User menu

Accès à distance ? S'identifier sur le proxy UCLouvain

Historical perspective on the use of visual grading scales in evaluating skin irritation and sensitization

Primary tabs

Farage, Miranda A. Maibach, Howard I. Andersen, Klaus E. Lachapelle, Jean-Marie [UCL] Kern, Petra Kanti, Amita

Visual assessment of skin reactions has long been used to evaluate the safety of chemicals and preparations that contact the skin, and to meet regulatory requirements. This article reviews the history of visual grading scales, and the results of investigations into the reliability of the method. Some examples are provided to illustrate the diverse array of protocols that use visual scoring to evaluate skin irritation. Furthermore, as bioengineering methods are developed that can quantitate certain aspects of skin irritant and sensitization reactions, it is important to consider whether such measures should supplement or replace visual assessment. Examples of investigations comparing the outcomes of studies that use visual scoring and those that use bioengineering methods are discussed. These examples provide little evidence that bioengineering measures provide an improvement in overall quality in comparison with current testing methods that rely on visual assessment. In addition, such measuring techniques can add considerably to the complexity of testing protocols. When benefits and cost are weighed in the balance, the visual assessment scales popularized by Draize and others remain an effective, practical method of evaluation. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.

Document type Article de périodique (Journal article) – Article de recherche
Access type Accès restreint
Publication date 2011
Language Anglais
Journal information "Contact Dermatitis : environmental and occupational dermatitis" - Vol. 65, no. 2, p. 65-75 (2011)
Peer reviewed yes
Publisher Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
e-issn 1600-0536
issn 0105-1873
Publication status Publié
Affiliation UCL - (SLuc) Service de dermatologie
Links
  1. Movat, Inflammation, Immunity and Hypersensitivity, 1 (1979)
  2. Devos, Eur J Dermatol, 12, 506 (2002)
  3. Lachapelle, Giant Steps in Patch Testing: A Historical Memoir, 169 (2010)
  4. SULZBERGER MARION B., THE CONTACT OR PATCH TEST IN DERMATOLOGY : ITS USES, ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS, 10.1001/archderm.1931.03880210112009
  5. Graves, Cal West Med, 36, 157 (1932)
  6. Mayer, Das Gewerbeekzem. Schriften aus dem Gesamtgebiet der Gewerbehygiene, 1 (1930)
  7. Blumenthal, Ekzem und Idiosynkrasie, 1 (1933)
  8. Bonnevie, Aetiologie und Patholgenise de Ekzemkrankheiten. Klinische Studien über due Ursachen der Ekzeme unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Diagnosticshen Werted der Eksamproben (1939)
  9. Schwartz Louis, Peck Samuel M., The Patch Test in Contact Dermatitis, 10.2307/4584864
  10. Draize, J Pharmacol Exp Ther, 82, 377 (1944)
  11. GUILD B. THURBER, WINDOW PATCH TEST, 10.1001/archderm.1939.01480230017002
  12. ROKSTAD INGVALD, A NEW MODIFICATION OF THE PATCH TEST (THE CHAMBER METHOD), 10.1001/archderm.1940.01490100013002
  13. Cronin, Contact Dermatitis, 1 (1980)
  14. Fisher, Contact Dermatitis, 9 (1986)
  15. Wilkinson, Acta Derm Venereol, 50, 287 (1970)
  16. National Academy of Sciences., Principles and Procedures for Evaluating the Toxicity of Household Substances, 23 (1977)
  17. Consumer Product Safety Commission CPSC. Consumer Product Safety Commission CPSC History 2010 http://www.usrecallnews.com/2008/05/us-consumer-product-safety-commission-cpsc.html
  18. U.S. Environmental Protection. Agency, OPPTS harmonized test guidelines series 870 - health effects test guidelines. 1998 http://www.epa.gov/oppts/pubs/frs/publications/Test_Guidelines/series870.htm
  19. OECD. OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals 404. 24th April 2002. Acute toxicity: Dermal Irritation/Corrosion 2002 http://ecb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/testing-methods/annex5/
  20. Title 16: Commercial Practices PART 1500 - hazardous substances and articles; administration and enforcement regulations § 1500.41 Method of testing primary irritant substances 2010 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/16cfr1500_00.html
  21. Standard Practice for Testing Biomaterials in Rabbits for Primary Skin Irritation 2007 http://www.astm.org/SEARCH/sitesearch.html?query=ASTM+F+719+-+81
  22. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Office of compliance requirements under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act: labeling and banning requirements for chemicals and other hazardous substances. 2002 http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/regsumfhsa.pdf
  23. Guidance to regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 on classification, labeling and packaging of substances and mixtures. 2009 222. http://ecb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/Classification-Labelling/CLP_Guidance_to_Regulation.pdf
  24. OECD. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals. 2010 http://titania.sourceoecd.org/vl=2183769/cl=13/nw=1/rpsv/cw/vhosts/oecdjournals/1607310x/v1n4/contp1-1.htm
  25. Marzulli F.N., Maibach H.I., The rabbit as a model for evaluating skin irritants: A comparison of results obtained on animals and man using repeated skin exposures, 10.1016/0015-6264(75)90008-5
  26. BUEHLER E. V., Delayed Contact Hypersensitivity In the Guinea Pig, 10.1001/archderm.1965.01600080079017
  27. Ritz, Current Concepts in Cutaneous Toxicity, 25 (1980)
  28. Maguire, J Soc Cosmet Chem, 24, 151 (1973)
  29. Epstein Ervin H., Epstein William L., Krasnobrod Hedy, New Cell Formation in Human Sebaceous Glands**From the Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco, California., 10.1038/jid.1966.67
  30. Shelanski M V Gabriel L. Cutaneous Toxicity Evaluation of Air Force Development Materials McGregor & Werner, Inc. 1961
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. OPPTS harmonized test guidelines series 870 - health effects test guidelines. 2003 http://www.epa.gov/oppts/pubs/frs/publications/Test_Guidelines/series870.htm
  32. OECD. OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals 406. 17th July 1992. Skin Sensitization 1992 http://ecb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/testing-methods/annex5/
  33. Standard Test Method for Human Repeat Insult Patch Testing of Medical Gloves ASTM International.
  34. Klecak, Dermatotoxicology, 227 (1987)
  35. Andersen, Contact Allergy: Predictive Tests in Guinea Pigs, 263 (1985)
  36. Marzulli, Dermatotoxicology, 319 (1987)
  37. Hjorth, Dermatotoxicology, 307 (1987)
  38. McNamee Pauline M., Api Anne Marie, Basketter David A., Frank Gerberick G., Gilpin Deborah A., Hall Barbara M., Jowsey Ian, Robinson Michael K., A review of critical factors in the conduct and interpretation of the human repeat insult patch test, 10.1016/j.yrtph.2007.10.019
  39. OECD. OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals 429 2010 http://ecb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/testing-methods/annex5/
  40. Farage, J Cosmet Sci, 51, 153 (2000)
  41. Lukacovic, J Soc Cosmet Chem, 3, 355 (1988)
  42. Finkelstein P., Laden K., Miechowski W., New Methods for Evaluating Cosmetic Irritancy**From The Toni Company, A Division of The Gillette Company, Chicago, Illinois., 10.1038/jid.1963.4
  43. Hannuksela Matti, Salo Heikki, The repeated open application test (ROAT), 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1986.tb01229.x
  44. Andersen Klaus Ejner, Reproducibility of the chamber scarification test, 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1996.tb02170.x
  45. Farage Miranda A., The Behind-the-Knee test: an efficient model for evaluating mechanical and chemical irritation, 10.1111/j.0909-752x.2006.00184.x
  46. Bannan E. A., Griffith J. F., Nusair T. L., Sauers L. J., Jackson Edward M., Skin Testing of Laundered Fabrics in The Dermal Safety Assessment of Enzyme-Containing Detergents, 10.3109/15569529209042726
  47. Rodriguez C., Calvin G., Lally C., LaChapelle J. M., Skin Effects Associated with Wearing Fabrics Washed with Commercial Laundry Detergents, 10.3109/15569529409037508
  48. Frosch Peter J., Kligman Albert M., The soap chamber test, 10.1016/s0190-9622(79)70001-6
  49. Frosch Peter J., Kligman Albert M., The chamber-scarification test for irritancy *, 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1976.tb03068.x
  50. Falk, Dermatol Online J, 16, 4. (2010)
  51. Ivens U., Serup J., O'goshi K., Allergy patch test reading from photographic images: disagreement on ICDRG grading but agreement on simplified tripartite reading, 10.1111/j.1600-0846.2007.00232.x
  52. Uter Wolfgang, Becker Detlef, Schnuch Axel, Gefeller Olaf, Frosch Peter J., The validity of rating patch test reactions based on digital images, 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01236.x
  53. Lock-Andersen J., Wulf H. C., Threshold level for measurement of UV sensitivity: reproducibility of phototest, 10.1111/j.1600-0781.1996.tb00192.x
  54. Griffiths H.A., Wilhelm K.-P., Robinson M.K., Wang X.M., McFadden J., York M., Basketter D.A., Interlaboratory evaluation of a human patch test for the identification of skin irritation potential/hazard, 10.1016/s0278-6915(96)00115-9
  55. Basketter David, Reynolds Fiona, Rowson Matt, Talbot Claire, Whittle Ed, Visual assessment of human skin irritation: a sensitive and reproducible tool, 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1997.tb02438.x
  56. Willis Carolyn M., Stephens Catherine J. M., Wilkinson J. D., Assessment of erythema in irritant contact dermatitis : Comparison between visual scoring and laser Doppler flowmetry, 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1988.tb04499.x
  57. Belletti Stefania Seidenari, Barbara, The Quantification of Patch Test Responses: A Comparison Between Echographic and Colorimetric Methods, 10.1080/000155598443079
  58. Agner Tove, Serup Jørgen, Sodium Lauryl Sulphate for Irritant Patch Testing- A Dose-Response Study Using Bioengineering Methods for Determination of Skin Irritation, 10.1111/1523-1747.ep12504896
  59. Lahti A., Kopola H., Harila A., Myllyl� R., Hannuksela M., Assessment of skin erythema by eye, laser Doppler flowmeter, spectroradiometer, two-channel erythema meter and Minolta chroma meter, 10.1007/bf00371596
  60. Wahlberg Jan E, Erythema-inducing effects of solvents following epicutaneous administration to man--studied by laser Doppler flowmetry., 10.5271/sjweh.2351
  61. Babulak, J Soc Cosmet Chem, 37, 475 (1986)
  62. Zuang V., Archer G., Rona C., Vignini M., Mosca M., Berardesca E., Predicting Visual Assessment of Allergic Patch Test Reactions by Non-Invasive Measurements, 10.1159/000029907
  63. Fluhr J.W., Kuss O., Diepgen T., Lazzerini S., Pelosi A., Gloor M., Berardesca E., Testing for irritation with a multifactorial approach: comparison of eight non-invasive measuring techniques on five different irritation types, 10.1046/j.1365-2133.2001.04431.x
  64. Magnusson, Acta Derm Venereol, 76, 129 (1996)
  65. OLLMAR S., NYREN M., NICANDER I., EMTESTAM L., Electrical impedance compared with other non-invasive bioengineering techniques and visual scoring for detection of irritation in human skin, 10.1111/j.1365-2133.1994.tb06878.x
  66. Fullerton Ann, Rode Birgitte, Serup Jørgen, Skin irritation typing and grading based on laser Doppler perfusion imaging, 10.1034/j.1600-0846.2002.80105.x
  67. Wigger-Alberti W., Hinnen U., Elsner P., Predictive testing of metalworking fluids: a comparison of 2 cumulative human irritation models and correlation with epidemiological data, 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1997.tb00916.x
  68. Held Elisabeth, Lorentzen Henrik, Agner Tove, Menné Torkil, Comparison between visual score and erythema index (DermaSpectrometer) in evaluation of allergic patch tests, 10.1111/j.1600-0846.1998.tb00108.x
  69. Andersen, Acta Derm Venereol, 65, 37 (1985)
  70. Breternitz, Sensitive Skin Syndrome, 75 (2006)
  71. Farage Miranda A., Are we reaching the limits or our ability to detect skin effects with our current testing and measuring methods for consumer products?, 10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00614.x
  72. Farage Miranda A, Enhancement of visual scoring of skin irritant reactions using cross-polarized light and parallel-polarized light, 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01284.x
Bibliographic reference Farage, Miranda A. ; Maibach, Howard I. ; Andersen, Klaus E. ; Lachapelle, Jean-Marie ; Kern, Petra ; et. al. Historical perspective on the use of visual grading scales in evaluating skin irritation and sensitization. In: Contact Dermatitis : environmental and occupational dermatitis, Vol. 65, no. 2, p. 65-75 (2011)
Permanent URL http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/163527