Sensitization potential of medical devices detected by in vitro and in vivo methods

Medical devices have to be tested before marketing in accordance with ISO EN 10993-10 in order to avoid skin sensitization. This standard predominantly refers to the in vivo test; however, it doesn't exclude the use of in vitro methods, which have been sufficiently technically and scientificall...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:ALTEX, alternatives to animal experimentation alternatives to animal experimentation, 2021-01, Vol.38 (3), p.419
Hauptverfasser: Svobodová, Lada, Rucki, Marian, Vlkova, Alena, Kejlova, Kristina, Jírová, Dagmar, Dvorakova, Marketa, Kolarova, Hana, Kandárová, Helena, Pôbiš, Peter, Heinonen, Tuula, Maly, Marek
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 3
container_start_page 419
container_title ALTEX, alternatives to animal experimentation
container_volume 38
creator Svobodová, Lada
Rucki, Marian
Vlkova, Alena
Kejlova, Kristina
Jírová, Dagmar
Dvorakova, Marketa
Kolarova, Hana
Kandárová, Helena
Pôbiš, Peter
Heinonen, Tuula
Maly, Marek
description Medical devices have to be tested before marketing in accordance with ISO EN 10993-10 in order to avoid skin sensitization. This standard predominantly refers to the in vivo test; however, it doesn't exclude the use of in vitro methods, which have been sufficiently technically and scientifically validated for the purpose of medical devices testing. It is foreseen that due to the complexity of the sensitization endpoint, combination of several methods will be needed to address all key events occurring in the sensitization process. The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate sensitization potential of selected medical devices using a combination of in vitro (LuSens, OECD TG 442D), in chemico (DPRA, OECD TG 442C) and in vivo (LLNA DA, OECD TG 442A) methods and to suggest a possible testing strategy for the safety assessment of medical devices extracts. Overall, one of the 42 tested samples exhibited positive results in all employed test methods, while 33 samples were predicted as samples with non-sensitizing potential in all three performed methods. This study demonstrated good agreement between in vitro and in vivo results regarding the absence of skin sensitization potential; however, discrepancies in positive classification have been recorded.  The mismatch between in vitro and in vivo results might be caused by specific response of the immune system of the living organism. The in vitro methods require optimization of procedure, in particular the choice of appropriate extraction vehicle and applied volumes.
doi_str_mv 10.14573/altex.2008142
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_gale_infotracmisc_A670493943</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A670493943</galeid><sourcerecordid>A670493943</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c362t-4959b9b4956e414e010f5c026e4d3210b46a876cf5330f4dd92f1dfb427f6dc03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkM1LAzEQxYMottRePcqC56352uzmWIpfUPBQBW9LNploZHdTNrFY_3pDW8VDZw5vZnhvDj-ELgmeEV6U7Ea1Eb5mFOOKcHqCxqQSVV5I8Xr6bx6haQgfOJXAlJT0HI0Y47LkgozRagV9cNF9q-h8n619hD461WbeZh0Yp9NoYOM0hKQRdASTNdvM9dnGxcFnqjf7ZeNTIL57Ey7QmVVtgOlBJ-jl7vZ58ZAvn-4fF_NlrpmgMeeykI1skgjghAMm2BYa07QZRgluuFBVKbQtGMOWGyOpJcY2nJZWGI3ZBF3v_76pFmrXWx8HpTsXdD0XJeaSSc6Sa3bEldpA57Tvwbp0PxbQgw9hAFuvB9epYVsTXO-41zvu9YF7ClztA-vPJjH7s_9SZj-38X3R</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Sensitization potential of medical devices detected by in vitro and in vivo methods</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Svobodová, Lada ; Rucki, Marian ; Vlkova, Alena ; Kejlova, Kristina ; Jírová, Dagmar ; Dvorakova, Marketa ; Kolarova, Hana ; Kandárová, Helena ; Pôbiš, Peter ; Heinonen, Tuula ; Maly, Marek</creator><creatorcontrib>Svobodová, Lada ; Rucki, Marian ; Vlkova, Alena ; Kejlova, Kristina ; Jírová, Dagmar ; Dvorakova, Marketa ; Kolarova, Hana ; Kandárová, Helena ; Pôbiš, Peter ; Heinonen, Tuula ; Maly, Marek</creatorcontrib><description>Medical devices have to be tested before marketing in accordance with ISO EN 10993-10 in order to avoid skin sensitization. This standard predominantly refers to the in vivo test; however, it doesn't exclude the use of in vitro methods, which have been sufficiently technically and scientifically validated for the purpose of medical devices testing. It is foreseen that due to the complexity of the sensitization endpoint, combination of several methods will be needed to address all key events occurring in the sensitization process. The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate sensitization potential of selected medical devices using a combination of in vitro (LuSens, OECD TG 442D), in chemico (DPRA, OECD TG 442C) and in vivo (LLNA DA, OECD TG 442A) methods and to suggest a possible testing strategy for the safety assessment of medical devices extracts. Overall, one of the 42 tested samples exhibited positive results in all employed test methods, while 33 samples were predicted as samples with non-sensitizing potential in all three performed methods. This study demonstrated good agreement between in vitro and in vivo results regarding the absence of skin sensitization potential; however, discrepancies in positive classification have been recorded.  The mismatch between in vitro and in vivo results might be caused by specific response of the immune system of the living organism. The in vitro methods require optimization of procedure, in particular the choice of appropriate extraction vehicle and applied volumes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1868-596X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1868-596X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.14573/altex.2008142</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33497461</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Germany: Springer Spektrum</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Detectors ; Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid ; Medical equipment ; Methods ; Physiological apparatus ; Skin</subject><ispartof>ALTEX, alternatives to animal experimentation, 2021-01, Vol.38 (3), p.419</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Springer Spektrum</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c362t-4959b9b4956e414e010f5c026e4d3210b46a876cf5330f4dd92f1dfb427f6dc03</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,864,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33497461$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Svobodová, Lada</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rucki, Marian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vlkova, Alena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kejlova, Kristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jírová, Dagmar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dvorakova, Marketa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kolarova, Hana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kandárová, Helena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pôbiš, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heinonen, Tuula</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maly, Marek</creatorcontrib><title>Sensitization potential of medical devices detected by in vitro and in vivo methods</title><title>ALTEX, alternatives to animal experimentation</title><addtitle>ALTEX</addtitle><description>Medical devices have to be tested before marketing in accordance with ISO EN 10993-10 in order to avoid skin sensitization. This standard predominantly refers to the in vivo test; however, it doesn't exclude the use of in vitro methods, which have been sufficiently technically and scientifically validated for the purpose of medical devices testing. It is foreseen that due to the complexity of the sensitization endpoint, combination of several methods will be needed to address all key events occurring in the sensitization process. The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate sensitization potential of selected medical devices using a combination of in vitro (LuSens, OECD TG 442D), in chemico (DPRA, OECD TG 442C) and in vivo (LLNA DA, OECD TG 442A) methods and to suggest a possible testing strategy for the safety assessment of medical devices extracts. Overall, one of the 42 tested samples exhibited positive results in all employed test methods, while 33 samples were predicted as samples with non-sensitizing potential in all three performed methods. This study demonstrated good agreement between in vitro and in vivo results regarding the absence of skin sensitization potential; however, discrepancies in positive classification have been recorded.  The mismatch between in vitro and in vivo results might be caused by specific response of the immune system of the living organism. The in vitro methods require optimization of procedure, in particular the choice of appropriate extraction vehicle and applied volumes.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Detectors</subject><subject>Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid</subject><subject>Medical equipment</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Physiological apparatus</subject><subject>Skin</subject><issn>1868-596X</issn><issn>1868-596X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNptkM1LAzEQxYMottRePcqC56352uzmWIpfUPBQBW9LNploZHdTNrFY_3pDW8VDZw5vZnhvDj-ELgmeEV6U7Ea1Eb5mFOOKcHqCxqQSVV5I8Xr6bx6haQgfOJXAlJT0HI0Y47LkgozRagV9cNF9q-h8n619hD461WbeZh0Yp9NoYOM0hKQRdASTNdvM9dnGxcFnqjf7ZeNTIL57Ey7QmVVtgOlBJ-jl7vZ58ZAvn-4fF_NlrpmgMeeykI1skgjghAMm2BYa07QZRgluuFBVKbQtGMOWGyOpJcY2nJZWGI3ZBF3v_76pFmrXWx8HpTsXdD0XJeaSSc6Sa3bEldpA57Tvwbp0PxbQgw9hAFuvB9epYVsTXO-41zvu9YF7ClztA-vPJjH7s_9SZj-38X3R</recordid><startdate>20210101</startdate><enddate>20210101</enddate><creator>Svobodová, Lada</creator><creator>Rucki, Marian</creator><creator>Vlkova, Alena</creator><creator>Kejlova, Kristina</creator><creator>Jírová, Dagmar</creator><creator>Dvorakova, Marketa</creator><creator>Kolarova, Hana</creator><creator>Kandárová, Helena</creator><creator>Pôbiš, Peter</creator><creator>Heinonen, Tuula</creator><creator>Maly, Marek</creator><general>Springer Spektrum</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210101</creationdate><title>Sensitization potential of medical devices detected by in vitro and in vivo methods</title><author>Svobodová, Lada ; Rucki, Marian ; Vlkova, Alena ; Kejlova, Kristina ; Jírová, Dagmar ; Dvorakova, Marketa ; Kolarova, Hana ; Kandárová, Helena ; Pôbiš, Peter ; Heinonen, Tuula ; Maly, Marek</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c362t-4959b9b4956e414e010f5c026e4d3210b46a876cf5330f4dd92f1dfb427f6dc03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Detectors</topic><topic>Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid</topic><topic>Medical equipment</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Physiological apparatus</topic><topic>Skin</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Svobodová, Lada</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rucki, Marian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vlkova, Alena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kejlova, Kristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jírová, Dagmar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dvorakova, Marketa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kolarova, Hana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kandárová, Helena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pôbiš, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heinonen, Tuula</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maly, Marek</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>ALTEX, alternatives to animal experimentation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Svobodová, Lada</au><au>Rucki, Marian</au><au>Vlkova, Alena</au><au>Kejlova, Kristina</au><au>Jírová, Dagmar</au><au>Dvorakova, Marketa</au><au>Kolarova, Hana</au><au>Kandárová, Helena</au><au>Pôbiš, Peter</au><au>Heinonen, Tuula</au><au>Maly, Marek</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Sensitization potential of medical devices detected by in vitro and in vivo methods</atitle><jtitle>ALTEX, alternatives to animal experimentation</jtitle><addtitle>ALTEX</addtitle><date>2021-01-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>419</spage><pages>419-</pages><issn>1868-596X</issn><eissn>1868-596X</eissn><abstract>Medical devices have to be tested before marketing in accordance with ISO EN 10993-10 in order to avoid skin sensitization. This standard predominantly refers to the in vivo test; however, it doesn't exclude the use of in vitro methods, which have been sufficiently technically and scientifically validated for the purpose of medical devices testing. It is foreseen that due to the complexity of the sensitization endpoint, combination of several methods will be needed to address all key events occurring in the sensitization process. The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate sensitization potential of selected medical devices using a combination of in vitro (LuSens, OECD TG 442D), in chemico (DPRA, OECD TG 442C) and in vivo (LLNA DA, OECD TG 442A) methods and to suggest a possible testing strategy for the safety assessment of medical devices extracts. Overall, one of the 42 tested samples exhibited positive results in all employed test methods, while 33 samples were predicted as samples with non-sensitizing potential in all three performed methods. This study demonstrated good agreement between in vitro and in vivo results regarding the absence of skin sensitization potential; however, discrepancies in positive classification have been recorded.  The mismatch between in vitro and in vivo results might be caused by specific response of the immune system of the living organism. The in vitro methods require optimization of procedure, in particular the choice of appropriate extraction vehicle and applied volumes.</abstract><cop>Germany</cop><pub>Springer Spektrum</pub><pmid>33497461</pmid><doi>10.14573/altex.2008142</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1868-596X
ispartof ALTEX, alternatives to animal experimentation, 2021-01, Vol.38 (3), p.419
issn 1868-596X
1868-596X
language eng
recordid cdi_gale_infotracmisc_A670493943
source DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Springer Nature OA Free Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Analysis
Detectors
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid
Medical equipment
Methods
Physiological apparatus
Skin
title Sensitization potential of medical devices detected by in vitro and in vivo methods
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T21%3A34%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Sensitization%20potential%20of%20medical%20devices%20detected%20by%20in%20vitro%20and%20in%20vivo%20methods&rft.jtitle=ALTEX,%20alternatives%20to%20animal%20experimentation&rft.au=Svobodov%C3%A1,%20Lada&rft.date=2021-01-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=419&rft.pages=419-&rft.issn=1868-596X&rft.eissn=1868-596X&rft_id=info:doi/10.14573/altex.2008142&rft_dat=%3Cgale_cross%3EA670493943%3C/gale_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/33497461&rft_galeid=A670493943&rfr_iscdi=true