Gettings S D, Lordo R A, Feder P I, Hintze K L
Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, Washington, DC 20036, USA.
Food Chem Toxicol. 1998 Jan;36(1):47-59. doi: 10.1016/s0278-6915(97)00110-5.
The second phase in a series of investigations of the relationship between low volume eye test (LVET) data, Draize eye irritation test data, and comparable data from in vitro eye irritation test protocols is presented. These investigations utilize Draize eye test and in vitro endpoint data generated previously as part of the CTFA Evaluation of Alternatives Program. LVET data were generated de novo using the same 18 representative oil/water based personal-care formulations. In general, these formulations were minimally to mildly irritating; only three were classified as moderate eye irritants. The linear correlation between maximum average score as determined by the Draize test (MAS) and the LVET (LVET-MAS) was 0.85; LVET-MAS values were typically about half the corresponding MAS values. Comparison of in vitro assay performance with that of the LVET was determined by statistical analysis of the relationship between LVET-MAS and each in vitro endpoint. Regression modelling was the primary means of enabling such a comparison, the objective being to predict LVET-MAS for a given test material (and to place upper and lower 95% prediction bounds on the range in which the LVET-MAS is anticipated to fall with high probability) based on observation of an in vitro score for that material. The degree of confidence in prediction is quantified in terms of the relative widths of prediction intervals constructed about the fitted regression curves. Sixteen endpoints were shown to have the greatest agreement with the LVET (all but two were selected for modelling when compared with the Draize procedure). While the lower maximum average scores values (compared with the Draize test) in the LVET led to lower variability in LVET-MAS compared to MAS, the upper and lower bounds on predicted LVET-MAS values conditional on observed in vitro scores were still wide. Because there was overlap in the range of scores determined by the prediction bounds for many formulations, each of the selected endpoints was frequently unable to distinguish between test formulations in terms of statistically different predicted LVET-MAS values. In summary, none of the in vitro endpoints evaluated were able to reliably predict values of LVET-MAS among the set of oil/water emulsions considered here.
本文介绍了一系列有关低容量眼试验(LVET)数据、德雷兹眼刺激试验数据以及体外眼刺激试验方案可比数据之间关系研究的第二阶段。这些研究利用了先前作为CTFA替代方案评估项目一部分生成的德雷兹眼试验和体外终点数据。LVET数据是使用相同的18种代表性油/水基个人护理配方重新生成的。一般来说,这些配方的刺激性为轻度至中度;只有三种被归类为中度眼刺激物。德雷兹试验确定的最大平均得分(MAS)与LVET(LVET-MAS)之间的线性相关性为0.85;LVET-MAS值通常约为相应MAS值的一半。通过对LVET-MAS与每个体外终点之间关系的统计分析,确定了体外试验性能与LVET的比较。回归建模是进行这种比较的主要手段,目的是根据对给定测试材料的体外得分观察,预测该材料的LVET-MAS(并给出LVET-MAS预计以高概率落入的范围的上下95%预测界限)。预测的置信度根据围绕拟合回归曲线构建的预测区间的相对宽度进行量化。16个终点与LVET的一致性最高(与德雷兹程序相比,除两个外均被选入建模)。虽然与德雷兹试验相比,LVET中较低的最大平均得分值导致LVET-MAS的变异性低于MAS,但基于观察到的体外得分的预测LVET-MAS值的上下界限仍然很宽。由于许多配方的预测界限确定的得分范围存在重叠,每个选定的终点通常无法根据统计学上不同预测的LVET-MAS值区分测试配方。总之,在此考虑的油/水乳液组中,所评估的体外终点均无法可靠地预测LVET-MAS值。