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]

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 and Aims: Vitamins are bioactive compounds naturally found in many different types of food and required by the human body for many biological functions and enzymatic activities. Due to their antioxidant properties, certain vitamin derivatives have been synthesized for inclusion in many cosmetics, thus leading to an increasing incidence of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) cases. Therefore, the present review may be helpful to provide an insight into the sensitizing role of at least certain vitamins and may also offer possible patch test alternatives for definitive diagnosis. Methods: This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Literature search regarding ACD cases to vitamins was performed using the Medline, PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases from January 1940 up to June 2021. Results: A total of 4494 articles matched the keywords used for the researched. Records removed before screening included 15 duplicate articles and 3429 not eligible articles (e.g., not written in English, studies on animals, not relevant to the topic). A total of 1050 articles underwent the screening phase and 258 were therefore excluded as they were not primary studies. Subsequentially, 792 articles were considered eligible for the review and 688 of them were finally excluded as they did not report the outcome of interest. Therefore, 104 articles were definitely included in the present review. Conclusion: ACD to vitamins is still probably an underestimated issue in cosmetology, as many vitamins are considered "natural" and therefore "safe" ingredients. On the contrary, according to current literature, almost all vitamins contained in topical products are able to induce allergic reactions, with the exception of vitamin B2 and vitamin B9. Patch tests are not standardized, thus leading to difficulties in diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

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]

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]

Keywords: allergic contact dermatitis; alternative medicine; black cumin; essential oil; Nigella sativa oil; t-butylhydroquinone; thymoquinone EN allergic contact dermatitis alternative medicine black cumin essential oil Nigella sativa oil t-butylhydroquinone thymoquinone 132 134 3 07/27/20 20200801 NES 200801 Thymoquinone (TQ), the main constituent of I Nigella sativa i L. oil (NSO), was investigated for therapeutic use in different diseases for its antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antiproliferative, and proapoptotic properties.1 Several cases of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and bullous eruption from NSO have been published, and the hypothesis of TQ being the causative substance was suggested but not confirmed.2,3 We report a case of ACD caused by NSO with a positive patch test to TQ. Strong or extreme-positive patch-test reactions were observed to NSO (++/++), I t i ert-butylhydroquinone (TBHQ) (++/++) (in the cosmetic series), carvone (++/++), amyl cinnamal (-/++), and TQ (+++/+++) (Figure 1). Allergic contact dermatitis, alternative medicine, black cumin, essential oil, Nigella sativa oil, t-butylhydroquinone, thymoquinone. [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]

The article presents a case study of a 28-year-old woman who had history of pruritic erythematous scaly dermatitis on both hands and on the neck, after keeping a rabbit as pet. She fed her rabbit with chicory leaves, dandelion, hay, and dry food, and the dermatitis disappeared when the patient stopped feeding her rabbit with chicory.

Background Modern dressings ( MDs) may have a low sensitization rate, but there is a lack of prospective studies in patients with chronic leg ulcers ( CLUs) to evaluate this. Objectives To determine the rate of sensitization (contact allergy) to MDs and substances present in dressings. Patients and methods A prospective multicentre study was carried out in patients with CLUs at five French dermatology departments; patch tests were performed with the European baseline series and with an additional 27 individual allergens and 10 MDs. Results Among 354 patients (226 women and 128 men) with CLUs, 59.6% had at least one positive patch test reaction to an MD and 19% had at least one sensitization to an MD. The number of positive test reactions per patient was correlated with the duration of ulcerative disease, but not with ulcer duration, the cause of the ulcer, or the presence of surrounding eczematous lesions. For 11 of 45 patients sensitized to Ialuset cream®, more detailed information could be obtained with sensitization to sodium dehydroacetate (5 cases) or Lanette SX® (3 cases). Conclusions Sensitization to MDs is not rare. It is absolutely necessary to label all components of MDs on their packaging and to avoid some sensitizing molecules, such as colophonium derivatives or any strong sensitizers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The preservative methylisothiazolinone ( MI) is used in combination with methylchloroisothiazolinone ( MCI), but the MCI/MI mixture has been identified as highly allergenic. MI is considered to be less allergenic, and since the mid-2000s has been widely used alone, but is now clearly identified as a contact allergen. The French Vigilance Network for Dermatology and Allergy of the Study and Research Group on Contact Dermatitis ( REVIDAL-GERDA) added MI to its baseline patch testing series in 2010. Objective To evaluate the change in the proportion of MI-positive tests in France between 2010 and 2012. Patients/materials/methods We conducted a nationwide, multicentre, retrospective study of all MI-tested patients between 2010 and 2012. Results Sixteen centres participated in the study (7874 patients were tested). Patch tests were performed mainly at a concentration of MI 200 ppm aq. We observed a significant increase in the proportion of MI-positive tests in 2012 and 2011 as compared with 2010 (5.6%, 3.3%, and 1.5%, respectively; p < 0.001). Conclusions We report a significant increase in the number of MI-positive tests. MI is confirmed to be a rapidly emerging allergen, as also observed in other European countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case study of a 26-year-old male cook who was presented due to fixed eruption caused by contact or ingestion of freshwater fish and seafood. It states that bullous lesions appear on his forearms when he handles or eat fish. It mentions that normal skin on the forearm had underwent prick tests with commercial extracts or fresh food. Meanwhile, it mentions that the case will be classified as neutrophilic fixed food eruption.

Provides information on a study which examined the role of the phenothiazine component of the Neuriplege ointment in contact dermatitis. Information on patients; Results of the patch tests and photopatch tests with chlorproethazine.

Focuses on several case reports on contact dermatitis. Development of hyperpigmentation due to Juglans regia; Side effects of benzocaine ointment used in the treatment herpes zoster; Manifestations of dermatitis due to corticosteroids diagnosed by repeated open application test.

In order to confirm the mechanism of skin sensitization to propacetamol, a pro-drug of acetaminophen, 3 patients with allergic contact dermatitis from propacetamol were patch tested with N,Ndiethylglycine phenyl ester, an activated form of N,N-diethylglycine. Positive patch tests were observed in all the patients at 10% in pet., while 20 control patients remained negative. This strongly suggests that propacetamol is acting as an activated form of N,N-diethylglycine, transferring this part of the molecule to nucleophilic residues of proteins. This also explains why reactions to acetaminophen have never been observed in patients sensitized to propacetamol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Allergic contact dermatitis caused by acyclovir is rare. We report the 5th case of systemic acyclovir reaction subsequent to acyclovir contact dermatitis, with investigations made to determine an alternative antiviral treatment. A 23-year-old woman, after dermatitis while using Zovirax® cream, went on to develop urticaria after oral acyclovir. Patch tests were performed with the components of Zovirax® cream (acyclovir, propylene glycol and sodium lauryl sulfate) and with other antiviral drugs. Patch tests were positive to Zovirax® cream, acyclovir, valacyclovir and propylene glycol. Patch and prick tests with famciclovir were negative, but its oral administration caused an itchy erythematous dermatitis on the trunk and extremities. Our patient developed a systemic acyclovir reaction subsequent to acyclovir allergic contact dermatitis, with cross-reactions to valacyclovir and famciclovir. Their common chemical structure is the 2-aminopurine nucleus. It is probably this part of the molecule that provokes both contact allergy and systemic reactions. The only antiviral drugs not having this core are foscarnet and cidofovir, and these could therefore be alternatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents case studies on allergic contact dermatitis from surgical paints. Components of paints and adhesive tapes; Results of skin patch testing; Comparison of the different brands of surgical paints.