Skin sensitization: Implications for integration of clinical data into hazard identification and risk assessment

Human and Experimental Toxicology

Volumn 34, Issue 12, 2015, Pages 1222-1230

  Basketter, D A ^a   White, I R ^b   McFadden, J P ^b   Kimber, I ^c  

^a DABMEB CONSULTANCY LTD   (United Kingdom)

^b ST THOMAS HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

allergic contact dermatitis; contact allergy; hazard identification; human data; regulatory classification; risk assessment; Skin sensitization

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL STUDY; CONTACT ALLERGY; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; NONHUMAN; OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SKIN ALLERGY; SKIN SENSITIZATION; ANIMAL; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; TOXICITY TESTING;

ALLERGEN; IRRITANT AGENT;

ALLERGENS; ANIMALS; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; HUMANS; IRRITANTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY TESTS;

EID: 84948670636     PISSN: 09603271     EISSN: 14770903     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0960327115601760     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Ale IS, Maibach HI,. Irritant contact dermatitis. Rev Environ Health 2014; 29: 195-206.
2. McFadden JP, Puangpet P, Basketter DA, et al. Why does allergic contact dermatitis exist? Br J Dermatol 2013; 168: 692-699.
3. Weltzien HU, Martin SF, Nicolas JF,. T cell responses to contact allergens. EXS 2014; 104: 41-49.
4. Friis UF, Menné T, Schwensen JF, et al. Occupational irritant contact dermatitis diagnosed by analysis of contact irritants and allergens in the work environment. Contact Dermatitis 2014; 71 (6): 364-370.
5. Basketter DA, Kimber I, (2011) Predictive tests for irritants and allergens and their use in quantitative risk assessment. In: Johansen JD, Frosch PF, Lepoittevin J-P, (eds). Contact Dermatitis. 5th edition,. chapter 13. Berlin: Springer, pp. 229-240.
6. Magnusson B, Kligman AM,. Allergic contact dermatitis in the guinea pig. Springfield: Charles C Thomas, 1970.
7. Kligman AM,. The identification of contact allergens by human assay. II. Factors influencing the induction and measurement of allergic contact dermatitis. J Invest Dermatol 1966: 47: 375-392.
8. Foussereau J, Benezra C, Maibach HI,. Occupational contact dermatitis: clinical and chemical aspects. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1982.
9. Rustemeyer T, Elsner P, John SM, et al. Kanerva's occupational skin diseases. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer, 2012.
10. Holness DL,. Recent advances in occupational dermatitis. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2013; 13 (2): 145-150.
11. Rossi M, Coenraads PJ, Diepgen T, et al. Design and feasibility of an international study assessing the prevalence of contact allergy to fragrances in the general population: the European Dermato-Epidemiology Network Fragrance Study. Dermatology 2010; 221: 267-275.
12. De Groot AC,. Patch testing. 3rd ed. Wapserveen: ACdeGroot Publishing, 2008.
13. Angers-Loustau A, Tosti L, Casati S,. The regulatory use of the Local Lymph Node Assay for the notification of new chemicals in Europe. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2011; 60: 300-307.
14. Cockshott A, Evans P, Ryan CA, et al. The local lymph node assay in practice: a current regulatory perspective. Hum Exp Toxicol 2006; 25: 387-394.
15. Lindberg M, Matura M,. Patch testing. In: Johansen JD, Frosch PF, Lepoittevin J-P, (eds) Contact dermatitis, 5th ed.,. chapter 13. Berlin: Springer, 2011, pp. 439-464.
16. REACH Commission of the European Communities. Regulation (EC). No. 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC,93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. Off J Eur Union,. L 396/1, 30 December 2006.
17. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 2003/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products., www.eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:066:0026:0035:en:PDF (2003,. accessed 16 December 2013).
18. Andersen KE, Maibach HI,. Contact allergy predictive tests in guinea pigs. Basel: Karger, 1985.
19. Botham PA, Basketter DA, Maurer TH, et al. Skin sensitization-a critical review of predictive test methods in animal and man. Food Chem Toxicol 1991; 29: 275-286.
20. Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I, et al. The local lymph node assay-a viable alternative to currently accepted skin sensitisation tests. Food Chem Toxicol 1996; 34: 985-997.
21. Thyssen JP, Giménez-Arnau E, Lepoittevin JP, et al. The critical review of methodologies and approaches to assess the inherent skin sensitization potential (skin allergies) of chemicals. Contact Dermatitis 2012; 66 (Suppl 1): 11-70.
22. Wahlberg JE, Boman A,. Guinea pig maximization test. In: Andersen KE, Maibach HI, (eds) Contact allergy predictive test in Guinea pigs. Basel: Karger, 1985, pp. 59-106.
23. Cronin MTD, Basketter DA,. Multivariate QSAR analysis of a skin sensitization database. SAR QSAR Environ Res 1994; 2: 159-179.
24. Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Kern PS, et al. Compilation of historical local lymph node assay data for the evaluation of skin sensitization alternatives. Dermatitis 2005; 16: 157-202.
25. Kern PS, Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, et al. Historical local lymph node data for the evaluation of skin sensitization alternatives: a second compilation. Dermatitis 2010; 21: 8-32.
26. United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). Part 3: health hazards, www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs-rev05/English/03e-part3.pdf (. 2013, accessed 20 October 2014).
27. ECHA. Guidance on the application of the CLP criteria,. version 4.0, www.echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13562/clp-en.pdf.(. 2013, accessed 20 October 2014).
28. ESIS: European chemical substances information system., http://esis.jrc.ec.europa.eu. (. accessed 28 November 2013).
29. Schlede E, Aberer W, Fuchs T, et al. (2003) Chemical substances and contact allergy - 244 substances ranked according to allergenic potency. Toxicology 193: 219-259.
30. Kimber I, Basketter DA,. Contact sensitization: a new approach to risk assessment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 1997; 3: 385-395.
31. Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I,. The local lymph node assay EC3 value: status of validation. Contact Dermatitis 2007; 57: 70-75.
32. Vocanson M, Nicolas J-F, Basketter DA,. In vitro approaches to the identification and characterization of skin sensitisers. Exp Rev Dermatol 2013; 8: 395-405.
33. Adler S, Basketter DA, Creton S, et al. Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects-2010. Arch Toxicol 2011; 85: 367-485.
34. Casati S, Tosti L, Hermans H, et al. Remaining challenges beyond test development (i.e. from having a test to having it accepted and ready for regulatory purposes). In: Roggen E, Weltzien H-U, Hermans H, (eds) Progress towards novel testing strategies for the in vitro assessment of allergens. Kerala: Transworld Research Network,. chapter 12, 2011, pp. 181-188.
35. MacKay C, Davies M, Summerfield V, et al. From pathways to people: applying the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for skin sensitization to risk assessment. ALTEX 2013; 30 (4): 473-486.
36. Esser PR, Kimber I, Martin SF,. Correlation of contact sensitizer potency with T cell frequency and TCR repertoire diversity. EXS 2014; 104: 101-114.
37. Lass C, Merfort I, Martin SF,. In vitro and in vivo analysis of pro- and anti-inflammatory effects of weak and strong contact allergens. Exp Dermatol 2010; 19 (11): 1007-1013.
38. Gerberick GF, Robinson MK, Felter S, et al. Understanding fragrance allergy using an exposure-based risk assessment approach. Contact Dermatitis 2001; 45: 333-340.
39. Api AM, Basketter DA, Cadby PA, et al. Dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2008; 52: 3-23.
40. Api AM, Belsito D, Bickers D, et al. Quantitative risk assessment of contact sensitization: clinical data to assess utility of the model. Dermatitis 2010; 21: 207-213.
41. Basketter DA,. Methyldibromo glutaronitrile, skin sensitisation and quantitative risk assessment. Cut Ocul Toxicol 2010; 29: 4-9.
42. Lundov MD, Opstrup MS, Johansen JD,. Methylisothiazolinone contact allergy: a growing epidemic. Contact Dermatitis 2013; 69: 271-275.
43. Basketter DA, White IR,. Diagnostic patch testing-does it have a wider relevance? Contact Dermatitis 2012; 67: 1-2.
44. Basketter DA, Ball N, Cagen S, et al. Application of a weight of evidence approach to analysing discordant sensitization datasets: implication for REACH. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2009; 55: 90-96.
45. Basketter DA, Kimber I,. Skin irritation, false positives and the local lymph node assay: a guideline issue. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2011; 61: 137-140.
46. Hoffman S, Hartung T, Basketter D,. Towards an evidence based dermatotoxicology. In: Wilhelm KP, Zhai H, Maibach HI, (eds) Dermatotoxicology. 8th ed. London: Informa Healthcare, 2012, pp. 21-27.
47. Basketter DA, Kimber I,. Consideration of criteria required for assignment of a (skin) sensitiser a substances of very high concern (SVHC) under the REACH regulation. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2014; 69: 524-528.
48. Fregert S,. Manual of contact dermatitis. 2nd ed. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1981.
49. Lachapelle J-M., (2010) Giant steps in patch testing. Phoenix: SmartPractice.
50. Original baseline series.
51. Rudner EJ,. North American group results. Contact Dermatitis 1977; 3: 208-209.
52. Warshaw EM, Belsito DV, Taylor JS, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2009 to 2010. Dermatitis 2013; 24: 50-59.
53. Schoeffler A, Waton J, Latarche C, et al. Changes in the European baseline series from 1981 to 2011 in a French dermatology-allergology centre. Ann Dermatol Venereol 2013; 140: 499-509.
54. EU. Nickel Directive: European Parliament and Council Directive 94/27/EC of 30 June 1994: amending for the 12th time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations. Official J Eur Commun L 1994; 188: 1-2.
55. EU. Cement Directive: Directive 2003/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 amending for the 26th time Council Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (nonylphenol, nonylphenol ethoxylate and cement). Official J Eur Commun L 2003; 178: 24-27.
56. Thyssen JP, Carlsen BC, Menné T, et al. Trends of contact allergy to fragrance mix I and Myroxylon pereriae among Danish eczema patients tested between 1985 and 2007. Contact Dermatitis 2008; 59: 238-244.
57. Buckley DA, Wakelin SH, Seed PT, et al. The frequency of fragrance allergy in a patch-test population over a 17-year period. Br J Dermatol 2000; 142: 279-283.
58. Coenraads P-J, Uter W, Diepgen T,. Epidemiology. In: Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin J-P, (eds) Contact dermatitis. 5th ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2011, pp. 193-211.
59. Cheng J, Zug KA,. Fragrance allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatitis 2014; 25: 232-245.
60. Nielsen NH, Menné T,. Allergic contact sensitization in an unselected Danish population. The Glostrup Allergy Study, Denmark. Acta Derm Venereol 1992; 72: 456-460. Erratum in: Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1993; 73: 397.
61. Nielsen NH, Linneberg A, Menné T, et al. Incidence of allergic contact sensitization in Danish adults between 1990 and 1998; the Copenhagen Allergy Study, Denmark. Br J Dermatol 2002; 147 (3): 487-492.
62. Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, et al. Epidemiology of contact allergy: an estimation of morbidity employing the clinical epidemiology and drug-utilization research (CE-DUR) approach. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 47: 32-39.
63. Thyssen JP, Uter W, Schnuch A, et al. 10 year prevalence of contact allergy in the general population in Denmark estimated thought the CE-DUR methods. Contact Dermatitis 2007; 57: 265-272.
64. Naldi L, Cazzaniga S, Gonçalo M, et al.; EDEN Fragrance Study Group. Prevalence of self-reported skin complaints and avoidance of common daily life consumer products in selected European Regions. JAMA Dermatol 2014; 150: 154-163.
65. Hosteing S, Meyer N, Waton J, et al.; REVIDAL-GERDA network. Outbreak of contact sensitization to methylisothiazolinone: an analysis of French data from the REVIDAL-GERDA network. Contact Dermatitis 2014; 70: 262-269.
66. Bruze M, Isaksson M, Gruvberger B, et al. Patch testing with methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone 200 ppm aq. detects significantly more contact allergy than 100 ppm. A multicentre study within the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Contact Dermatitis 2014; 71: 31-34.
67. de Groot AC, Weyland JW,. Kathon CG: a review. J Am Acad Dermatol 1988; 18: 350-358.
68. Bruze M, Fregert S, Gruvberger B, et al. Contact allergy to the active ingredients of Kathon CG in the Guinea pig. Acta Derm Venereol 1987; 67: 315-320.
69. Basketter DA, Kimber I,. Predictive tests for irritants and allergens and their use in quantitative risk assessment. In: Johansen JD, Frosch PF, Lepoittevin J-P, (eds) Contact Dermatitis. 5th ed,. chapter 13. Berlin: Springer, 2011, pp. 229-240.
70. Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety. Opinion on methylisothiazolinone. Adopted 12 December 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific-committees/consumer-safety/docs/sccs-o-145.pdf. (. 2013, accessed 21 October 2014).