Abstract

A replacement alternative to the rabbit eye irritation test has been sought for many years. First published in 1944 by FDA toxicologist J. H. Draize, the test, now known as the Draize Eye Test, has been used extensively to assess eye safety. It has also been a focal point for concern regarding its animal use. In 1992, Molecular Devices developed the Cytosensor Microphysiometer (CM) technology, an automated potentiometric online measurement of pH changes in cells, and evaluated it also for chemically induced irritation. The method was included in some of the six major validation studies for eye irritation from 1991-1997. The results for CM were inconclusive as were those from other tests evaluated as stand-alone methods to fully replace the animal test. In 2002, the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) started applying concepts from evidence-based medicine, and opened validation to retrospective meta-analysis. This activity was done in collaboration with US counterpart ICCVAM/NICEATM, and the European Cosmetics Association, Colipa. After a new, comprehensive evaluation of the prior available data, the ECVAM scientific advisory committee (ESAC) has recently accepted the CM as capable of identifying non-irritants for testing limited to water-soluble surfactants and water-soluble surfactant-containing mixtures. This 25-year development is remarkable and instructive in many respects. The authors see this as opening the door, at last, for an end to the use of animals as a standard requirement for eye irritation. Here, several of the people critically involved in this processes have summarized the important aspects of this history.

Highlights

  • Introduction to the history of theCytosensor MicrophysiometerFor many years, the prospect of finding a replacement method for the Draize eye test was considered the Holy Grail of alternatives, much sought after but ever elusive

  • In 2003 the EU Cosmetics Directive was amended for the 7th time (European Union, 2003; DG ENTR, 2008; Hartung, 2008; Zuang et al, 2008). This amendment banned the use of the Draize eye test in Europe for finished cosmetic products from September 2004 and for cosmetic ingredients from March 2009

  • The effort was strongly coordinated with ECVAM’s US counterpart ICCVAM/NICEATM (The National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) and the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), see http://iccvam.niehs. nih.gov/methods/ocutox/ivocutox.htm). The application of this retrospective validation approach to the Cytosensor Microphysiometer (CM) will be described following a brief review of the steps that led to the development of the CM-based eye irritation test

Read more

Summary

Summary

A replacement alternative to the rabbit eye irritation test has been sought for many years. In 2002, the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) started applying concepts from evidence-based medicine, and opened validation to retrospective meta-analysis. This activity was done in collaboration with US counterpart ICCVAM/NICEATM, and the European Cosmetics Association, Colipa. Comprehensive evaluation of the prior available data, the ECVAM scientific advisory committee (ESAC) has recently accepted the CM as capable of identifying non-irritants for testing limited to water-soluble surfactants and water-soluble surfactant-containing mixtures. This 25-year development is remarkable and instructive in many respects.

Brief introduction to eye irritation
Introduction to the history of the Cytosensor
Validation of the CM for eye irritation testing
Future needs and opportunities
Conclusions

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.