Occupational toxicology: Test methods and approaches for the pharmaceutical industry

Occupational Medicine - State of the Art Reviews

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 119-129

  Sprague, Gary ^a,b   Sutton, Terry ^a  

^a Smith Kline Beecham Corporation   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHEMICALLY INDUCED DISORDER; DANGEROUS GOODS; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; REVIEW; RISK MANAGEMENT; TOXICOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

ADVERSE DRUG REACTION REPORTING SYSTEMS; DRUG INDUSTRY; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES; HUMANS; OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; RISK MANAGEMENT; TOXICOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33748972656     PISSN: 0885114X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Buehler EV: A rationale for the selection of occlusion to induce and elicit delayed contact hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. A prospective test. Curr Probl Dermatol 14:39-58, 1985.
2. Burton ABG, York M, Lawrence RS: The in vitro assessment of severe eye irritants. J Food Cosmetic Toxicol 19:471-480, 1981.
3. DeSousa DJ, Rouse AA, Smolon WJ: Statistical consequences of reducing the number of rabbits utilized in eye irritation testing. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 76:234-242, 1984.
4. Draize JH, Woodard G, Calvery HO: Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 82:377-390, 1944.
5. European Council Directive 92/32/EEC: Approximation of the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (7th amendment of 67/548/EEC). Off J Euro Comm L154:1-29, 1992.
6. Guerriero FJ, Stankowski LF, Messina DM, Sprague GL: A validation of the bovine corneal opacity and permeability assay (BCOP) in predicting eye irritation of pharmaceuticals and reactive inter-mediates. Fundam Appl Toxicol 30:123, 1996.
7. Hatoum NS, Leach CL, Talsma DM, et al: A statistical basis for using fewer rabbits in dermal irritation testing. J Am Coll Toxicol 9:49-59, 1990.
8. Kay JH, Calandra JC: Interpretation of eye irritation tests. J Soc Cosmet Chem 13:281-289, 1962.
9. Kimber I, Hilton J, Weisenberger C: The murine local lymph node assay for identification of contact allergies: A preliminary evaluation of in situ measurement of lymphocyte proliferation. Contact Dermatitis 21:215-220, 1989.
10. Magnusson B, Kligman AM: The identification of contact allergens by animal assay. The guinea pig maximisation test. J Invest Dermatol 52:268-276, 1969.
11. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: Guidelines for testing chemicals. Paris, OECD Publications Service, 1993.
12. Sina JF, Galer DM, Sussman RG, et al: Collaborative evaluation of seven alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test using pharmaceutical intermediates. Fundam Appl Toxicol 26:20-31, 1995.
13. Sina JF, Gautheron PD: Ocular toxicity assessment in vitro. In Gad SC (ed): In Vitro Toxicology. New York, Raven Press, 1994, pp 21-46.
14. Sutton TJ, Reilly LM: Variable group size can further reduce animal usage in acute toxicity tests. Arch Toxicol 65:260-261, 1991.
15. United Kingdom Environmental Mutagen Society: Recommended Procedures, Basic Mutagenicity Tests Report, Part 1. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1990.