ICCVAM evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay. The ICCVAM review process.

New test methods are being developed to improve the prediction of human and environmental risks and to benefit animal welfare by reducing, refining, and replacing animal use. Regulatory adoption of new test methods is often a complex and protracted process, requiring test method validation, regulatory acceptance, and implementation. Assessments of new test methods have not always been uniform within or among regulatory agencies. Thus, there have been increased pressures for a harmonized approach to test method evaluation and acceptance. In 1997, in response to these pressures and to U.S. Public Law 103-43, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) established the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) to coordinate interagency consideration of new and revised test methods. This article describes the validation and acceptance criteria and process used for the first test method evaluated by ICCVAM, the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA). Based on ICCVAM's conclusions and recommendations, the LLNA has been accepted by U.S. regulatory agencies as a stand-alone assay for allergic contact dermatitis. Two related articles in this series of three present the results of the independent peer review evaluation of the LLNA and summarize the performance characteristics of the database substantiating the validity of the LLNA.     

ICCVAM Evaluation of the Murine Local Lymph Node Assay: II. Conclusions and Recommendations of an Independent Scientific Peer Review Panel

The validation status of the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA), a method for assessing the allergic contact dermatitis potential of chemicals, was evaluated by an independent peer review panel (Panel) convened by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM). The LLNA measures lymphocyte proliferation using incorporation of radioactive thymidine or iododeoxyuridine into cells of the draining lymph nodes of mice topically exposed to a test article. The Panel concluded that the assay performed as well as currently accepted guinea pig methods [guinea pig maximization test (GPMT)/Buehler assay (BA)] for the hazard identification of strong to moderate chemical sensitizing agents, but that it might not correctly identify all weak sensitizers or metals (potential false negative response) or all strong irritants (potential false positive response). The Panel concluded also that the LLNA involves less pain and distress than conventional guinea pig methods. The Panel unanimously recommended the LLNA as a stand-alone alternative for contact sensitization hazard assessment, provided that certain protocol modifications were made. These included collection of individual, rather than pooled, animal response data; the inclusion of a concurrent positive control; and consideration of dose–response information and statistical analyses. A standardized LLNA protocol is provided.     

Local lymph node assay - validation, conduct and use in practice.

The validation of alternative methods is a relatively new activity in toxicology. The local lymph node assay (LLNA), a novel method for the identification of chemicals that have the potential to cause skin sensitization, was the first test to pass through the formal regulatory validation process established in the USA under the auspices of ICCVAM, the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods. ICCVAM approved the LLNA as an alternative to guinea pig tests for the identification of skin sensitisation hazards. In this report, we explore the nine recommendations made by ICCVAM and discuss their interpretation in relation to the new OECD Guideline 429, which describes the LLNA. In particular, the value and limitations of the use of statistical evaluation of data and of the inclusion of routine positive controls is examined. It is concluded that the OECD Guideline as currently written embodies the necessary flexibility to permit conduct of the LLNA in a manner necessary to meet the varying needs of regulatory agencies and toxicologists around the world.     

ICCVAM Evaluation of the Murine Local Lymph Node Assay: III. Data Analyses Completed by the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods

To evaluate the reliability of the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA), a test for allergic contact dermatitis activity, the inter- and intralaboratory consistency statistics (h and k, respectively) were calculated for validation studies testing multiple chemicals. The analysis indicated the absence of excessive variability in the dose calculated to induce a threefold or greater increase in the stimulation index (SI). To assess the appropriateness of using an SI of 3 as the decision criteria for identifying a sensitizing compound, LLNA results based on SI values of 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 were compared with guinea pig or human results. The results supported the use of an SI of 3 as the decision criteria. Assay performance was determined by comparing LLNA results to results obtained for guinea pigs or humans. The accuracy of the LLNA was 89% when compared with results from the guinea pig maximization test (GPMT)/Buehler assay (BA). The performance of the LLNA and the GPMT/BA was similar when each was compared to human maximization test results plus substances included as human patch test allergens. The LLNA offered advantages over the GPMT in respect to both the time required to conduct the test and the assay cost.     

ICCVAM evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay. Conclusions and recommendations of an independent scientific peer review panel.

The validation status of the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA), a method for assessing the allergic contact dermatitis potential of chemicals, was evaluated by an independent peer review panel (Panel) convened by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM). The LLNA measures lymphocyte proliferation using incorporation of radioactive thymidine or iododeoxyuridine into cells of the draining lymph nodes of mice topically exposed to a test article. The Panel concluded that the assay performed as well as currently accepted guinea pig methods [guinea pig maximization test (GPMT)/Buehler assay (BA)] for the hazard identification of strong to moderate chemical sensitizing agents, but that it might not correctly identify all weak sensitizers or metals (potential false negative response) or all strong irritants (potential false positive response). The Panel concluded also that the LLNA involves less pain and distress than conventional guinea pig methods. The Panel unanimously recommended the LLNA as a stand-alone alternative for contact sensitization hazard assessment, provided that certain protocol modifications were made. These included collection of individual, rather than pooled, animal response data; the inclusion of a concurrent positive control; and consideration of dose-response information and statistical analyses. A standardized LLNA protocol is provided.     

The Costly Illusion of Regulating Unknowable Risks

Uncommon but alarming man-made toxic episodes have occasioned regulation to ensure the safety of novel and commonly used substances and foremost to control agents that may cause cancer. However, the safety or harm of novel entities has no durable record of human use, and hence is virtually unknown. Compelled to act, regulators have chosen animal tests to forecast human cancer risks. To this end, animal data are filtered through a series of preconceived assumptions that are presumed to overcome a host of human/animal differences of biology, exposure, and statistics-differences that in reality are insurmountable. Asked for authoritative opinion, the National Academy of Sciences repeatedly found this regulatory approach without factual or scientific justification and, by implication, arbitrary and irrational. On these grounds, such a regulatory process appears vulnerable to scientific, legal, and constitutional challenges. Although it cannot provide credible assurance that an agent may be safe or harmful, the process has been a prime reason for an annual regulatory burden that exceeds the combined after-tax profits of all U.S. industrial activity. It is argued here that better use of national resources would come from a rational approach based on trade-off considerations, where a substance would be regulated depending on its socio-economic utility and on scientific evidence of proved relevance to human safety.     

Performance standards and alternative assays: Practical insights from skin sensitization

To encourage the development and validation of alternative toxicity test methods, the effort required for validation of test methods proposed for regulatory purposes should be minimized. Performance standards (PS) facilitate efficient validation by requiring limited testing. Based on the validated method, PS define accuracy and reliability values that must be met by the new similar test method. The OECD adopted internationally harmonized PS for evaluating new endpoint versions of the local lymph node assay (LLNA). However, in the process of evaluating a lymph node cell count alternative (LNCC), simultaneous conduct of the regulatory LLNA showed that this standard test may not always perform in perfect accord with its own PS. The LNCC results were similar to the concurrent LLNA. Discrepancies between PS, LLNA and LNCC were largely associated with “borderline” substances and the variability of both endpoints. Two key lessons were learned: firstly, the understandable focus on substances close to the hazard classification borderline are more likely to emphasise issues of biological variability, which should be taken into account during the evaluation of results; secondly, variability in the results for the standard assay should be considered when selecting reference chemicals for PS.     

Validation: A highly charged concept

In order that a proposal for an alternative to an animal test be developed as an internationally accepted guideline, there needs to be consensus on the validity of the method proposed. Over the years, considerable attempts have been made to ‘validate’ promising alternatives. Probably without exception, these validation programmes demanded considerable budgets whereas the high expectations as to the output, which would justify the costs involved, were hardly ever met. What went wrong? Obviously, as for each new animal test, each new alternative to an animal test should be subjected to a critical appraisal procedure involving its scientific justification, its sensitivity and its reproducibility, before it could be internationally acceptable. Although there may be differences of opinion on the extent of this exercise, there is considerable agreement that validation in one way or another is essential. None the less, validation programmes so far have not resulted in the broad acceptance of any alternative test method. There may be two reasons for this failure. First, the results of the validation studies may have been unsatisfactory, which could mean that either the method subjected to validation failed to show the desired relevance and reliability, or the validation study as such yielded inconclusive results. Secondly, despite clear-cut (supporting) results from the validation exercise, toxicologists/regulators appear reluctant actually to use the data provided for hazard and risk assessment procedures because of a lack of confidence with the (types of) endpoints of the new test. The latter in particular can be considered a major hurdle in the process of acceptance of alternative tests. Therefore, an independent and objective review of any new test, with a view to its usefulness as a contribution to the set of data essential for hazard characterization and risk assessment, should be considered the first step of any comprehensive validation project. Further, the establishment of international centres such as the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) and the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) where scientists, including regulators, can meet and discuss strategies not only for validation but also for the use of alternative methods in risk assessment, is considered essential for a good understanding of the relevance of the new in vitro, toxicity tests.     

Prediction of skin sensitization potency using machine learning approaches

The replacement of animal use in testing for regulatory classification of skin sensitizers is a priority for US federal agencies that use data from such testing. Machine learning models that classify substances as sensitizers or non‐sensitizers without using animal data have been developed and evaluated. Because some regulatory agencies require that sensitizers be further classified into potency categories, we developed statistical models to predict skin sensitization potency for murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) and human outcomes. Input variables for our models included six physicochemical properties and data from three non‐animal test methods: direct peptide reactivity assay; human cell line activation test; and KeratinoSens™ assay. Models were built to predict three potency categories using four machine learning approaches and were validated using external test sets and leave‐one‐out cross‐validation. A one‐tiered strategy modeled all three categories of response together while a two‐tiered strategy modeled sensitizer/non‐sensitizer responses and then classified the sensitizers as strong or weak sensitizers. The two‐tiered model using the support vector machine with all assay and physicochemical data inputs provided the best performance, yielding accuracy of 88% for prediction of LLNA outcomes (120 substances) and 81% for prediction of human test outcomes (87 substances). The best one‐tiered model predicted LLNA outcomes with 78% accuracy and human outcomes with 75% accuracy. By comparison, the LLNA predicts human potency categories with 69% accuracy (60 of 87 substances correctly categorized). These results suggest that computational models using non‐animal methods may provide valuable information for assessing skin sensitization potency. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Integrated decision strategies for skin sensitization hazard

One of the top priorities of the Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) is the identification and evaluation of non‐animal alternatives for skin sensitization testing. Although skin sensitization is a complex process, the key biological events of the process have been well characterized in an adverse outcome pathway (AOP) proposed by the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD). Accordingly, ICCVAM is working to develop integrated decision strategies based on the AOP using in vitro, in chemico and in silico information. Data were compiled for 120 substances tested in the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA), direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA), human cell line activation test (h‐CLAT) and KeratinoSens assay. Data for six physicochemical properties, which may affect skin penetration, were also collected, and skin sensitization read‐across predictions were performed using OECD QSAR Toolbox. All data were combined into a variety of potential integrated decision strategies to predict LLNA outcomes using a training set of 94 substances and an external test set of 26 substances. Fifty‐four models were built using multiple combinations of machine learning approaches and predictor variables. The seven models with the highest accuracy (89–96% for the test set and 96–99% for the training set) for predicting LLNA outcomes used a support vector machine (SVM) approach with different combinations of predictor variables. The performance statistics of the SVM models were higher than any of the non‐animal tests alone and higher than simple test battery approaches using these methods. These data suggest that computational approaches are promising tools to effectively integrate data sources to identify potential skin sensitizers without animal testing. Published 2016. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.     

Report of an ISRTP workshop: progress and barriers to incorporating alternative toxicological methods in the U.S

The workshop objectives were to explore progress in implementing new, revised and alternative toxicological test methods across regulatory evaluation frameworks and decision-making programs in the United States, to identify barriers and to develop recommendations to further promote adoption of approaches that reduce, refine, or replace the use of animal methods. The workshop included sessions on: (1) current research, development, and validation of alternative methods within the U.S. federal government; (2) emerging alternative methodologies with potential applications to a broad spectrum of toxicity evaluation strategies; (3) tiered evaluation ("intelligent testing") strategies; and (4) identification of, and recommendations to address, critical barriers that affect adoption and use of new, revised alternative toxicological test methods by U.S. regulatory agencies. Through facilitated discussion, a list of barriers and recommendations were developed and grouped into categories of economic/financial, scientific/technical, and regulatory/policy. Overall, participants from all sectors collectively supported catalyzing actions to promote more meaningful and rapid progress for research to develop alternative methods focused for use in regulatory programs, accelerated lab investigations to validate such alternative methods and adoption of regulatory frameworks which embrace and incorporate these validated alternatives.     

Benefit and Risk of Organic Ultraviolet Filters

Modern sunscreen products provide broad-spectrum UV protection and may contain one or several UV filters. A modern UV filter should be heat and photostable, water resistant, nontoxic, and easy to formulate. Identification of a substance that meets these criteria is as difficult as discovering a new drug; hundreds of new molecules are synthesized and screened before a lead candidate is identified. The most important aspect in the development of a new UV filter is its safety. In our laboratories, the safety of new ultraviolet filters is assessed by an initial in vitro screen including photostability, cytotoxicity, photocytotoxicity, genotoxicity, and photogenotoxicity tests. These tests are performed in mammalian, yeast, and bacterial cell systems. Skin penetration potential is measured in vitro using human skin or, when required by regulations, in vivo. Because modern sunscreens are selected on the basis of their retention on and in the stratum corneum and are formulated as poorly penetrating emulsions, they generally have very low to negligible penetration rates. The safety and efficacy of UV filters are regulated and approved by national and international health authorities. Safety standards in the European Union, United States, or Japan stipulate that new filters pass a stringent toxicological safety evaluation prior to approval. The safety dossier of a new UV filter resembles that of a new drug and includes acute toxicity, irritation, sensitization, phototoxicity, photosensitization, subchronic and chronic toxicity, reproductive toxicity, genotoxicity, photogenotoxicity, carcinogenicity, and, in the United States, photocarcinogenicity testing. The margin of safety of new UV filters for application to humans is estimated by comparing the potential human systemic exposure with the no-effect level from in vivo toxicity studies. Only substances with a safe toxicological profile and a margin of safety of at least 100-fold are approved for human use. Finally, prior to marketing, new UV filters undergo stringent human testing to confirm their efficacy as well as the absence of irritation, sensitization, photoirritation, and photosensitization potential in man. UV filters not only protect against acute skin injury, such as sunburn, but also against long-term and chronic skin damage, including cellular DNA damage, photoinduced immune suppression, and, by extension, skin cancer. The protection provided by modern sunscreens against UV-induced skin cancer was shown in animal photocarcinogenicity studies and confirmed by numerous in vitro, animal, and human investigations: UV filters protect the p53 tumor suppressor gene from damage and prevent UV-induced immune suppression. Recent studies suggest that sunscreens protect against precursor lesions of skin cancer, such as actinic keratoses. Additional benefits of ultraviolet filters include prevention of photodermatoses, such as polymorphic light eruption, and, possibly, photoaging. Modern sunscreens are safe for children and adults. Percutaneous penetration and irritation rates of topically applied substances in children and adults are similar. The principal protective measure is to keep children out of the sun and/or to cover them with protective clothes; however, sunscreens are a safe and effective and often the only feasible defense of children against UV radiation. In conclusion, sunscreens are safe protective devices that undergo stringent safety and efficacy evaluation.     

What's wrong with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM(2.5))?

Associations between airborne concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM(2.5)) and mortality rates have been investigated primarily by ecologic or semiecologic epidemiology studies. Many investigators and regulatory agencies have inferred that the weak, positive association often observed is causal, that it applies to all forms of airborne PM(2.5), and that current ambient levels of PM(2.5) require reduction. Before implementing stringent regulations of ambient PM(2.5), analysts should pause to consider whether the accumulated evidence is sufficient, and sufficiently detailed, to support the PM(2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard. We take two tacks. First, we analyze the toxicologic evidence, finding it inconsistent with the notion that current ambient concentrations of all forms of fine particulate matter should affect pulmonary, cardiac, or all-cause mortality rates. More generally, we note that the thousands of forms of PM(2.5) are remarkably diverse, yet the PM(2.5) NAAQS presumes them to be identical toxicologically, and presumes that reducing ambient concentrations of any form of PM(2.5) will improve public health. Second, we examine the epidemiologic evidence in light of two related examples of semiecologic associations, examples that both inform the PM-mortality association and have been called into question by individual-level data. Taken together, the toxicologic evidence and lessons learned from analogous epidemiologic associations should encourage further investigation of the association between particulate matter and mortality rates before additional regulation is implemented, and certainly before the association is characterized as causal and applicable to all PM(2.5).     

Evaluation of risk assessment guideline levels for the chemical warfare agents mustard,GB, and VX

The U.S. Army has estimated acute lethality guideline levels for inhalation of the chemical warfare agents mustard, GB, and VX. These levels are expressed as dosages measured in milligram-minutes per cubic meter (mg-min/m(3)). The National Advisory Council has also proposed acute emergency guideline levels (AEGLs) for the agents. The AEGLs are threshold exposure limits for the general public for mild effects, serious adverse effects, and lethality. They are expressed as air concentrations (in units of mg/m(3)) and are applicable to emergency exposure periods ranging from 10 min to 8 h. The report discusses strengths and deficiencies in the levels, important parameters (i.e., exposure time, breathing rate) that need to be explicitly addressed in deriving the guideline levels, and possible impacts that could result from using AEGLs instead of guideline dosages in future assessments.     

ICCVAM evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay. Data analyses completed by the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods.

To evaluate the reliability of the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA), a test for allergic contact dermatitis activity, the inter- and intralaboratory consistency statistics (h and k, respectively) were calculated for validation studies testing multiple chemicals. The analysis indicated the absence of excessive variability in the dose calculated to induce a threefold or greater increase in the stimulation index (SI). To assess the appropriateness of using an SI of 3 as the decision criteria for identifying a sensitizing compound, LLNA results based on SI values of 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 were compared with guinea pig or human results. The results supported the use of an SI of 3 as the decision criteria. Assay performance was determined by comparing LLNA results to results obtained for guinea pigs or humans. The accuracy of the LLNA was 89% when compared with results from the guinea pig maximization test (GPMT)/Buehler assay (BA). The performance of the LLNA and the GPMT/BA was similar when each was compared to human maximization test results plus substances included as human patch test allergens. The LLNA offered advantages over the GPMT in respect to both the time required to conduct the test and the assay cost.     

LuSens: A keratinocyte based ARE reporter gene assay for use in integrated testing strategies for skin sensitization hazard identification

Allergic contact dermatitis can develop following repeated exposure to allergenic substances. To date, hazard identification is still based on animal studies as non-animal alternatives have not yet gained global regulatory acceptance. Several non-animal methods addressing key-steps of the adverse outcome pathway (OECD, 2012) will most likely be needed to fully address this effect. Among the initial cellular events is the activation of keratinocytes and currently only one method, the KeratinoSens™, has been formally validated to address this event. In this study, a further method, the LuSens assay, that uses a human keratinocyte cell line harbouring a reporter gene construct composed of the antioxidant response element (ARE) of the rat NADPH:quinone oxidoreductase 1 gene and the luciferase gene. The assay was validated in house using a selection of 74 substances which included the LLNA performance standards. The predictivity of the LuSens assay for skin sensitization hazard identification was comparable to other non-animal methods, in particular to the KeratinoSens™. When used as part of a testing battery based on the OECD adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitization, a combination of the LuSens assay, the DPRA and a dendritic cell line activation test attained predictivities similar to that of the LLNA.     

Comparative testing for the identification of skin-sensitizing potentials of nonionic sugar lipid surfactants

The Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) is the preferred test for the identification of skin-sensitizing potentials of chemicals in Europe and is also the first choice method within REACH. In the formal validation, only a very few surfactant chemicals were evaluated and SDS was identified as a false positive. In this study, 10 nonionic sugar lipid surfactants were tested in an LLNA, guinea pig maximization test (GPMT) and human repeated insult patch test. Of the 10 surfactants tested in the LLNA, 5 showed stimulation indices above 3.0. Three of five positive reactions were concomitant with signs of skin irritation indicated by an increase in ear thickness. In the GPMT, all test products were classified as nonsensitizers. In human volunteers, no skin reactions suggestive of sensitization were reported. In conclusion, these results are indicative of the LLNA overestimating sensitization potentials for this category of chemicals. This may in part be due to irritant effects generated by these surfactants. Until suitable nonanimal alternative tests obtain regulatory acceptance, use of other tests, e.g. GPMTs, may in cases be justified. Results such as these need be taken into account when developing nonanimal alternative methods to ensure reliable data sets for method validation purposes.     

LuSens: A keratinocyte based ARE reporter gene assay for use in integrated testing strategies for skin sensitization hazard identification

Allergic contact dermatitis can develop following repeated exposure to allergenic substances. To date, hazard identification is still based on animal studies as non-animal alternatives have not yet gained global regulatory acceptance. Several non-animal methods addressing key-steps of the adverse outcome pathway (OECD, 2012) will most likely be needed to fully address this effect. Among the initial cellular events is the activation of keratinocytes and currently only one method, the KeratinoSens™, has been formally validated to address this event. In this study, a further method, the LuSens assay, that uses a human keratinocyte cell line harbouring a reporter gene construct composed of the antioxidant response element (ARE) of the rat NADPH:quinone oxidoreductase 1 gene and the luciferase gene. The assay was validated in house using a selection of 74 substances which included the LLNA performance standards. The predictivity of the LuSens assay for skin sensitization hazard identification was comparable to other non-animal methods, in particular to the KeratinoSens™. When used as part of a testing battery based on the OECD adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitization, a combination of the LuSens assay, the DPRA and a dendritic cell line activation test attained predictivities similar to that of the LLNA.     

Dermal absorption in rhesus monkeys of polychlorinated biphenyls from soil contaminated with Aroclor 1260

Human health risk assessments involving contaminated soil include dermal absorption as a potential pathway contributing to the total exposure burden. For PCB-contaminated soil, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency uses a dermal absorption factor of 14%, based on a 1993 study of dermal absorption in rhesus monkeys. The current study examined several parameters that can influence the dermal absorption of lipophilic hydrocarbons, including soil organic content, particle size, skin residence time, and contaminant "aging" in the soil. Four groups of four female rhesus monkeys each were exposed to radiolabeled Aroclor 1260 either intravenously (100% absorption) or dermally with PCB-spiked soil. Groups exposed for 12 or 24 h to PCBs aged in soil exhibited percutaneous absorption values of 3.43 +/- 0.35 and 4.26 +/- 0.52%, respectively, while a group exposed for 24 h to soil freshly spiked with PCBs exhibited a dermal absorption value of 4.07 +/- 0.46%. Evidence strongly suggests that the factor most responsible for modulating the percutaneous absorption of highly lipophilic compounds from soil is its organic content. The base soil used in the current study with Aroclor 1260 had an organic content of 5-6% (< or =2 mm particle fraction), a value typical for U.S. soil. The organic content of the soil applied to the skin was 8.7% (<150 microm particle fraction), a value that contrasts sharply with the soil containing 0.9% organics used in the 1993 study with Aroclors 1242 and 1254 that produced a dermal absorption value of 14% for PCBs.