| 1. |
- Pesqué, David, et al.
(författare)
-
Bikini textile contact dermatitis : A Sherlockian approach revealing 2.4-dichlorophenol as a potential textile contact allergen
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873 .- 1600-0536. ; 85:6, s. 679-685
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Different textile constituents may act as allergens and/or irritants and provoke textile contact dermatitis (TCD). Objectives: To report a case of TCD caused by ethylene glycol monododecyl ether and 2.4-dichlorophenol, present in a bikini. Methods: A woman presented with an eczematous, pruritic rash in the area of the bikini straps and back. Patch testing was performed with the European baseline, textile, sunscreen, and photo-patch series, the bikini “as is”, and ethanol and acetone extracts of the bikini. Thin-layer chromatography (TLC) of the extracts and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) analysis were used to elucidate the culprit agents. Results: Positive reactions were found to the bikini “as is” and to the ethanol and acetone extracts. Patch testing with TLC strips showed a strong reaction to spots-fractions 3 and 4. GC–MS was performed to identify substances in each fraction and those suspected to be skin sensitisers were patch tested. On day (D) 4 positive reactions to ethylene glycol monododecyl ether (irritant reaction) and 2.4-dichlorophenol (++) were observed. Conclusion: A myriad of chemical compounds can be found in clothing. Ethylene glycol monododecyl ether and 2.4-dichlorophenol were identified as the potential culprits of this bikini TCD. Highlights: We have combined chemical analyses (thin-layer chromatography and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry) to study a case of textile contact dermatitis. As such, the presence of a myriad of chemical compounds was found in a bikini, suggesting that clothing in general may become impregnated or contaminated by a wide range of external substances that may be harmful to the skin. Textile contact dermatitis could in this case be attributed to ethylene glycol monododecyl ether (CAS No. 4536-30-5) and 2.4-dichlorophenol (CAS No. 120-83-2), the latter not yet previously described as a textile contact allergen.
|
|
| 2. |
- Thyssen, Jacob Pontoppidan, et al.
(författare)
-
p-Phenylenediamine sensitization is more prevalent in central and southern European patch test centres than in Scandinavian: results from a multicentre study
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873 .- 1600-0536. ; 60:6, s. 314-319
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Weisshaar, E, et al.
(författare)
-
European S2k Guideline on Chronic Pruritus.
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Acta Dermato-Venereologica. - : Medical Journals Sweden AB. - 1651-2057 .- 0001-5555. ; 99:5, s. 469-506
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 4. |
- Gimenez-Arnau, Ana, et al.
(författare)
-
Shoe contact dermatitis from dimethyl fumarate: clinical manifestations, patch test results, chemical analysis, and source of exposure
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Contact Dermatitis. - 0105-1873. ; 61:5, s. 249-260
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The methyl ester form of fumaric acid named dimethyl fumarate (DMF) is an effective mould-growth inhibitor. Its irritating and sensitizing properties were demonstrated in animal models. Recently, DMF has been identified as responsible for furniture contact dermatitis in Europe. Objective To describe the clinical manifestations, patch test results, shoe chemical analysis, and source of exposure to DMF-induced shoe contact dermatitis. Patients, Materials, and Methods Patients with suspected shoe contact dermatitis were studied in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Patch test results obtained with their own shoe and the European baseline series, acrylates and fumaric acid esters (FAE), were recorded according to international guidelines. The content of DMF in shoes was analysed with gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. Results Acute, immediate irritant contact dermatitis and non-immunological contact urticaria were observed in eight adults and two children, respectively. All the adult patients studied developed a delayed sensitization demonstrated by a positive patch testing to DMF < 0.1% in pet. Cross-reactivity with other FAEs and acrylates was observed. At least 12 different shoe brands were investigated. The chemical analysis from the available shoes showed the presence of DMF. Conclusion DMF in shoes was responsible for severe contact dermatitis. Global preventive measures for avoiding contact with DMF are necessary.
|
|
| 5. |
- Johansen, Jeanne D., et al.
(författare)
-
European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing : recommendations on best practice
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873 .- 1600-0536. ; 73:4, s. 195-221
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)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.
|
|
| 6. |
- Pontén, Ann, et al.
(författare)
-
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
-
Ingår i: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873. ; 68:1, s. 50-53
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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.
|
|
| 7. |
- Sosted, Heidi, et al.
(författare)
-
Contact allergy to common ingredients in hair dyes
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873. ; 69:1, s. 32-39
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Wilkinson, S. Mark, et al.
(författare)
-
The European baseline series and recommended additions : 2023
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873 .- 1600-0536. ; 88:2, s. 87-92
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The European baseline series was last updated in 2019. This article discusses the reasoning behind a further iteration of the series for 2023.
|
|
