The Experts below are selected from a list of 8910 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Jeanne D. Johansen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
ten year trends in Contact Allergy to formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers
Contact Dermatitis, 2018Co-Authors: Ida M. Fasth, Nina H. Ulrich, Jeanne D. JohansenAbstract:BACKGROUND Preservatives such as formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasers are common causes of Contact Allergy. OBJECTIVES To examine trends in Contact Allergy to formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasers in patch tested patients in Denmark over a 10-year period (2007-2016), and to investigate relevant sources of formaldehyde among the patients. METHODS A cross-sectional registry study on patch test data from patients tested with formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasers (N = 8463) was performed. The presence of released formaldehyde in products from formaldehyde-allergic patients was identified with chemical analyses (chromotropic acid or acetylacetone test). RESULTS The prevalence of Contact Allergy to formaldehyde 1% was 1.5%, and ranged between 0.97% and 2.3%, with a decreasing trend in this 10-year period. Contact Allergy to formaldehyde 2% was found in 2.4%, and no significant trend was observed. Quaternium-15 was the formaldehyde-releaser most often positive (0.86%). Patients allergic to formaldehyde often had simultaneous positive patch test reactions to formaldehyde-releasers (36%). Almost 63% of the patients with formaldehyde Allergy used products that released formaldehyde; cosmetics were the most common sources. CONCLUSIONS Although Contact Allergy to formaldehyde 1% decreased in this 10-year time period, Contact allergies to formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasers overall remain frequent in patients. In most cases, formaldehyde-allergic patients are exposed to ≥1 products containing formaldehyde. Improved regulation on permitted amounts of free formaldehyde in cosmetics is still warranted, including direct labelling of formaldehyde when it is present in small but relevant amounts.
-
methylisothiazolinone Contact Allergy in croatia epidemiology and course of disease following patch testing
Contact Dermatitis, 2018Co-Authors: Suzana Ljubojevic Hadžavdic, Wolfgang Uter, Maja Ilijanic Samoscanec, Jeanne D. JohansenAbstract:BACKGROUND: Methylisothiazolinone (MI) caused an epidemic of Contact Allergy in Europe, as shown by data from many countries, but no studies from Croatia exist. Also, data are lacking on the severity of allergic Contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by MI, and its impact on quality of life and prognosis. OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency of MI Contact Allergy among Croatian dermatitis patients, identify causative exposures, assess the impact of disease, and study the prognosis. METHODS: Data were collected for consecutive dermatitis patients with MI Contact Allergy patch tested in Croatia between November 2, 2015 and November 3, 2016. RESULTS: MI Contact Allergy was diagnosed in 13.2% of 798 tested patients. The most frequent dermatitis locations were the hands (76%) and face (61%). In 89.3% of patients, MI Contact Allergy was found to be of current relevance. Considerable severity and impact on daily life of disease was found at the first consultation, but this significantly decreased until follow-up 3 months later. CONCLUSIONS: Patch testing is the standard method for the diagnosis of ACD, and it has been shown to have an important beneficial effect on prognosis. The severity of MI ACD and the impact on daily life emphasize the need for prevention.
-
Ten‐year trends in Contact Allergy to formaldehyde and formaldehyde‐releasers
Contact Dermatitis, 2018Co-Authors: Ida M. Fasth, Nina H. Ulrich, Jeanne D. JohansenAbstract:BACKGROUND: Preservatives such as formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasers are common causes of Contact Allergy. OBJECTIVES: To examine trends in Contact Allergy to formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasers in patch tested patients in Denmark over a 10-year period (2007-2016), and to investigate relevant sources of formaldehyde among the patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional registry study on patch test data from patients tested with formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasers (N = 8463) was performed. The presence of released formaldehyde in products from formaldehyde-allergic patients was identified with chemical analyses (chromotropic acid or acetylacetone test). RESULTS: The prevalence of Contact Allergy to formaldehyde 1% was 1.5%, and ranged between 0.97% and 2.3%, with a decreasing trend in this 10-year period. Contact Allergy to formaldehyde 2% was found in 2.4%, and no significant trend was observed. Quaternium-15 was the formaldehyde-releaser most often positive (0.86%). Patients allergic to formaldehyde often had simultaneous positive patch test reactions to formaldehyde-releasers (36%). Almost 63% of the patients with formaldehyde Allergy used products that released formaldehyde; cosmetics were the most common sources. CONCLUSIONS: Although Contact Allergy to formaldehyde 1% decreased in this 10-year time period, Contact allergies to formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasers overall remain frequent in patients. In most cases, formaldehyde-allergic patients are exposed to ≥1 products containing formaldehyde. Improved regulation on permitted amounts of free formaldehyde in cosmetics is still warranted, including direct labelling of formaldehyde when it is present in small but relevant amounts.
-
Contact Allergy to chlorhexidine in a tertiary dermatology clinic in Denmark.
Contact dermatitis, 2015Co-Authors: Morten S. Opstrup, Claus Zachariae, Jeanne D. Johansen, Lene H. GarveyAbstract:Summary Background Chlorhexidine is a widely used disinfectant in the healthcare setting and in cosmetic products. A high prevalence of chlorhexidine Contact Allergy was reported in Denmark in the 1980s (2.0–5.4% of patients patch tested). It is unknown whether the prevalence is still high, which products cause the Contact Allergy, and whether accidental re-exposure occurs in some patients. Objectives To estimate the prevalence of chlorhexidine Contact Allergy in a tertiary dermatology clinic in Denmark; to investigate whether patch testing with both chlorhexidine diacetate and chlorhexidine digluconate is necessary; to investigate how many patients have combined immediate-type Allergy and Contact Allergy; and to identify which products cause chlorhexidine Contact Allergy, and whether patients are accidentally re-exposed. Methods This was a retrospective study including all patients patch tested with chlorhexidine during 2003–2013 at the Department of Dermato-Allergology at Copenhagen University Hospital Gentofte (n = 8497). All patients with a positive patch test reaction to chlorhexidine were sent a questionnaire comprising questions about the cause of the Allergy and re-exposure. Results Overall, 1.0% (n = 82) of all patients patch tested with chlorhexidine were positive. A decrease in the prevalence was observed over time, most likely because of lowering of the test concentration from 1.0 to 0.5% in 2008. Of the 82 patients, 28 (0.3%) had positive test reactions to both chlorhexidine salts, 43 (0.5%) had a positive test reaction only to chlorhexidine diacetate, and 11 (0.1%) had a positive test reaction to chlorhexidine digluconate. Three patients were both patch test-positive and prick test-positive. A known cause of the Allergy was reported by 19 patients (40%) in the questionnaire: the products used in the healthcare setting were mainly reported, but some reported cosmetic products. Accidental re-exposure was reported by 15 patients (32%), of whom 13 reported symptoms. Conclusions The prevalence of chlorhexidine Contact Allergy does not seem to be higher in Denmark than in other European countries. Patch testing with both chlorhexidine diacetate and chlorhexidine digluconate may be beneficial. Testing for immediate-type Allergy in patients with a positive patch test reaction to chlorhexidine is recommended. Chlorhexidine-containing products used in the healthcare setting and in cosmetics are potential causes of sensitization and Allergy. Re-exposure is common, highlighting the fact that patients and healthcare personnel need to be well informed about possible sources of exposure.
-
methylisothiazolinone Contact Allergy a growing epidemic
Contact Dermatitis, 2013Co-Authors: Michael Dyrgaard Lundov, Morten S. Opstrup, Jeanne D. JohansenAbstract:The prevalence of Contact Allergy to the isothiazolinone preservative methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) in combination with methylisothiazolinone (MI) and MI alone has increased in the last couple of years. To investigate the prevalence of Contact Allergy to MI, MCI/MI and benzisothiazolinone (BIT) among patch tested patients at Gentofte Hospital, as well as the use of MI in cosmetic products. Patients patch tested with either MI, MCI/MI or BIT from 2010 to 2012 were included in the study. The MOAHLFA index was registered in all patch tested patients, and relevant exposures were determined in patients with an isothiazolinone Allergy. In a market survey, the ingredient labels of cosmetic products were investigated for MI content. The prevalence of MI and MCI/MI Contact Allergy increased significantly from 2010 to 2012: from 2.0% to 3.7% for MI (n = 2766), and from 1.0% to 2.4% for MCI/MI (n = 2802). MI-allergic patients had occupational, hand and face dermatitis significantly more often, and were aged > 40 years. Cosmetics were the most common substances causing relevant exposure found in both MCI/MI-allergic and MI-allergic patients. MI was found in 3.3% of cosmetics on the Danish retail market. The increase in MI Contact Allergy is alarming, and urgent action is needed.
Magnus Bruze - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Prevalence of Contact Allergy in the general population in different European regions.
The British journal of dermatology, 2015Co-Authors: Thomas L. Diepgen, Magnus Bruze, Åke Svensson, Robert Ofenloch, Paola Bertuccio, Simone Cazzaniga, P.-j. Coenraads, Peter Elsner, Margarida Gonçalo, Luigi NaldiAbstract:SummaryBackground Population-based studies about Contact Allergy are scarce. Objectives To obtain reliable estimates of the prevalence of Contact Allergy in the general population in Europe. Methods A cross-sectional study of a random sample from the general population, aged 18–74 years, in five different European countries (Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Portugal). In total, 12 377 subjects were interviewed and a random sample (n = 3119) patch tested to TRUE Test panels 1–3 and Fragrance Mix (FM) II, hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC) and sesquiterpene lactone mix. A positive patch test reaction is considered as Contact Allergy. Results In total, 27·0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 25·5–28·5] had at least one positive reaction to an allergen of the European baseline series, with a significantly higher prevalence in women than in men. The highest age-standardized prevalences (≥ 1%) were found for nickel (14·5%, 95% CI 13·2–15·8), thiomersal (5·0%, 95% CI 4·2–5·8), cobalt (2·2%, 95% CI 1·7–2·7), FM II (1·9%, 95% CI 1·5–2·5), FM I (1·8%, 95% CI 1·4–2·3), HICC (1·4%, 95% CI 1·0–1·9), p-tert-butylphenol formaldehyde resin (1·3%, 95% CI 0·9–1·7) and para-phenylenediamine (1·0%, 95% CI 0·6–1·3). Only nickel and thiomersal showed a statistically significantly different prevalence for Contact Allergy among the different European populations. Subjects reporting Contact dermatitis in their lifetime (age-standardized prevalence 15·1%, 95% CI 13·8–16·3) had an increased risk for Contact Allergy (odds ratio 1·9, 95% CI 1·5–2·5). The risk of having a Contact Allergy was not increased in those with atopic dermatitis (prevalence 7·6%, 95% CI 6·7–8·6; odds ratio 1·0, 95% CI 0·7–1·4). Conclusions Contact Allergy to at least one allergen of the European baseline series was diagnosed in more than one-quarter of the general European population. Therefore measures to improve the primary prevention of Contact Allergy have to be enforced.
-
Establishing aluminium Contact Allergy.
Contact dermatitis, 2012Co-Authors: Ingrid Siemund, Erik Zimerson, Monica Hindsén, Magnus BruzeAbstract:Background: Traditionally, Contact Allergy to aluminium has been established by patch testing with aluminium chloride hexahydrate in petrolatum at 2.0% and an empty Finn Chamber®. Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate different aluminium test preparations regarding an optimal compound and an optimal test concentration. Methods. Six different aluminium compounds and an empty Finn Chamber® were used to patch test 21 patients with aluminium Contact Allergy. Aluminium chloride hexahydrate in saline was used for intracutaneous injection of 19 patients. Results: One test preparation, aluminium lactate 2.4%, was found to show significantly more positive patch test reactions than aluminium chloride hexahydrate 2.0% (p = 0.03). Aluminium chloride hexahydrate at 10.0% pet. gave the highest number of positive reactions to aluminium [14/21 (67%)]. No positive reactions were noted to an empty Finn Chamber®, and 3 of 19 (16%) patients reacted positively to the intradermal test. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that patch testing with aluminium chloride hexahydrate 2.0%, with an empty Finn Chamber® and the intradermal test with the salt and doses used are insufficient methods to detect Contact Allergy to aluminium. Aluminium chloride hexahydrate at 10.0% gave the highest number of positive reactions to aluminium. (Less)
-
A correlation found between Contact Allergy to stent material and restenosis of the coronary arteries.
Contact dermatitis, 2009Co-Authors: Cecilia Svedman, Birgitta Gruvberger, Halvor Möller, Susanne Ekqvist, Jonas Björk, Eva Holmström, C. G. Gustavsson, Carl-magnus Pripp, Magnus BruzeAbstract:BACKGROUND: Metallic implants, stents, are increasingly being used especially in patients with stenosis of the cardiac vessels. Ten to thirty per cent of the patients suffer from restenosis regardless of aetiology. We have shown increased frequency of Contact Allergy to stent metals in stented patients. OBJECTIVES: To we evaluate whether Contact Allergy to stent material is a risk factor for restenosis. METHODS: Patients with stainless steel stents, with or without gold plating, were epicutaneously tested and answered a questionnaire. The restenosis rate was evaluated. RESULTS: We found a correlation between Contact Allergy to gold, gold stent, and restenosis (OR 2.3, CI 1.0-5.1, P = 0.04). The risk for restenosis was threefold increased when the patient was gold allergic and stented with a gold-plated stent. An increased degree of chest pain in gold-allergic patients stented with gold-plated stent was found. CONCLUSIONS: We found a correlation between Contact Allergy to gold, gold-stent, and restenosis. It may be of importance to consider Contact Allergy when developing new materials for stenting.
-
FS11.2 Contact Allergy to herbal teas from Asteraceae plants
Contact Dermatitis, 2008Co-Authors: Kerstin Mårtensson, Monica Hindsén, Birgitta Gruvberger, Halvor Möller, Åke Svensson, Magnus BruzeAbstract:Objective: A possible Contact Allergy to herbal teas, in particular those derived from the Asteraceae plant family, was investigated in patients allergic to sesquiterpene lactones (SL). Method: Twenty patients with a Contact Allergy to SL were recalled and patch-tested with aqueous, ethanol and acetone extracts of 8 different herbal teas based on Asteraceae plants as well as with parthenolide and other SL. Results: In 18/20 patients with SL Allergy there were positive test reactions to the Asteraceae teas, mainly to those based on German chamomile, dandelion and milfoil. Among the SL, parthenolide was the most frequent co-reactor. Conclusion: Most patients with a Contact Allergy to SL are allergic to commercial teas derived from the Asteraceae plant family as well.
-
High frequency of Contact Allergy to gold in patients with endovascular coronary stents.
The British journal of dermatology, 2007Co-Authors: Susanne Ekqvist, Birgitta Gruvberger, Halvor Möller, Cecilia Svedman, M. Kehler, C. M. Pripp, Jonas Björk, Eva Holmström, C. G. Gustavsson, Magnus BruzeAbstract:Background Stent implantation is an effective method for treatment of atherosclerotic disease. Factors predisposing to in-stent restenosis are still largely unknown. Contact Allergy to metal ions eluted from the stent has been suggested to be a risk factor. Objectives To explore whether there is a possible induction of Contact Allergy to metals used in stents among patients with a stainless steel stent containing nickel (Ni stent) and patients with a gold-plated stent (Au stent). Methods Adults (n = 484) treated with coronary stent implantation participated in the study with patch testing. The study design was retrospective and cross-sectional with no assessment of Contact Allergy before stenting. Age- and sex-matched patch-tested patients with dermatitis (n = 447) served as controls. Results Of Au-stented patients, 54 of 146 (37%) were allergic to gold compared with 85 of 447 (19%) controls (P < 0.001). Within the stented population there were no statistically significant differences in Contact Allergy to gold or nickel between Ni-stented and Au-stented patients. In multivariate models where other risk factors for Contact Allergy to gold were considered, the Au stent showed a trend towards statistical significance (odds ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 0.95-2.16; P = 0.09). Conclusions As the frequency of Contact Allergy to gold is higher in stented patients independent of stent type it suggests a previous sensitization. However, several pieces of circumstantial evidence as well as statistical analysis indicate the possibility of sensitization in the coronary vessel by the Au stent. Ni stents and Au stents should not be ruled out as risk factors for induction of Contact Allergy to these metals.
Jacob P. Thyssen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Contact Allergy in Danish children: Current trends.
Contact dermatitis, 2018Co-Authors: Anne Birgitte Simonsen, Claus Zachariae, Jacob P. Thyssen, Majken H Foss-skiftesvik, Mette Deleuran, Charlotte G. Mortz, Lone Skov, Morten Osterballe, Anne T. Funding, Christian AvnstorpAbstract:Background Contact Allergy is common in children, but may be underdiagnosed. Importantly, the clinical relevance of specific allergies is subject to constant change, and it is therefore important to continuously monitor the trends and changes of Contact allergies in the paediatric population. Objectives To identify possible changes in Contact Allergy and allergic Contact dermatitis among Danish children referred for patch testing. Methods A retrospective study was performed based on patch test data from the Danish National Database of Contact Allergy. The current data were compared with previously published data on Danish children referred for patch testing. Results Between 2012 and 2016, 1573 children and adolescents were patch tested. Overall, 385 (24.5%) had at least 1 positive patch test reaction. The overall prevalence was similar in boys and girls, across age groups, and in patients with and without atopic dermatitis. Statistically significant increases in Contact Allergy to fragrances and isothiazoliones were seen, whereas a decrease in nickel Allergy was found. Conclusion Allergic Contact dermatitis continues to be a common disease in children, and is even significantly increasing for some allergens.
-
Contact Allergy to Preservatives—Is the European Commission a Commendable Risk Manager?
Cosmetics, 2016Co-Authors: Jakob F. Schwensen, Jacob P. ThyssenAbstract:Although preservatives are necessary to prevent deterioration by microbial growth in cosmetic products, daily skin Contact with preserved cosmetic products may cause a preservative Contact Allergy. Only preservatives with sufficient pre-market risk assessment, presumably being safe for the consumer from a public health point of view, are permitted for use in cosmetic products in the European Union. Notwithstanding the efforts by the European Commission (EC) to avoid epidemics of Contact Allergy, the former epidemic of Contact Allergy to methyldibromo glutaronitrile and the unprecedented epidemic of Contact Allergy to methylisothiazolinone show the procrastination of the European Union risk management process for cosmetic ingredients. Timely risk management is of the utmost importance to avoid rapidly increasing numbers of Contact Allergy to turn into full-blown epidemics. It is therefore proposed that in order to avoid future epidemics of Contact Allergy to preservatives, the allowed preservatives in cosmetic products should be entered onto Annex V on a time-limited basis only, and they must be re-evaluated in order to stay on Annex V.
-
Association between cancer and Contact Allergy: a linkage study
BMJ open, 2011Co-Authors: Kåre Engkilde, Jacob P. Thyssen, Torkil Menné, Jeanne D. JohansenAbstract:Background Contact Allergy is a prevalent disorder. It is estimated that about 20% of the general population are allergic to one or more of the chemicals that constitute the European baseline patch test panel. While many studies have investigated associations between type I allergic disorders and cancer, few have looked into the association between cancer and Contact Allergy, a type IV Allergy. By linking two clinical databases, the authors investigate the possible association between Contact Allergy and cancer. Methods Record linkage of two different registers was performed: (1) a tertiary hospital register of dermatitis patients patch tested for Contact Allergy and (2) a nationwide cancer register (the Danish Cancer Register). After linking the two registers, only cancer subtypes with 40 or more patients registered were included in the analysis. The final associations were evaluated by logistic regression analysis. Results An inverse association between Contact Allergy and non-melanoma skin- and breast cancer, respectively, was identified in both sexes, and an inverse trend for brain cancer was found in women with Contact Allergy. Additionally, a positive association between Contact Allergy and bladder cancer was found. Conclusion The inverse associations support the immunosurveillance hypothesis (ie, individuals with an Allergy are less likely to get cancer due to a triggered immune system), while the positive association with bladder cancer could be due to accumulations of chemical metabolites in the bladder. The authors9 findings add to the limited knowledge about Contact Allergy and the risk of cancer.
-
prevalence and cause of methylisothiazolinone Contact Allergy
Contact Dermatitis, 2010Co-Authors: Michael Dyrgaard Lundov, Claus Zachariae, Jacob P. Thyssen, Jeanne D. JohansenAbstract:Background: Methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) has been one of the most frequent sensitizers since the 1980s. In 2005, the use of MI alone was approved for the preservation of cosmetic and household products in the EU. Before that, MI was used in industrial products, and the first cases of isolated MI Contact Allergy were published. Objectives: To present the prevalence and causes of MI Contact Allergy. Materials and methods: Patch test results from 2536 dermatitis patients tested with MI at Gentofte University Hospital between May 2006 and February 2010 were analysed. A retrospective investigation of medical records from MI-allergic patients was performed to reveal the causes of their MI Contact Allergy. Results: Of patch-tested patients, 1.5% had MI Contact Allergy. It was associated with occupational dermatitis, hand eczema and age above 40 years. Exposure to MI in cosmetic products was found in 12 (32%) cases, and exposure to MI in occupational products was found in 11 (30%) cases; 5 of the 11 were painters. Conclusions: The prevalence of MI Contact Allergy is already at the same level as that of other sensitizing preservatives, which have been on the market for several years, but no rising trend was identified. MI Contact Allergy was associated with both occupational and consumer products.
-
formaldehyde exposure and patterns of concomitant Contact Allergy to formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers
Contact Dermatitis, 2010Co-Authors: Michael Dyrgaard Lundov, Kåre Engkilde, Berit C Carlsen, Torkil Menné, Jeanne D. Johansen, Jacob P. ThyssenAbstract:Background: Formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasers are widely used in consumer products and may often cause Contact Allergy. Objective: To investigate the prevalence of concomitant Contact Allergy to formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasers in dermatitis patients, and to determine the sources of formaldehyde exposure based on personal and occupational products obtained from dermatitis patients. Methods: Patch test data from referred dermatitis patients with a positive patch test reaction to formaldehyde or formaldehyde-releasers were analysed. For the period 2000–2008, the formaldehyde content in products obtained from formaldehyde-allergic patients was analysed by chromotropic acid test and/or acetylacetone test. Results: Patients allergic to a formaldehyde-releaser often had simultaneous Contact Allergy to formaldehyde. Other combinations were also prevalent. In patients who reacted to more than two formaldehyde-releasers, nearly all reacted simultaneously to formaldehyde. Seventy-five percent of the formaldehyde-allergic patients used a product that contained formaldehyde. The main source of formaldehyde exposure was cosmetics (78%). Conclusions: Concomitant Contact Allergy to formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releaser remains common. Furthermore, Contact Allergy to a formaldehyde-releaser was nearly always concomitant with another formaldehyde-releaser. Formaldehyde was commonly found in personal products used by formaldehyde-allergic patients.
Halvor Möller - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Contact Allergy to gold as a model for clinical-experimental research.
Contact dermatitis, 2010Co-Authors: Halvor MöllerAbstract:The high frequency of Contact Allergy to gold in patients with dermatitis was established after exhaustive skin testing, determining the right test agent, the best concentration, and repeated test readings. Metallic gold in Contact with skin is slowly ionized, permitting absorption and haptenisation. Contact Allergy to gold is statistically correlated to the presence of dental gold. But in many case reports it has also been attributed to wearing gold jewellery, albeit not statistically demonstrated. Epicutaneous testing with gold salts increases the blood gold level, and by intramuscular injection systemic Contact dermatitis is provoked in an allergic individual. In coronary heart disease, gold-coated intravascular stents have been shown to be correlated to Contact Allergy and even to an increased risk of restenosis. Gold is far from inert.
-
A correlation found between Contact Allergy to stent material and restenosis of the coronary arteries.
Contact dermatitis, 2009Co-Authors: Cecilia Svedman, Birgitta Gruvberger, Halvor Möller, Susanne Ekqvist, Jonas Björk, Eva Holmström, C. G. Gustavsson, Carl-magnus Pripp, Magnus BruzeAbstract:BACKGROUND: Metallic implants, stents, are increasingly being used especially in patients with stenosis of the cardiac vessels. Ten to thirty per cent of the patients suffer from restenosis regardless of aetiology. We have shown increased frequency of Contact Allergy to stent metals in stented patients. OBJECTIVES: To we evaluate whether Contact Allergy to stent material is a risk factor for restenosis. METHODS: Patients with stainless steel stents, with or without gold plating, were epicutaneously tested and answered a questionnaire. The restenosis rate was evaluated. RESULTS: We found a correlation between Contact Allergy to gold, gold stent, and restenosis (OR 2.3, CI 1.0-5.1, P = 0.04). The risk for restenosis was threefold increased when the patient was gold allergic and stented with a gold-plated stent. An increased degree of chest pain in gold-allergic patients stented with gold-plated stent was found. CONCLUSIONS: We found a correlation between Contact Allergy to gold, gold-stent, and restenosis. It may be of importance to consider Contact Allergy when developing new materials for stenting.
-
FS11.2 Contact Allergy to herbal teas from Asteraceae plants
Contact Dermatitis, 2008Co-Authors: Kerstin Mårtensson, Monica Hindsén, Birgitta Gruvberger, Halvor Möller, Åke Svensson, Magnus BruzeAbstract:Objective: A possible Contact Allergy to herbal teas, in particular those derived from the Asteraceae plant family, was investigated in patients allergic to sesquiterpene lactones (SL). Method: Twenty patients with a Contact Allergy to SL were recalled and patch-tested with aqueous, ethanol and acetone extracts of 8 different herbal teas based on Asteraceae plants as well as with parthenolide and other SL. Results: In 18/20 patients with SL Allergy there were positive test reactions to the Asteraceae teas, mainly to those based on German chamomile, dandelion and milfoil. Among the SL, parthenolide was the most frequent co-reactor. Conclusion: Most patients with a Contact Allergy to SL are allergic to commercial teas derived from the Asteraceae plant family as well.
-
High frequency of Contact Allergy to gold in patients with endovascular coronary stents.
The British journal of dermatology, 2007Co-Authors: Susanne Ekqvist, Birgitta Gruvberger, Halvor Möller, Cecilia Svedman, M. Kehler, C. M. Pripp, Jonas Björk, Eva Holmström, C. G. Gustavsson, Magnus BruzeAbstract:Background Stent implantation is an effective method for treatment of atherosclerotic disease. Factors predisposing to in-stent restenosis are still largely unknown. Contact Allergy to metal ions eluted from the stent has been suggested to be a risk factor. Objectives To explore whether there is a possible induction of Contact Allergy to metals used in stents among patients with a stainless steel stent containing nickel (Ni stent) and patients with a gold-plated stent (Au stent). Methods Adults (n = 484) treated with coronary stent implantation participated in the study with patch testing. The study design was retrospective and cross-sectional with no assessment of Contact Allergy before stenting. Age- and sex-matched patch-tested patients with dermatitis (n = 447) served as controls. Results Of Au-stented patients, 54 of 146 (37%) were allergic to gold compared with 85 of 447 (19%) controls (P < 0.001). Within the stented population there were no statistically significant differences in Contact Allergy to gold or nickel between Ni-stented and Au-stented patients. In multivariate models where other risk factors for Contact Allergy to gold were considered, the Au stent showed a trend towards statistical significance (odds ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 0.95-2.16; P = 0.09). Conclusions As the frequency of Contact Allergy to gold is higher in stented patients independent of stent type it suggests a previous sensitization. However, several pieces of circumstantial evidence as well as statistical analysis indicate the possibility of sensitization in the coronary vessel by the Au stent. Ni stents and Au stents should not be ruled out as risk factors for induction of Contact Allergy to these metals.
-
Contact Allergy to herbal teas derived from Asteraceae plants.
Contact Dermatitis, 2006Co-Authors: Kerstin Lundh, Monica Hindsén, Birgitta Gruvberger, Halvor Möller, Åke Svensson, Magnus BruzeAbstract:Contact Allergy to herbal teas derived from the Asteraceae plant family was investigated in patients allergic to sesquiterpene lactones (SLs). 20 patients with a known Contact Allergy to SLs were recalled and patch tested with aqueous extracts of 8 different herbal teas based on Asteraceae plants as well as with parthenolide and other SLs. In 18 of 20 patients with SL Allergy, there were positive test reactions to the Asteraceae teas, mainly to those based on German chamomile, dandelion and wormwood. Among the SLs, parthenolide was the most frequent co-reactor. Obviously, most patients with a Contact Allergy to SLs are allergic to commercial teas derived from the Asteraceae plant family as well.
Michael Dyrgaard Lundov - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
methylisothiazolinone Contact Allergy a growing epidemic
Contact Dermatitis, 2013Co-Authors: Michael Dyrgaard Lundov, Morten S. Opstrup, Jeanne D. JohansenAbstract:The prevalence of Contact Allergy to the isothiazolinone preservative methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) in combination with methylisothiazolinone (MI) and MI alone has increased in the last couple of years. To investigate the prevalence of Contact Allergy to MI, MCI/MI and benzisothiazolinone (BIT) among patch tested patients at Gentofte Hospital, as well as the use of MI in cosmetic products. Patients patch tested with either MI, MCI/MI or BIT from 2010 to 2012 were included in the study. The MOAHLFA index was registered in all patch tested patients, and relevant exposures were determined in patients with an isothiazolinone Allergy. In a market survey, the ingredient labels of cosmetic products were investigated for MI content. The prevalence of MI and MCI/MI Contact Allergy increased significantly from 2010 to 2012: from 2.0% to 3.7% for MI (n = 2766), and from 1.0% to 2.4% for MCI/MI (n = 2802). MI-allergic patients had occupational, hand and face dermatitis significantly more often, and were aged > 40 years. Cosmetics were the most common substances causing relevant exposure found in both MCI/MI-allergic and MI-allergic patients. MI was found in 3.3% of cosmetics on the Danish retail market. The increase in MI Contact Allergy is alarming, and urgent action is needed.
-
methylisothiazolinone Contact Allergy and dose response relationships
Contact Dermatitis, 2011Co-Authors: Michael Dyrgaard Lundov, Claus Zachariae, Jeanne D. JohansenAbstract:Background. Methylisothiazolinone (MI) used alone is a new preservative causing a high prevalence of Contact Allergy. The eliciting threshold of MI is unknown. The combination of MI and phenoxyethanol enhances the antimicrobial efficacy of MI. Objectives. The eliciting doses of MI Contact Allergy in a patch test and a repeated open application test (ROAT) were investigated. In the patch test, it was determined whether phenoxyethanol influenced the reactivity to MI. Methods. Eleven MI-allergic individuals were patch tested with two dilution series of 12 doses of MI and the same 12 doses with phenoxyethanol. The ROAT mimicked the use of a cream preserved with 100, 50 and 5 ppm MI (corresponding to 0.21, 0.105 and 0.0105 µg MI/cm2). Results. Phenoxyethanol had no influence on the reactions to MI. The lowest eliciting dose in the patch test was 1.47 µg MI/cm2. In the ROAT, 7 patients (64%) reacted to 0.21 and 0.105 µg MI/cm2 and 2 patients (18%) reacted to 0.0105 µg MI/cm2, corresponding to a cream preserved with 5 ppm MI. Conclusions. A maximum of 100 ppm MI is permitted in cosmetic products. Eighteen per cent of MI-allergic patients reacted to a concentration 20 times lower in a ROAT. The amounts used in cosmetics should be reduced, and the development of MI Contact Allergy should be monitored closely.
-
Methylisothiazolinone Contact Allergy: A review
British Journal of Dermatology, 2011Co-Authors: Michael Dyrgaard Lundov, T. Krongaard, Torkil Menné, Jeanne D. JohansenAbstract:In the early 2000s the preservative methylisothiazolinone (MI) was released as an individual preservative for industrial products and, in 2005, it was permitted for use in cosmetic products. Up until then MI had been used only in combination with methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI). MCI/MI is one of the most frequent causes of preservative Contact Allergy and early studies showed that both MI and MCI are sensitizers. The prevalence of MI Contact Allergy is already around 1·5% and sources of exposure are associated with occupation, cosmetic products or household products. Use of MI in industrial products is not restricted and cases of occupational Contact Allergy to MI, e.g. in painters, are reported. The frequency of use of MI in cosmetics is low, around 1%, while up to 16·5% of household products were preserved with MI. We found 19 (1·5%) out of 1272 cosmetic products labelled with MI, primarily rinse-off products, and analysed the concentration of MI by high-performance-liquid-chromatography the ultraviolet and mass spectrometry detection. The use concentration ranged between 2 and 100 ppm. Repeated exposure to MI showed that many patients allergic to MI reacted to 50 ppm which is half the maximum permitted concentration of MI in cosmetics. The recent cases and prevalence studies on MI Contact Allergy could be the first sign of an epidemic of MI Contact Allergy. The development in prevalence of MI Contact Allergy should be closely monitored by including MI in the European Baseline Series at 2000 ppm.
-
prevalence and cause of methylisothiazolinone Contact Allergy
Contact Dermatitis, 2010Co-Authors: Michael Dyrgaard Lundov, Claus Zachariae, Jacob P. Thyssen, Jeanne D. JohansenAbstract:Background: Methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) has been one of the most frequent sensitizers since the 1980s. In 2005, the use of MI alone was approved for the preservation of cosmetic and household products in the EU. Before that, MI was used in industrial products, and the first cases of isolated MI Contact Allergy were published. Objectives: To present the prevalence and causes of MI Contact Allergy. Materials and methods: Patch test results from 2536 dermatitis patients tested with MI at Gentofte University Hospital between May 2006 and February 2010 were analysed. A retrospective investigation of medical records from MI-allergic patients was performed to reveal the causes of their MI Contact Allergy. Results: Of patch-tested patients, 1.5% had MI Contact Allergy. It was associated with occupational dermatitis, hand eczema and age above 40 years. Exposure to MI in cosmetic products was found in 12 (32%) cases, and exposure to MI in occupational products was found in 11 (30%) cases; 5 of the 11 were painters. Conclusions: The prevalence of MI Contact Allergy is already at the same level as that of other sensitizing preservatives, which have been on the market for several years, but no rising trend was identified. MI Contact Allergy was associated with both occupational and consumer products.
-
formaldehyde exposure and patterns of concomitant Contact Allergy to formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers
Contact Dermatitis, 2010Co-Authors: Michael Dyrgaard Lundov, Kåre Engkilde, Berit C Carlsen, Torkil Menné, Jeanne D. Johansen, Jacob P. ThyssenAbstract:Background: Formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasers are widely used in consumer products and may often cause Contact Allergy. Objective: To investigate the prevalence of concomitant Contact Allergy to formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasers in dermatitis patients, and to determine the sources of formaldehyde exposure based on personal and occupational products obtained from dermatitis patients. Methods: Patch test data from referred dermatitis patients with a positive patch test reaction to formaldehyde or formaldehyde-releasers were analysed. For the period 2000–2008, the formaldehyde content in products obtained from formaldehyde-allergic patients was analysed by chromotropic acid test and/or acetylacetone test. Results: Patients allergic to a formaldehyde-releaser often had simultaneous Contact Allergy to formaldehyde. Other combinations were also prevalent. In patients who reacted to more than two formaldehyde-releasers, nearly all reacted simultaneously to formaldehyde. Seventy-five percent of the formaldehyde-allergic patients used a product that contained formaldehyde. The main source of formaldehyde exposure was cosmetics (78%). Conclusions: Concomitant Contact Allergy to formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releaser remains common. Furthermore, Contact Allergy to a formaldehyde-releaser was nearly always concomitant with another formaldehyde-releaser. Formaldehyde was commonly found in personal products used by formaldehyde-allergic patients.