A new alternative method for testing skin irritation using a human skin model: a pilot study.

Studies assessing skin irritation to chemicals have traditionally used laboratory animals; however, such methods are questionable regarding their relevance for humans. New in vitro methods have been validated, such as the reconstructed human epidermis (RHE) model (Episkin®, Epiderm®). The comparison (accuracy) with in vivo results such as the 4-h human patch test (HPT) is 76% at best (Epiderm®). There is a need to develop an in vitro method that better simulates the anatomo-pathological changes encountered in vivo. To develop an in vitro method to determine skin irritation using human viable skin through histopathology, and compare the results of 4 tested substances to the main in vitro methods and in vivo animal method (Draize test). Human skin removed during surgery was dermatomed and mounted on an in vitro flow-through diffusion cell system. Ten chemicals with known non-irritant (heptylbutyrate, hexylsalicylate, butylmethacrylate, isoproturon, bentazon, DEHP and methylisothiazolinone (MI)) and irritant properties (folpet, 1-bromohexane and methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI/MI)), a negative control (sodiumchloride) and a positive control (sodiumlaurylsulphate) were applied. The skin was exposed at least for 4h. Histopathology was performed to investigate irritation signs (spongiosis, necrosis, vacuolization). We obtained 100% accuracy with the HPT model; 75% with the RHE models and 50% with the Draize test for 4 tested substances. The coefficients of variation (CV) between our three test batches were <0.1, showing good reproducibility. Furthermore, we reported objectively histopathological irritation signs (irritation scale): strong (folpet), significant (1-bromohexane), slight (MCI/MI at 750/250ppm) and none (isoproturon, bentazon, DEHP and MI). This new in vitro test method presented effective results for the tested chemicals. It should be further validated using a greater number of substances; and tested in different laboratories in order to suitably evaluate reproducibility.

How reliable is the monitoring of permanent vegetation plots? A test with multiple observers

Questions: A multiple plot design was developed for permanent vegetation plots. How reliable are the different methods used in this design and which changes can we measure? Location: Alpine meadows (2430 m a.s.l.) in the Swiss Alps. Methods: Four inventories were obtained from 40 m(2) plots: four subplots (0.4 m(2)) with a list of species, two 10m transects with the point method (50 points on each), one subplot (4 m2) with a list of species and visual cover estimates as a percentage and the complete plot (40 m(2)) with a list of species and visual estimates in classes. This design was tested by five to seven experienced botanists in three plots. Results: Whatever the sampling size, only 45-63% of the species were seen by all the observers. However, the majority of the overlooked species had cover < 0.1%. Pairs of observers overlooked 10-20% less species than single observers. The point method was the best method for cover estimate, but it took much longer than visual cover estimates, and 100 points allowed for the monitoring of only a very limited number of species. The visual estimate as a percentage was more precise than classes. Working in pairs did not improve the estimates, but one botanist repeating the survey is more reliable than a succession of different observers. Conclusion: Lists of species are insufficient for monitoring. It is necessary to add cover estimates to allow for subsequent interpretations in spite of the overlooked species. The choice of the method depends on the available resources: the point method is time consuming but gives precise data for a limited number of species, while visual estimates are quick but allow for recording only large changes in cover. Constant pairs of observers improve the reliability of the records.

Contact tracing investigation after professional exposure to tuberculosis in a Swiss hospital using both tuberculin skin test and IGRA.

SETTING: A 950 bed teaching hospital in Switzerland. AIM: To describe the result of a contact investigation among health care workers (HCW) and patients after exposure to a physician with smear-positive pulmonary tuberculosis in a hospital setting using standard tuberculin skin tests (TST) and Interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA). METHOD: HCW with a negative or unknown TST at hiring had a TST two weeks after the last contact with the index case (T0), repeated six weeks later if negative (T6). All exposed HCW had a T-SPOT.TB at T0 and T6. Exposed patients had a TST six weeks after the last contact, and a T-SPOT.TB if the TST was positive. RESULTS: Among 101 HCW, 17/73 (22%) had a positive TST at T0. TST was repeated in 50 at T6 and converted from negative to positive in eight (16%). Twelve HCW had a positive T-SPOT.TB at T0 and ten converted from negative to positive at T6. Seven HCW with a positive T-SPOT.TB reverted to negative at T6 or at later controls, most of them with test values close to the cut-off. Among 27 exposed patients tested at six weeks, ten had a positive TST, five of them confirmed by a positive T-SPOT.TB. CONCLUSIONS: HCW tested twice after exposure to a case of smear-positive pulmonary TB demonstrated a possible conversion in 10% with T-SPOT and 16% with TST. Some T-SPOT.TB reverted from positive to negative during the follow-up, mostly tests with a value close to the cut-off. Due to the variability of the test results, it seems advisable to repeat the test with values close to the cut-off before diagnosing the presence of a tuberculous infection.

Evaluation of a new serological test for the detection of anti-Coxiella and anti-Rickettsia antibodies.

Coxiella burnetii and members of the genus Rickettsia are obligate intracellular bacteria. Since cultivation of these organisms requires dedicated techniques, their diagnosis usually relies on serological or molecular biology methods. Immunofluorescence is considered the gold standard to detect antibody-reactivity towards these organisms. Here, we assessed the performance of a new automated epifluorescence immunoassay (InoDiag) to detect IgM and IgG against C. burnetii, Rickettsia typhi and Rickettsia conorii. Samples were tested with the InoDiag assay. A total of 213 sera were tested, of which 63 samples from Q fever, 20 from spotted fever rickettsiosis, 6 from murine typhus and 124 controls. InoDiag results were compared to micro-immunofluorescence. For acute Q fever, the sensitivity of phase 2 IgG was only of 30% with a cutoff of 1 arbitrary unit (AU). In patients with acute Q fever with positive IF IgM, sensitivity reached 83% with the same cutoff. Sensitivity for chronic Q fever was 100% whereas sensitivity for past Q fever was 65%. Sensitivity for spotted Mediterranean fever and murine typhus were 91% and 100%, respectively. Both assays exhibited a good specificity in control groups, ranging from 79% in sera from patients with unrelated diseases or EBV positivity to 100% in sera from healthy patients. In conclusion, the InoDiag assay exhibits an excellent performance for the diagnosis of chronic Q fever but a very low IgG sensitivity for acute Q fever likely due to low reactivity of phase 2 antigens present on the glass slide. This defect is partially compensated by the detection of IgM. Because it exhibits a good negative predictive value, the InoDiag assay is valuable to rule out a chronic Q fever. For the diagnosis of rickettsial diseases, the sensitivity of the InoDiag method is similar to conventional immunofluorescence.