`
`2
`.
`ELSEVIER
`
`Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
`
`science @)oinecrs
`
`Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 39 (2004) 271-281
`
`Regulatory
`
`Toxicology and
`Pharmacology
`
`www.elsevier.com/locate/yrtph
`
`In vitro predictions of skin absorption of caffeine, testosterone,
`and benzoic acid: a multi-centre comparison study
`
`J.J.M. van de Sandt,** J.A. van Burgsteden,* S. Cage,' P.L. Carmichael,®! I. Dick,'
`S. Kenyon,° G. Korinth," F. Larese,° J.C. Limasset,4 W.J.M. Maas,* L. Montomoli,”
`J.B. Nielsen,® J.-P. Payan,4 E. Robinson," P. Sartorelli,” K.H. Schaller,"
`S.C. Wilkinson,’ and F.M. Williams’!
`
`* TNO Nutrition and Food Research, Zeist, The Netherlands
`© Istituto di Medicina del Lavoro, Siena, Italy
`© Universita: di Trieste, Italy
`“ Institut National de Recherche et de Sécurité, Vandoeuvre Cedex, France
`* Biological Chemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
`" Health and Safety Laboratory, Sheffield, UK
`® University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
`" University ofErlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
`! Huntingdon Life Science Ltd, Eye, UK
`| The Medical School, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
`Received 18 November 2003
`
`Available online 22 April 2004
`
`Abstract
`
`To obtain better insight into the robustness of in vitro percutaneous absorption methodology, the intra- and inter-laboratory
`variation in this type of study was investigated in 10 European laboratories. To this purpose, the in vitro absorption of three
`compounds through human skin (9 laboratories) and rat skin (1 laboratory) was determined. The test materials were benzoic acid,
`caffeine, and testosterone, representing a range of different physico-chemical properties. All laboratories performed their studies
`according to a detailed protocol in which all experimental details were described and each laboratory performed at least three
`independent experiments for each test chemical. All laboratories assigned the absorption of benzoic acid through human skin, the
`highest ranking of the three compounds(overall mean flux of 16.54 + 11.87 j1g/em*/h). The absorption of caffeine and testosterone
`through humanskin wassimilar, having overall mean maximum absorption rates of 2.24 + 1.43 pg/em’/h and 1.63 + 1.94g/em*/h,
`respectively. In 7 out of 9 laboratories, the maximum absorption rates of cafleine were ranked higher than testosterone. No dif-
`ferences were observed between the mean absorption through human skin and the onerat study for benzoic acid and testosterone.
`For caffeine the maximum absorption rate and the total penetration through rat skin were clearly higher than the mean value for
`human skin. When evaluating all data, it appeared that no consistent relation existed between the diffusion cell type and the ab-
`sorption ofthe test compounds. Skin thickness only slightly influenced the absorption ofbenzoic acid and caffeine. In contrast, the
`maximum absorption rate of testosterone was clearly higher in the laboratories using thin, dermatomed skin membranes. Testos-
`terone is the most lipophilic compound and showed also a higher presence in the skin membrane after 24h than the two other
`compounds. The results of this study indicate that the in vitro methodology for assessing skin absorptionis relatively robust. A
`major effort was made to standardize the study performance, but, unlike in a formal validation study, not all variables were
`controlled. The variation observed maybelargely attributed to human variability in dermal absorption and the skin source. For the
`most lipophilic compound, testosterone, skin thickness proved to beacritical variable.
`© 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
`
`"Corresponding author. Fax: +31-30-6960264.
`E-mail address: vandesandt(@voeding.tno.nl (J.J.M. van de Sandt).
`' Present address: Unilever Colworth, Sharnbrook, UK
`;
`;
`0273-2300/S - see front matter © 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
`doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2004.02.004
`0001
`
`Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`EX2023
`Mylan Tech., Inc. v. Noven Pharma., Inc.
`IPR2018-00174
`
`
`
`272
`
`J.J.M. van de Sandt et al.
`
`| Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 39 (2004) 271-281
`
`1. Introduction
`
`Reproducible data on percutaneous absorption in
`humans are required to predict the systemic risk from
`dermal exposure to chemicals, such as hazardous sub-
`stances at the workplace, agrochemicals, and cosmetic
`ingredients (EC 2002: EEC 1991; SCCNFP 2003).
`In
`this context, there is a need for reliable in vitro models
`since the European Union advocates this approach and
`national legislation stipulates that animal experiments
`should be avoided wheneverscientifically feasible. Fur-
`thermore, owing to the difference in skin structure, an-
`imal studies do not always reflect the humansituation.
`Absorption through the skin is the primary route
`of exposure for most pesticides both occupationally
`(Benford et al. 1999) and in residential settings (Ross
`et al. 1992). Despite the often relatively high dermal
`(and inhalation) exposure in occupationalsettings, reg-
`ulations for pesticides and other chemical exposure have
`evolved from concern about the oral route of exposure.
`In the absenceofreliable dermal absorption data, route-
`to-route extrapolation has been used to assess dermal
`risk. It should be noted that this extrapolation is not
`always straightforward in cases when differences in
`biotransformation exist between the oral and dermal
`route, excessive first pass effects occur and/or large dif-
`ferences in rate of absorption exist between the various
`routes of exposure. When no information is available on
`percutaneous absorption, risk assessments may assume
`an absorption percentage of 100%, a worst case scenario
`(EC 2002). This is a very conservative approach and a
`more accurate measure of absorption would have a
`major impact on risk assessments for many chemicals in
`regulatory toxicology. The specific need for a valid
`method of assessing human dermal absorption has led
`the OECD (2000a,b,c) and EPA (1996, 1999) to produce
`guidelines for in vitro and in vivo assessment of percu-
`taneous absorption.
`A review of available data from published literature
`on in vitro dermal absorption was performed underthe
`auspices of the OECD in order to evaluate the perfor-
`mance of in vitro and in vivo percutaneous absorption
`measurements. It was concluded that evaluation of in
`vitro test methods from published literature wasdifficult
`(OECD 2000d) because studies containing direct com-
`parisons of in vitro and in vivo measurements were
`very limited. There were too many variables, such as
`different species, thickness and types of the skin, expo-
`
`sure duration, and vehicles. Also, very few multi-centre
`studies have been performed (Beck et al. 1994) and these
`studies were limited in their approach (e.g., with respect
`to the numberof laboratories involved). Therefore, no
`proper data on the intra- and inter-laboratory repro-
`ducibility of the in vitro methodology are available.
`The purpose of the present research was therefore to
`assess intra- and inter-laboratory variability in deter-
`mination of percutaneous penetration by in vitro
`methods on a larger scale than done previously. This
`report contains data generated by 10 independent lab-
`oratories from within the European Union, each testing
`the percutaneous absorption of three chemicals that are
`recommended by the OECDassuitable reference com-
`pounds for regulatory studies (OECD 2000c). The ex-
`perimental conditions (amount applied, exposure time,
`vehicle, receptor fluid, preparation of membranes, and
`analysis) were standardized according to a detailed
`protocol that adopted many ofthe guidelines proposed
`by the OECD.
`
`2. Materials and methods
`
`2.1. Test substances and preparation ofdose solutions
`
`The test substances were chosen on the basis of their
`range in physico-chemical properties (Table 1) and their
`recommendation as reference compounds by the OECD
`(OECD 2000c). All participating laboratories used the
`same batches of test substances. Non-radiolabelled tes-
`tosterone, caffeine, and benzoic acid were purchased
`from Steraloids
`(Newport, RI, USA) and Sigma
`Chemical Company by the study coordinator and were
`then supplied to the participants.
`[4-''C]testosterone
`(53.6mCi/mmol) and [l-methyl-'C]caffeine (51.2 mCi/
`mmol) were purchased from Perkin-Elmer Life Sci-
`ences, while [ring-UL-'C]benzoic acid (6.2 mCi/mmol)
`was obtained from Sigma Chemical Company. The dose
`solutions were prepared freshly by each laboratory in
`ethanol/water (1:1, v/v), yielding a concentration of
`4.0mg/mL for each compound. Participants with a li-
`cense to handle radiochemicals prepared the dose solu-
`tions by mixing appropriate amounts of radiolabelled
`and non-radiolabelled test substances. The dose solu-
`tions were measuredfor exact total radioactivity prior to
`and directly after the application to the skin membranes.
`The
`radioactive
`concentration was
`approximately
`
`Table |
`Test substances
`
`Test substance
`
`Benzoic acid (benzenecarboxylic acid)
`Testosterone (4-androsten-17$-ol-3-one)
`Caffeine (3,7-dihydro-|,3,7-trimethyl-1 H-purine-2,6-dione)
`
`MW
`122.1
`288.4
`194.2
`
`log Po/w
`1.83
`3.32
`0.01
`
`CAS No,
`65-8 35-0
`58-22-0)
`58-08-2
`
`0002
`
`
`
`J.J.M. van de Sandt et al. | Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 39 (2004) 271-281
`
`bo =!Nad
`
`1 MBq/mL for testosterone and caffeine and approxi-
`mately 4 MBq/mLfor benzoic acid.
`
`2.4. Experimental design
`
`2.2. Preparation of skin membranes
`
`Both human and rat skin membranes were prepared
`from frozen skin. Whole skin was cleaned of subcuta-
`neous fat and the skin was stored at approximately
`—20°C (participants 1 and 2 at approximately —70°C)
`for a maximum period of one year. The supply and use
`of human and animal tissue wasin full accordance with
`national ethical guidelines. Detailed information on the
`human skin source was recorded (Table 2). Most par-
`ticipants used humanskin with a thickness between 0.7—
`1.1mm, while one participant used skin that was 0.8—
`1.8mm. Three laboratories used dermatomed skin with
`a thickness of 0.5-0.7 mm (participants | and 7) or 0.3—
`0.4mm (participant 10). The range of skin thickness
`used by the various participants allowed for the assess-
`ment of the influence of skin thickness on the absorption
`characteristics of the test compounds. Skin from more
`than one donor was used in each experiment and each
`experimental group consisted of 5—7 skin membranes
`form different individuals. Rat full-thickness skin was
`used by participant 5 and wascollected from the back
`(clipped carefully) of four weeks old male Sprague
`Dawley rats.
`
`2.3. Diffusion cells and receptor fluid
`
`Each participant used the diffusion cell that was es-
`tablished in their laboratory (details are shown in Table
`3). For experiments with caffeine and benzoic acid, the
`receptorfluid consisted of saline (0.9% NaCl), while for
`experiments with
`testosterone,
`the
`receptor
`fluid
`consisted of saline (0.9% NaCl)+5% Bovine Serum
`Albumin (BSA), adjusted to pH 7.4. For systems using
`flow-through diffusion cells, the flow of receptor fluid
`was approximately 1.5 mL/h.
`
`Table 2
`Details of source of human skin
`
`All participating laboratories performed their studies
`according to a detailed study protocol in which the ex-
`perimental design and parameters such as the dose of
`the test chemical, vehicle, duration of the experiment,
`preparation of the skin membranes, receptorfluid type,
`occlusion, temperature, sampling times, and numberof
`replicates were defined. Skin membranes were thawed,
`mounted in the diffusion cell and the skin integrity was
`assessed by either visual assessment, permeation oftri-
`tiated water (cut-off K, > 3.5 x 10-3cm/h) or capaci-
`tance (cut-off: 55nF), depending on the participant.
`Subsequently,
`the test substances were applied at a
`concentration of 4.0mg/mL ethanol/water (1:1, v/v).
`The application volume was 25 tL/em* which is con-
`sidered the minimum volume necessary to produce a
`homogeneous distribution on the skin surface. This
`represented a finite dose (100 j1g/em?), in order to mimic
`occupationally relevant situations. The exposure time
`was 24h, during which the donor compartment
`re-
`mained occluded. Aliquots of the receptor fluid were
`collected at various time points (minimally at 1, 2, 4, 8,
`and 24h post-dosing). For static cells, the original vol-
`ume ofthe receptor fluid was restored by adding fresh
`receptorfluid to the receptor compartmentdirectly after
`each sampling. In case of non-radiolabelled test com-
`pounds, the receptor fluid samples were stored at ap-
`proximately —20°C until analysis. At
`the end of the
`experiment, the test compound remaining at the appli-
`cation site was
`removed, using five cotton swabs
`dampenedwith ethanol/water(1:1, v/v), followed by one
`dry cotton swab. Whena radioactive test compound was
`used, the cotton swabs, donor compartment rinse, re-
`ceptor compartment rinse, and skin membranes [after
`digestion with 1.5 M KOHin water/ethanol (1:4)] were
`analysed for presence of the test compound by B-
`counting. Each laboratory performed 3—5 independent
`experiments for each test chemical.
`
`Participant Number of|Post-mortem/ Sex and age donor Bodysite Skin thickness
`
`
`
`
`
`donors
`surgical waste
`(mm)
`
`
`
`17
`6
`7
`6
`
`Surgical waste
`Post-mortem
`Post-mortem
`Surgical waste
`
`Female (20-59 y)
`Male (67-90y)
`Male, female (67-89 y)
`Female (28-69 y)
`
`Breast
`Leg
`Abdomen
`Abdomen
`
`0.5
`0.7-0.9
`0.8-1.8
`0.7
`
`1. University of Newcastle, UK
`2. Instituto di Medicina del Lavoro, Italy
`3. Universita di Trieste, Italy
`4. TNO Nutrition and Food Research,
`The Netherlands
`
`6. Imperial College London, UK Surgical waste—Female (29-50 y)3 Abdomen 0.9
`
`
`
`7. Health and Safety Laboratory, UK
`3
`Surgical waste
`Female (26-60y)
`Abdomen
`0.5-0.7
`
`
`
`8. University of Southern Denmark, Surgical waste—Female (16-68 y)22 Breast, abdomen —0..7-1.1
`
`Denmark
`
`
`Germany
`10. HuntingdonLife Sciences, UK
`
`9. University of Erlangen-Nuremberg. Surgical waste=Male, female (40-79 y)_2 Breast, leg 0.9
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Post-mortem
`
`Male, female (40-72 y)
`
`Abdomen,leg
`
`0.3-0.4
`
`Participant No. 5 used rat skin.
`
`0003
`
`
`
`274
`
`J.d.M. van de Sandt et al.
`
`| Regulatery Toxicology and Pharmacology 39 (2004) 271-281
`
`Table 3
`Details of diffusion cell systems
`
`Participant
`
`Diffusion
`cell type
`
`1
`
`i)
`
`. University of Newcastle, UK
`
`Flow-through
`
`. Instituto di Medicina del Lavoro, Italy
`
`Flow-through
`
`3. Universita di Trieste, Italy
`
`Static
`
`4. TNO Nutrition and Food Research,
`The Netherlands
`5. Institut National de Recherche et de
`Sécurité, France
`. Imperial College London, UK
`
`a
`
`Flow-through
`
`Static
`
`Flow-through
`
`7. Health and Safety Laboratory, UK
`
`Flow-through
`
`8. University of Southern Denmark,
`Denmark
`9. University of Erlangen-Nuremberg,
`Germany
`10. Huntingdon Life Sciences Lid., UK
`
`Static
`
`Static
`
`Flow-through
`
`Exposed skin
`area (cm?)
`0.64
`
`0.95
`
`3.14
`
`0.64
`
`1.76
`
`0.32
`
`2.12
`
`0.64
`
`0.64
`
`Receptor
`compartment
`Volume: 0.25 mL;
`stirrer bar: yes
`Volume: 3.5mL;
`stirrer bar: yes
`Volume: 15mL;
`stirrer bar: yes
`Volume: 0.2 mL:
`stirrer bar: no
`Volume: 5.15 mL;
`stirrer bar: yes
`Volume: 0.4 mL:
`stirrer bar: no
`Volume: 0.35mL;
`stirrer bar: yes
`Volume: 17.7 mL;
`
`stirrer bar: yes
`Volume: 5.0 mL;
`stirrer bar: yes
`Volume: 0.25mL:
`stirrer bar: yes
`
`Reference
`
`Cloweset al. (1994)
`
`Reifenrath et al. (1994)
`
`Larese Filon et al. (1999)
`
`Bronaugh and Stewart (1985)
`
`-
`
`Bronaugh and Stewart (1985)
`
`Nielsen and Nielsen (2000)
`
`Franz (1975)
`
`Cloweset al. (1994)
`
`2.5. Analysis of non-radiolabelled test substances
`
`The analysis of non-radiolabelled test substances in
`the dose solutions and receptor fluid samples was per-
`formed centrally: benzoic acid by the Health and Safety
`Laboratory (UK), caffeine by the University of Trieste
`(Italy), and testosterone by TNO Nutrition and Food
`Research (The Netherlands). Established protocols were
`used for the HPLC-UV analysis of benzoic acid (Phe-
`nomenex column, SphereClone ODS(2), eluent:metha-
`nol:phosphate buffer
`(pH 6)
`(4:6),
`flow 1 mL/min,
`4=229nm), caffeine (Hypersil ODS column, eluent:
`methanol:water (1:3), flow 1 mL/min, 4 = 276 nm), and
`testosterone (according to Bogaards et al. 1995). The
`amount of non-radiolabelled test substance was not
`determined in the skin tissue and therefore total recov-
`ery values were not calculated.
`
`2.6. Analysis ofradiolabelled test substances
`
`Radioactivity measurements were madeby individual
`participating laboratories. Radioactivity in the various
`samples (receptor
`fluid, skin, skin swabs, and cell
`washings) was determined by liquid scintillation count-
`ing. Receptor fluid samples were added directly to an
`appropriate scintillation fluid. For analysis of the skin
`membranes, an aliquot of the tissue digest (1.5 M KOH
`in 20%aqueous ethanol) was used.
`
`time course was constructed from the amount oftest
`substance in the receptor fluid and the maximum ab-
`sorption rate was determined from the steepest, linear
`portion of the curve. The time to maximum rate, the
`percentage of the dose recovered in the receptorfluid in
`24h,
`the percentage in the skin membrane, and the
`percentage total recovery (for radiolabelled studies) was
`also calculated. The data of each laboratory were pre-
`sented as mean +standard deviation, together with the
`coefficient of variation (CV). The presence of the test
`compoundin the skin membraneafter washing the ap-
`plication area at 24h was expressed by the ratio between
`the percentage of the dose in skin and receptor fluid
`[total penetration (TP)] and the percentage of the dose in
`receptorfluid (RF).
`
`3. Results
`
`The absorption ofcaffeine, benzoic acid, and testos-
`terone through the skin was defined on the basis of
`maximum absorption rate, time to maximum rate, per-
`centage dose recovered in the skin membrane (at 24h
`post-dosing), and percentage dose recovered in the
`receptor
`fluid (at 24h post-dosing). The results of
`individual
`laboratory measurements
`are
`shown in
`Tables 4—6 and overviews of the mean values are given
`in Figs, 1-4.
`
`2.7. Calculation ofresults
`
`3.1. Benzoic acid
`
`The calculations were performed using a standardized
`Excel spreadsheet prepared by the study coordinator. A
`cumulative amount absorbed per unit skin area versus
`
`The mean maximumabsorption rate of benzoic acid
`through human skin membranes was 16.54 + 11.87 pe/
`cm’/h, while the amount in the receptor fluid after 24h
`
`0004
`
`
`
`J.J. M. van de Sandt et al. | Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 39 (2004) 271-281
`
`ol
`
`wy
`
`dad
`
`onry
`
`peop
`
`(A80pJo%)
`
`(s80pJo%)
`
`Aaga0991
`
`
`
`(qd)uonenauad
`
`col
`
`onl
`
`CN
`
`Port
`
`sol
`
`CIN
`
`oT
`
`aN
`
`col
`
`fLFore
`
`STL
`
`css
`
`ss
`
`SLs
`
`Str
`
`clr
`
`Fs
`
`“ir
`
`Lg9s
`
`19
`
`Ole
`
`Ey
`
`Ts
`
`TSE
`
`LSet
`
`£96
`
`Ore
`
`waeek
`
`POEERO
`
`LRCFLE
`
`OcFOES
`
`606
`
`6r6
`
`ck6
`
`falEPIFS86
`
`£6
`
`c66
`
`66
`
`cersoes
`
`waeBC
`
`oir
`
`FOL©6r
`
`aN
`
`LoL
`
`388
`
`eel
`
`Fro
`
`PIFC06
`
`“oe
`
`OTFL6G
`
`Yad
`
`f16
`
`LS6
`
`£96
`
`PLIFELE
`
`ose
`
`TOF
`
`slo
`
`9°88
`
`aN
`
`PTL
`
`08
`
`S19
`
`Vib
`
`ROFL
`
`wadTE
`
`OCFOEE
`
`Pade
`
`Sab’
`
`OOFRLF
`
`OCFCHL
`
`88
`
`Ocs
`
`ck6
`
`£08
`
`OSL
`
`e1oL,
`
`
`
`(ra)ping
`
`Joidaray
`
`(AS0pPJO%)
`
`les
`
`659
`
`669
`
`SLFIS9
`
`PeFoss
`
`CAEL
`
`SCL
`
`Llc
`
`ect
`
`it6
`
`Ve
`
`(a80pJo%)
`
`Ure
`
`EIFIT
`
`afOF
`
`oT
`
`Vt
`
`oF
`
`Ls
`
`sol
`
`FE
`
`ve
`
`sc
`
`“aOS
`
`PACEOTE
`
`vadeo
`
`ceres
`
`BalTO
`
`L06
`
`clé
`
`PEFLER
`
`998
`
`C8
`
`S08
`
`Le
`
`vss
`
`PL
`
`6L8
`
`LeeoR
`
`aT
`
`Ors
`
`O16
`
`Ot6
`
`FE
`
`cf
`
`ct
`
`I+9
`
`Le
`
`MasOE
`
`Lurecer
`
`
`6STt
`
`fos
`
`Loe
`
`vse
`
`679
`
`SRFER6S
`
`LIF6?
`
`1s
`
`Yad
`
`RTERRO
`
`“al
`
`618
`
`r98
`
`scol
`
`SOS£06
`
`warct
`
`MEFRL
`
`“ar
`
`O6L
`
`ere
`
`ra)
`
`aN
`
`F'69
`
`CCL
`
`$9
`
`#39
`
`COFET
`
`SabCE
`
`eT
`
`oT
`
`at
`
`waUODULYS
`(y)aresWintuieut
`
`
`aituondiosqe
`
`(y/uaa)
`
`01OU,
`
`[PUNEyy
`
`wedIborer
`
`PPE
`
`FOFPO
`
`YadEG
`
`s0
`
`50
`
`oo
`
`$7
`
`st
`
`Lt
`
`ce
`
`6c
`
`POFOE
`
`akEL
`
`SOFLT
`
`MOOT
`
`0t
`
`oc
`
`Tl
`
`COT
`
`SakPE
`
`Lil
`
`Vi
`
`rl
`
`COFI0
`
`MaRE
`
`forro
`
`fadELE
`
`oo
`
`oo
`
`so
`
`$0
`
`s0
`
`so
`
`din
`
`oo
`
`oc
`
`ot
`
`sT
`
`60FTT
`
`aeSe
`
`COFL0
`
`YadPE
`
`Yt9POFe0
`
`s0
`
`x0
`
`60
`
`300
`
`30
`
`S000
`
`OSTE
`
`OCSE
`
`PSST
`
`faOL
`
`98k
`
`67
`
`Ore
`
`OP
`
`coe
`
`POTFos
`
`COOFSEL
`
`OL9
`
`TLL
`
`9b1
`
`9L1E
`
`oF'G1
`
`eS
`
`Sot
`
`60r
`
`cg
`
`m6
`
`O&TFLOOD
`
`aN
`
`L8T
`
`coOFLtt
`
`MotCE
`
`OFBT61T
`
`Is"
`
`tatPl
`
`Lgle
`
`OTE
`
`BILE
`
`ae
`
`EEOELLTE
`
`vadES
`
`“se
`
`9PTEEPEC
`
`a0°Pe
`
`
`
` Bar£ROPEICTe
`
`waTP
`
`ror
`
`Or
`
`sit
`
`PSEFGLFC
`
`CherPOE
`
`urumyp
`
`urumpy
`
`urumpy
`
`ueUUNEy
`
`ueunpy
`
`uRWUN}y
`
`uewmny
`
`ueUIN
`
`weUn
`
`uRWUNpy
`
`urumnpy
`
`uRUN
`
`ueUUNFy
`
`ueUnyy
`
`wy
`
`wy
`
`wy
`
`WELUINpy
`
`uRLUnEY
`
`uRUInAy
`
`uewmnyy
`
`uRUnyY
`
`ueUnyy
`
`uewiny
`
`dN
`
`WeUInpy
`
`ueWn}y
`
`ueWwny
`
`ueLUnyy
`
`ueUUn
`
`ueWUNpy
`
`SDA eA en ery
`
`~
`
`~
`
`co)
`
`~ Ee
`
`meee
`
`=
`
`aS=weapy
`
`AQ
`
`as=unapy$r£ctI
`
`AQ
`
`asFuvapy£c!
`
`AO
`
`€zI
`
`CSFtpapy£oI
`
`AQ
`
`Cs=upapy£cI
`
`AQ
`
`aN
`
`=— cn +
`
`GS+ebay
`
`AD
`
`dS=upapy£tI
`
`AD
`
`as=uwapy£cI
`
`AD
`
`OSTI
`
`ISTc
`
`ANPOTdH£
`
`OSTb
`
`OSs
`
`OST9
`
`aNi
`
`OST8
`
`AN-O'ldH6
`
`ISTul
`
`sanads
`
`sanatdasJo“On
`“ONWuautuadxy
`
`siskeuyiediainegy
`
`ON
`
`
`
`pioratozuag
`
`FAME
`
`
`
`€
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(a80pJO%){asopJo%)(as0pJo%)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`966volBLczsoocluelnH.,E66POB91oFoTcoeueUnHLtstlSCO!fLeLttorolor'olueuney9IOSTI
`
`
`
`o1Fo0orLETEIEOTLFIG!TUFSESOFTELFergaSFunapy
`
`
`
`
`
`J.J.M. van de Sandt et al.
`
`dN==801~LTIsoueWn}9£3=oy—TEIgoueunHLtCN~=x917Lt960weuny$lADOTdH£
`
`al“909Pal9DvOEEMoLbMab16AQ
`
`CNTFR99LEFLEfeFoo9OFITertyEZOFSLOdSFupayy
`
`VANCEMeeBEweOFMaletYORET“SOCAD
`
`L6Lcstctlsteses0weuny&sVgvssslxT9ueLunHErVos901Vsstusweuny]9€
`
`ueLgPLelesweuny£tLescul60r81Veueumney£!Ostc
`
`
`
`3=MsFei:COFRTEL0FFOGSFway
`
`
`
`=7MbPRaa“wareVRREAQ
`
`| Regulatery Toxicology and Pharmacology 39 (2004) 271-281
`
`
`
`516teete96cr91ueUnHbet6t6crPst69stLeeweunyLit8c'l686BLSosttTlveastweunHLIOSTt
`
`
`
`
`
`TOFS66OPFETIOOTFLESPIFLECOFCTTEL0FC89dSFipayy
`
`
`
`
`
`240“eowees“ESTobPEPELAD
`
`
`
`REFRFOPCFSbFOUFORE£TF96POFLEOSOFKETdSFupayy
`
`vaMbLoMeCEendBC“8OFYakSEAD.
`
`r6688svisoLolLV9ryLTt
`
`P66£'6Soes£9£1959wyL€
`
`$666's9socV6elPLLwy8gIOSTs
`
`
`
`
`
`TOFOTRDLFLEELEFLIC9LFETICIFTEOF0FO8'TdSFuvayy
`
`MeLWalOC2aPTaroMGLEVGLTAQ
`
`
`
`LORcotV6lVLse6£'1weUnyL£56LOeescbhVeoTuewnHLets'lSSLflrL0tFOC£solgewnyL|OST9
`
`wewnH+zaN—=T6r—el60'EueWnyg1AQD-O1dHL
`==ETE7TI697weuinyt£==eg=olL6'|
`
`==VETELOF=LOFTLSOFSETaSFuvayy
`
`==MeOF=MOELSValECAD
`
`
`
`82F869SOFLSEM6FSETLOF0OUF0TPOFOTdSFupayy
`
`aoOFVANLE266BEware“00MelOEAD
`
`80L687ostOf07Le"wenfsTt
`
`LOLVelPelLlOT$90geuwnyL€
`
`occeecle0c0ctrlweunyLlOST8
`
`a*VRBT=SLEaDOTAQ
`
`=POFOTELOFLTBOFERTdS+unayy
`
`3=fer_eTOSEuRWn}L£==Bsc_aaereueunytcdN==L8t=UloTueuny]LIANO1dH6
`
`LT6esl9L1vlrTereweuinHcct
`
`£96TL19vlre8weunyy9€
`
`501ofLlFOL60elwreueuinygIOSTol
`
`276
`
`aurayeTy§4PL
`
`
`
`WToO}att,[ELUNEPAYsaladsJo‘ON“ONWoetwsadxysisk[RuyECOL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOL[F10LLsondarayWwAUOSUys(y/tua/3rt)anes
`
`
`
`
`AdDA000I(dL)wonrnausd(4a)ping(asopJo%)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(y)aye.winwieeuuondsosqesayeoydag“ON
`
`
`
`CTFIESFLIZEyFlozL0F01T9OFOTO01=coedSFunapy
`
`
`
`
`
`warewalSEYAOEwertMaeTEwalEEAD
`
`
`
`9000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AJOAODOT(dL)wournausd(4H)(asopJo%)
`
`
`
`
`
`{280PJO%)(asopJo%)(as0pJo%)
`
`
`
`fOr9ardoFx0srweuIney9£TLLvlPITffs0cerWenn]£z6t'lVL6ssSlfeLosoreWeUINEYLIIST[
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUSSearortrdESTERSLOFTroFl0SOTFETdSFupay
`
`J.J.M. van de Sandt et al. | Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 39 (2004) 271-281
`
`fadOL‘OEMMEDweOt‘FIadELAQ
`
`
`
`SUFPPSEFOOccoFe9EPFLCCFRO£10€F°'0dSFupayy
`
`eTSabSTMePESOOTPMohCE‘GEAQ
`
`€cLTo16vel66GtPrtOURHINE£lOSTTt
`O't6LIOLS0169orWeuInyy9gersoslsssvi6Leowen}£F68octroslUSofweuiny€£oPbrigr666riroweuny
`
`
`==OCE6E=L007£10GSFuoayy
`
`==edeYadGEAO
`
`_=6'E=97oroWenn8£==as=oesv0WeUINEy8zaN==ol=99IoWen}L!AN-O1dH£
`
`
`
`PUES96OGLFOLFOFSELSELFEREgoreceo=O80dS¥upapy
`
`2STTMieOFWe69oolSPfaeTEwaSOAQ
`
`6F6Lot68LlltesoweuinHbeE£98besrEfOr7croueunEyLcPoEsoleoaeO'6EOFTueWIney£IOSTr
`
`
`
`
`
`SOFf66STFILEREFRSITOFIT8LOFFSTCSFweap
`
`“FOMae'9MoS1S28OF2686AD
`
`1660'6E6410ccelwy8£666Pre6llree0Cwe8cFLT686eSel0c89°wy8|OSTs
`
`
`
`
`
`£gFe06SOFTOC6sFL0eo1FeeSOFCFOCSFweap
`
`YeoBabESYakBEYaPL2aGLAD
`
`VlgSOESoCoFIsouRWInyYL£LLsVezVelFO60WEIN]icFre£26Blebocrese0wewiny£1OST9
`
`aN===LtLOwenINEysIAQ-O'1dH£
`
`-==v1rtueuiny5£i=iSt60'FWeuIneyrcz
`
`
`
`
`
`==GPFOOSE=80FTTfC0F£6GSFwoopy
`
`MELoadSEeat'9AQ
`
`
`
`
`
`£00F£TSPL¥FELeeresFIFETcesOfOF270dS$upayy
`
`oolofoTcOL30°UEWINH£t9STweelolog400weuiny£€
`
`rescsoF60OFwoweuinHLctrlisso3lfeterOFooweuInyyL1OST8
`
`YaGEMidPOMaeTET2aSE2AAD
`
`==Ur3Li9c"0wenIneyL£i=ve=6TleouewnyLct
`
`CIN=og670weUunyHL|AN-O1dH6
`
`
`
`iEefCFes_TOFRT(c0F0F0dS+upayy
`
`
`
`
`
`—=MiePP—valBae1SAQ
`
`66OTVee$9rhceeueunHL£Vt6L6lLet09s0969WeWN]bcse'l8L6os]fuGEelOTueWInEy9IOSTol
`
`277
`
`
`
`“anePALESbFEecwalOSAD
`
`2000
`
`
`
`
`
`RCFCSDOFETCSSFRSTIFS.EvFITEOEFGESGS+eo
`
`
`
`
`
`roy[ROLpinysoidaaayWUAIUODUIAS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IW(q)siewunuwixeuwanauondiosqe?saynoydas“ON
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`oneyYWrzoO}SWI[BUXJA]soisadgJoon‘ONWuauLadxysIsk[nuyquedrorieg
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SLOIa]SO189|,
`
`91981
`
`
`
`
`
`
`278
`
`J.J.M. van de Sandt et al.
`
`| Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 39 (2004) 271-281
`
`
`
`Flux(g/cm/h)
`
`40.0
`BO
`DO
`3.0
`a0
`15.0
`10.0
`50
`
`00
`
`7
`
`?
`
`?
`
`¥
`
`ND)
`
`rv
`>
`Participant no.
`
`¢
`
`2
`
`of)
`
`f
`
`%&,
`
`Fig. 1. Overview of the maximum absorption rates of benzoic acid (grey), caffeine (white) and testosterone (black). ND is not determined.
`
`100.0
`90.0
`30.0
`
`0a
`
`.0
`0.0
`40.0
`20
`2.0
`10.0
`0.0
`
`%ofdose
`
`Fig. 2. In vitro skin absorption of benzoic acid, expressed as percentage of the dose present in the receptor fluid (grey) or present in the receptor
`fluid + skin membrane(total penetration—white). ND is not determined.
`
`Participant no.
`
`&
`
`%ofdose
`
`1.0
`a0
`0.0
`40.0
`30.0
`2.0
`10.0
`
`00
`
`ND.
`IND
`ND.
`Pm a A
`
`P articipant no.
`
`hey
`
`7
`
`Fig, 3. In vitro skin absorption of caffeine, expressed as percentage of the dose present in the receptor fluid (grey) or present in the receptor
`fluid + skin membrane(total penetration—white). ND is not determined.
`
`%ofdose
`
`m0
`
`ao
`0.0
`
`10.0
`
`oo
`
`-
`
`=
`
`ND
`>
`
`*
`
`or
`
`ND
`>
`
`-
`
`IND
`2
`
`P arlicipant no.
`
`«
`
`o
`
`>
`
`Fe
`
`Fig. 4. In vitro skin absorption of testosterone, expressed as percentage of the dose present in the receptor fluid (grey) or present in the receptor
`fluid + skin membrane(total penetration—white). ND is not determined,
`
`0008
`
`
`
`J.J.M. van de Sandt et al. | Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 39 (2004) 271-281
`
`279
`
`was 70.6+17.2%of the dose applied (8 laboratories).
`The mean maximum absorption rate of benzoic acid
`through rat skin (1 laboratory) was 21.21 ,g/em?/h and
`the amount in the receptor fluid after 24h was 89.8%.
`For both human and rat skin,
`the ratio TP:RF was
`approximately 1.0, indicating that almost no benzoic
`acid remained in the skin membrane after washing the
`application area. The total recovery of the radioactivity
`ranged between 53.6 and 98.5%(7 laboratories).
`Each laboratory performed 3-5 independent experi-
`ments. The coefficient of variation (CV) of the maxi-
`mum absorptionrate varied from 6.3%(lab 4) to 52.2%
`(lab 2). For the percentage in the receptor fluid (at 24h),
`the CV values ranged between 1.6%(lab 4) and 57.1%
`(lab 2).
`
`3.2. Caffeine
`
`The mean maximum absorption rate of caffeine
`through human skin membraneswas2.24 + 1.43 pg/em?/
`h, while the amountin the receptor fluid after 24h was
`24.5+ 11.6%of the dose applied (9 laboratories). The
`mean maximum absorption rate of caffeine throughrat
`skin (1 laboratory) was 6.82 1g/em?/h and the amountin
`the receptor fluid after 24h was 53.7%. For both human
`and rat skin, the ratio TP:RF wasonlyslightly higher
`than 1.0, indicating that only a small amount caffeine
`remained in the skin membrane after washing the ap-
`plication area. The total recovery of the radioactivity
`ranged between 66.4 and 100.6%(7 laboratories).
`Each laboratory performed 3—5 independent experi-
`ments. The CV value of the maximum absorption rate
`varied from 12.0% (lab 5) to 91.4% (lab 1). For the
`percentage in the receptorfluid (at 24h), the CV values
`ranged between 5.4%(lab 5) and 66.0% (lab 1).
`
`3.3. Testosterone
`
`The mean maximum absorption rate of testosterone
`through human skin was 1.63+ 1.94 pg/em?/h, while
`the amount
`in the receptor
`fluid after 24h was
`11.8+ 10.9%of the dose applied (9 laboratories). The
`mean maximum absorption
`rate
`of
`testosterone
`through rat skin (1 laboratory) was 1.84 ug/cm?/h and
`the amount in the receptorfluid after 24h was 21.4%.
`For both human and rat skin, the ratio TP:RF ranged
`between 1.35 and 3.54, indicating that a considerable
`amount testosterone remained in the skin membrane
`after washing the application area. The total recovery
`of the radioactivity ranged between 52.3 and 103.5%
`(7 laboratories).
`Each laboratory performed 3—5S independent experi-
`ments. The CV value of the maximum absorption rate
`ranged from 6.3% (lab 7) to 111.0% (lab 8). For the
`percentage in the receptorfluid (at 24h), the CV values
`ranged between 12.6%(lab 7) and 111.7%(lab 8).
`
`4. Discussion
`
`The presence of international guidelines has led to a
`partial standardization of in vitro skin absorption
`studies for regulatory purposes. On the other hand, the
`guidelines allow for certain flexibility in order to study
`compounds with widely
`differing physicochemical
`properties and under circumstances which are the most
`relevant for its use, resulting in e.g., different exposure
`times, dose levels, and vehicle/formulations.
`In the
`OECD guidance document (OECD 2000c), useful
`in-
`formation is provided on howto properly design in vitro
`and in vivo skin absorption studies. Both static and
`flow-through diffusion cell types are considered suitable.
`In order to prevent underestimation ofskin absorption,
`the test compound should be soluble in the receptor
`fluid, but the receptorfluid should not alter the barrier
`properties of the skin membrane. Skin membranes can
`be prepared in various ways, but the use of skin mem-
`branes with a thickness of more than 1.0 mm (epidermis
`and dermis) is not recommended and must bejustified
`by the researcher, since the absorption of lipophilic
`compounds may be impeded by a thick dermis. This
`guidance has been proved useful for both investigators
`in the laboratory and for regulatory agencies which
`evaluate this type of data for risk assessment purposes.
`Only very limited data exist on the intra-laboratory
`and inter-laboratory variation of in vitro skin absorp-
`tion studies. In 1994, Beck et al. reported a good cor-
`relation of in vitro absorption of hair dyes throughfull-
`thickness pig skin in 2 laboratories. Recently, using an
`artificial (silicone rubber) membrane, the intra-labora-
`tory and inter-laboratory variation of methyl paraben
`absorption was assessed in 18 laboratories (Chilcott
`et al. submitted). In their study, the CV values between
`laboratories were approximately 35%, while the intra-
`laboratory variation averaged 10%.
`In the study presented here, the in vitro absorption of
`three compounds through human skin (9 laboratories)
`and rat skin (1 laboratory) was investigated. The com-
`pounds(testosterone, caffeine, and benzoic acid) have a
`wide spread in their physico-chemical properties and
`have been recommended as reference compoundsby the
`OECD (2000c). The studies were performed according
`to a very detailed protocol. Two participants were GLP-
`compliant while the other laboratories adhered to this
`quality system as much as possible. Analysis of samples
`from studies using non-radiolabelled test compounds
`was performed centrally in order to limit analytical
`variation and data analysis of all laboratories was car-
`ried out according to a study-specific Excel spreadsheet.
`Thetotal recovery of the radioactivity at the end of the
`experiment was not always as high as required by the
`guidelines (1004 10% for OECD and 100+ 15%for
`SCCNFP). Of the 7 laboratories that determined mass
`balance, 3 (benzoic acid), 4 (caffeine), and 5 (testoster-
`
`0009
`
`
`
`280
`
`J.d.M. van de Sande et al.
`
`| Regulatery Toxicology and Pharmacology 39 (2004) 271-281
`
`The absorption of caffeine and testosterone through
`one) obtained a mass balance larger than 85%. The most
`humanskin wassimilar, having overall mean maximum
`probable cause of the low recovery observed in some
`absorption rates of 2.24 and 1.63 .g/cm7/h, respectively.
`cases is the technical difficulty of evenly spreading the
`small volume of the dose solution on the skin surface
`In 7 out of 9 laboratories,
`the maximum absorption
`(25 L/em*). It may be that part of the dose solution
`rates of caffeine were ranked higher than testosterone.
`The absorption differences between the compoundsfit
`may have adheredto the pipet tip and therefore was not
`well in with those reported in human volunteers, where
`applied to the skin. It is important to mention that for
`the absorption of benzoic acid was found higher than
`regulatory studies most often very small volumes should
`that of caffeine and testosterone (Bronaugh and Franz
`be applied which are relevant for the in-use situation: 2—
`5mg/cm? for solid and semi-solid preparations and
`1986). It should be noted, however, that the concentra-
`10 uL/em? for liquids (OECD 2000a; SCCNFP 2003).
`tions used in the in vivo study were not the same for
`each compound, which makes a direct comparison of
`Although information on the mass balance is often
`the ranking to ourresults difficult.
`lacking in the open literature, we present these data in
`One of the participating laboratories tested the ab-
`order to give a complete overview of the sources of
`sorption of compounds throu