Search

In spite of over 20 years of effort, no single in vitro assay has been developed and validated as a full regulatory replacement for the Draize Eye Irritation test. However, companies have been using in vitro methods to screen new formulations and in some cases as their primary assessment of eye irritation potential for many years. The present report shows the outcome of an Expert Meeting convened by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods in February 2005 to identify test strategies for eye irritation. In this workshop test developers/users were requested to nominate methods to be considered as a basis for the identification of such testing strategies. Assays were evaluated and categorized based on their proposed applicability domains (e.g., categories of irritation severity, modes of action, chemical class, physicochemical compatibility). The analyses were based on the data developed from current practice and published studies, the ability to predict depth of injury (within the applicable range of severity), modes of action that could be addressed and compatibility with different physiochemical forms. The difficulty in predicting the middle category of irritancy (e.g. R36, GHS Categories 2A and 2B) was recognized. The testing scheme proposes using a Bottom-Up (begin with using test methods that can accurately identify non-irritants) or Top-Down (begin with using test methods that can accurately identify severe irritants) progression of in vitro tests (based on expected irritancy). Irrespective of the starting point, the approach would identify non-irritants and severe irritants, leaving all others to the (mild/moderate) irritant GHS 2/R36 categories.

Purpose: To test a new multiple endpoint analysis (MEA) including occludin gene expression for screening the ocular irritation potential of tear substitutes on human corneal epithelium (HCE), an in vitro model proposed to limit the use of animal testing in pre-clinical studies., Methods: Four chemically-preserved and two non chemically-preserved tear substitutes were tested after acute (24h, 24h+24h post incubation) and repeated applications (for 72h) and compared to the positive control, benzalkonium chloride (BAK) at 0.1% and 0.01%, by assessing complementary parameters. Cellular viability was evaluated using MTT, histomorphologic analysis was performed on H&E stained vertical sections, IL-8 release was measured by ELISA, and occludin gene expression was quantified using qRT-PCR., Results: Cellular viability was moderately reduced by Perborate and Polyquad-preserved tear substitutes and dramatically reduced by BAK and by Thiomersal and Oxyd preserved tear substitutes. Thiomersal also increased IL-8 release. Occludin expression profiles were modified by the four chemically-preserved tear substitutes and by the mechanically-preserved Comod, but not by the mechanically-preserved Abak. The behavior of BAK and tear substitutes led us to propose a prediction model for the classification of different levels of irritants, mainly based on the occludin transcriptional study., Conclusion: The versatility and sensitivity of the HCE model allowed the modeling of cumulative effects that may approach conditions obtained after long term application of tear substitutes. Thus, the modified MEA proposed in this study represents a valuable tool for in vitro eye irritation assessment with the power to detect mild irritants and subclinical eye irritant potential.