The CTFA Evaluation of Alternatives Program: An evaluation of in vitro alternatives to the Draize primary eye irritation test. (Phase II) oil/water emulsions

The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association (CTFA) Evaluation of Alternative Program is an evaluation of the relationship between Draize ocular safety test data and comparable data from a selection of in vitro tests. In Phase II, 18 representative oil/water-based personal-care formulations were subjected to the Draize primary eye safety test and 30 in vitro assay protocols (14 different types of in vitro endpoints were evaluated; the remainder were protocol variations). Correlation of in vitro with in vivo data was evaluated using analysis of sensitivity/specificity and statistical analysis of the relationship between maximum average Draize score (MAS) and in vitro endpoint. Regression modelling is the primary approach adopted in the CTFA Program for evaluating in vitro assay perfomance. The objective of regression analysis is to predict MAS for a given test material (and to place upper and lower prediction interval bounds on the range in which the MAS is anticipated to fall with high probability) conditional on observing an in vitro assay 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: the narrower the prediction interval, the more predictive of the Draize score is the in vitro test result. 16 assays were shown to have the greatest agreement with the Draize procedure and were therefore selected for regression analysis. Based on the magnitude of the 95% prediction bounds of each of the 16 selected assays over the range of test data, it may be inferred that prediction of MAS values from experimentally determined in vitro scores is more accurate for oil/water-based formulations with lower rather than higher irritancy potential. The assays selected for modelling in Phase II generally exhibited weaker relationships with MAS than those selected in Phase I (evaluated using hydroalcoholic formulations), even though several assays were common to both Phases

The CFTA evaluation of alternatives program: An evaluation of in vitro alternatives to the Draize primary eye irritation test. (Phase III) surfactant-based formulations

The CTFA Evaluation of Alternatives Program is an evaluation of the relationship between data from the Draize primary eye irritation test and comparable data from a selection of promising in vitro eye irritation tests. In Phase III, data from the Draize test and 41 in vitro endpoints on 25 representative surfactant-based personal care formulations were compared. As in Phase I and Phase II, regression modelling of the relationship between maximum average Draize score (MAS) and in vitro endpoint was the primary approach adopted for evaluating in vitro assay performance. The degree of confidence in prediction of MAS for a given in vitro endpoint is quantified in terms of the relative widths of prediction intervals constructed about the fitted regression curve. Prediction intervals reflect not only the error attributed to the model but also the material-specific components of variation in both the Draize and the in vitro assays. Among the in vitro assays selected for regression modelling in Phase III, the relationship between MAS and in vitro score was relatively well defined. The prediction bounds on MAS were most narrow for materials at the lower or upper end of the effective irritation range (MAS = 0-45), where variability in MAS was smallest. Thus, the confidence with which the MAS of surfactant-based formulations is predicted is greatest when MAS approaches zero or when MAS approaches 45 (no comment is made on prediction of MAS > 45 since extrapolation beyond the range of observed data is not possible). No single in vitro endpoint was found to exhibit relative superiority with regard to prediction of MAS. Variability associated with Draize test outcome (e.g. in MAS values) must be considered in any future comparisons of in vivo and in vitro test results if the purpose is to predict in vivo response using in vitro data