Information derived from sensitization test methods: Test sensitivity, false positives and false negatives

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 56, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 1-4

  Basketter, David A ^a   Kimber, Ian ^b  

^a UNILEVER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^b JEALOTT S HILL INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Buehler test; False negative; False positive; Guinea pig maximization test; Local lymph node assay; Skin sensitization

Indexed keywords

BUEHLER TEST; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; GUINEA PIG MAXIMIZATION TEST; HUMAN; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; NONHUMAN; PATCH TEST; PREDICTION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SHORT SURVEY; SKIN SENSITIZATION;

ANIMALS; DERMATITIS, CONTACT; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; GUINEA PIGS; HUMANS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SKIN TESTS; TOXICITY TESTS;

EID: 33845536212     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: 16000536     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01009.x     Document Type: Short Survey

References (42)

1. Zeiger E, Stokes W S. Validating new tests for regulatory acceptance. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 1998: 27: 32-37.
2. Worth A P, Balls M. The principles of validation and the ECVAM validation approach. Altern Lab Anim 2002: 30 (Suppl 2): 15-21.
3. Andersen K E, Maibach H I. Contact Allergy Predictive Tests in Guinea Pigs. Current Problems in Dermatology, Vol. 14, Basel, Karger, 1985.
4. Botham P A, Basketter D A, Maurer Th, Mueller D, Potokar M, Bontinck W J. Skin sensitization - a critical review of predictive test methods in animal and man. Food Chem Toxicol 1991: 29: 275-286.
5. Basketter D A. Guinea pig predictive test for contact hypersensitivity. In: Immunotoxicology and Immunopharmacology, Dean J, Munson A, Luster M Kimber I (eds), New York: Raven Press, 1994: pp. 693-702.
6. Steiling W, Basketter D A, Berthold K et al. Skin sensitisation testing - new perspectives and recommendations. Food Chem Toxicol 2001: 39: 293-301.
7. Landsteiner K, Jacobs J L. Studies on the sensitization of animals with simple chemicals III. J Exp Med 1936: 64: 625-639.
8. Magnusson B, Kligman A M. Allergic Contact Dermatitis in the Guinea Pig. Identification of Contact Allergens. Springfield, Illinois, Charles C Thomas, 1970.
9. Buehler E V. Delayed contact hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. Arch Dermatol 1965: 91: 171-177.
10. NIH. The Murine Local Lymph Node Assay: A Test Method for Assessing the Allergic Contact Dermatitis Potential of Chemicals/Compounds. NIH No. 99-4494, 1999.
11. Balls M, Hellsten E. Statement on the validity of the local lymph node assay for skin sensitisation testing. ECVAM Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Ispra. Altern Lab Anim 2000: 28: 366-367.
12. Buehler E V. A rationale for the selection of occlusion to induce and elicit delayed contact hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. A prospective test. Curr Probl Dermatol 1985: 14: 39-58.
13. Basketter D A, Gerberick GF. Interlaboratory evaluation of the Buehler test. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 35: 146-151.
14. EEC Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances. Off J Eur Comm 1967: 196: 1-98.
15. Kligman A M, Basketter D A. A critical commentary and updating of the guinea pig maximisation test. Contact Dermatitis 1995: 32: 129-134.
16. Gerberick G F, Ryan C A, Kimber I, Dearman R J, Lea L J, Basketter D A. Local lymph node assay validation assessment for regulatory purposes. Am J Contact Dermat 2000: 11: 13-18.
17. Cockshott A, Evans P, Gerberick G F, Betts C J, Dearman R J, Kimber I, Basketter D A. Use and abuse of the local lymph node assay: a regulatory perspective. Hum Exp Toxicol 2006: 25: 387-394.
18. Basketter D A, Scholes E W, Evans C D, Kimber I. Divergent responses to sulphanilic acid in the guinea pig maximization test and the local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 1992: 27: 209-213.
19. Wright Z W, Basketter D A, Dearman R J, Warbrick E V, Ryan C A, Gerberick G F, Kimber I. The local lymph node assay: further comparisons with guinea pig and human sensitization data. Toxicol Sci 2001: 60: 171.
20. Basketter D A, Gerberick G F, Kimber I. Strategies for identifying false positive responses in predictive sensitisation tests. Food Chem Toxicol 1998: 36: 327-333.
21. Basketter D A, Kimber I. Predictive test for irritants and allergens and their use in quantitative risk assessment. In: Contact Dermatitis, 4th edition, Frosch P J, Menné T, Lepoittevin J-P (eds): Heidelberg, Springer Verlag, 2006: pp. 179-188.
22. Uter W, Schnuch A, Geier J, Lessmann H. Isopropyl myristate recommended for aimed rather than routine patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 2004: 50: 242-244.
23. Gerberick G F, Ryan C A, Kern P S, Schlatter H, Dearman R J, Kimber I, Patlewicz G, Basketter D A. Compilation of historical local lymph node assay data for the evaluation of skin sensitization alternatives. Dermatitis 2005: 16: 157-202.
24. Bruze M, Gruvberger B, Agrup G. Sensitization studies in the guinea pig with the active ingredients of Euxyl K 400. Contact Dermatitis 1988: 18: 37-39.
25. Hausen B M. The sensitizing potency Euxyl K 400 and its components 1,2-dibromo-2,4-dicyanobutane and 2-phenoxyethanol. Contact Dermatitis 1993: 28: 149-153.
26. Wilkinson J D, Shaw S, Andersen K E et al. Monitoring levels of preservative sensitivity in Europe. A 10 year overview (1991-2000). Contact Dermatitis. 2002: 46: 207-210.
27. Bruze M, Goossens A, Gruvberger B. Recommendation to include methyldibromo glutaronitrile in the European standard patch test series. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 19-23.
28. Jensen C D, Johansen J D, Menné T, Andersen K E. Methyldibromoglutaronitrile in rinse-off products causes allergic contact dermatitis: an experimental study. Br J Dermatol 2004: 150: 90-95.
29. Zachariae C, Rastogi S, Devantier C, Menné T, Johansen JD. Methyldibromo glutaronitrile: clinical experience and exposure based risk assessment. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 48: 150-154.
30. Basketter D A, McFadden J, Evans P, Andersen K E, Jowsey I. Identification and classification of skin sensitisers: identifying false positives and false negatives. Contact Dermatitis 2006: 55: 268-273.
31. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Test Guideline 406: Skin Sensitisation, Paris, OECD, 1992.
32. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Test Guideline 429: The Local Lymph Node Assay, Paris, OECD, 2002.
33. Basketter D A, Evans P, Fielder R J, Dearman R J, Kimber I. Local lymph node assay - validation, conduct and use in practice: a commentary. Food Chem Toxicol 2002: 40: 593-598.
34. Dearman R J, Wright Z M, Basketter D A, Ryan C A, Gerberick G F, Kimber I. The suitability of hexyl cinnamic aldehyde as a calibrant for the using local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 2001: 44: 357-361.
35. Frankild S, Basketter D A, Andersen K E. The value and limitations of rechallenge in the guinea pig maximisation test. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 35: 135-140.
36. Basketter D A, Wilson K, Gilmour N J, Ullman L, Gerberick G F, Ryan C A, Dearman R J, Kimber I. Utility of historical vehicle control data in the interpretation of the local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 49: 37-41.
37. Basketter D A, Blaikie L, Dearman R J et al. Use of the local lymph node assay for the estimation of relative contact allergenic potency. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 42: 344-348.
38. Felter S P, Robinson M K, Basketter D A, Gerberick G F. A review of the scientific basis for default uncertainty factors for use in quantitative risk assessment of the induction of allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 47: 257-266.
39. Felter S P, Ryan C A, Basketter D A, Gerberick G F. Application of the risk assessment paradigm to the induction of allergic contact dermatitis. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2003: 37: 1-10.
40. Basketter D A, Clapp C, Jefferies D, Safford R J, Ryan C A, Gerberick G F, Dearman R J, Kimber I. Predictive identification of human skin sensitisation thresholds. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 53: 260-267.
41. Basketter D A, Andersen K E, Lidén C, van Loveren H, Boman A, Kimber I, Alanko K, Berggren E. Evaluation of the skin sensitising potency of chemicals using existing methods and considerations of relevance for elicitation. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 39-43.
42. Jowsey I, Basketter D A, Westmoreland C, Kimber I. A future approach to measuring relative skin sensitising potency. J Appl Toxicol 2006: 26: 341-350.