The CTFA Evaluation of Alternatives Program: an evaluation of in vitro alternatives to the Draize primary eye irritation test. (Phase II) oil/water emulsions.
The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association (CTFA) Evaluation of Alternatives Program is an evaluation of the relationship between Draize ocular safety test data and comparable data from a selection of in vitro tests. In Phase II, 18 representative oil/water-based personal-care formulations were subjected to the Draize primary eye safety test and 30 in vitro assay protocols (14 different types of in vitro endpoints were evaluated; the remainder were protocol variations). Correlation of in vitro with in vivo data was evaluated using analysis of sensitivity/specificity and statistical analysis of the relationship between maximum average Draize score (MAS) and in vitro endpoint. Regression modelling is the primary approach adopted in the CTFA Program for evaluating in vitro assay performance. The objective of regression analysis is to predict MAS for a given test material (and to place upper and lower prediction interval bounds on the range in which the MAS is anticipated to fall with high probability) conditional on observing an in vitro assay 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: the narrower the prediction interval, the more predictive of the Draize score is the in vitro test result. 16 assays were shown to have the greatest agreement with the Draize procedure and were therefore selected for regression analysis. Based on the magnitude of the 95% prediction bounds of each of the 16 selected assays over the range of test data, it may be inferred that prediction of MAS values from experimentally determined in vitro scores is more accurate for oil/water-based formulations with lower rather than higher irritancy potential. The assays selected for modelling in Phase II generally exhibited weaker relationships with MAS than those selected in Phase I (evaluated using hydroalcoholic formulations), even though several assays were common to both Phases.
Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, Washington, DC 20036.
S D
SD
Gettings
L C
LC
Dipasquale
D M
DM
Bagley
P L
PL
Casterton
M
M
Chudkowski
R D
RD
Curren
J L
JL
Demetrulias
P I
PI
Feder
C L
CL
Galli
R
R
Gay
D016475:3T3 Cells; D000826:Animal Testing Alternatives; D000818:Animals; D002478:Cells, Cultured; D002642:Chick Embryo; D003358:Cosmetics / Q000592:standards* / Q000633:toxicity; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D004341:Drug Evaluation; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D005123:Eye / Q000187:drug effects*; D005260:Female; D006203:Hair Preparations / Q000592:standards* / Q000633:toxicity; D005779:Immunodiffusion; D066298:In Vitro Techniques; D008297:Male; D051379:Mice; D009499:Neutral Red / Q000378:metabolism; D009799:Ocular Physiological Phenomena; D010776:Photobacterium / Q000187:drug effects; D011487:Protein Conformation / Q000187:drug effects; D011506:Proteins / Q000737:chemistry / Q000187:drug effects; D011817:Rabbits; D011897:Random Allocation; D012044:Regression Analysis; D012867:Skin / Q000166:cytology / Q000187:drug effects*; D013047:Specific Pathogen-Free Organisms
D003358:Cosmetics; D006203:Hair Preparations; D011506:Proteins; D009499:Neutral Red