Search

Objective: To analyse the clinical characteristics and sensitivity of an essential oil patch test series (EOS) in patients sensitized to their own essential oils (EOs). Method: We analysed the clinical data and patch test results obtained with the European baseline series (BSE) and an EOS, as well as the mode of use of EOs, through a questionnaire included in the patient file. Results: The study included 42 patients (79% women, average age 50 years) with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), 8 patients required hospitalization. All patients were sensitized to the EO they used, primarily lavender (Lavandula augustifolia, 8000‐28‐0), tea tree (Melaleuca alternifolia leaf oil, 68647‐73‐4), ravintsara (Cinnamomum camphora oil, 92201‐50‐8), and 2 cases were attributed to helichrysum (helichrysum italicum flower absolute, 90045‐56‐0). 71% had positive patch tests to fragrance mix I or II, 9 only to the EOS and 4 only with their personal EO. Interestingly, 40% of patients did not spontaneously mention the use of EOs, and only 33% received advice on their use at the time of purchase. Conclusion: Patch tests with the BSE, limonene and linalool HP, and oxidized tea tree oil is sufficient to detect most EO‐sensitized patients. The most important is to test the patient's own used EOs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Skin tests, including patch tests (PTs), prick tests, and intradermal tests (IDTs), are useful in identifying the culprits of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs), and determining safer, alternative drugs. PTs have a low sensitivity but are valuable in investigating maculopapular exanthema (MPE), as well as severe CADR, including toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), Stevens‐Johnson syndrome (SJS), and in particular, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). To ensure their specificity, at least 10 control tests should be performed. Prick tests are mainly used in the evaluation of immediate‐type hypersensitivity and can be performed with all drugs, except opiates. IDTs can be used to explore immediate and delayed‐type hypersensitivity, if an injectable form of the drug exists. Except for SJS/TEN, IDTs should be performed by injecting 0.02 mL of the drug. We here provide a practical, up‐to‐date review on the use of these skin tests in the work‐up of CADRs. Numerous negative controls for drug PTs, as well as criteria for the immediate and delayed positivity of prick tests and IDT, are included. It should be emphasized that a negative result never excludes the potential responsibility of a drug in a CADR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: allergic contact dermatitis; CAS no. 78336-31-9; case report; copolymers; cosmetic products; PEG-22/dodecyl glycol copolymer; PEG-45/dodecyl glycol copolymer EN allergic contact dermatitis CAS no. 78336-31-9 case report copolymers cosmetic products PEG-22/dodecyl glycol copolymer PEG-45/dodecyl glycol copolymer 213 215 3 08/04/23 20230901 NES 230901 We report a case of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by PEG-22/dodecyl glycol copolymer and PEG-45/dodecyl glycol copolymer contained in two different "skin-repairing" creams. Allergic contact dermatitis, CAS no. 78336-31-9, case report, copolymers, cosmetic products, PEG-22/dodecyl glycol copolymer, PEG-45/dodecyl glycol copolymer Allergic contact dermatitis caused by PEG-22 and PEG-45 dodecyl glycol copolymers in two skin-repairing creams. [Extracted from the article]

Background: An aqueous antiseptic containing "chlorhexidine digluconate/benzalkonium chloride/benzyl alcohol" (CBB) is widely used in France. The only previous documented study dealing with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to this antiseptic is one small case series in children. The French Vigilance Network for Dermatology and Allergy (REVIDAL‐GERDA) has collected many cases in the last few years. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical and sensitization profiles of patients diagnosed with ACD to CBB. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of patients with contact dermatitis to CBB and positive tests to CBB and/or at least one of its components. All patients had to be tested with all components of CBB. Results: A total of 102 patients (71 adults and 31 children) were included. The lesions were extensive in 63% of patients and 55% had delayed time to diagnosis. CBB patch tests were positive in 93.8% of cases. The allergen was identified in 97% of patients, mainly benzyl alcohol in adults (81.7%) and chlorhexidine digluconate in children (54.8%). About 32.4% of the patients were sensitized to several components. Conclusion: CBB is a cause of ACD at all ages. The components of the antiseptic should be tested. The sensitization profile seems to be different between adults and children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patch tests (PT) were performed with the European Baseline, a cosmetic and an EO series (Chemotechnique Diagnostics, Vellinge, Sweden), and the personal beard products. 3 Kurihara F, Soria A, Lepoittevin JP, Chasset F, Barbaud A, Pecquet C. Thymoquinone as a causative allergen in Nigella sativa oil contact dermatitis with cross-reactivity to tert-butylhydroquinone. Allergic contact dermatitis from Nigella Sativa Seed Oil (NSO) may present in different patterns such as severe polymorphic lesions mimicking acute bullous drug reactions.[[1], [3]] However, proving its use and its responsibility may be difficult. [Extracted from the article]

Allergic contact dermatitis, case report, cosmetics, patch tests A 53-year-old woman experienced a widespread eczema after application of two Tamanu oils on insect bites, with positive patch test results to the two Tamanu oils at 1% in olive oil. Keywords: allergic contact dermatitis; case report; cosmetics; patch tests EN allergic contact dermatitis case report cosmetics patch tests 99 100 2 06/14/22 20220701 NES 220701 Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to Tamanu oil is rare, but two recent cases underline that an increase in frequency of use could bring out more cases of ACD to this vegetable oil. [Extracted from the article]

Background and Objectives: The repeated open application test (ROAT) is an adjuvant investigation measure to patch testing in the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. ESCD recommends a 15 days duration but its overall duration varies according to publications and patients hardly adhere to prolonged ROAT duration beyond 1 week. Materials and Methods: The Dermatology and Allergy Group of the French Society of Dermatology performed a prospective study with the aim of determining the best duration for the ROAT. Results: A total of 328 ROAT results were collected for topical products, including cosmetics (60%) and topical medications (31.1%). Fifty‐nine (18%) ROATs were positive, and 16 (5%) were doubtful. All the positive ROATs occurred within 10 days, with a median time to positivity of 3 days. Conclusion: According to our results, a minimum duration of 10 days is necessary to achieve a positive ROAT to a topical product. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(C) Positive prick test with undiluted Desomedine on delayed reading at day 2 (same prick test as in B) gl Prick tests were performed with undiluted Desomedine (hexamidine 0.1%), and these confirmed both immediate and delayed type hypersensitivity on immediate (Figure 1B) and delayed readings on day (D)2 (Figure 1C). Although allergic contact dermatitis in response to antiseptics is common, we should be aware that occasionally this may co-exist with immediate-type hypersensitivity, and also with molecules frequently sold over the counter. Keywords: case report; delayed hypersensitivity; hexamidine; immediate hypersensitivity EN case report delayed hypersensitivity hexamidine immediate hypersensitivity 580 582 3 10/22/21 20211101 NES 211101 CASE REPORT A 66-year-old man with a history of arterial hypertension (treated by dietary approaches only), allergic rhinitis, asthma, and atopic dermatitis, developed a grade II anaphylactic reaction 5 minutes after the first intranasal application of hexamidine (Desomedine, Chauvin Bausch & Lomb laboratory, Montpellier, France) for a cold. [Extracted from the article]