Search

p-phenylenediamine derivatives are widely used in industry and in cosmetics, and several of them are well-known sensitizers. One group of allergenic p-phenylenediamine derivatives are used as colour film developers. Cross-reactivity between the colour film developers has been reported. In this paper, an occupational facial dermatitis due to colour film developers is described. The patient reacted to colour film developers (CD-1, CD-2, CD-3. and CD-4), but not to other p-phenylenediamine derivatives tested. He also showed allergic reactions to Disperse Blue 106 and Disperse Blue 124 and to Disperse Red 17, but not to Disperse Orange 3. The activation of the colour him developers by oxidation at physiological pH was analysed with chemical methods, and the mechanism responsible tar the concomitant reactivities to the colour film developers and the disperse dyes at a molecular level is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(B) D2: strong positive patch test reactions (++) to sesquiterpene lactone mix (SLM) 0.1% pet. on the previous positive patch tests sites of IBOA (no. 1 = 0.1%, no. 2 = 0.3%) on the right upper arm. Keywords: allergic contact dermatitis; case report; cosensitization; cross-reactivity; diabetes mellitus; FreeStyle Libre; glucose sensor; medical devices; re-test method; sesquiterpene lactones EN allergic contact dermatitis case report cosensitization cross-reactivity diabetes mellitus FreeStyle Libre glucose sensor medical devices re-test method sesquiterpene lactones 57 59 3 12/17/21 20220101 NES 220101 Patients with allergic contact dermatitis from the glucose sensor FreeStyle Libre (Abbott Diabetes Care, Witney, UK) are often (strongly) sensitized to isobornyl acrylate (IBOA).1,2 About 40% to 60% of these patients also have a concomitant positive patch test to the sesquiterpene lactone mix (SLM; 0.1% pet.), Unexpected positive patch test reactions to sesquiterpene lactones in patients sensitized to the glucose sensor FreeStyle libre. [Extracted from the article]

The article presents a case report of contact urticaria and dermatitis induced by Solanaceae and Alliaceae in a 48-year-old female supermarket manager. The paper provides information on the patient's medical history, clinical presentation of the disease, results of medical examinations and treatment and management of the disease.

Background Measures to prevent occupational exposure to epoxy resins, including education, medical examination, and voluntary agreements between employers and workers, have not been effective enough to protect against skin sensitization. Therefore, alternatives to the major epoxy resin haptens that have been found to be less sensitizing in the local lymph node assay have been developed. Objectives To study the cross-reactivity of two newly designed epoxy resin monomers, with decreased skin-sensitizing potency and good technical properties as compared with diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A ( DGEBA), in subjects with known contact allergy to epoxy resin of DGEBA type. Patients and Methods Eleven individuals with previous positive patch test reactions to epoxy resin of DGEBA participated in the study. The two alternative epoxy resin monomers were synthesized and patch tested in dilution series in parallel with epoxy resin of DGEBA from the baseline series (containing 92% DGEBA). Results All participants reacted to epoxy resin of DGEBA on retesting. Three participants reacted to monomer 1. No reactions were seen to monomer 2. Conclusions The alternative monomers studied showed little or no cross-reactivity with epoxy resin of DGEBA. Decreasing the risk of sensitization by using less sensitizing compounds is important, as contact allergy to epoxy resins is common in spite of thorough preventive measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In Japan, over 2000 users of a facial soap containing Glupearl 19S ( GP19S), a hydrolysed wheat protein ( HWP), developed immediate-type systemic wheat allergy ( HWP-IWA), and ∼70% of them developed associated contact urticaria. Objectives We investigated whether HWP-IWA patients cross-react with other HWPs, and analysed HWP antigenic characteristics. Methods We used 10 types of HWP that are commercially available as cosmetic ingredients, and 16 subjects with HWP-IWA. We performed an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay ( ELISA) to evaluate the reactivity to each HWP, and western blotting to evaluate the characteristics of the antigens by using HWP-IWA patients' serum IgE antibodies. We also performed prick tests with the HWPs. Results The patients reacted to four other HWPs in addition to GP19S, according to ELISA, and this was confirmed by strong reactions in the prick tests to the same four types of HWP. Smears of antigens with molecular weights ranging from the high range to the low range were seen on western blotting with the four HWPs that showed strong reactions in the ELISA and prick tests. Conclusions HWP-IWA patients cross-react with other HWPs. The antigens that they cross-reacted to had a molecular weight distribution similar to that of GP19S present in the HWPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Beside the basic resins, reactive diluents and hardeners are important sensitizers in epoxy resin systems ( ERSs). Because of chemical similarities, immunological cross-reactivity may occur. Objectives To analyse concomitant reactivity among reactive diluents and hardeners in the patients concerned, as one integral part of a research project on the sensitizing capacity of ERSs ( FP-0324). Methods A retrospective analysis of data from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology ( IVDK), 2002-2011, was performed. Results There was close concomitant reactivity to 1,6-hexanediol diglycidyl ether and 1,4-butanediol diglycidyl ether (1,4- BDDGE), and to phenyl glycidyl ether ( PGE) and cresyl glycidyl ether ( CGE), whereas reactions to p-tert-butylphenyl glycidyl ether occurred more independently from those to PGE and CGE. Concomitant reactions to butyl glycidyl ether and 1,4- BDDGE may point to a common allergenic compound derived from the metabolism of 1,4- BDDGE. Among the structurally more diverse group of hardeners, there was no evidence of immunological cross-reactions. Conclusions More detailed knowledge of cross-reactivity among ERS components facilitates the interpretation of patch test results and will allow safer ERSs to be composed in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In 2005, methylisothiazolinone ( MI) on its own came into use as a preservative. Prior to that, MI was always present together with methylchloroisothiazolinone ( MCI). Can the pattern of reactivity to the separate active ingredients in allergic patients tell us something about the primary sensitizer? Objectives To investigate the potential pattern of cross-reactivity between the isothiazolinones tested, and to find the minimal elicitation concentration for each chemical, in order to determine whether the primary sensitizer is MCI or MI. Methods Patients reacting to MCI/ MI and/or MI were additionally patch tested with MCI/ MI, MCI, MI, 2-n-octyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one ( OIT) and 4,5-dichloro-2-n-octyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (dichloro- OIT) in serial dilutions. Results Three different groups of reactors were seen. One group did not react to MI; another group reacted to both MCI and MI, but had higher patch test reactivity to MCI; and a third group reacted to both MCI and MI with very similar patch test reactivity, but reacted more often to OIT and dichloro- OIT. Conclusions Patch testing with the active ingredients of MCI/ MI in serial dilutions could give information on the primary sensitizer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Simultaneous contact allergies to Disperse Orange 1, 4-nitroaniline and p-aminodiphenylamine ( PADPA), as well as to other disperse azo dyes and to p-phenylenediamine ( PPD), have been reported. Cross-reactivity is one of the possible explanations for simultaneous reactions between PPD and disperse azo dyes. Some metabolites from the azo reduction of these disperse azo dyes could be sensitizers, as human skin bacteria produce azo reductases. Objectives To investigate the sensitizing capacity of Disperse Orange 1, PADPA and 4-nitroaniline, and the cross-reactivity between these substances and Disperse Yellow 3, its potential metabolites from azo reduction (4-aminoacetanilide and 2-amino- p-cresol), and PPD. Method The guinea-pig maximization test was used. Results It was found that both Disperse Orange 1 and PADPA are strong sensitizers and cross-react with each other. We were unable to sensitize guinea-pigs with 4-nitroaniline tested in equimolar concentrations to Disperse Orange 1. Conclusions The results indicate that patients sensitized primarily to Disperse Orange 1 will also react to PADPA, which can be found mainly in hair dyes. PPD, 4-nitroaniline, 4-aminoacetanilide, 2-amino- p-cresol and Disperse Yellow 3 did not show any cross-reactivity with Disperse Orange 1 or PADPA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Simultaneous contact allergies to the reactive diluent phenyl glycidyl ether (PGE) and epoxy resins based on diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A (DGEBA) or epoxy resins of the bisphenol F-type have been reported. The latter epoxy resins contain three isomers of diglycidyl ether of bisphenol F (DGEBF). PGE, DGEBA, and DGEBF are chemically similar with respect to the reactive glycidyl group and an aromatic ring, making cross-reactivity one of the possible explanations to simultaneous reactions. Aim: To investigate the sensitizing capacity of PGE and the cross-reactivity of PGE versus the epoxy resin monomers DGEBA and the three DGEBF monomers and vice versa. Method: The guinea-pig maximization test. Results: PGE is a strong sensitizer. Induction with DGEBA resulted in a statistically significant number of animals reacting to PGE, but when induced with PGE, the animals did not react significantly to DGEBA. Conclusions: When the results are applied to humans, it can be assumed that patients sensitized primarily to DGEBA react to PGE, but when sensitized exclusively to PGE, they do not react to DGEBA. Both reactive diluents and epoxy resins should be tested when contact allergy to epoxy resin systems are suspected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concomitant positive reactions to colophonium, oxidized limonene, and/or oxidized linalool are recorded in patch test studies. The main allergens in these patch test mixtures are hydroperoxides, which form antigens by a radical pathway. Theoretically, concomitant reactions can be explained not only by concomitant sensitization or by true cross-reactions but also by the hydroperoxides acting as oxidizing agents on skin proteins to form non-specific antigens without hapten–protein binding. The aim of this study was to explore concomitant reactions and cross-reactivity patterns among hydroperoxide haptens. We investigated whether individuals allergic to the main allergen in colophonium, 15-hydroperoxyabietic acid, would also react to limonene hydroperoxide or linalool hydroperoxide. Only 1 of 29 individuals reacted to more than 1 hydroperoxide. The cross-reactivity pattern among cumene hydroperoxide, limonene hydroperoxide, 1-(1-hydroperoxy-1-methylethyl) cyclohexene (cyclohexene hydroperoxide), and 15-hydroperoxydehydroabietic acid was investigated in guinea-pigs. No general cross-reactivity was observed. Cross-reactions between cumene hydroperoxide and cyclohexene hydroperoxide show that similarity in the overall structure and the way of antigen formation are needed. Quantum calculations were used to determine the formation energies of the intermediary radicals. We concluded that hydroperoxides form specific antigens and that formation of non-specific antigens is unlikely. The concomitant patch test reactions described in the literature are best explained as a result of multiple sensitizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concomitant patch test reactions to nickel and palladium have frequently been reported in patients undergoing investigation because of suspected allergic contact dermatitis. Theoretically, these reactions can be explained by multiple, concomitant, simultaneous sensitization as well as cross-sensitization. We studied whether concomitant reactions to nickel and palladium could represent cross-sensitization in females hypersensitive to combinations of nickel, palladium and cobalt. Females were patch tested with serial dilutions of nickel sulfate, cobalt chloride and palladium chloride on the upper back. 1 month later, when the patch test reactions were gone, the patients were randomized into 2 groups that were challenged orally with either nickel or placebo. 1 day later, the areas of previous positive patch test reactions were read in a blind way looking for flare-up reactions. Nickel provocation but not placebo yielded flare-up reactions on sites previously tested with nickel ( P = 0.012) and palladium ( P = 0.006), but were also observed on sites previously tested with cobalt, even though this was not statistically significant. Flare-up reactions of previous patch test reactions to nickel and palladium after oral challenge with nickel speak in favour of a cross-reactivity mechanism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contact allergy to p-tert- butylphenol formaldehyde resin (PTBP-F-R) is not rare. This resin consists of a large number of substances, most of which are still unknown. For diagnostic and preventive reasons the chemical identity of the sensitizers should be known, as well as their sensitizing capacities, cross-reaction patterns and presence in the environment. The aims of this study were to investigate the sensitizing capacities and potential cross-reacting patterns for 4-tert -butyl- 2,6-bis-(5-tert -butyl-2-hydroxy-3-hydroxymethyl-benzyloxymethyl)-phenol (XIII), 4-tert -butyl-2- (5 - tert - butyl - 2 - hydroxy-benzyloxymethyl) - 6 - (5 - tert - butyl - 2 - hydroxy - 3 - hydroxymethyl-benzyloxy methyl)-phenol (XIVa) and 7,15,23-tri-tert -butyl-25,26,27-trihydroxy-2,3,10,11,18,19-hexahomo-3,11,19-trioxacalix(3)arene (XVIII) by the guinea pig maximization test. 4-tert -Butyl-2,6-bis-hydroxymethyl-phenol, 4-tert -butylbenzene-1,2-diol, 4-tert -butyl-2-hydroxymethyl-phenol, 4-tert -butyl-phenol, 4-tert -butyl-2-(5-tert -butyl-2-hydroxy-3-hydroxymethyl-benzyloxymethyl)-6-hydroxymethyl-phenol, 4-tert -butyl-2-[5-tert -butyl-3-(5-tert -butyl-2-hydroxy-3-hydroxymethyl-benzyloxymethyl) - 2 -hydroxy-benzyloxymethyl] - 6 - (5 - tert -butyl- 2 -hydroxy- 3 -hydroxymethyl-benzyloxymethyl)- phenol and were used as potential cross-reacting substances. In this study it is strongly indicated that the linear trimer XIII has a sensitizing capacity in the guinea pig which was significant when compared to the controls (p = 0.024). No cross-reactions were detected in animals induced with the linear trimer XIII. The linear trimer XIVa and the cyclic trimer XVIII failed to induce sensitization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

28 patients with dermatitis from plants were seen over the last 10 years. This was 1.45% of all patients with contact dermatitis. 7 reacted to Frullania, 4 to Compositae. and 1 to helenin- Patch tests with Frullanaceac, Lauraceae, Magnoliaceae. Compositae and helenin, showed no dominant allergen in the plant families with sesquiterpene lactone sensitivity. The positive reactions with feverfew (Chrysanthe- mum parthenium) in nearly all patients is probably due to the high content of the sesqueterpene lactone parthenolide; it is a better screening allergen for Compositae sensitivity than alantolactone (helenin). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Colour developing agents, derivatives of p-phenylenediamine, can cause contact allergy. Patch test reactions to more than one colour developer are sometimes seen in patients. To study whether this is due to simultaneous sensitizations or cross-reactivity, guinea pig maximization test (GPMT) with CD-2, CD-3 and CD-4 were carried out, 5 experiments were performed, using pet, or water as vehicles. When pet, was used, the challenge concentrations could be raised and cross-reactivity between the colour developers, but not with p-phenylenediamine-dihydrochloride, was revealed. When water was used as vehicle, the challenge concentrations were limited because of staining of the test sites and irritation. CD-2, CD-3 and CD-4 were found to be extreme sensitizers according to the classification by Magnusson and Kligman. The importance of using an appropriate vehicle to obtain optimal conditions for the GPMT is stressed. To study the purity and stability of the chemicals used, analysis by HPLC of the test substances at different stages of the GPMT procedure was performed. Aqueous solutions of the colour developers were found to be unstable, while per, mixtures were stable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an author's view in respond to a study relating to cross-reactivity between methylchloroisothiazolinone and other isothiazolinones in workers at a plant producing binders for paints and glues. It was inferred that to test potential sensitizers for cross-reactivity, the optimal option would be to conduct animal studies such as the guinea-pig maximization test. Furthermore, a table depicting results from the patch testing is offered.