ABSTRACT
The Hen's Egg Test-Chorioallantoic Membrane (HET-CAM) method was modified in our laboratory by means of microscopic evaluation, a clear description of the three in vitro endpoints (haemorrhage, lysis and coagulation) and the use of a test substance applicator (TSA). A previous study on 46 chemicals demonstrated the usage of the HET-CAM-TSA assay as a screening test for eye irritancy. In order to extend our database and to come to a more reliable conclusion concerning the use of the HET-CAM-TSA method, a second set of 60 test substances was tested. The in vitro irritation scores (IS) were compared with the in vivo modified maximum average scores (MMAS) calculated 24 hr after instillation. The MMAS irritancy threshold was set at 15.0. The results were analysed according to the Cooper's parameters (specificity, sensitivity and concordance with the Draize test) and the Pearson's correlation coefficient. It was concluded that the HET-CAM-TSA test was a valuable screening test. To compensate for the misclassifications generated, it was also concluded that the HET-CAM-TSA method should be considered as a part of a test battery, together with the Bovine Corneal Opacity-Permeability (BCOP) assay.
ABSTRACT
The hen's egg test-chorioallantoic membrane (HET-CAM) assay, an alternative to the Draize eye irritation test, was developed by Luepke and has been improved on by means of a microscopic examination and the use of a test substance applicator (TSA). The TSA is a double teflon ring in which a perlon mesh is locked, and has several advantages over conventional protocols, reducing subjectivity of the method and avoiding the need for rinsing after treatment. It was confirmed by statistical analysis that the HET-CAM-TSA method can reproduce potentialin vivo irritant effects on the conjunctiva. The classification based on thein vitro results was compared with fourin vivo classifications [MAS (maximal average score) with thresholds of 15.0 and 25.0; the Kay and Calandra method; and EC criteria]. Cooper's parameters (specificity, sensitivity and concordance with the Draize test) were calculated according to these fourin vivo classifications. When the most rigorous classification (MAS threshold of 15.0) was taken into account, a sensitivity of 80%, a specificity of 81.3% and a concordance with the Draize test of 80.4% were obtained for this set of 46 compounds.
