Raabe Hans A, Costin Gertrude-Emilia, Allen David G, Lowit Anna, Corvaro Marco, O'Dell Lindsay, Breeden-Alemi Julie, Page Kathryn, Perron Monique, Flint Silva Tara, Westerink Walter, Baker Elizabeth, Sullivan Kristie
Institute for In Vitro Sciences, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Inotiv, Durham, NC, USA.
Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2025 Mar;44(1):1-21. doi: 10.1080/15569527.2024.2387596. Epub 2024 Aug 24.
Test methods to inform hazard characterization and labeling of pesticides to protect human health are typically conducted using laboratory animals, and for skin irritation/corrosion the rabbit Draize test is currently required by many regulatory agencies. Although the Draize test is generally regarded to provide protective classifications for human health, new approach methodologies (NAMs) have been developed that offer more human relevant models that circumvent the uncertainty associated with species differences that exist between rabbits and humans. Despite wide applicability and use of these test methods across a broad range of chemicals, they have not been widely adopted for testing pesticides and pesticidal formulations. One of the barriers to adoption of these methods in this sector is low concordance with results from the Draize rabbit test, particularly for chemicals within the mild to moderate irritation spectrum. This review compares and contrasts the extent to which available models used in skin irritation testing mimic the anatomy and physiology of human skin, and how each aligns with the known key events leading to chemically-induced adverse skin irritation and corrosion. Doing so fully characterizes the human relevance of each method. As alternatives to the rabbit Draize test, several protocols using , and skin models are available as internationally harmonized test guidelines. These methods rely on a variety of models of human skin, including excised rodent skin, synthetic biochemical models of barrier function, cell culture systems, and reconstructed human tissue models. We find these models exhibit biological and mechanistic relevance aligned with human skin irritation responses. Further, recent retrospective analyses have shown that the reproducibility of the Draize test is less than 50% for mild and moderate responses, with many of the replicate predictions spanning more than one category (, a moderate response reported in one study followed by a non-irritant response reported in another study). Based on this comparative evaluation, we recommend top-down and bottom-up testing strategies that use the most human relevant test methods for skin irritation and corrosion classification of pesticides and pesticide formulations. To further discriminate among mild and non-irritant formulations, optimization of a cytokine release protocol and subsequent analyses of reference formulation test results is recommended.
用于指导农药危害特征描述和标签制定以保护人类健康的测试方法通常使用实验动物进行,对于皮肤刺激/腐蚀,目前许多监管机构都要求进行兔眼刺激试验。尽管兔眼刺激试验通常被认为可为人类健康提供保护性分类,但已开发出一些新方法,这些方法提供了更具人类相关性的模型,规避了兔与人之间存在的物种差异所带来的不确定性。尽管这些测试方法在广泛的化学品中具有广泛的适用性和应用,但它们尚未被广泛用于测试农药和农药制剂。在该领域采用这些方法的障碍之一是与兔眼刺激试验结果的一致性较低,特别是对于轻度至中度刺激范围内的化学品。本综述比较并对比了皮肤刺激测试中使用的现有模型模拟人类皮肤解剖学和生理学的程度,以及每种模型与导致化学诱导的不良皮肤刺激和腐蚀的已知关键事件的契合程度。这样做可以充分表征每种方法与人类的相关性。作为兔眼刺激试验的替代方法,有几种使用人皮肤模型的方案可作为国际协调的测试指南。这些方法依赖于多种人类皮肤模型,包括切除的啮齿动物皮肤、屏障功能的合成生化模型、细胞培养系统和重建的人体组织模型。我们发现这些模型表现出与人类皮肤刺激反应相关的生物学和机制相关性。此外,最近的回顾性分析表明,对于轻度和中度反应,兔眼刺激试验的重现性低于50%,许多重复预测跨越多个类别(例如,一项研究报告为中度反应,而另一项研究报告为无刺激反应)。基于这种比较评估,我们建议采用自上而下和自下而上的测试策略,使用最具人类相关性的测试方法对农药和农药制剂进行皮肤刺激和腐蚀分类。为了进一步区分轻度和无刺激制剂,建议优化细胞因子释放方案并随后分析参考制剂测试结果。