4.1 Article

Vaginal Irritation Models: The Current Status of Available Alternative and In Vitro Tests

期刊

ATLA-ALTERNATIVES TO LABORATORY ANIMALS
卷 39, 期 4, 页码 317-337

出版社

FRAME
DOI: 10.1177/026119291103900403

关键词

alternatives to animal testing; in vitro assays; vaginal irritation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mucosal surfaces, such as the vaginal epithelium, are natural barriers to infection that are constantly exposed to bacteria and viruses, and are therefore potential sites of entry for numerous pathogens. The vaginal epithelium can be damaged mechanically, e.g. by the incorrect use of objects such as tampons, and by chemicals that are irritating or corrosive. Consequently, this can lead to an increase in susceptibility to further damage or infection. Pharmaceutical, cosmetic and personal care products that are specifically formulated for application onto human external mucosae can occasionally induce undesirable local or systemic side-effects. Therefore, the compatibility of applied materials with this mucosal surface represents a key issue to be addressed by manufacturers. The most frequently used method for assessing vaginal mucosal irritation is the in vivo rabbit vaginal irritation test. However, the current emphasis in the field of toxicology is to use alternative in vitro methods that reduce, refine, and replace the use of animals, and which model and predict human, not animal, responses. Such an approach is of particular interest to the personal care and cosmetic industries in their effort to comply with European legislative measures, such as the 7th Amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive that does not permit the marketing of cosmetic products if they, or their ingredients, have been tested for irritation responses in animals. The focus of this review is to provide an overview of the alternative and in vitro tests that are currently available for vaginal mucosal irritation assessment, and which are already used, or may become useful, to establish the safety of newly-designed products for human use.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据