Factors affecting thresholds in allergic contact dermatitis: Safety and regulatory considerations

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 47, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 1-6

  Basketter, David A ^a   Evans, Peter ^b   Gerberick, G Frank ^c   Kimber, I A N ^d  

^a UNILEVER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^b HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE   (United Kingdom)

^c PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY   (United States)

^d JEALOTT S HILL INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Allergic contact dermatitis; Regulations; Skin sensitization; Thresholds

Indexed keywords

ALLERGEN;

CONTACT DERMATITIS; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; HUMAN; POLICY; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SKIN ALLERGY; SKIN SENSITIZATION;

ALLERGENS; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; HUMANS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; SKIN TESTS;

EID: 0036657112     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0536.2002.470101.x     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Steiling W, Basketter D A, Berthold K et al. Skin sensitization testing - new perspectives and recommendations. Food Chem Toxicol 2001: 39: 293-301.
2. Gerberick G F, Ryan C A, Kimber I, Dearman R J, Lea L J, Basketter D A. Local lymph node assay validation assessment for regulatory purposes. Am J Cont Derm 2000: 11: 13-18.
3. Kimber I, Basketter D A. Contact sensitization: a new approach to risk assessment. Human Ecol Risk Assess 1997: 3: 385-395.
4. Andersen K E, Boman A, Volund A, Wahlberg J E. Induction of formaldehyde contact sensitivity and dose-response relationship in the guinea pig maximisation test. Acta Derm Venereol 1985: 65: 472-478.
5. Kimber I, Basketter D A, Berthold K et al. Skin sensitization testing in potency and risk assessment. Toxicol Sci 2001: 59: 198-208.
6. Evans P. Contact and respiratory allergy: a regulatory perspective. In: Seller J P, Autrup J L, Autrup H, eds. Diversification in Toxicology - Man and Environment. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1998: 275-284.
7. Andersen K E, Maibach H I. Guinea pig sensitization assays: An overview. In: Andersen K E, Maibach H I, eds. Contact Allergy Predictive Tests in Guinea Pigs, Current Problems in Dermatology, Vol. 14. New York: Karger, 1985: 59-106.
8. Botham P A, Basketter D A, Maurer T, Mueller D, Potokar M, Bontinck W J. Skin sensitization - a critical review of predictive test methods in animal and man. Food Chem Toxicol 1991: 29: 275-286.
9. OECD. Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals, No. 406. Skin sensitization. Paris: OECD, 1992.
10. EEC. EC Directive 1999/45/EC, on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations. OJ Eur Community 1999: L200 (30-07-1999):
11. Andersen K E, Volund A, Frankild S. The guinea pig maximization test with a multiple dose design. Acta Derm Venereol 1995: 75: 463-469.
12. Klecak G. The Freund's complete adjuvant test and the open epicutaneous test. In: Andersen K E, Maibach H I, eds. Contact Allergy Predictive Tests in Guinea Pigs, Current Problems in Dermatology, Vol. 14. New York: Karger, 1985: 152-179.
13. Hilton J, Dearman R J, Harvey P, Evans P, Basketter D A, Kimber I. Estimation of relative skin sensitizing potency using the local lymph node assay: a comparison of formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde. Am J Contact Dermatitis 1998: 9: 29-33.
14. Basketter D A, Rodford R A, Kimber I, Smith I, Wahlberg J E. Skin sensitization risk assessment, a comparative evaluation of three isothiazolinone biocides. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 40: 150-154.
15. Basketter D A, Blaikie L, Dearman R J et al. Use of the local lymph node assay for the estimation of relative contact allergenic potency. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 42: 344-348.
16. Gerberick G F, Robinson M K, Ryan C A et al. Contact allergenic potency. Correlation of human and local lymph node assay data. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2001: 12: 156-161.
17. Basketter D A, Wright Z M, Warbrick E V et al. Human potency predictions for aldehydes using the local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 2001: 44: 89-94.
18. Robinson M K, Gerberick G F, Ryan C A, McNamee P, White I, Basketter D A. The importance of exposure estimation in the assessment of skin sensitization risk. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 42: 251-259.
19. Gerberick G F, Robinson M K, Felter S, White I, Basketter D A. Understanding fragrance allergy using an exposure-based risk assessment approach. Contact Dermatitis 2001: 45: 333-340.
20. Friedmann P S. The immunology of allergic contact dermatitis: the DNCB story. Adv Dermatol 1990: 5: 175-196.
21. Patlewicz G, Basketter D A, Smith C K, Hotchkiss S A M, Roberts D W Skin sensitization structure activity relationships for aldehydes. Contact Dermatitis 2001: 44: 331-336.
22. Fewings J, Menné T. An update of the risk assessment for methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/ MI) with focus on rinse-off products. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 41: 1-13.
23. Johansen D J, Andersen K E, Menné T. Quantitative aspects of isoeugenol contact allergy assessed by use and patch tests. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 34: 414-418.
24. Rietschel R L, Fowler J F. The 'Paraben Paradox'. In: Fisher's Contact Dermatitis, 5th edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2001: 218-219.
25. McDonagh A J G, Wright A L, Cork M J, Gawkrodger D J. Nickel sensitivity. the influence of ear piercing and atopy. Br J Dermatol 1992: 126: 16-18.
26. Lidén C. Nickel. In: Kanerva L, Elsner P, Wahlberg J E, Maibach H I, eds. Handbook of Occupational Dermatology. Berlin: Springer, 2000: 524-533.
27. Veien N K, Hattel T, Laurberg G. Reduced nickel sensitivity in young Danish women following regulation of nickel exposure. Contact Dermatitis 2001: 44: 104-106.
28. Kligman A M. The identification of contact allergens by human assay. II. Factors influencing the induction and measurement of allergic contact dermatitis. J Invest Dermatol 1966: 47: 375-392.
29. Friedmann P S, Moss C. Quantification of contact hypersensitivity in man. In: Maibach H I, Lowe N J, eds.. Models in Dermatology. Basle: Karger, 1985: 275-281.
30. White S I, Friedmann P S, Moss C, Simpson J M. The effect of altering the area of application and dose per unit area on sensitization by DNCB. Br J Dermatol 1986: 115: 663-668.
31. Basketter D A. Quantitative aspects of allergen exposure in relation to allergic contact dermatitis on the hands. In: Menné T, Maibach H I, eds. Hand Eczema, 2nd edn. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2000: 105-114.
32. Hindsen M. Clinical and experimental studies in nickel allergy. Doctoral Thesis, Lund University, 1998.
33. Allenby C F, Basketter D A. An arm immersion model of compromised skin. II. Influence on minimal eliciting patch test concentrations of nickel. Contact Dermatitis 1993: 28: 129-133.
34. Banfield C C, Basketter D A, Powell S M. Cutaneous reactivity of the hands in nickel sensitive patients with hand eczema. Contact Dermatitis 1998: 38: 316-318.
35. Neilsen N H, Menné T, Kristiansen J, Christensen J M, Borg L, Poulsen L K. Effects of repeated skin exposure to low nickel concentrations: a model for allergic contact dermatitis to nickel on the hands. Br J Dermatol 1999: 141: 676-682.
36. Magnusson B, Kligman A M. Allergic contact dermatitis in the guinea pig. Illinois: Charles C Thomas, 1970.
37. Basketter D A, Gerberick G F, Kimber I. Skin sensitization, vehicle effects and the local lymph node assay. Food Chem Toxicol 2001: 39: 621-627.
38. Kimber I, Gerberick G F, Basketter D A. Thresholds in contact sensitization, theoretical and practical considerations. Food Chem Toxicol 1999: 37: 553-560.
39. Basketter D A, Kimber I. Predictive testing in contact allergy, facts and future. Allergy 2001: 56: 937-943.