| 1. |
- Hagvall, Lina, 1978, et al.
(author)
-
Contact allergy to citral and its constituents geranial and neral, coupled with reactions to the prehapten and prohapten geraniol
- 2020
-
In: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873 .- 1600-0536. ; 82:1, s. 31-38
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Citral is commonly used as a fragrance and flavor material and consists of the aldehydes geranial and neral. Citral is included in fragrance mix (FM) II. Geranial and neral have also been identified in autoxidation of geraniol, a fragrance compound present in FM I. Objectives To study contact allergy to citral, geranial, and neral, and concomitant reactivity to oxidized geraniol and fragrance markers of the baseline series. Methods A total of 1476 dermatitis patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis were patch tested using geranial, neral, and citral, all 3.5% petrolatum (pet.) as well as geraniol 6.0% and oxidized geraniol 11% pet. in addition to the Swedish baseline series. Results Frequencies of positive reactions to citral, geranial, and neral were 2.9%, 3.4% and 1.9%, respectively. Together, citral and geranial gave 4.2% positive patch test reactions in consecutive dermatitis patients. In patients with positive reactions to citral or its components, 25% to 34% reacted to FM II and 61% reacted to oxidized geraniol. Conclusions Patch testing with citral, its components, or oxidized geraniol detects contact allergic reactions not detected using the baseline series. Patch testing with pure geraniol was shown to be of little value. Geranial and neral, although closely chemically related, are concluded to be separate haptens.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Aerts, Olivier, et al.
(author)
-
Isobornyl Acrylate
- 2020
-
In: Dermatitis. - 1710-3568. ; 31:1, s. 4-12
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Multidisciplinary collaboration between several European dermatology departments has identified isobornyl acrylate (IBOA; CAS 5888-33-5), once deemed a low-risk sensitizer, as a major culprit contact allergen in glucose sensors and insulin pumps, medical devices used by diabetes patients worldwide. Although the patch test modalities of IBOA have been fairly well characterized, intriguing questions remain. For example, its cross-reactive profile to other acrylates remains to be determined, and the striking occurrence of concomitant positive patch test reactions to sesquiterpene lactones needs to be further elucidated. Importantly, the path to its discovery as a contact sensitizer in diabetes devices and the difficulties that were associated with this quest illustrate that apparent difficulties in obtaining sufficient cooperation from the medical device industry may seriously hamper the correct workup of cases of allergic contact dermatitis. The IBOA saga will convince companies to lend more cooperation to dermatologists and policymakers to side with patients and physicians when it comes to updating medical device regulations, including the compulsory labeling of medical devices in general and of diabetes devices in particular.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Balato, Anna, et al.
(author)
-
European Task Force on Contact Dermatitis statement on coronavirus 19 disease (COVID-19) outbreak and the risk of adverse cutaneous reactions
- 2020
-
In: Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. - : Wiley. - 0926-9959 .- 1468-3083. ; 34:8, s. 353-354
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Among the basic protective measures against COVID-19, the need to wash hands frequently and in a prolonged way using soap, and to regularly use alcohol-based hand sanitizers is well established for the whole population. Healthcare workers in general, and particularly those involved in the direct care of COVID-19 patients, have to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) daily for many hours and also accomplish general preventive measurements outside their work. Cutaneous adverse reactions can develop that need to be prevented, identified and therapeutically managed. According to the data reported by Lin et al 1, based in the experience from healthcare workers in Wuhan, adverse skin reactions were reported in 74% of responders (n=376) to a general survey. The most commonly reported types of eruptions were skin dryness or desquamation (68.6%), papules or erythema (60.4%) and maceration (52,9%).
|
|
| 6. |
- Bruze, Magnus, et al.
(author)
-
Contact Allergy to Fragrance Mix II and Hydroxyisohexyl 3-Cyclohexene Carboxaldehyde : A Retrospective Study by International Contact Dermatitis Research Group
- 2020
-
In: Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug. - 1710-3568. ; 31:4, s. 268-271
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Fragrance mix II (FM II) is included in the baseline patch test series recommended by the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group (ICDRG). Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC) is the most important sensitizer of the 6 fragrance materials included in FM II. Besides being a part of FM II, HICC is also tested separately in the ICDRG baseline series. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to investigate the prevalence of contact allergy to FM II and HICC in 2012-2016 with a focus on simultaneous reactions and the percentage of missed contact allergy to HICC provided that only FM II had been tested. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 25,019 consecutive dermatitis patients in 13 dermatology clinics representing 12 countries in 5 continents were patch tested with FM II and HICC in the baseline series. RESULTS: Contact allergy to FM II and HICC was found in 3.9% and 1.6%, respectively. For FM II, the frequency varied from 1.5% to 7.6% in different centers. The corresponding range for HICC was 0.2% to 3.6%. Simultaneous contact allergy to FM II and HICC was noted in 1.4% with the range 0.2% to 2.6%. Seventy-seven patients (0.31%) with contact allergy to HICC did not test positively to FM II. The range for missed HICC allergy by testing only FM II in the different centers would be 0.04% to 0.74%. The ratio between the contact allergy rates for FM II and HICC was similar for all centers, except for Montreal having significantly more contact allergy to FM II than to HICC. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of missed contact allergy to HICC when testing only with FM II was less than 0.5%, therefore questioning the need to test HICC separately in the ICDRG baseline series.
|
|
| 7. |
- Bruze, Magnus, et al.
(author)
-
Contact Allergy to Oxidized Linalool and Oxidized Limonene is Over-represented in Individuals with Photocontact Allergy to Ketoprofen
- 2021
-
In: Acta Dermato-Venereologica. - : Medical Journals Sweden AB. - 1651-2057. ; 101:5
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Simultaneous contact allergies are common in individuals with photocontact allergy to ketoprofen. The rate of contact allergy to the fragrance substances oxidized linalool and oxidized limonene in ketoprofen-photo-allergic individuals were investigated in comparison with the corresponding rates in individuals without photo-contact allergy to ketoprofen, using Fisher's exact test. A total of 4,021 patients were routinely tested with oxidized linalool; of whom 190 (4.7%) tested positively. For oxidized limonene the numbers were 3,797 patients and 111 positive reactions (2.9%). A total of 19 contact allergic reactions to oxidized linalool were noted in 29 patients (65.5%) who also had photocontact allergy to ketoprofen (p < 0.0001). The corresponding figures for oxidized limonene were 10 positive reactions in 24 ketoprofen-photoallergic individuals (41.7%) (p < 0.0001). Contact allergy to oxidized linalool and/or oxidized limonene is common in routinely tested patients with dermatitis and, particularly, in those patients who are photoallergic to ketoprofen.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Bruze, Magnus
(author)
-
Thoughts on the interpretation of positive photopatch test reactions
- 2020
-
In: European journal of dermatology : EJD. - : John Libbey Eurotext. - 1167-1122 .- 1952-4013. ; 30:5, s. 541-544
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Positive photopatch test reactions are classified according to the International Contact Dermatitis Group. The various reaction patterns are interpreted to represent patterns such as contact allergy, photocontact allergy, photoaugmentation, and photoinhibition. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether there are any weaknesses in the interpretation of reaction patterns. MATERIALS & METHODS: A dermatitis patient with photoallergic contact dermatitis due to ketoprofen was photopatch tested with serial dilutions of ketoprofen in ethanol. The reaction patterns for the various concentrations were used as a basis for discussion on weaknesses regarding the present interpretations of positive photopatch test reactions. RESULTS: The reaction patterns to the ketoprofen photopatch at various concentrations were interpreted as (i) contact allergy, (ii) contact allergy with photoaugmentation, (iii) contact allergy and photocontact allergy, and (iv) photocontact allergy. CONCLUSION: The present interpretation of positive photopatch test reactions is unreliable and therefore insufficient regarding appropriate advice for patients.
|
|
