 11 % that chemicals classified as Cat 1 by the Draize eye test could be equally identified as Cat 2 and of about 12 % for Cat 2 chemicals to be equally identified as No Cat. On the other hand, the over-classification error for No Cat and Cat 2 was negligible (<1 %), which strongly suggests a high over-predictive power of the Draize eye test. Moreover, our analyses of the classification drivers suggest a critical revision of the UN GHS/EU CLP decision criteria for the classification of chemicals based on Draize eye test data, in particular Cat 1 based only on persistence of conjunctiva effects or corneal opacity scores of 4. In order to successfully replace the regulatory in vivo Draize eye test, it will be important to recognise these uncertainties and to have in vitro tools to address the most important in vivo endpoints identified in this paper.

The 3T3 neutral red uptake phototoxicity test: practical experience and implications for phototoxicity testing--the report of an ECVAM-EFPIA workshop.

This is the report from the "ECVAM-EFPIA workshop on 3T3 NRU Phototoxicity Test: Practical Experience and Implications for Phototoxicity Testing", jointly organized by ECVAM and EFPIA and held on the 25-27 October 2010 in Somma Lombardo, Italy. The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) was established in 1991 within the European Commission Joint Research, based on a Communication from the European Commission (1991). The main objective of ECVAM is to promote the scientific and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods which are of importance to the biosciences and which reduce, refine and replace the use of laboratory animals. The European Federation of Pharmaceuticals Industries and Association (EFPIA) represent the pharmaceutical industry operating in Europe. Through its direct membership of 31 national associations and 40 leading pharmaceutical companies, EFPIA is the voice on the EU scene of 2200 companies committed to researching, developing and bringing to patients new medicines that improve health and the quality of life around the world. The workshop, co-chaired by Joachim Kreysa (ECVAM) and Phil Wilcox (GSK, EFPIA) involved thirty-five experts from academia, regulatory authorities and industry, invited to contribute with their experiences in the field of phototoxicology. The main objectives of the workshop were: -to present 'in use' experience of the pharmaceutical industry with the 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test (3T3 NRU-PT), -to discuss why it differs from the results in the original validation exercise, -to discuss technical issues and consider ways to improve the usability of the 3T3 NRU-PT for (non-topical) pharmaceuticals, e.g., by modifying the threshold of chemical light absorption to trigger photo-toxicological testing, and by modifying technical aspects of the assay, or adjusting the criteria used to classify a positive response. During the workshop, the assay methodology was reviewed by comparing the OECD Test Guideline (TG 432) with the protocols used in testing laboratories, data from EFPIA and JPMA 'surveys' were presented and possible reasons for the outcomes were discussed. Experts from cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries reported on their experience with the 3T3 NRU-PT and evidence was presented for phototoxic clinical symptoms that could be linked to certain relevant molecules. Brainstorming sessions discussed if the 3T3 NRU-PT needed to be improved and whether alternatives to the 3T3 NRU-PT exist. Finally, the viewpoint from EU and US regulators was presented. In the final session, the conclusions of the meeting were summarized, with action points. It was concluded that the 3T3 NRU-PT identifies phototoxicological hazards with a 100% sensitivity, and thus is accepted as the tier one test that correctly identifies the absence of phototoxic potential. Consequently, positive results in the 3T3 NRU-PT often do not translate into a clinical phototoxicity risk. Possible ways to improve the practical use of this assay include: (i) adaptation of changed UV/vis-absorption criteria as a means to reduce the number of materials tested, (ii) reduction of the highest concentration to be tested, and (iii) consideration of modifying the threshold criteria for the prediction of a positive call in the test.

A proposed eye irritation testing strategy to reduce and replace in vivo studies using Bottom-Up and Top-Down approaches.

In spite of over 20 years of effort, no single in vitro assay has been developed and validated as a full regulatory replacement for the Draize Eye Irritation test. However, companies have been using in vitro methods to screen new formulations and in some cases as their primary assessment of eye irritation potential for many years. The present report shows the outcome of an Expert Meeting convened by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods in February 2005 to identify test strategies for eye irritation. In this workshop test developers/users were requested to nominate methods to be considered as a basis for the identification of such testing strategies. Assays were evaluated and categorized based on their proposed applicability domains (e.g., categories of irritation severity, modes of action, chemical class, physicochemical compatibility). The analyses were based on the data developed from current practice and published studies, the ability to predict depth of injury (within the applicable range of severity), modes of action that could be addressed and compatibility with different physiochemical forms. The difficulty in predicting the middle category of irritancy (e.g. R36, GHS Categories 2A and 2B) was recognized. The testing scheme proposes using a Bottom-Up (begin with using test methods that can accurately identify non-irritants) or Top-Down (begin with using test methods that can accurately identify severe irritants) progression of in vitro tests (based on expected irritancy). Irrespective of the starting point, the approach would identify non-irritants and severe irritants, leaving all others to the (mild/moderate) irritant GHS 2/R36 categories.