Dataset Information

Validation of the OptiSafe™ eye irritation test.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

OptiSafe is an in chemico test method that identifies potential eye irritants based on macromolecular damage following test chemical exposure. The OptiSafe protocol includes a prescreen assessment that identifies test chemicals that are outside the applicability domain of the test method and thus determines the optimal procedure. We assessed the usefulness and limitations of the OptiSafe test method for identifying chemicals not requiring classification for ocular irritation (i.e. bottom-up testing strategy).

Materials and methods

Seventeen chemicals were selected by the lead laboratory and tested as an independent study. Ninety-five unique coded chemicals were selected by a validation management team to assess the intra- and interlaboratory reproducibility and accuracy of OptiSafe in a multilaboratory, three-phased validation study. Three laboratories (lead laboratory and two naïve laboratories) evaluated 35 chemicals, with the remaining 60 chemicals evaluated by the lead laboratory only. Test method performance was assessed by comparing classifications based on OptiSafe results to classifications based on available retrospective in vivo data, using both the EPA and GHS eye irritation hazard classification systems. No prospective in vivo testing was conducted.

Results

Phase I testing of five chemicals showed that the method could be transferred to naïve laboratories; within-lab reproducibility ranged from 93% to 100% for both classification systems. Thirty coded chemicals were evaluated in Phase II of the validation study to demonstrate both intra- and interlaboratory reproducibility. Intralaboratory reproducibility for both EPA and GHS classification systems for Phase II of the validation study ranged from 93% to 99%, while interlaboratory reproducibility was 91% for both systems. Test method accuracy for the EPA and GHS classification systems based on results from individual laboratories ranged from 82% to 88% and from 78% to 88%, respectively, among the three laboratories; false negative rates ranged from 0% to 7% (EPA) and 0% to 15% (GHS). When results across all three laboratories were combined based on the majority classification, test method accuracy and false negative rates were 89% and 0%, respectively, for both classification systems, while false positive rates were 25% and 23% for the EPA and GHS classification systems, respectively. Validation study Phase III evaluation of an additional 60 chemicals by the lead laboratory provided a comprehensive assessment of test method accuracy and defined the applicability domain of the method. Based on chemicals tested in Phases II and III by the lead laboratory, test method accuracy was 83% and 79% for the EPA and GHS classification systems, respectively; false negative rates were 4% (EPA) and 0% (GHS); and false positive rates were 40% (EPA) and 42% (GHS). Potential causes of false positives in certain chemical (e.g. ethers and alcohols) or hazard classes are being further investigated.

Conclusion

The OptiSafe test method is useful for identifying nonsurfactant substances not requiring classification for ocular irritancy. OptiSafe represents a new tool for the in vitro assessment of ocular toxicity in a tiered-testing strategy where chemicals can be initially tested and identified as not requiring hazard classification.

SUBMITTER: Choksi N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7486246 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Assessment of eye irritation hazard has long been a core requirement in any chemical legislation. Nevertheless, publications focussing on the eye damaging potential of nanomaterials are scarce. Traditionally, eye irritation testing was performed using rabbits. The OECD Test Guideline 437 Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability (BCOP) test method allows determining severely irritating substances without animals, and the recently adopted OECD Test Guideline 492 Reconstructed human cornea-like epithelium test method allows identifying chemicals that neither induce eye irritation nor serious eye damage. For substances applicable to these tests, huge progress has been made in replacing animal testing.The in vitro eye irritation potential of 20 nanosized and 3 non-nanosized materials was investigated in a 2-tier EpiOcular™ Eye Irritation Test (EpiOcular™-EIT) and BCOP testing strategy including histopathology of the bovine corneas. Furthermore, applicability of the testing strategy for nanomaterials was assessed. Test materials encompassed OECD representative nanomaterials (metals (Ag), metal oxides (ZnO, TiO2, CeO2), amorphous SiO2 and MWCNTs), three organic pigments, quartz, and talc.None of the dry-powder nanomaterials elicited eye irritation in either the EpiOcular™-EIT or the BCOP assay. Likewise, an amorphous SiO2 nanomaterial that was supplied as suspension was tested negative in both assays. By contrast, in the EpiOcular™-EIT, the silver nanomaterial that was supplied as dispersion was tested positive, whereas its surfactant-containing dispersant was borderline to negative. In the BCOP assay, the silver nanomaterial elicited highly variable results and dark-brown patches remained on the corneal surface, whereas the results for its dispersant alone were borderline to positive, which was assessed as inconclusive due to high inter-assay variability.The present study points to the low eye irritation potential of a spectrum of nanomaterials, which is consistent with available in vivo data for the same test materials or for nanosized or bulk materials of the same composition.

Project description:IntroductionCorneal epithelial toxicity and delayed healing process have already been attributed to preservatives or some excipients. We study the effects of galenic components in antiglaucoma drugs such as benzalkonium chloride (BAC) or surfactants like macrogolglycerol hydroxystearate 40 (MGHS 40) on corneal toxicity in an ex vivo system mimicking chronic use.MethodsLatanoprost-containing eyedrops are available with and without preservatives on the market. Unpreserved, they are available in different formulations with various excipients like MGHS at different concentrations (0%, 2.5%, and 5%). We studied these in the ex vivo bioreactor (EVEIT) on initially injured rabbit corneas. The drugs were applied six times daily for observation periods of 3 or 5 days. BAC, 5% MGHS 40 solution, and 0.18% hyaluronic acid served as controls. Macroscopic photographic, biochemical methods and corneal integrity quantification were used for evaluation. Toxicity was assessed by measuring wound healing and corneal fluorescein sodium permeability and was confirmed by histology studies.ResultsThe BAC-preserved formulation resulted in high corneal toxicity, which was expected. Interestingly, the preservative-free (PF) formulation containing 5% MGHS 40, carbomer, macrogol 4000, and sorbitol showed the highest corneal toxicity, followed by the control formulation with equal MGHS 40 concentration, which presented significantly less damage. No toxicity was shown by eyedrops containing 2.5% MGHS 40 or salts only.ConclusionOur study demonstrates a significant corneal toxicity of certain formulations of PF antiglaucoma ophthalmic drugs containing 5% MGHS 40 with other excipients compared to other formulations with lower MGHS 40 concentrations (2.5% or 0%), or even compared to the solution containing 5% MGHS alone. This suggests a concentration-dependent toxicity of MGHS 40, especially in interaction with other excipients, which may increase its epithelial toxicity, and that has to be considered in clinical glaucoma therapy. Further single-component formulation trials are needed to support this interpretation.

Project description: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.