Classification of chemicals as sensitisers based on new test methods

For the last decade, classification schemes worldwide have recognised that certain chemicals may need to be categorised as skin or respiratory sensitisers. Although differing in detail, the schemes use similar criteria for designating materials as sensitisers, based on either direct evidence from exposed humans or the results of predictive guinea pig tests. In the case of respiratory sensitisation, however, there are currently no acceptable animal test methods. With an increasing understanding of cellular immunology in general, and of immune responses in skin and respiratory sensitisation in particular, several laboratories have recently been developing more objective, immunologically-based tests. For skin sensitisation, the two most promising methods are the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) and the mouse ear swelling test (MEST). Both assays have undergone inter-laboratory validation and it has been shown that they are able to detect reliably moderate to strong sensitisers. The 1992 update of the OECD test guideline for skin sensitisation suggests the use of the LLNA or MEST as a first stage of testing; if a positive result is seen in either assay, a chemical may then be designated (and classified) as a potential sensitiser and it may not be necessary to conduct a guinea pig test. However, if a negative result is obtained, a guinea pig test must be performed. For respiratory sensitisation, although certain guinea pig models of asthma appear to be predictive of the known human response to sensitisers such as diisocyanates and acid anhydrides, the measurement of changes in serum IgE antibodies in mice treated topically with chemicals may represent a simpler and more accurate method of designating chemicals as respiratory sensitisers.