Allergic contact dermatitis

Clinics in Dermatology

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 645-654

  Andersen, Klaus E ^a   Frankild, Søren ^a  

^a ODENSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALLERGEN; IRRITANT AGENT;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ANIMAL TISSUE; CONTACT DERMATITIS; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; GUINEA PIG; LYMPH NODE; NONHUMAN; PATCH TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SENSITIZATION; SKIN ALLERGY; ANIMAL; HUMAN; IMMUNOLOGICAL PROCEDURES; SKIN TEST;

ALLERGENS; ANIMALS; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; HUMANS; IMMUNOLOGIC TESTS; SKIN TESTS;

EID: 0031178702     PISSN: 0738081X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0738-081X(97)00066-7     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. De Groot AC. Patch testing. Test concentrations and vehicles for 3700 chemicals. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1994.
2. Schlede E, Eppler R. Testing for skin sensitization according to the notification procedure for new chemicals: the Magnusson and Kligman test. Contact Dermatitis 1995;32: 1-4.
3. OECD. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Guideline 406: Skin sensitization. 1992.
4. European Economic Community. Commission Directive of 29 December 1992 adapting to technical progress for the 17th council Directive on laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to classification, packaging and labeling of dangerous substances. Off J Eur Commun 1994;L383 A:131.
5. Schlede E, Eppler R, Gerner I. Predictive testing for skin sensitization regulatory requirements. Jadassohn Centenary Congress 1996;43(Abstract 164).
6. Kligman AM, Epstein W. Updating the maximization test for identifying contact allergens. Contact Dermatitis 1975; 1:231-9.
7. Draize JH, Woodard G, Calvery HD. Methods for the study of irritation and toxicology of substances applied topically to the skin and mocous membrane. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1944;83:377-90.
8. Shelanski HA, Shelanski WV. A new technique of human patch tests. Proc Sci Sekt Toilet Goods Assoc 1953;19:46-9.
9. Schwartz L. Dermatitis from new synthetic resin fabric finishes. J Invest Dermatol 1941;4:459-70.
10. Magnusson B, Kligman AM. The identification of contact allergens by animal assay. The guinea pig maximization test. J Invest Dermatol 1969;52:268-76.
11. Buehler. EV. Delayed contact hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. Arch Dermatol 1965;91:171-7.
12. Maurer T, Thomann P, Weirich EG, et al. The optimization test in the guinea-pig. A method for the predictive evaluation of the contact allergenicity of chemicals. Agents Actions 1975;5:174-9.
13. Maurer T. Contact and photocontact allergens. A manual of predictive test methods. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1983.
14. Klecak G. Identification of contact allergens: predictive tests in animals. In: Marzulli FN, Maibach HI, editors. Dermatotoxicology. New York: Hemisphere Publishing, 1991:363-413.
15. Klecak G, Geleick H, Frey JR. Screening of fragrance materials for allergenicity in the guinea pig. I. Comparison of four testing methods. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1977;28: 28-53.
16. Andersen KE, Maibach HI. Guinea pig sensitization assays. An overview. In: Andersen KE, Maibach HI, editors. Contact allergy. Predictive tests in guinea pigs. Basel: Karger, 1985:263-90.
17. Magnusson B, Kligman AM. Identification of contact allergens. Allergic contact dermatitis in the guinea pig. Springfield: Charles C Thomas, 1970:102-23.
18. Waksman BH. Adjuvants and immune regulation by lymphoid cells. In: Chedid L, Miecher PA, Mueller-Eberhard HJ, editors. Immunostimulation, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1980:5-33.
19. Wahlberg JE, Boman A. Guinea pig maximization test. In: Andersen KE, Maibach HI, editors. Contact allergy. Predictive tests in guinea pigs. Basel: Karger, 1985:59-106.
20. Andersen KE, Vølund A, Frankild S. The guinea pig maximization test - with a multiple dose design. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) :1995;75:463-9.
21. Liden C, Wahlberg JE. Cross-reactivity to metal compounds studied in guinea pigs induced with chromate or cobalt. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1994;74:341-3
22. Frankild S, Basketter DA, Andersen KE. The value and limitations of rechallenge in the guinea pig maximization test. Contact Dermatitis 1996;35:135-40.
23. Andersen KE, Bruze M, Karlberg AT, et al. How to do sensitization tests in guinea pigs [letter]. Contact Dermatitis 1994;31:278-9.
24. Kligman AM, Basketter DA. A critical commentary and updating of the guinea pig maximization test. Contact Dermatitis 1995;32:129-34.
25. Andersen KE, Boman A, Vølund A, et al. Induction of formaldehyde contact sensitivity: dose response relationship in the guinea pig maximization test. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1985;65:472-8.
26. Friedmann PS. The immunology of allergic contact dermatitis: the DNCB story. Adv Dermatol 1990;5:175-95.
27. Chan PK, Baldwin RC, Parsons RD, et al. Kathon biocide: manifestation of delayed contact dermatitis in guinea pigs is dependent on the concentration for induction and challenge. J Invest Dermatol 1983;81:409-11.
28. Rohold AE, Nielsen GD, Andersen KE. Nickel-sulphate-induced contact dermatitis in the guinea pig maximization test: a dose-response study. Contact Dermatitis 1991; 24:35-9.
29. Andersen KE, Boman A, Vølund A, et al. Induction of formaldehyde contact sensitivity: dose response relationship in the guinea pig maximization test. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1985;65:472-8.
30. Marzulli F, Maguire HC. Validation of guinea pig tests for skin hypersensitivity. In: Marzulli FN, Maibach HI, editors. Dermatoxicology. Washington: Hemisphere Publishing 1987:277-90.
31. Basketter DA, Selbie E, Scholes EW, et al. Results with OECD recommended positive control sensitizers in the maximization, Buehler and local lymph node assays. Food Chem Toxicol 1993;31:63-7.
32. Andersen KE, Maibach HI. Guinea pig sensitization assays. An overview. Curr Probl Dermatol 1985;14:263-90.
33. Polikandritou M. Enhancement of the sensitivity of the Buehler method by use of the Hill Top Chamber. Soc Cosmetic Chemie 1996;36:151-68.
34. Buehler EV. A rationale for the selection of occlusion to induce and elicit delayed contact hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. A prospective test. Curr Probl Dermatol 1985; 14:39-58.
35. Buehler EV. A new method for detecting potential sensitizers using the guinea pig. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1964; 6:341.
36. Buehler EV, Griffith JF. Experimental skin sensitization in the guinea pig and man. In: Maibach HI, editor. Animal models in dermatology. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, 1975:55-66.
37. Robinson MK, Nusair TL, Fletcher ER, et al. A review of the Buehler guinea pig skin sensitization test and its use in a risk assessment process for human skin sensitization. Toxicology 1990;61:91-107.
38. Klaschka F, Vossmann D. Kontaktallergene, chemisch, klinische und experimentelle daten. Berlin: ESV, 1994.
39. Ritz HL, Buehler EV. Planning, conduct and interpretation of guinea pig sensitization patch tests. In: Drill VA, Lazar P, editors. Current concept in cutaneous toxicity. New York: Academic, 1996:25-40.
40. Gad SC, Dunn BJ, Dobbs DW, et al. Development and validation of an alternative dermal sensitization test: the mouse ear swelling test (MEST). Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1986;84:93-114.
41. Kimber I, Mitchell JA, Griffin AC. Development of a murine local lymph node assay for the determination of sensitizing potential. Food Chem Toxicol 1986;24:585-6.
42. Oliver GJ, Botham PA, Kimber I. Models for contact sensitization - novel approaches and future developments. Br J Dermatol 1986;115(Suppl 31):53-62.
43. Kimber I, Hilton J, Weisenberger C. The murine local lymph node assay for identification of contact allergens: a preliminary evaluation of in situ measurement of lymphocyte proliferation. Contact Dermatitis 1989;21:215-20.
44. Kimber I, Weisenberger C. A modified local lymph node assay for identification of contact allergens. In: Frosch PJ, Dooms-Goossens A, Lachapelle J, et al, editors. Current topics in contact dermatitis. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1989:592-5.
45. Gad SC. The mouse ear swelling test (MEST) in the 1990s. Toxicology 1994;93:33-46.
46. Miller K, Maisey J, Malkovsky M. Enhancement of contact sensitization in mice fed a diet enriched in vitamin A acetate. Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol 1984;75:120-5.
47. Maisey J, Miller K. Assessment of the ability of mice fed on vitamin A supplemented diet to respond to a variety of potential contact sensitizers. Contact Dermatitis 1986;15: 17-23.
48. Thorne PS, Hawk C, Kaliszewski SD, et al. The noninvasive mouse ear swelling assay. II. Testing the contact sensitizing potency of fragrances. Fundam Appl Toxicol 1991;17:807-20.
49. Thorne PS, Hawk C, Kaliszewski SD, et al. The noninvasive mouse ear swelling assay. I. Refinements for detecting weak contact sensitizers. Fundam Appl Toxicol 1991; 17:790-806.
50. Sailstad DM, Tepper JS, Doerfler DL, et al. Evaluation of several variations of the mouse ear swelling test (MEST) for detection of weak and moderate contact sensitizers. Toxicology 1993;3:169-82.
51. Gad SC. The mouse ear swelling test. In: Burleson GR, Dean JH, Munson AE, ed. Methods in immunotoxicology. Wiley-Liss, New York, 1995, pp 357-72.
52. Kimber I, Basketter DA. The murine local lymph node assay: a commentary on collaborative studies and new directions. Food Chem Toxicol 1992;30:165-9.
53. Kimber I, Basketter DA. The murine local lymph node assay; collaborative studies and new directions: A commentary. Food Chem Toxicol 1992;30:165-9.
54. Loveless SE, Ladics GS, Gerberick GF, et al. Further evaluation of the local lymph node assay in the final phase of an international collaborative trial. Toxicology 1996;108: 141-52.
55. Kimber I, Hilton J, Dearman RJ, et al. An international evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay and comparison of modified procedures. Toxicology 1995;103: 63-73.
56. Basketter DA, Roberts DW, Cronin M, et al. The value of the local lymph node assay in quantitative structure-activity investigations. Contact Dermatitis 1992;27:137-42.
57. Ikarashi Y, Tsukamoto Y, Tsuchiya T, et al. Influence of irritants on lymph node cell proliferation and the detection of contact sensitivity to metal salts in the murine local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 1993;29:128-32.
58. Basketter DA, Scholes EW, Kimber I. The performance of the local lymph node assay with chemicals identified as contact allergens in the human maximization test. Food Chem Toxicol 1994;32:543-7.
59. Basketter DA, Scholes EW. Comparison of the local lymph node assay with the guinea-pig maximization test for the detection of a range of contact allergens. Food Chem Toxicol 1992;30:65-9.
60. Sailstad DM, Krishnan SD, Tepper JS, et al. Dietary vitamin A enhances sensitivity of the local lymph node assay. Toxicology 1995;96:157-63.
61. Robbins M, Nicklin S, Miller K. Comparison of two murine test methods for potential contact sensitizers (Abstract). The Toxicologist 1991;11.
62. Montelius J, Wahlkvist H, Boman A, et al. Experience with the murine local lymph node assay: inability to discriminate between allergens and irritants. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1994;74:22-7.
63. Robinson MK, Stotts J, Danneman PJ, et al. A risk assessment process for allergic contact sensitization. Food Chem Toxicol 1989;27:479-89.
64. Henderson CR, Riley EC. Certain statistical considerations in patch testing. J Invest Dermatol 1945;6:227-32.
65. Schwartz L. The skin testing of new chemicals. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1951;2:321-4.
66. Schwartz L. Twenty-two years' experience in the performance of 200,000 prophetic patch tests. South Med J 1969; 53:478-84.
67. Schwartz L, Peck SM. The patch test in contact dermatitis. Public Health Rep 1944;59:546-57.
68. Draize JH. Dermal toxicity. Appraisal of the safety of chemicals in foods, drugs and cosmetics. Association of Food and Drug Officials of the United States, Texas State Department of Health. Texas: Austin, 1959.
69. Shelanski HA. Experience with and considerations of the human patch test method. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1951;2:324-31.
70. Griffith JF, Buehler EV. Prediction of skin irritancy and sensitization potential by testing with animals and man. In: Drill V, Lazar P, editors. Cutaneous Toxicity. New York: Academic, 1976, 155-173.
71. Voss JG. Skin sensitization by mercaptans of low molecule weight. J Invest Dermatol 1958;31:273-9.
72. Marzulli FN, Maibach HI. Antimicrobials: Experimental contact sensitization in man. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1973;24: 399-421.
73. Marzulli FN, Maibach HI. Status of topical parabens: skin hypersensitivity. Int J Dermatol 1974;13:397-9.
74. Kligman AM. The identification of contact allergens by human assay. III. The Maximization Test: a procedure for screening and rating contact sensitizers. J Invest Dermatol 1966;47:393-409.
75. Marzulli FN, Maibach HI. Contact allergy: predictive testing of fragrance ingredients in humans by Draize and maximization methods. J Environ Pathol Toxicol 1980;3: 235-45.
76. Barratt MD, Basketter DA. Structure-activity relationships for skin sensitization: an expert system. In: Rougier A, Goldberg AM, Maibach HL editors. In vitro skin toxicology, irritation, phototoxicity, sensitization. New York: Mary Ann Liebert, 1994:293-301.
77. Cronin MTD, Basketter DA. Multivariate QSAR analysis of a skin sensitization database, SAR and QSAR in environmental research. 1994;2:159-79.
78. Sanderson DM, Earhshaw CG. Computer prediction of possible toxic action from chemical structure; the DEREK system. Hum Exp Toxicol 1991;10:261-73.
79. Dupuis G, Benezra C. Contact dermatitis to simple chemicals: A molecular approach. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1982.
80. Basketter DA, Scholes EW, Chamberlain M, et al. An alternative strategy to the use of guinea pigs for the identification of skin sensitization hazard. Food Chem Toxicol 1995;33:1051-6.
81. Kimber I. Alternative methods for contact sensitization testing. In: Kimber I, Maurer T, editors. Toxicology of contact hypersensitivity. Taylor and Francis, 1996:140-51.