Dermatotoxicology: Safety Evaluation of Topical Products in Minipigs: Study Designs and Practical Considerations
Abstract
The minipig has long been identified as the nonrodent animal of choice for preclinical safety evaluation of topically applied materials. This article reviews types of topical applications, study designs, and practical considerations. Dermal administration to the minipig presents multiple challenges. Issues to be considered are the area of exposure, the nature of the test article, the need for covering of the dose site, preparation of the dose site, and procedures for administration. The potential for cross-contamination (exposure of control animals to test article) is very high in topical studies and appropriate safeguards to prevent this are discussed. Topical administration to the intact skin is the most commonly utilized form of safety evaluation, but procedures have also been developed for intradermal administration and for the use of nonintact/wounded skin; these will be discussed. Evaluation of local (topical) effects is critical and can become complicated. Considerations in evaluations of the skin are interobserver variability, use of different scoring systems and discrepancies betweenin vivoobservations, necropsy observations, and microscopic pathology findings. Causes for apparent discrepancies and suggestions for practical resolution through appropriate procedures are discussed. Practical issues in necropsy and histotechnology procedures and techniques to optimize preservation of skin are also discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Erythema, edema, and histological changes do not always occur in humans, so care should be taken to avoid overestimation.
“Erythema, edema, and histological changes do not always occur in humans, so care should be taken to avoid overestimation3, 26.”
From Morphological characteristics and notes of the skin in preclinical toxicity assessment (2023) · cites this paper as [26]
Cites
The pig as a model for human wound healing
Sullivan, T. P., Eaglstein, W. H., Davis, S. C., & Mertz, P. (2001) · Wound Repair and Regeneration · doi:10.1046/j.1524-475x.2001.00066.x · Cited by 1,091 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Morphological characteristics and notes of the skin in preclinical toxicity assessment
Moroki, T. (2023) · Journal of Toxicologic Pathology · doi:10.1293/tox.2022-0103 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
- Authors
- Willard-Mack, C., Ramani, T., & Auletta, C.
- Affiliations
- Envigo (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Willard-Mack, Cynthia
- Venue
- Toxicologic Pathology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-02-02
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 382-390
- ISSN
- 0192-6233 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-1601
- OpenAlex
- W2272285694
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 0.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Toxicologic Pathology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Contact Dermatitis and Allergies
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmaceutical Science › Advancements in Transdermal Drug Delivery
- Keywords
- minipigs, topical toxicity, dermal administration, preclinical safety, cross-contamination, intradermal administration, interobserver variability, necropsy, histotechnology, skin preservation
- MeSH terms
- Administration, Topical, Animals, Drug Evaluation, Preclinical, Skin, Swine, Swine, Miniature, Toxicity Tests
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review