The CTFA Evaluation of Alternatives Program: an evaluation of in vitro alternatives to the Draize primary eye irritation test. (Phase III) surfactant-based formulations

• Published in: Food and chemical toxicology 1996-01, Vol.34 (1), p.79
• Main Authors: Gettings, S D, Lordo, R A, Hintze, K L, Bagley, D M, Casterton, P L, Chudkowski, M, Curren, R D, Demetrulias, J L, Dipasquale, L C, Earl, L K, Feder, P I, Galli, C L, Glaza, S M, Gordon, V C, Janus, J, Kurtz, P J, Marenus, K D, Moral, J, Pape, W J, Renskers, K J, Rheins, L A, Roddy, M T, Rozen, M G, Tedeschi, J P, Zyracki, J
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animal Testing Alternatives; Animals; Cell Line; Cells, Cultured; Chick Embryo; Cosmetics - toxicity; Evaluation Studies as Topic; Eye - drug effects; Female; Hair Preparations - toxicity; Hemolysis; Humans; Male; Predictive Value of Tests; Rabbits; Random Allocation; Regression Analysis; Reproducibility of Results; Skin - cytology; Skin - drug effects; Soaps - toxicity; Surface-Active Agents - toxicity
• ISSN: 0278-6915

The CTFA Evaluation of Alternatives Program is an evaluation of the relationship between data from the Draize primary eye irritation test and comparable data from a selection of promising in vitro eye irritation tests. In Phase III, data from the Draize test and 41 in vitro endpoints on 25 representative surfactant-based personal care formulations were compared. As in Phase I and Phase II, regression modelling of the relationship between maximum average Draize score (MAS) and in vitro endpoint was the primary approach adopted for evaluating in vitro assay performance. The degree of confidence in prediction of MAS for a given in vitro endpoint is quantified in terms of the relative widths of prediction intervals constructed about the fitted regression curve. Prediction intervals reflect not only the error attributed to the model but also the material-specific components of variation in both the Draize and the in vitro assays. Among the in vitro assays selected for regression modeling in Phase III, the relationship between MAS and in vitro score was relatively well defined. The prediction bounds on MAS were most narrow for materials at the lower or upper end of the effective irritation range (MAS = 0-45), where variability in MAS was smallest. This, the confidence with which the MAS of surfactant-based formulations is predicted is greatest when MAS approaches zero or when MAS approaches 45 (no comment is made on prediction of MAS > 45 since extrapolation beyond the range of observed data is not possible). No single in vitro endpoint was found to exhibit relative superiority with regard to prediction of MAS. Variability associated with Draize test outcome (e.g. in MAS values) must be considered in any future comparisons of in vivo and in vitro test results if the purpose is to predict in vivo response using in vitro data.