| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Bruze, Magnus, et al.
(författare)
-
Contact Allergy to Fragrance Mix II and Hydroxyisohexyl 3-Cyclohexene Carboxaldehyde : A Retrospective Study by International Contact Dermatitis Research Group
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug. - 1710-3568. ; 31:4, s. 268-271
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Bråred Christensson, Johanna, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Air-oxidized linalool: a frequent cause of fragrance contact allergy.
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873 .- 1600-0536. ; 67:5, s. 247-259
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background. Linalool is a common fragrance terpene that, in pure form, is not allergenic or is a very weak allergen. However, linalool autoxidizes on air exposure, and the oxidation products can cause contact allergy. In a Swedish study, oxidized linalool 6.0% in petrolatum (pet.) gave 5% positive patch test reactions in 2500 dermatitis patients. Objectives. To investigate whether oxidized linalool 6%, with a stable concentration of the main haptens, the linalool hydroperoxides (Lin-OOHs) in pet., could be a useful tool for the detection of contact allergy in an international setting. Methods. Oxidized linalool 6.0% (Lin-OOHs 1%) pet. was tested in 2900 consecutive dermatitis patients in Denmark, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, and Australia. Results. Overall, 6.9% (range 3–13%) of the patients showed positive patch test reactions to oxidized linalool. Doubtful reactions were found in 9.2% of the patients (range 0–36%). Few irritant reactions were seen. Conclusions. In an international setting, oxidized linalool has been shown to be a common allergen. Oxidized linalool 6.0% (Lin-OOHs 1%) pet. is a useful, standardized and stable tool for the detection of contact allergy in dermatitis patients. Many patients showing positive patch test reactions to oxidized linalool would not have been informed of their fragrance allergy if this specific test had not been performed
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Bråred Christensson, Johanna, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Positive patch test reactions to oxidized limonene: exposure and relevance
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873 .- 1600-0536. ; 71:5, s. 264-272
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background. R-Limonene is a common fragrance terpene found in domestic and industrial products. R-Limonene autoxidizes on air exposure, and the oxidation products can cause contact allergy. In a recent multicentre study, 5.2% (range 2.3-12.1%) of 2900 patients showed a positive patch test reaction to oxidized R-limonene. Objective. To study the exposure to limonene among consecutive dermatitis patients reacting to oxidized R-limonene in an international setting, and to assess the relevance of the exposure for the patients' dermatitis. Methods. Oxidized R-limonene 3.0% (containing limonene hydroperoxides at 0.33%) in petrolatum was tested in 2900 consecutive dermatitis patients in Australia, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Spain, and Sweden. A questionnaire assessing exposure to limonene-containing products was completed. Results. Overall, exposure to products containing limonene was found and assessed as being probably relevant for the patients' dermatitis in 36% of the limonene-allergic patients. In Barcelona and Copenhagen, >70% of the patients were judged to have had an exposure to limonene assessed as relevant. Conclusions. Oxidized R-limonene is a common fragrance allergen, and limonene was frequently found in the labelling on the patients' products, and assessed as relevant for the patients' dermatitis. A large number of domestic and occupational sources for contact with R-limonene were identified.
|
|
| 6. |
- Engfeldt, Malin, et al.
(författare)
-
Multicenter patch testing with methylchloroisothizoline/methylisothiazolinone in 100 and 200 ppm within the international contact dermatitis research group
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Dermatitis. - 1710-3568. ; 28:3, s. 215-218
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The preservative methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) is a well-known contact sensitizer. Historically, there have been different opinions on the optimal patch test concentration of MCI/MI, and both 0.01% and 0.02% aqueous (aq.) have been proposed. In 2011, based on literature reviews, it was recommended that the concentration of 0.02% aq. should be used in the international baseline series. Objectives: The aim of this study was to verify the recommendation from 2011 by comparing the patch test results from consecutive patch testing with MCI/MI 0.01% and 0.02% in clinics representing countries around the world. Patients and Methods: Two thousand seven hundred three consecutive patients with dermatitis in 8 dermatology clinics representing 8 countries were patch tested with MCI/MI 0.01% aq. and, in parallel with MCI/MI 0.02% aq., provisionally included in the baseline series. Results: Contact allergy to MCI/MI at 0.01% and 0.02% was found in 3.7% and 5.6% of the patients, respectively (P G 0.001). Conclusions: Methylchloroisothiazolinone/MI 0.02% aq. (dose, 6 Kg/cm2) diagnoses significantly more contact allergy than 0.01% (dose, 3 Kg/cm2), without resulting in more adverse reactions.Methylchloroisothiazolinone/MI at 0.02% aq. should therefore be continuously used in the international baseline series.
|
|
| 7. |
- Goon, Anthony, et al.
(författare)
-
Correlation between Stated and Measured Concentrations of Acrylate and Methacrylate Allergens in Patch-Test Preparations
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Dermatitis. - : Mary Ann Liebert Inc. - 1710-3568. ; 22:1, s. 27-32
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Contact allergy to acrylates and methacrylates is not uncommon. The allergy is confirmed by patch-testing patients with commercial patch-test preparations. Objective: To investigate acrylate and methacrylate allergens used for patch testing in nine different dermatology departments from Europe, America, Asia, and Australia. Methods: The acrylate and methacrylate (methyl methacrylate, 2-hydroxypropyl acrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, and triethylene glycol diacrylate) allergen samples were analyzed with high-performance liquid chromatography to measure the allergen content. Results: Variation in measured versus stated concentrations was seen in these samples. The ratio of measured to stated concentrations ranged from 0.11 to 1.1. Only 22 (63%) of 35 samples were within the arbitrary acceptable limits of 80 to 120% of the stated concentrations. Conclusion: The results may have implications for individual diagnosis and prevention and when test results from various centers are compared.
|
|
| 8. |
- Goon, Anthony, et al.
(författare)
-
High frequency of false-positive reactions in attempted patch testing with acrylate/methacrylate mixes.
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873. ; 67:3, s. 157-161
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Although acrylate/methacrylate allergy has been frequently reported, until now patch testing with this group of allergens has been unwieldy, requiring the application of large supplementary series in most centres. Objectives: To formulate and evaluate two mixes of acrylate/methacrylate allergens in three centres (Malmö, Singapore, and Leuven). Patients/materials/methods: All patients tested with the baseline series during the study period were also patch tested with the mixes. Mix 1 consisted of: triethyleneglycol diacrylate (TREGDA) 0.1% wt/wt, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) 1.0% wt/wt and ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate 1.0% wt/wt in petrolatum. Mix 2 consisted of: TREGDA 0.1% wt/wt and 2-HEMA 2.0% wt/wt in pet. The separate components of the two mixes were also tested simultaneously. Results. There were 25 (5 males; 20 females) positive reactions to mix 1 with 16 in Malmö, 8 in Singapore, and 1 in Leuven. Positive reactions to mix 2 were seen only in Malmö, in 8 female patients. Thus, the positive reaction rate for mix 1 was 8.3% overall (Malmö 7.7%, Singapore 18.6%, and Leuven 2.1%), and that for mix 2 was 2.7% overall (Malmö 3.8%, Singapore 0%, and Leuven 0%). Of the 16 positive reactions to mix 1 in Malmö, only 4 were considered to be true allergic reactions, as the component allergen testing gave totally negative results in 12/16. For mix 2, only 3/8 positive reactions were considered to be true allergic reactions, as the component testing was negative in 5/8. Many doubtful (10-20%) and positive but non-allergic reactions were recorded, leading to early termination of the study. Conclusions: Although this was an unsuccessful attempt to formulate an acrylate/methacrylate mix, our experience will be useful for those embarking on future attempts to do this.
|
|
| 9. |
- Goon, Anthony Teik-Jin, et al.
(författare)
-
Contact allergy to acrylates/methacrylates in the acrylate and nail acrylics series in southern Sweden: simultaneous positive patch test reaction patterns and possible screening allergens
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873 .- 1600-0536. ; 57:1, s. 21-27
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In a recent study we showed that all our dental personnel/patients were detected with 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) and 2,2-bis[4-(2-hydroxy-3-methacryloxypropoxy)phenyl]propane (bis-GMA). We studied 90 patients tested to the acrylate and nail acrylics series at our department over a 10 year period to see whether screening allergens could be found. Patch testing with an acrylate and nail acrylics series was performed. Among the 10 acrylate/methacrylate-allergic occupational dermatitis patients tested to the acrylate series, the most common allergens were triethyleneglycol diacrylate (TREGDA, 8), diethyleneglycol diacrylate (5), and 1,4-butanediol diacrylate (BUDA, 5). All 10 of these patients would have been picked up by a short screening series combining TREGDA, 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate (2-HPMA), and BUDA or 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate (HDDA). Among the 14 acrylate/methacrylate-allergic nail patients, the most common allergens were ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA, 11), 2-HEMA, (9), and triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (9). Screening for 3 allergens i.e. 2-HEMA plus EGDMA plus TREGDA, would have detected all 14 nail patients. A short screening series combining 2-HEMA, EGDMA, TREGDA, 2-HPMA, bis-GMA, and BUDA or HDDA would have picked up all our past study patients (dental, industrial, and nail) with suspected allergy to acrylate/methacrylate allergens.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
