Toward an evidence-based dermatotoxicology

Dermatotoxicology, Eighth Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 21-27

  Hoffmann, Sebastian ^a   Hartung, Thomas ^b   Basketter, David ^c  

^a Seh Consulting + Services   (Germany)

^b Johns Hopkins University   (United States)

^c DABMEB CONSULTANCY LTD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84948700487     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (76)

1. Guzelian PS, Victoroff MS, Halmes NC, James RC, Guzelian CP. Evidence-based toxicology: a comprehensive framework for causation. Hum Exp Toxicol 2005; 24: 161-201.
2. Hoffmann S, Hartung T. Diagnosis: toxic! trying to apply approaches of clinical diagnostics and prevalence in toxicology considerations. Toxicol Sci 2005; 85: 422-8.
3. Hoffmann S. Evidence-Based In Vitro Toxicology. Germany: University of Konstanz, 2005.
4. Hoffmann S, Hartung T. Toward an evidence-based toxicology. Hum Exp Toxicol 2006; 25: 497-513.
5. Neugebauer EAM. 2. Evidence-based medicine: a possible model for evidence-based toxicology? Hum Exp Toxicol 2009; 28: 105-7.
6. Scherer RW. 2.2 Evidence-based health care and the cochrane collaboration. Hum Exp Toxicol 2009; 28: 109-11.
7. Schneider K, Schwarz M, Burkholder I, et al. “ToxRTool, " a new tool to assess the reliability of toxicological data. Toxicol Lett 2009; 189:138-44.
8. Bus JS, Becker RA. Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a view from the chemical industry. Toxicol Sci 2009; 112: 297-302.
9. Hartung T. Evidence-based toxicology - the toolbox of validation for the 21st century? Altern Anim Exp 2010; 27: 253-63.
10. NRC (National Research Council). Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century:A Vision and a Strategy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2007.
11. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 1996; 312:71-2.
12. Eddy DM. Evidence-based medicine: a unified approach. Health Affairs 2005; 24: 9-17.
13. Horvath AR, Pewsner D. Systematic reviews in laboratory medicine:principles, processes and practical considerations. Clin Chim Acta 2004; 342: 23-39.
14. Egger M, Smith GD. Meta-analysis: potentials and promise. BMJ 1997; 315: 1371-4.
15. Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN. Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ 1997; 315: 1533-7.
16. Meyer-Baron M, Knapp G, Schäper M, van Thriel C. Performance alterations associated with occupational exposure to manganese: a meta-analysis. Neurotoxicology 2009; 30: 487-96.
17. Navas-Acien A, Guallar E, Silbergeld EK, Rothenberg SJ. Lead exposure and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review. Environ Health Perspect 2006; 115: 472-82.
18. Christina R. The use and evaluation of primary data in 29 trichloroethylene carcinogen risk assessments. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2001; 34: 3-16.
19. Golden R, Doull J, Waddell W, Mandel J. Potential human cancer risks from exposure to PCBs: a tale of two evaluations. Crit Rev Toxicol 2003; 33: 543-80.
20. Schreider J, Barrow C, Birchfield N, et al. Enhancing the credibility of decisions based on scientific conclusions: transparency is imperative. Toxicol Sci 2010; 116: 5-7.
21. Wandall B, Hansson S, Rudén C. Bias in toxicology. Arch Toxicol 2007; 81: 605-17.
22. Centre for Evidence Based Medicine. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine - Levels of Evidence (March 2009). 16 September 2011.
23. Whiting P, Rutjes A, Reitsma J, Bossuyt P, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003; 3: 25.
24. Lucas NP, Macaskill P, Irwig L, Bogduk N. The development of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL). J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 854-61.
25. Hobbs DA, Warne MS, Markich SJ, Hobbs DA. Evaluation of criteria used to assess the quality of aquatic toxicity data. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2005; 1: 174-80.
26. Agerstrand M, Küster A, Bachmann J, et al. Reporting and evaluation criteria as means towards a transparent use of ecotoxicity data for environmental risk assessment of pharmaceuticals. Environ Pollut 2011; 159: 2487-92.
27. Klimisch H-J, Andreae M, Tillmann U. A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 1997; 25: 1-5.
28. Conrad JW, Becker RA. Enhancing credibility of chemical safety studies: emerging consensus on key assessment criteria. Environ Health Perspect 2010; 119: 757-64.
29. Kandárová H, Liebsch M, Spielmann H, et al. Assessment of the human epidermis model SkinEthic RHE for in vitro skin corrosion testing of chemicals according to new OECD TG 431. Toxicology in Vitro 2006; 20: 547-59.
30. Alépée N, Tornier C, Robert C, et al. A catch-up validation study on reconstructed human epidermis (SkinEthic RHE) for full replacement of the Draize skin irritation test. Toxicol In Vitro 2010; 24: 257-66.
31. OECD. Guidance Document on the Validation and International Acceptance of New or Updated Test Methods for Hazard Identification. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2005: 1-96. Environmental Health and Safety Monograph Series on Testing and Assessment No. 34.
32. van der Schouw YT, Verbeek ALM, Ruijs SHJ. Guidelines for the assessment of new diagnostic tests. Invest Radiol 1995; 30: 334-40.
33. Reitsma JB, Rutjes AWS, Khan KS, Coomarasamy A, Bossuyt PM. A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 797-806.
34. Hoffmann S, Edler L, Gardner I, et al. Points of reference in the validation process. Altern Lab Anim 2008; 36: 343-52.
35. Andersen ME, Al-Zoughool M, Croteau M, Westphal M, Krewski D. The future of toxicity testing. J Toxicol Environ Health B 2010; 13:163-96.
36. Weed DL. Weight of evidence: a review of concept and methods. Risk Anal 2005; 25: 1545-57.
37. Macfarlane M, Jones P, Goebel C, et al. A tiered approach to the use of alternatives to animal testing for the safety assessment of cosmetics:skin irritation. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2009; 54: 188-96.
38. Fluhr JW, Darlenski R, Angelova-Fischer I, Tsankov N, Basketter D. Skin irritation and sensitization: mechanisms and new approaches for risk assessment. Skin Pharmacol Physiol 2008; 21: 124-35.
39. Gibbs S. In vitro Irritation models and immune reactions. Skin Pharmacol Physiol 2009; 22: 103-13.
40. Hoffmann S, Saliner AG, Patlewicz G, et al. A feasibility study developing an integrated testing strategy assessing skin irritation potential of chemicals. Toxicol Lett 2008; 180: 9-20.
41. Draize JH, Woodard G, Clavery HO. Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1944; 82: 377-90.
42. OECD. OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals No. 404: Acute Dermal Irritation/Corrosion. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2002; 1-13
43. Hoffmann S, Cole T, Hartung T. Skin irritation: prevalence, variability, and regulatory classification of existing in vivo data from industrial chemicals. Regulat Toxicol Pharmacol 2005; 41: 159-66.
44. Basketter DA, York M, McFadden JP, Robinson MK. Determination of skin irritation potential in the human 4-h patch test. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51: 1-4.
45. Jírová D, Basketter D, Liebsch M, et al. Comparison of human skin irritation patch test data with in vitro skin irritation assays and animal data. Contact Dermatitis 2010; 62: 109-16.
46. Hoffmann S. 1.2 Aspects of test assessment. Hum Exp Toxicol 2009; 28: 95-6.
47. Borlon C, Godard P, Eskes C, et al. The usefulness of toxicogenomics for predicting acute skin irritation on in vitro reconstructed human epidermis. Toxicology 2007; 241: 157-66.
48. Niwa M, Nagai K, Oike H, Kobori M. Evaluation of the skin irritation using a DNA microarray on a reconstructed human epidermal model. Biol Pharm Bull 2009; 32: 203-8.
49. Knottnerus JA, Muris JW. Assessment of the accuracy of diagnostic tests: the cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 1118-28.
50. Spielmann H, Hoffmann S, Liebsch M, et al. The ECVAM validation study of the EPISKIN and EpiDerm assay and of the skin integrity test for acute skin irritation testing. Altern Lab Anim 2007; 35: 559-601.
51. Magnusson B, Kligman AM. The identification of contact allergens by animal assay. the guinea pig maximization test1. J Invest Dermatol 1969; 52: 268-76.
52. Buehler EV. Delayed contact hypersensitivity in the Guinea Pig. Arch Dermatol 1965; 91: 171-5.
53. Kimber I, Weisenberger C. A murine local lymph node assay for the identification of contact allergens. Arch Toxicol 1989; 63: 274-82.
54. Basketter DA, Evans P, Fielder RJ, et al. Local lymph node assay:validation, conduct and use in practice. Food Chem Toxicol 2002; 40:593-8.
55. Basketter D, Cockshot A, Corsini E, et al. An evaluation of performance standards and nonradioactive endpoints for the local lymph node assay - the report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 65. Altern Lab Anim 2008; 36: 243-57.
56. Adler S, Basketter D, Creton S, et al. Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects - 2010. Arch Toxicol 2011; 85: 367-485.
57. Gerberick GF, Vassallo JD, Bailey RE, et al. Development of a peptide reactivity assay for screening contact allergens. Toxicol Sci 2004; 81:332-43.
58. Andreas N, Caroline B, Leslie F, et al. The intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility and predictivity of the KeratinoSens assay to predict skin sensitizers in vitro: results of a ring-study in five laboratories. Toxicol In Vitro 2011; 25: 733-44.
59. Ashikaga T, Yoshida Y, Hirota M, et al. Development of an in vitro skin sensitization test using human cell lines: the human Cell Line Activation Test (h-CLAT): I. Optimization of the h-CLAT protocol. Toxicol In Vitro 2006; 20: 767-73.
60. Python F, Goebel C, Aeby P. Assessment of the U937 cell line for the detection of contact allergens. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2007; 220:113-24.
61. Jowsey IR, Basketter DA, Westmoreland C, Kimber I. A future approach to measuring relative skin sensitising potency: a proposal. J Appl Toxicol 2006; 26: 341-50.
62. Basketter DA, Kimber I. Updating the skin sensitization in vitro data assessment paradigm in 2009. J Appl Toxicol 2009; 29: 545-50.
63. Maxwell G, Aeby P, Ashikaga T, et al. Skin sensitisation: the Colipa strategy for developing and evaluating non-animal test methods for risk assessment. Altern Anim Exp 2011; 28: 50-5.
64. Haneke KE, Tice RR, Carson BL, Margolin BH, Stokes WS. ICCVAM evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay: III. Data analyses completed by the national toxicology program interagency center for the evaluation of alternative toxicological methods. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2001; 34: 274-86.
65. Aeby P, Python F, Goebel C. Skin sensitisation: understanding the in vivo situation for the development of reliable in vitro test approaches. Altern Anim Exp 2007; 24(Suppl): 3-5.
66. Natsch A, Emter R, Ellis G. Filling the concept with data: integrating data from different in vitro and in silico assays on skin sensitizers to explore the battery approach for animal-free skin sensitization testing. Toxicol Sci 2009; 107: 106-21.
67. Jaworska J, Harol A, Kern P, Gerberick GF. Integrating non-animal test information into an adaptive testing strategy-skin sensitisation proof of concept case. Altern Anim Exp 2011; 28: 211-25.
68. Gerberick GF, Troutman JA, Foertsch LM, et al. Investigation of peptide reactivity of pro-hapten skin sensitizers using a peroxidase-peroxide oxidation system. Toxicol Sci 2009; 112: 164-74.
69. Hooyberghs J, Schoeters E, Lambrechts N, et al. A cell-based in vitro alternative to identify skin sensitizers by gene expression. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2008; 231: 103-11.
70. Maxwell G, Aleksic M, Aptula A, et al. Assuring consumer safety without animal testing: a feasibility case study for skin sensitisation. Altern Lab Anim 2008; 36: 557-68.
71. Maxwell G. Mackay C. Application of a systems biology approach to skin allergy risk assessment. Altern Lab Anim 2008; 36: 521-56.
72. Jaworska J, Gabbert S, Aldenberg T. Towards optimization of chemical testing under REACH: a Bayesian network approach to integrated testing strategies. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2010; 57: 157-67.
73. Jaworska J, Hoffmann S. Integrated Testing Strategy (ITS) - opportunities to better use existing data and guide future testing in toxicology. Altern Anim Exp 2010; 27: 231-42.
74. Basketter DA, Kimber I. Predictive tests for irritants and allergens and their use in quantitative risk assessment. In: Johansen JD, Frosch PF, Lepoittevin JP, eds. Contact Dermatitis. 5th edn. Berlin: Springer, 2011: 229-40.
75. Duong A, Steinmaus C, McHale CM, Vaughan CP, Zhang L. Reproductive and developmental toxicity of formaldehyde: a systematic review. Mutat Res 2011; 728: 118-38.
76. Hartung T, McBride M. Food for thought. on mapping the human toxome. Altern Anim Exp 2011; 28: 83-93.