A Comparison of Low Volume, Draize and in vitro eye irritation test data. II. Oil/water emulsions

Abstract

The second phase in a series of investigations of the relationship between low volume eye test (LVET) data, Draize eye irritation test data, and comparable data from in vitro eye irritation test protocols is presented. These investigations utilize Draize eye test and in vitro endpoint data generated previously as part of the CTFA Evaluation of Alternatives Program. LVET data were generated de novo using the same 18 representative oil/water based personal-care formulations. In general, these formulations were minimally to mildly irritating; only three were classified as moderate eye irritants. The linear correlation between maximum average score as determined by the Draize test (MAS) and the LVET (LVET-MAS) was 0.85; LVET-MAS values were typically about half the corresponding MAS values. Comparison of in vitro assay performance with that of the LVET was determined by statistical analysis of the relationship between LVET-MAS and each in vitro endpoint. Regression modelling was the primary means of enabling such a comparison, the objective being to predict LVET-MAS for a given test material (and to place upper and lower 95% prediction bounds on the range in which the LVET-MAS is anticipated to fall with high probability) based on observation of an in vitro score for that material. The degree of confidence in prediction is quantified in terms of the relative widths of prediction intervals constructed about the fitted regression curves. Sixteen endpoints were shown to have the greatest agreement with the LVET (all but two were selected for modelling when compared with the Draize procedure). While the lower maximum average scores values (compared with the Draize test) in the LVET led to lower variability in LVET-MAS compared to MAS, the upper and lower bounds on predicted LVET-MAS values conditional on observed in vitro scores were still wide. Because there was overlap in the range of scores determined by the prediction bounds for many formulations, each of the selected endpoints was frequently unable to distinguish between test formulations in terms of statistically different predicted LVET-MAS values. In summary, none of the in vitro endpoints evaluated were able to reliably predict values of LVET-MAS among the set of oil/water emulsions considered here.