Clinical update on contact allergy

Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Volumn 5, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 429-436

  Uter, Wolfgang ^a   Johansen, Jeanne Duus ^b   Orton, David I ^c   Frosch, Peter J ^d   Schnuch, Axel ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN NUREMBERG   (Germany)

^b GENTOFTE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^c AMERSHAM HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WITTEN HERDECKE   (Germany)

^e UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Clinical epidemiology; Contact allergy; Diagnosis

Indexed keywords

ALDEHYDE; ALLERGEN; BIOCIDE; BIOCIDE METHYLDIBROMO GLUTARONITRILE; EPOXY RESIN; FARNESOL; GLUE; HYDROXYISOHEXYL 3 CYCLOHEXANE CARBOXALDEHYDE; ISOEUGENOL; NITRILE; PLASTIC; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

AIRBORNE PARTICLE; ALLERGY TEST; CONTACT ALLERGY; EXPOSURE; HUMAN; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; MOSS; PATCH TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SKIN ALLERGY; SKIN SENSITIZATION;

EID: 25144505694     PISSN: 15284050     EISSN: 14736322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.all.0000182548.60595.80     Document Type: Review

References (99)

1. Nielsen NH, Linneberg A, Menné T, et al. Allergic contact sensitization in an adult Danish population: two cross-sectional surveys eight years apart (the Copenhagen Allergy Study). Acta Derm Venereol 2001; 81:31-34.
2. Uter W, Ludwig A, Balda BR, et al. The prevalence of contact allergy differed between population-based and clinic-based data. J Clin Epidemiol 2004; 57:627-632. The comparison of geographically matched contact allergy data from a population survey and a clinical database revealed partly surprisingly little differences. Some allergens, however, were markedly overrepresented due to certain specialities of the department (phlebology).
3. rd ed. Berlin: Springer; 2001. pp. 435-468.
4. Sasseville D. Hypersensitivity to preservatives. Dermatol Ther 2004; 17:251-263. This is an excellent review of the most important biocides in terms of contact allergy risk. Typical clinical manifestations are outlined.
5. Wahlkvist H, Boman A, Montelius J, Wahlberg JE. Sensitizing potential in mice, guinea pig and man of the preservative Euxyl K 400 and its ingredient methyldibromo glutaronitrile. Contact Dermatitis 1999; 41:330-338.
6. Geier J, Schnuch A, Fuchs T. Increasing incidence of contact allergies due to methyldibromo glutaronitrile in Germany [in German]. Allergologie 1996; 19:399-402.
7. Wilkinson JD, Shaw S, Andersen KE, et al. Monitoring levels of preservative sensitivity in Europe. A 10-year overview (1991-2000) Contact Dermatitis 2002; 46:207-210.
8. Kynemund Pedersen L, Agner T, Held E, Johansen JD. Methyldibromoglutaronitrile in leave-on products elicits contact allergy at low concentration. Br J Dermatol 2004; 151:817-822. Ten of 18 MDBGN sensitized volunteers developed ACD after twice daily application of a moisturizer containing 50 ppm MDBGN (the lowest effective antimicrobial concentration).
9. Schnuch A, Kelterer D, Bauer A, et al. Quantitative patch and repeated open application testing in methyldibromo glutaronitrile sensitive-patients: results of the IVDK. Contact Dermatitis 2005; 52:197-206. This provides independent confirmation of the low elicitation threshold, corresponding to MDBGN in 39 patients, and an evaluation of the 'optimum' patch test concentration.
10. Jensen CD, Johansen JD, Menné T, Andersen KE. Methyldibromoglutaronitrile in rinse-off products causes allergic contact dermatitis: an experimental study. Br J Dermatol 2004; 150:90-95. With seven of 19 MDBGN sensitized volunteers reacting to a common concentration (0.1%) of MDBGN in a liquid soap this exposure has been identified as hazardous.
11. Johansen JD, Veien NK, Laurberg G, et al. Contact allergy to methyldibromo glutaronitrile: data from a 'front line' network. Contact Dermatitis 2005; 52:138-141. This describes a careful investigation into the role of different exposures to MDBGN in sensitized patients.
12. Uter W, Lessmann H, Geier J, Schnuch A. Contact allergy to ingredients of hair cosmetics in female hairdressers and clients: an 8-year analysis of IVDK data. Contact Dermatitis 2003; 49:236-240.
13. Balzer C, Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W. Patch testing with patients' own cosmetics: results of the IVDK, 1998-2002 [in German]. Dermatol Beruf Umwelt 2005; 53:8-24. This describes an investigation into a neglected area: the results of patch tests with patients' own cosmetics and toiletries on a large scale, allowing analysis of the concurrent spectrum of positive reactions to commercial allergens.
14. Zachariae C, Johansen JD, Rastogi SC, Menné T. Allergic contact dermatitis from methyldibromo glutaronitrile: clinical cases from 2003. Contact Dermatitis 2005; 52:6-8.
15. Bruze M, Goossens A, Gruvberger B. Recommendation to include methyldibromo glutaronitrile in the European standard patch test series. Contact Dermatitis 2005; 52:24-28. The European Standard Series is updated as considered necessary; this reference lists the current composition.
16. Gruvberger B, Andersen KE, Brandao FM, et al. Repeated open application test with methyldibromo glutaronitrile, a multicentre study within the EECDRG. Contact Dermatitis 2005; 52:19-23. This is a comparison of use test results with patch test results using MDBGN concentrations in a broad range between 0.1 and 1.0%.
17. Gruvberger B, Andersen KE, Brandao FM, et al. Patch testing with methyldibromo glutaronitrile, a multicentre study within the EECDRG. Contact Dermatitis 2005; 52:14-18.
18. Brasch J, Schnuch A, Geier J, et al. Iodopropynylbutyl carbamate 0.2% is suggested for patch testing of patients with eczema possibly related to preservatives. Br J Dermatol 2004; 151:608-615. This was an elaborate attempt to identify the optimum patch test concentration of a 'difficult' allergen without external validation by a use test.
19. Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Geier J, et al. Contact allergy to fragrances: frequencies of sensitization from 1996 to 2002. Results of the IVDK. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50:65-76. The authors present comprehensive discussion of original multicenter study data, addressing the ranking of single fragrance compounds as allergens.
20. Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Svedman C, et al. Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde: known as Lyral. Quantitative aspects and risk assessment of an important fragrance allergen. Contact Dermatitis 2003; 48:310-316.
21. Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, et al. Contact allergy to farnesol in 2021 consecutively patch tested patients. Results of the IVDK. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50:117-121.
22. Frosch P, Pirker C, Rastogi SC, et al. Patch testing with a new fragrance mix detects additional patients sensitive to perfumes and missed by the current fragrance mix. Contact Dermatitis 2005; 52:207-215. The limited sensitivity of the 'fragrance mix' designed by W.G. Larsen several decades ago with regard to diagnosing contact allergy to fragrances will be complemented by testing the 'fragrance mix II' developed by the project consortium. The discussion focuses also on difficulties in the evaluation of pooled multicenter data.
23. Uter W, Balzer C, Geier J, et al. Patch testing with perfumes, deodorants and shaving lotions brought in by the patient - results of the IVDK, 1998-2002 [in German]. Dermatol Beruf Umwelt 2005; 53:25-36.
24. Hartmann K, Hunzelmann N. Allergic contact dermatitis from cinnamon as an odour-neutralizing agent in shoe insoles. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50:253-254.
25. Decapite TJ, Anderson BE. Allergic contact dermatitis from cinnamic aldehyde found in an industrial odour-masking agent. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51:312-313.
26. Garcia-Abujeta JL, de Larramendi CH, Berna JP, Palomino EM. Mud bath dermatitis due to cinnamon oil. Contact Dermatitis 2005; 52:234.
27. Fischer LA, Menné T, Johansen JD. Experimental nickel elicitation thresholds: a review focusing on occluded nickel exposure. Contact Dermatitis 2005; 52:57-64. This is an interesting synopsis on selected nickel patch test threshold studies.
28. Jensen CS, Lisby S, Larsen JK, et al. Characterization of lymphocyte subpopulations and cytokine profiles in peripheral blood of nickel-sensitive individuals with systemic contact dermatitis after oral nickel exposure. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50:31-38. This provides confirmation of the systemic nature of contact dermatitis, and of the potential role of orally ingested allergens.
29. Pigatto PD, Guzzi G. Systemic contact dermatitis from nickel associated with orthodontic appliances. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50:100-101.
30. Tsuruta D, Sowa J, Higashi N, et al. A red tattoo and a swordfish supper. Lancet 2004; 364:730.
31. Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Svedman C, et al. Chloroatranol, an extremely potent allergen hidden in perfumes: a dose-response elicitation study. Contact Dermatitis 2003; 49:180-184.
32. Rastogi SC, Bossi R, Johansen JD, et al. Content of oak moss allergens atranol and chloroatranol in perfumes and similar products. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50:367-370. These authors provide a valuable analytical proof of the presence of sufficient quantities of the two extremely potent allergens for ACD elicitation in popular perfumes.
33. Jensen CD, Johansen JD, Menne T, Andersen KE. Methyldibromo glutaronitrile contact allergy: effect of single versus repeated daily exposure. Contact Dermatitis 2005; 52:88-92. This provides an interesting insight regarding the relationship between exposure dose and frequency necessary for elicitation.
34. Scott AE, Kashon ML, Yucesoy B, et al. Insights into the quantitative relationship between sensitization and challenge for allergic contact dermatitis reactions. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2002; 183:66-70.
35. Hostynek JJ, Maibach HI. Thresholds of elicitation depend on induction conditions. Could low level exposure induce sub-clinical allergic states that are only elicited under the severe conditions of clinical diagnosis? Food Chem Toxicol 2004; 42:1859-1865. This is an excellent review of studies addressing the relationship between induction of contact allergy and subsequent elicitation of ACD. An appendix quotes several original data tables.
36. Ho SG, White IR, Rycroft RJ, McFadden JP. A new approach to patch testing patients with para-phenylenediamine allergy secondary to temporary black henna tattoos. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51:213-214. This was a small study, but at the same time provided an important contribution to the practice of patch testing. The observation adds to our understanding of the reasons for the vast inter-individual variation of patch test reactivity, i.e., of contact allergy as a quantitative, graded phenomenon.
37. Hextall JM, Alagaratnam NJ, Glendinning AK, et al. Dose-time relationships for elicitation of contact allergy to para-phenylenediamine. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 47:96-99.
38. Saunders H, O'Brien T, Nixon R. Textile dye allergic contact dermatitis following paraphenylenediamine sensitization from a temporary tattoo. Australas J Dermatol 2004; 45:229-231.
39. Jasim ZF, Darling JR, Handley JM. Severe allergic contact dermatitis to paraphenylene diamine in hair dye following sensitization to black henna tattoos. Contact Dermatitis 2005; 52:116-117.
40. Dawe SA, White IR, Rycroft RJ, et al. Active sensitization to paraphenylenediamine and its relevance: a 10-year review. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51:96-97. The careful analysis of the records of the few patients who, after initially testing negative to PPD, were found allergic to PPD on retesting, was not suggestive of a notable risk of active sensitization.
41. Devos SA, Van Der Valk PG. The risk of active sensitization to PPD. Contact Dermatitis 2001; 44:273-275.
42. Hillen U, Pirker C, Jappe U, et al. Detection of late patch test reactions to paraphenylene diamine 1% and epoxy resin 1% in the standard series: a prospective multicenter study of the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG) [abstract; in German]. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 2005; 3 (Suppl 1):S11.
43. Johansen JD, 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.
44. McLelland J, Shuster S. Contact dermatitis with negative patch tests: the additive effect of allergens in combination. Br J Dermatol 1990; 122:623-630.
45. McLelland J, Shuster S, Matthews JNS. 'Irritants' increase the response to an allergen in allergic contact dermatitis. Arch Dermatol 1991; 127:1016-1019.
46. Kynemund Pedersen L, Johansen JD, Held E, Agner T. Augmentation of skin response by exposure to a combination of allergens and irritants: a review. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50:265-273. This is an important review on the effect of combined exposure to irritants and allergens. Implications for regulatory issues are discussed.
47. Lewis VJ, Statham BN, Chowdhury MM. Allergic contact dermatitis in 191 consecutively patch tested children. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51:155-156. This careful small-scale study paid particular attention to the relevance of positive patch test reactions.
48. Giusti F, Miglietta R, Pepe P, Seidenari S. Sensitization to propolis in 1255 children undergoing patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51:255-258.
49. Heine G, Schnuch A, Uter W, Worm M. Frequency of contact allergy in German children and adolescents patch tested between 1995 and 2002: results from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology and the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51:111-117.
50. Geier J, Uter W, Pirker C, Frosch PJ. Patch testing with the irritant sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) is useful in interpreting weak reactions to contact allergens as allergic or irritant. Contact Dermatitis 2003; 48:99-107.
51. Uter W, Hegewald J, Pfahlberg A, et al. The association between ambient air conditions (temperature and absolute humidity), irritant sodium lauryl sulfate patch test reactions and patch test reactivity to standard allergens. Contact Dermatitis 2003; 49:97-102.
52. Löffler H, Becker D, Brasch J, Geier J. Simultaneous sodium lauryl sulphate testing improves the diagnostic validity of allergic patch tests. Results from a prospective multicentre study of the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (Deutsche Kontaktallergie-Gruppe, DKG). Br J Dermatol 2005; 152:709-719. This was a large multicenter study of patch testing with an irritant, analyzing the association with (doubtful or positive) patch test reactions to allergens. Validation studies will have to address the question of whether 'irritability' is related (only) to false-positive or other irritant reactions, or whether it is an individual, if fluctuating, characteristic indicative of susceptibility to irritation.
53. Smith HR, Basketter OA, McFadden JP. Irritant dermatitis, irritancy and its role in allergic contact dermatitis. Clin Exp Dermatol 2002; 27:138-146.
54. Uter W, Geier J, Becker D, et al. Diagnostic value of SLS test (Reply). Contact Dermatitis 2005; 52:236-237.
55. Moss C, Friedmann PS, Shuster S, Simpson JM. Susceptibility and amplification of sensitivity in contact dermatitis. Clin Exp Immunol 1985; 61:232-241.
56. Westphal GA, Reich K, Schulz TG, et al. N-acetyltransferase 1 and 2 polymorphisms in para-substituted arylamine-induced contact allergy. Br J Dermatol 2000; 142:1121-1127.
57. Westphal GA, Schnuch A, Moessner R, et al. Cytokine gene polymorphisms in allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 2003; 48:93-98.
58. Menezes de Padua CA, Schnuch A, Lessmann H, et al. Contact allergy to neomycin sulfate: results of a multifactorial analysis. Pharmacoepid Drug Saf (in press).
59. Hegewald J, Uter W, Pfahlberg A, et al. A multifactorial analysis of concurrent patch-test reactions to nickel, cobalt, and chromate. Allergy 2005; 60:372-378. Is the profile of risk factors different between contact allergy to single allergens and coupled contact allergy? This novel question has been addressed using intricate statistical analysis of a large contact allergy database.
60. Basketter DA, Cadby P. Reproducible prediction of contact allergenic potency using the local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50:15-17. This is a good overview by a group working very actively for the standardization of this experimental assay for the screening of the contact allergy eliciting potency of chemicals.
61. Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Kern PS, et al. A chemical dataset for evaluation of alternative approaches to skin-sensitization testing. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50:274-288.
62. Schneider K, Akkan Z. Quantitative relationship between the local lymph node assay and human skin sensitization assays. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2004; 39:245-255. This is an interesting review comparing the classification of contact allergy eliciting potency using the LLNA with the gold standard: human data.
63. Patlewicz GY, Basketter DA, Pease CK, et al. Further evaluation of quantitative structure-activity relationship models for the prediction of the skin sensitization potency of selected fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50:91-97. This paper presents interesting collaborative work on structure activity relationships as predicted based on molecular properties, compared to actual LLNA data.
64. Søsted H, Basketter DA, Estrada E, et al. Ranking of hair dye substances according to predicted sensitization potency: quantitative structure-activity relationships. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51:241-254. This review is a 'must' for anybody involved in the clinical evaluation of ACD due to hair dye components, or in general risk assessment. A valuable approach to improve diagnostic accuracy for affected patients.
65. Ryan CA, Gildea LA, Hulette BC, et al. Gene expression changes in peripheral blood-derived dendritic cells following exposure to a contact allergen. Toxicol Lett 2004; 150:301-316. This describes a promising new method for the in-vitro identification of contact allergens.
66. Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Becker D, et al. Designation of substances as skin sensitizing chemicals: a reply. Hum Exp Toxicol 2005; 24:157-159.
67. Young HS, Ferguson JE, Beck MH. Contact dermatitis from 2-n-octyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one in a PhD student. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50:47-48.
68. Möller H, Schütz A, Björkner B, Bruze M. Percutaneous absorption of gold sodium thiosulfate used for patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51:63-66. A neglected aspect of patch testing has been assessed on the example of gold (tested as sodium thiosulfate): the percutaneous absorption of traces of allergens.
69. Jappe U, Juschka U, Kuner N, et al. Fondaparinux: a suitable alternative in cases of delayed-type allergy to heparins and semisynthetic heparinoids? A study of 7 cases. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51:67-72. This illustrative case series highlights the considerable variation of contact allergy to frequently used anticoagulants.
70. Hirsch K, Ludwig RJ, Lindhoff-Last E, et al. Intolerance of fondaparinux in a patient allergic to heparins. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50:383-384.
71. Hohenstein E, Tsakiris D, Bircher AJ. Delayed-type hypersensitivity to the ultra-low-molecular-weight heparin fondaparinux. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51:149-151.
72. Hallai N, Hughes TM, Stone N. Type I and Type IV allergy to unfractionated heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin with no reaction to recombinant hirudin. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51:153-154.
73. Mahajan VK, Sharma NL, Sharma RC. Parthenium dermatitis: is it a systemic contact dermatitis or an airborne contact dermatitis? Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51:231-234. This is a good example of a well-documented case report, illustrating, in this case, the potential of a strong allergen to systemically cause ACD after inhalation.
74. Elberling J, Linneberg A, Mosbech H, et al. A link between skin and airways regarding sensitivity to fragrance products? Br J Dermatol 2004; 151:1197-1203. An interesting epidemiological observation, potentially challenging the notion that contact allergy has no effect on the airways.
75. Bernedo N, Audicana MT, Uriel O, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from cosmetics applied by the patient's girlfriend. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50:252-253.
76. Raison-Peyron N, Co Minh HB, Vidal-Mazuy A, et al. Connubial contact dermatitis to an inhaled corticosteroid [in French]. Ann Dermatol Venereol 2005; 132:143-146.
77. Hernandez-Nunez A, Sanchez-Perez J, Pascual-Lopez M, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from benzoyl peroxide transferred by a loving son. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 46:302.
78. Rasmussen K, Carstensen O, Ponten A, Gruvberger B, Isaksson M, Bruze M. Risk of contact allergy and dermatitis at a wind turbine plant using epoxy resin-based plastics. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2005; 78:211-217. This was a well-conducted epidemiological study, illustrating the considerable risk of occupational ACD in this industry noted also in other countries.
79. Uter W, Rühl R, Pfahlberg A, et al. Contact allergy in construction workers: results of a multifactorial analysis. Ann Occup Hyg 2004; 48:21-27.
80. Hillen U, Böckler M, Boveleth W, et al. Allergen exposition in painters and lacquerers: spectrum of allergens in paints and lacquers [in German]. Dermatol Beruf Umwelt 2004; 52:113-125. This was a good example of transferring relevant knowledge on technology (of paints and lacquers) and occupational hygiene to dermatologists.
81. Geier J, Lessmann H, Hillen U, et al. An attempt to improve diagnostics of contact allergy due to epoxy resin systems. First results of the multicentre study EPOX 2002. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51:263-272. Those epoxy resin compounds currently used were identified, patch test preparations prepared, and the significance of the series evaluated in patients with suspected ACD to epoxy resin.
82. Kiec-Swierczynska M, Krecisz B, Swierczynska-Machura D, Zaremba J. An epidemic of occupational contact dermatitis from an acrylic glue. Contact Dermatitis 2005; 52:121-125. This was a careful investigation of an outbreak of industrial dermatitis.
83. Geier J, Lessmann H, Dickel H, et al. Patch test results with the metalworking fluid series of the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG). Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51:118-130. A group of dermatologists, occupational safety specialists and chemical scientist elaborated an update of the test series of cutting fluid allergens jointly with industry.
84. Geier J, Lessmann H, Schnuch A, Uter W. Contact sensitizations in metal-workers with occupational dermatitis exposed to water-based metalworking fluids: results of the research project "FaSt". Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2004; 77:543-551.
85. Gallo R, Sacco DD, Ghigliotti G. Allergic contact dermatitis from VP/eicosene copolymer (Ganex V-220) in an emollient cream. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50:261.
86. Sasseville D, Moreau L. Contact allergy to 1-bromo-3-chloro-5, 5-dimethyl-hydantoin in spa water. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50:323-324.
87. Inui S, Ozawa K, Song M, Itami S, Katayama I. Contact dermatitis due to pirfenoxone. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50:375-376.
88. Fischer LA, Agner T. Curcumin allergy in relation to yellow chlorhexidine solution used for skin disinfection prior to surgery. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51:39-40.
89. Acebo E, Raton JA, Sautua S, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from Boswellia serrata extract in a naturopathic cream. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51:91-92.
90. Yokota K, Michitsuji H. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from 1,6-bis(2,3-epoxypropoxy) naphthalene in a one-component epoxy coating. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51:154-155.
91. Le Coz CJ. Allergic contact dermatitis from tamanu oil (Calophyllum inophyllum, Calophyllum tacamahaca). Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51:216-217.
92. Bergendorff O, Persson CM, Hansson C. HPLC analysis of alkyl thioureas in an orthopaedic brace and patch testing with pure ethylbutylthiourea. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51:273-277.
93. Vilar Mdo L, Diogenes MJ, Vilar JL, et al. Contact dermatitis associated with Astronium urundeuva (allemao) Engl., a traditional medicinal plant from Brazil. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51:311.
94. Hernandez-Machin B, Ortiz-Frutos FJ, Vanaclocha-Sebastian F. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis in a chemist from ethyl bromoacetate and bromoacetonitrile. Contact Dermatitis 2005; 52:115-116.
95. Schiavino D, Nucera E, Buonomo A, et al. A case of type IV hypersensitivity to topiramate and carbamazepine. Contact Dermatitis 2005; 52:161-162.
96. Zemtsov A, Fett D. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis to sodium lauroyl sarcosinate in the liquid soap. Contact Dermatitis 2005; 52:166-167.
97. Shaw DW, Eichenfield LF, Shainhouse T, Maibach HI. Allergic contact dermatitis from tacrolimus. J Am Acad Dermatol 2004; 50:962-965.
98. Wulf HC, Philipsen P. Allergic contact dermatitis to 5-aminolaevulinic acid methylester but not to 5-aminolaevulinic acid after photodynamic therapy. Br J Dermatol 2004; 150:143-145.
99. Hughes TM, Martin JA, Lewis VJ, Stone NM. Allergic contact dermatitis to drometrizole trisiloxane in a sunscreen with concomitant sensitivities to other sun screens. Contact Dermatitis 2005; 52:226-227.