Neepa Choksi1, Stewart Lebrun2, Minh Nguyen2, Amber Daniel1, George DeGeorge3, Jamin Willoughby4, Adrienne Layton5, Donnie Lowther6, Jill Merrill7, Joanna Matheson8, João Barroso9, Krystle Yozzo10, Warren Casey11, David Allen1. 1. Integrated Laboratory Systems, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. 2. Lebrun Labs LLC, Anaheim, CA, USA. 3. MB Research Laboratories, Spinnerstown, PA, USA. 4. Cyprotex US, LLC, Kalamazoo, MI, USA. 5. Division of Pharmacology and Physiology Assessment, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Rockville, MD, USA. 6. Office of Cosmetics and Colors, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, University Station, College Park, MD, USA. 7. Dermatologic and Dental Drug Products, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA. 8. Division of Toxicology and Risk Assessment, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Rockville, MD, USA. 9. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, VA, Italy. 10. Office of Pesticide Programs, Health Effects Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. 11. National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
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.
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.
Authors: Laurie Scott; Chantra Eskes; Sebastian Hoffmann; Els Adriaens; Nathalie Alepée; Monica Bufo; Richard Clothier; Davide Facchini; Claudine Faller; Robert Guest; John Harbell; Thomas Hartung; Hennicke Kamp; Béatrice Le Varlet; Marisa Meloni; Pauline McNamee; Rosemarie Osborne; Wolfgang Pape; Uwe Pfannenbecker; Menk Prinsen; Christopher Seaman; Horst Spielmann; William Stokes; Kevin Trouba; Christine Van den Berghe; Freddy Van Goethem; Marco Vassallo; Pilar Vinardell; Valérie Zuang Journal: Toxicol In Vitro Date: 2009-05-31 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Thomas Luechtefeld; Alexandra Maertens; Daniel P Russo; Costanza Rovida; Hao Zhu; Thomas Hartung Journal: ALTEX Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 6.043
Authors: João Barroso; Uwe Pfannenbecker; Els Adriaens; Nathalie Alépée; Magalie Cluzel; Ann De Smedt; Jalila Hibatallah; Martina Klaric; Karsten R Mewes; Marion Millet; Marie Templier; Pauline McNamee Journal: Arch Toxicol Date: 2016-03-21 Impact factor: 5.153
Authors: Stewart Lebrun; Linda Nguyen; Sara Chavez; Roxanne Chan; Debby Le; Minh Nguyen; James V Jester Journal: Toxicol In Vitro Date: 2020-12-19 Impact factor: 3.500