| 1. |
- Gonçalo, Margarida, et al.
(author)
-
Allergic contact dermatitis caused by nail acrylates in Europe. An EECDRG study
- 2018
-
In: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873. ; 78:4, s. 254-260
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by nail acrylates, also including methacrylates and cyanoacrylates here, is being increasingly reported. Methods: A retrospective study in 11 European Environmental Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG) clinics collected information on cases of ACD caused by nail acrylates diagnosed by aimed testing between 2013 and 2015. Results: Among 18 228 studied patients, 136 had ACD caused by nail acrylates (0.75%; 95%CI: 0.60–0.90), representing 67.3% (95%CI: 60.4–73.7) of ACD cases caused by acrylates. There were 135 females and 1 male, with a mean age ± standard deviation of 36.7 ± 12.2 years; 59 (43.4%) were exposed as consumers, and 77 (56.6%) were occupationally exposed. Occupational cases were more frequent in southern Europe (83.7%), and were younger (mean age of 33.4 ± 8.9 years); most developed ACD during the first year at work (65.0%), and at least 11.7% had to leave their jobs. Skin lesions involved the hands in 121 patients (88.9%) and the face in 50 (36.8%), with the face being the only affected site in 14 (10.3%). Most patients reacted to two or more acrylates on patch testing, mainly to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) (92.5%), 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate (88.6%), ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (69.2%), and ethyl cyanoacrylate (9.9%). Conclusions: Nail cosmetics were responsible for the majority of ACD cases caused by acrylates, affecting nail beauticians and consumers, and therefore calling for stricter regulation and preventive measures. As HEMA detects most cases, and isolated facial lesions may be overlooked, inclusion of this allergen in the baseline series may be warranted.
|
|
| 2. |
- Johansen, Jeanne D., et al.
(author)
-
European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing : recommendations on best practice
- 2015
-
In: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873 .- 1600-0536. ; 73:4, s. 195-221
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The present guideline summarizes all aspects of patch testing for the diagnosis of contact allergy in patients suspected of suffering, or having been suffering, from allergic contact dermatitis or other delayed-type hypersensitivity skin and mucosal conditions. Sections with brief descriptions and discussions of different pertinent topics are followed by a highlighted short practical recommendation. Topics comprise, after an introduction with important definitions, materials, technique, modifications of epicutaneous testing, individual factors influencing the patch test outcome or necessitating special considerations, children, patients with occupational contact dermatitis and drug eruptions as special groups, patch testing of materials brought in by the patient, adverse effects of patch testing, and the final evaluation and patient counselling based on this judgement. Finally, short reference is made to aspects of (continuing) medical education and to electronic collection of data for epidemiological surveillance.
|
|
| 3. |
- Morgardt-Ryberg, Kristina, et al.
(author)
-
Patch testing with a textile dye mix - a multicentre study.
- 2014
-
In: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873. ; 71:4, s. 215-223
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Disperse dyes are well-known contact sensitizers. However, they are not included in the majority of commercially available baseline patch test series.
|
|
| 4. |
- Muris, Joris, et al.
(author)
-
Sensitization to palladium in Europe
- 2015
-
In: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873. ; 72:1, s. 11-19
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BackgroundRecently, sodium tetrachloropalladate (Na2PdCl4) was found to be a more sensitive palladium patch test allergen than palladium dichloride (PdCl2). ObjectivesTo determine the optimal test concentration of Na2PdCl4, to evaluate the prevalence of palladium sensitization with Na2PdCl4 and PdCl2, and to compare the results with nickel sensitization in a European multicentre study. Materials and methodsIn addition to the European or national baseline series including NiSO(4)6H(2)0 5% pet., consecutive patients were tested with PdCl2 and Na2PdCl4 2%, 3% and 4% pet. in eight European dermatology clinics. The age and sex distributions were also evaluated in patients sensitized to nickel and palladium. ResultsIn total, 1651 patients were tested. Relative to 3% Na2PdCl4, 4% Na2PdCl4 did not add any information. Two per cent Na2PdCl4 resulted in more doubtful reactions and showed suboptimal reactivity. The prevalence of palladium sensitization doubled with Na2PdCl4 and was similar to that of nickel. Interestingly, in contrast to nickel sensitization, palladium sensitization was not related to female sex. ConclusionsThree per cent Na2PdCl4 pet. is the most suitable patch test concentration. Sensitization to palladium is almost as prevalent as sensitization to nickel. The sex distribution is different between nickel-sensitized and palladium-sensitized patients, suggesting different sources of exposure.
|
|
| 5. |
- Pontén, Ann, et al.
(author)
-
Patch testing with 2.0% (0.60 mg/cm(2) ) formaldehyde instead of 1.0% (0.30 mg/cm(2) ) detects significantly more contact allergy.
- 2013
-
In: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873. ; 68:1, s. 50-53
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background.The currently used patch test concentration for formaldehyde is 1.0% (wt/vol) in water. However, clinical experience and previous studies suggest that 1.0% might be insufficient for detecting an optimized number of clinically relevant cases of contact allergy to formaldehyde. Objectives.To validate earlier patch test results for comparison of 1% (wt/vol) and 2% (wt/vol) formaldehyde in water, and to investigate co-reactivity with quaternium-15. Materials and methods.In 12 dermatology clinics, 3591 patients were routinely patch tested simultaneously with 2.0% (wt/vol) (0.60 mg/cm(2) ) and 1.0% (wt/vol) (0.30 mg/cm(2) ) formaldehyde. Micropipettes were used for delivering the exact dosage of the allergen. Results.Significantly more patients reacted to 2.0% formaldehyde than to 1.0% (3.4% versus 1.8%, p < 0.001). Overall, there were no sex differences between those reacting positively to 2.0% and 1.0%. Of 25 quaternium-15-positive patients, 4 (0.1%) reacted positively without reacting to formaldehyde. Conclusion.On the basis of the results of this multicentre study, as well as of previous studies, it can be suggested that 2.0% (wt/vol) in water formaldehyde should be used in routine patch testing in the baseline series.
|
|
| 6. |
- Schwensen, Jakob F., et al.
(author)
-
The epidemic of methylisothiazolinone : A European prospective study
- 2017
-
In: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873. ; 76:5, s. 272-279
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: The use of methylisothiazolinone (MI) in cosmetic products has caused an unprecedented epidemic of MI contact allergy. Current data concerning exposures at a European level are required. Objectives: To describe demographics and MI exposures for European patients with MI contact allergy. Methods: Eleven European dermatology departments from eight European countries prospectively collected data between 1 May and 31 October 2015 among consecutive patients who had positive patch test reactions to MI (2000ppm aq.). Results: A total of 6.0% (205/3434; range 2.6-13.0%) of patients had positive patch test reactions to MI. Dermatitis most frequently affected the hands (43.4%), face (32.7%), arms (14.6%), and eyelids (11.7%); 12.7% had widespread dermatitis. For 72.7% (149/205), MI contact allergy was currently relevant mainly because of exposure to cosmetic products (83.2%; 124/149). Of these 124 patients, 19.5% were exposed to leave-on and rinse-off cosmetic products, 24.8% only to leave-on cosmetic products and 38.9% only to rinse-off cosmetic products containing MI or methylchloroisothiazolinone/MI. The majority of these (79%) noted onset of their dermatitis between 2013 and 2015. Fifteen patients (7.3%) had previously experienced allergic reactions when they were in newly painted rooms. Conclusion: Clinically relevant MI contact allergy remains prevalent across European countries, mainly because of exposure to rinse-off and leave-on cosmetic products.
|
|
| 7. |
- Sosted, Heidi, et al.
(author)
-
Contact allergy to common ingredients in hair dyes
- 2013
-
In: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873. ; 69:1, s. 32-39
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background p-Phenylenediamine (PPD) is the primary patch test screening agent for hair dye contact allergy, and approximately 100 different hair dye chemicals are allowed. Objectives To examine whether PPD is an optimal screening agent for diagnosing hair dye allergy or whether other clinically important sensitizers exist. Methods Two thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine consecutive patients in 12 dermatology clinics were patch tested with five hair dyes available from patch test suppliers. Furthermore, 22 frequently used hair dye ingredients not available from patch test suppliers were tested in subgroups of approximate to 500 patients each. Results A positive reaction to PPD was found in 4.5% of patients, and 2.8% reacted to toluene-2,5-diamine (PTD), 1.8% to p-aminophenol, 1% to m-aminophenol, and 0.1% to resorcinol; all together, 5.3% (n=156). Dying hair was the most frequently reported cause of the allergy (55.4%); so-called temporary henna' tattoos were the cause in 8.5% of the cases. p-Methylaminophenol gave a reaction in 20 patients (2.2%), 3 of them with clinical relevance, and no co-reaction with the above five well-known hair dyes. Conclusions Hair dyes are the prime cause of PPD allergy. PPD identifies the majority of positive reactions to PTD, p-aminophenol and m-aminophenol, but not all, which justifies additional testing with hair dye ingredients from the used product.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Thyssen, Jacob Pontoppidan, et al.
(author)
-
p-Phenylenediamine sensitization is more prevalent in central and southern European patch test centres than in Scandinavian: results from a multicentre study
- 2009
-
In: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873 .- 1600-0536. ; 60:6, s. 314-319
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Positive patch test reactions to p-phenylenediamine (PPD) are common. PPD is used in oxidative hair dyes and is also present in dark henna temporary 'tattoos'. Cross-sensitization to other contact allergens may occur. Because subjects sensitized to PPD are at risk of clinically severe reactions upon hair dyeing, there is a need for 'current' prevalence data on PPD sensitization. To compare PPD patch test results from dermatitis patients tested between 2003 and 2007 in 10 European patch test centres and to analyse the causes and determine relevance of positive PPD patch test reactions. Patch testing was performed using PPD (1% free base in petrolatum from Trolab (Almirall Hermal GmbH, Reinbeck, Germany) or Chemotechnique (Malmo, Sweden), equivalent to 0.090 mg/cm(2) in the TRUE (R) test from MEKOS Laboratories AS). Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-squared test. The weighted average prevalence was 4.6% among 21 515 patients. PPD sensitization occurred more often in centres located in Central and Southern Europe than in Scandinavian centres (odds ratio = 2.40; 95% confidence interval = 2.07-2.78). The overall proportion of positive patch test reactions to PPD that were registered as being of either current or 'past' relevance was high (weighted average 53.6% and 20.3%, respectively). Consumer hair dyeing was the most prominent cause of PPD sensitization (weighted average 41.8%). Furthermore, occupational hair dye exposure (10.6%) and cross-sensitization to textile dyes (12.6%) were frequently reported. PPD sensitization caused by exposure to hair dyes is frequent and remains a present problem for patients visiting contact dermatitis clinics, especially in patch test centres located in Central and Southern Europe.
|
|
