Ocular irritation testing has been one of the animal test methods most criticised by animal welfare advocates. Additional criticism has arisen from within the scientific community, based on the variability of the animal test results and the questionable relevance of the extremely high dose levels employed. As a result, the Draize eye irritation test has been one of the main targets for in vitro replacement. Despite extensive efforts, however, there is still no in vitro method that is fully validated as a regulatory replacement. In spite of this, many individual companies are using diverse in vitro ocular irritation tests to gain important safety and efficacy information about their products and raw materials, eliminating the need for animal testing in the process. This is done in a safe fashion by applying intelligent testing paradigms. ECVAM has played a major role in this success, through its many programmes that have emphasised the importance of understanding the true toxicological need, and then using in vitro tests to provide that information. Thus, even in the absence of a successfully validated regulatory assay, the desired result of reducing animal testing is being met.
DraizeJ.H., WoodardG., & CalveryH.O. (1944). Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics82, 377–390.
2.
WeilC.S., & ScalaR.A. (1971). Study of intra- and interlaboratory variability in the results of rabbit eye and skin irritation tests. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology19, 276–360.
3.
BrunerL., CarrG., ChamberlainM., & CurrenR. (1996). Validation of alternative methods for toxicology testing. Toxicology in Vitro1, 479–501.
4.
FreebergF.E., NixonG.A., ReerP.J., WeaverJ.E., BruceR.D., GriffithJ.F., & SandersL.W.I. (1986). Human and rabbit eye responses to chemical insult. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology7, 626–634.
5.
DastonG.P., & FreebergF.E. (1991). Ocular irritation testing. In Dermal and Ocular Toxicology: Fundamentals and Methods (ed. HobsonD.W.), pp. 509–540. Ann Arbor, MI, USA: CRC Press.
6.
BallsM., BothamP.A., BrunerL.H., & SpielmannH. (1995). The EC/HO international validation study on alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test. Toxicology in Vitro9, 871–929.
7.
BallsM., BlaauboerB.J., FentemJ.H., BrunerL., CombesR.D., EkwallB., FielderR.J., GuillouzoA., LewisR.W., LovellD.P., ReinhardtC.A., RepettoG., SladowskiD., SpielmannH., & ZuccoF. (1995). Practical aspects of the validation of toxicity test procedures. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 5. ATLA23, 129–147.
8.
HendriksenC., SpieserJ.M., AkkermansA., BallsM., BrucknerL., CublerK., DaasA., DescampsJ., DobblaerR., FentemJ.H., HalderM.E., van der KampM., LuckenR., MilstienJ., SesardicD., StraughanD., & ValadaresA. (1998). Validation of alternative methods for the potency testing of vaccines. ATLA26, 747–761.
9.
Cooper-HannanR., HarbellJ., CoeckeS., BallsM., BoweG., CervinkaM., ClothierR., HermannF., KlahmL.K., de LangeJ., LiebschM., & VanparysP. (1999). The principles of Good Laboratory Practice: application to in vitro toxicology studies. ATLA27, 539–577.
10.
CurrenR.D., SoutheeJ.A., SpielmannH., LiebschM., FentemJ.H., & BallsM. (1995). The role of prevalidation in the development, validation and acceptance of alternative methods. ATLA23, 211–217.
11.
HolzhutterH-G., ArcherG., DamiN., LovellD.P., SaltelliA., & SjostromM. (1996). Recommendations for the application of biostatistical methods during the development and validation of alternative toxicological methods. ECVAM Biostatistics Task Force Report 1. ATLA24, 511–530.
12.
SpielmannH., LiebschM., & KalweitS. (1996). Results of a validation study in Germany on two in vitro alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test, the HETCAM test and the 3T3-NRU cytotoxicity test. ATLA24, 741–858.
13.
CurrenR., BrunerL., GoldbergA., & WalumE. (1998). 13th meeting of the Scientific Group on Methodologies for the Safety Evaluation of Chemicals (SGOMSEC): validation and acute toxicity testing. Environmental Health Perspectives106, 419–425.
14.
FlintO.P. (1993). Speranza per Voi Che Entrate. ATLA21, 317–318.
15.
BallsM., KlerckW.D., BakerF., Van BeekM., BouillonC., BrunerL., CarstensenJ., ChamberlainM., CottinM., CurrenR., DupuisJ., FairweatherF., FauneU., FentemJ.H., FisherC., GalliC., KemperF., KnappA., LanglyG., LoprienoG., LoprienoN., PapeW.J.W., PechovitschG., SpielmannH., UngarK., WhiteI., & ZuangV. (1995). Development and validation of non-animal tests and testing strategies: the identification of a coordinated response to the challenge and the opportunity presented by the Sixth Amendment to the Cosmetics Directive (76/768/EEC). The report and recommendations of an ECVAM/CPS workshop (ECVAM workshop 7). ATLA23, 398–409.
16.
BallsM., BergN., BrunerL.H., CurrenR.D., de SilvaO., EarlL.K., EsdaileD.J., FentemJ.H., LiebschM., OhnoY., PrinsenM.K., SpielmannH., & WorthA.P. (1999). Eye irritation testing: the way forward. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 34. ATLA27, 53–77.
17.
WorthA.P., & CroninM.T.D. (2001). The use of bootstrap resampling to assess the variability of Draize tissue scores. ATLA29, 557–573.
18.
BrunerL., CarrG.J., CurrenR.D., & ChamberlainM. (1997). Validation of alternative methods for toxicity testing. Comments in Toxicology6, 37–51.
19.
SwansonJ.E., & HarbellJ. (2000). Evaluating the eye irritancy potential of ethanolic test materials with the bovine corneal opacity and permeability assay. The Toxicologist54, 188.
20.
CaterK.C., RaabeH.A., MunG.C., & HarbellJ.W. (2001). Corporate validation program for predicting eye irritation of surfactant formulations. The Toxicologist60, 99.
21.
BurdickJ., MerrillJ., SpanglerT., MoyerG., & HarbellJ. (2002). Use of histological examination in bovine corneal opacity and permeability (BCOP) assay for assessing the ocular irritation potential of fragranced formulations. The Toxicologist66, 1194.
22.
SinaJ.F., GalerD.M., SussmanR.G., GautheronP.D., SargentE.V., LeongB., ShahP.V., CurrenR.D., & MillerK. (1995). A collaborative evaluation of seven alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test using pharmaceutical intermediates. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology26, 20–31.
23.
GettingsS.D., RozenM.G., BagleyD.M., CastertonP.L., ChudkowskiM.R., CurrenR.D., DemetruliasJ.L., DiPasqualeL.C., EarlL.K., FederP.I., GalliC.L., HarbellJ., HintzK.L., LordoR.A., MarenusK.D., MoralJ., PapeW.J.W., ReT.A., RenskersK.J., RothensteinA.S., & TedeschiJ.P. (1996). The CTFA evaluation of alternatives programme: a summary of the results of an analysis of the performance of a series of promising alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test. In Alternatives to Animal Testing (ed. LisanskyS., MacmillanR., & DupuisJ.), pp. 282–295. Newbury, UK: CPL Press.
24.
CurrenR.D., HarbellJ.W., RaabeH.A., SussmanR.G., & KimmelT.A. (1997). The utility of a two-test in vitro battery to assess the ocular irritancy of drug intermediates. In Animal Alternatives, Welfare and Ethics (ed. van ZutphenL.F.M., & BallsM.), pp. 583–589. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
25.
SinaJ.F., GautheronP., CastertonP., EvansM.G., HarbellJ.W., CurrenR.D., EarlL.K., & BrunerL. (1998). Report from the bovine corneal opacity and permeability technical workshop. In Vitro and Molecular Toxicology11, 315–351.
26.
LewisR.W., McCallJ.C., & BothamP.A. (1994). Use of an in vitro battery as a prescreen in the assessment of ocular irritancy. Toxicology in Vitro8, 75–79.
27.
CooperK.J., EarlL.K., HarbellJ.W., & RaabeH. (2001). Prediction of ocular irritancy of prototype shampoo formulations by the isolated rabbit eye (IRE) test and bovine corneal opacity and permeability (BCOP) assay. Toxicology in Vitro15, 95–103.
28.
BurtonA.B.D., YorkM., & LawrenceR.S. (1981). The in vitro assessment of severe eye irritants. Food and Cosmetics Toxicology19, 471–480.
29.
PrinsenM.K., & KoëterH.B.W.M. (1993). Justification of the enucleated eye test with eyes of slaughterhouse animals as an alternative to the Draize eye irritation test with rabbits. Food and Chemical Toxicology31, 69–76.
30.
HarbellJ., RaabeH., EvansM.G., & CurrenR. (1999). Histopathology associated with opacity and permeability changes in bovine corneas in vitro.The Toxicologist48, 336.
31.
SoutheeJ.A., McPhersonJ.P., OsborneR., CarrG.J., & RasmussenE. (1999). The performance of the tissue equivalent assay using the skin ZK1200 model in the COLIPA international validation study on alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test. Toxicology in Vitro13, 355–373.
32.
HarbellJ., & CurrenR. (2001). In vitro methods for the prediction of ocular and dermal toxicity. In Handbook of Toxicology (ed. DerelankoM., & HollingerM.), 2nd edn, pp. 114–119. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
33.
HarbellJ., KoontzS.W., LewisR.W., LovellD., & AcostaD. (1997). IRAG working group 4: cell cytotoxicity assays. Food and Chemical Toxicology35, 79–126.
34.
SpielmannH., LiebschM., MoldenhauerF., HolzhütterH-G., BagleyD.M., LipmanJ.M., PapeW.J.W., MiltenbergerH., deSilvaO., HoferH., & SteilingW. (1997). IRAG working group 4: CAM-based assays. Food and Chemical Toxicology35, 39–66.
35.
BagleyD.M., CervenD., & HarbellJ.W. (1999). Assessment of the chorioallantoic membrane vascular assay (CAMVA) in the COLIPA in vitro eye irritation validation study. Toxicology in Vitro13, 285–293.
36.
BrunerL., CarrG., ChamberlainM., & CurrenR. (1996). No prediction model, no validation study. ATLA24, 139–142.
37.
ArcherG., BallsM., BrunerL.H., CurrenR.D., FentemJ.H., HolzhutterH.G., LiebschM., LovellD.P., & SoutheeJ.A. (1997). The validation of toxicological prediction models. ATLA25, 505–516.
