Search

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]

The previously used make-up base could not be patch tested but similar products from the same brand were shown to contain isopropyl lauroyl sarcosinate. Keywords: allergic contact dermatitis; CAS no. 230309-38-3; case report; cosmetics; eczema; isopropyl lauroyl sarcosinate; patch test; repeated open application test; sodium lauroyl sarcosinate EN allergic contact dermatitis CAS no. 230309-38-3 case report cosmetics eczema isopropyl lauroyl sarcosinate patch test repeated open application test sodium lauroyl sarcosinate 119 120 2 06/17/21 20210701 NES 210701 We report a second case of allergic contact dermatitis caused by isopropyl lauroyl sarcosinate (CAS no. 230309-38-3), an amino acid-based ester, contained in a cosmetic.1 CASE REPORT A 35-year-old woman, with a history of chronic spontaneous urticaria and asthma, reported an erythematous and oedematous eruption of the face, with burning and itchy sensations, 24 hours following the application of Effaclar Duo+ (La Roche Posay, L'Oréal, Clichy, France) to treat acne. Allergic contact dermatitis, CAS no. 230309-38-3, case report, cosmetics, eczema, isopropyl lauroyl sarcosinate, patch test, repeated open application test, sodium lauroyl sarcosinate. [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]

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]

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]

(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]

Thereby, the similar patch test profile results in our five patients support the hypothesis that TBHQ is a good marker for NSO allergy through a TQ sensitization. Keywords: allergic contact dermatitis; Cas number 1948-33-0; patch test; Nigella sativa oil; tert-butylhydroquinone; thymoquinone EN allergic contact dermatitis Cas number 1948-33-0 patch test Nigella sativa oil tert-butylhydroquinone thymoquinone 447 449 3 05/06/21 20210601 NES 210601 Use of complementary and alternative medicine has increased in industrialized countries.1,2 I Nigella sativa i oil (NSO), used as an herbal medicine for thousands of years, has drawn interest for its immunoregulatory, antimicrobial, cardiovascular, and antitumoral properties.3 Although patients expect alternative medicine to be safe,4 allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and bullous dermatitis with NSO have been reported.5,6 The hypothesis that thymoquinone (TQ), its major component, is the causative substance of allergic reaction to NSO was proposed,7 but thymoquinone is not yet available in France for patch tests. These five cases and the previously published one support the hypothesis that due to chemical similarities with TQ, which is supposed to be the responsible for NSO sensitization, TBHQ would be a good marker for NSO allergy. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Eyelids are frequent sites of contact dermatitis. No prospective study focused on eyelid allergic contact dermatitis (EACD) has yet been published, and this topic has never been studied in French patients. Objectives: To prospectively evaluate the usefulness of an eyelid series in French patients patch tested because of EACD, and to describe these patients. Methods: We prospectively analysed standardized data for all patients referred to our departments between September 2014 and August 2016 for patch testing for suspected EACD as the main reason. All patients were patch tested with an eyelid series, the European baseline series (EBS), the French additional series, and their personal products. Patch testing with additional series and repeated open application tests (ROATs) or open tests were performed if necessary. A standardized assessment of the relevance was used, and the analysis of the results was focused on patients having positive test results with a current certain relevance. Results: Two‐hundred and sixty‐four patients (238 women and 26 men) were included. Three‐hundred and twenty‐two tests gave positive results in 167 patients, 84 of whom had currently relevant reactions: 56 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the EBS, 16 had currently relevant positive test reactions to their personal products, 8 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the French additional series, and 4 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the eyelid series. Sixty‐seven per cent of all relevant cases were related to cosmetic products. The most frequent allergens with current relevance were methylisothiazolinone (10.2%), fragrance mix I (3%), nickel (2.7%), hydroxyperoxides of linalool (2.7%) and limonene (2.3%), and Myroxylon pereirae (2.3%). Current atopic dermatitis was found in 9.5% of patients. The duration of dermatitis was shorter (23.2 vs 34.2 months; P = .035) in patients with currently relevant test reactions. The percentage of currently relevant tests remained the same when atopic patients or dermatitis localized only on the eyelids were taken into account. Conclusion: In French patients, testing for EACD with the extended baseline series and personal products, also including ROATs and use tests, appears to be adequate, considering the currently relevant positive test reactions. The regular addition of an eyelid series does not seem to be necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case study of a woman with acute eczema of upper and lower eyelids which caused Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) was given intravitreal injections containing aflibercept and ranibizumab. It notes that IQ Ultra Chambers was applied with Mefix and repeated open application tests. The article discusses ACD is caused by an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) intravitreal injection.