Combined effects of irritants and allergens: Synergistic effects of nickel and sodium lauryl sulfate in nickel-sensitized individuals

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 47, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 21-26

  Agner, Tove ^a,d   Johansen, Jeanne Duus ^a   Overgaard, Lene ^a   Vølund, Aage ^b   Basketter, David ^c   Menné, Torkil ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b NOVO NORDISK A S   (Denmark)

^c UNILEVER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^d GENTOFTE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Allergic contact dermatitis; Bioengineering methods; Colorimetry; Irritant contact dermatitis; Nickel; Sodium lauryl sulfate; Synergistic effect; Transepidermal water loss; Visual assessment

Indexed keywords

ALLERGEN; DODECYL SULFATE SODIUM; IRRITANT AGENT; NICKEL CHLORIDE;

ADULT; ALLERGENICITY; ARTICLE; BIOENGINEERING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COLORIMETRY; CONTACT DERMATITIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PATCH TEST; SKIN ALLERGY; SKIN SENSITIVITY; SKIN WATER LOSS;

ADULT; ALLERGENS; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; DRUG SYNERGISM; FEMALE; HUMANS; IRRITANTS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; NICKEL; PATCH TESTS; SODIUM DODECYL SULFATE; WATER LOSS, INSENSIBLE;

EID: 0036656754     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0536.2002.470105.x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Agner T, Serup J. Sodium lauryl sulphate for irritant patch testing - a dose-response study using bioengineering methods for determination of skin irritation. J Invest Dermatol 1990: 95: 543-547.
2. Kvorning S A, Borup Svendsen I A. Synthetic detergent as a provocative agent in patch tests. J Invest Dermatol 1956: 26: 421-426.
3. Allenby C F, Goodwin B F. J. Influence of detergent washing powders on minimal eliciting patch test concentrations of nickel and chromium. Contact Dermatitis 1983: 9: 491.
4. Allenby C F, Basketter D. A., Minimum eliciting patch test concentrations of cobalt. Contact Dermatitis 1989: 20: 185.
5. Allenby C F, Basketter D. A., An arm immersion model of comprornised skin. II. Influence on minimal eliciting patch test concentrations of nickel. Contact Dermatitis 1993: 28: 129.
6. Menne T, Calvin G. Concentration threshold of non-occluded nickel exposure in nickel-sensitive individuals and controls with and without surfactant. Contact Dermatitis 1993: 29: 180-184.
7. Kligman A M. The SLS provocative patch test in allergic contact sensitization. J Invest Dermatol 1966: 46: 573-583.
8. 4, 5% pet. patch tests in subjects with a positive history of nickel allergy. Contact Dermatitis 1995: 33: 152-156.
9. Seidenari S, Belletti B, Mantovani L, et al. Comparison of 2 different methods for enhancing the reaction to nickel sulfate patch tests in negative reactors. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 35: 308.
10. McLelland J, Shuster S, Matthews J N. 'Irritants' increase the response to an allergen in allergic contact dermatitis. Arch Dermatol 1991: 127: 1016-1019.
11. McLelland J, Shuster S. Contact dermatitis with negative patch tests. the additive effect of allergens in combination. Br J Dermatol 1990: 122: 623-630.
12. Johansen J D, Skov L, Volund A, et al. Allergens in combination have a synergistic effect on the elicitation response: a study of fragrance-sensitized individuals. Br J Dermatol 1998: 139: 264-270.
13. Agner T, Serup J. Different irritation abilities in different qualities of sodium lauryl sulphate. Contact Dermatitis 1989: 21: 184-188.
14. Fregert S. Manual of Contact Dermatitis, 2nd edn. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1981.
15. Tupker R A, Willis C, Berardesca E et al. Guidelines on sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) exposure tests. A report from the Standardization Group of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1997: 37: 53-69.
16. Held E, Lorentzen H, Agner T, Menné T. Comparison between visual score and erythema index in evaluation of allergic patch tests. Skin Res Technol 1998: 4: 188-191.
17. Pinnagoda J, Tupker R A, Agner T, Serup J. Guidelines for transepidermal water loss (TEWL) measurement. A report from the Standardization Group of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1990: 22: 164-178.
18. Finney D J. Probit Analysis, Ch. 8. Cambridge: University Press, 1962.
19. Agresti A. Analysis of Ordinal Categorical Data, Ch. 6. New York: J. Wiley, 1984.
20. Olivarius F, Agner T, Menné T. Skin barrier function and dermal inflammation. Br J Dermatol 1993: 129: 554-557.
21. Lisby S, Baadsgaad O, Cooper K D, Vejlsgaard G L. Decreased number and function of antigen-presenting cells in the skin following application of irritant agents: Relevance for skin cancer? J Invest Dermatol 1989: 92: 842-847.
22. Grabbe S, Steinert M, Mahnke K, Schwarz A, Luger T A, Schwarz T. Dissection of antigenic and irritative effects of epicutaneously applied haptens in mice. J Clin Invest 1996: 98: 1158-1164.
23. Gallucci S, Matzinger P. Danger signals. SOS to the immune system. Curr Opin Immunol 2001: 13: 114-119.
24. McFadden J P, Basketter D A. Contact allergy, irritancy and danger. Contact Dermatitis, 2000: 42: 123-127.
25. Hindsen M, Bruze M. The significance of previous contact dermatitis for elicitation of contact allergy to nickel. Acta Derm Venereol 1998: 78: 367-370.