Allergic contact dermatitis from tacrolimus

Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology

Volumn 50, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 962-965

  Shaw, Daniel W ^a   Eichenfield, Lawrence F ^a,b   Shainhouse, Tsippora ^a,b   Maibach, Howard I ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b RADY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALCOHOL; NEOMYCIN; TACROLIMUS;

ARTICLE; ATOPIC DERMATITIS; CASE REPORT; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); CONTACT DERMATITIS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; DRUG ABSORPTION; HUMAN; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE TREATMENT; MALE; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; PATCH TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROVOCATION TEST; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SCHOOL CHILD; SKIN ALLERGY; SKIN DISEASE; SKIN TEST;

EID: 2542435992     PISSN: 01909622     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2003.09.013     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Bernard LA, Cunningham BB, Al-Suwaidan S, Friedlander SF, Eichenfieid LF. A rosacea-like granulomatous eruption in a patient using tacrolimus ointment for atopic dermatitis. Arch Dermatol 2003;139:229-31.
2. Rietschel RL, Fowler JF. Fisher's contact dermatitis. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001; p. 24.
3. Nakada T, Hostynek JJ, Maibach HI. Use tests: ROAT (repeated open application test)/PUT (provocative use test): an overview. Contact Dermatitis 2000;43:1-3.
4. Pugh WJ. Relationship between H-bonding of penetrants to stratum corneum lipids and diffusion. In: Bronaugh RL, Maibach HI, editors. Percutaneous absorption: drugs-cosmetics mechanisms-methodology. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1999. p. 177-192.
5. Bos JD, Meinardi MM. The 500 Dalton rule for the skin penetration of chemical compounds and drugs. Exp Dermatol 2000;9:165-9.
6. Marks JG Jr, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, Fowler JF Jr, Fransway AF, Maibach HI, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1996-1998. Arch Dermatol 2000;136:272-3.
7. Prystowsky SD, Nonomura JH, Smith RW, Allen AM. Allergic hypersensitivity to neomycin. Relationship between patch test reactions and 'use' tests. Arch Dermatol 1979;115:713-5.
8. Bjarnason B, Flosadottir E. Patch testing with neomycin sulfate. Contact Dermatitis 2000;43:295-302.
9. Calnan CD, Sarkany I. Contact dermatitis from neomycin. Br J Dermatol 1958;70:435-45.
10. Epstein S. Contact dermatitis from neomycin due to dermal delayed (tuberculin-type) sensitivity. Dermatologica 1956;113:191-201.
11. Epstein E. Contact dermatitis to neomycin with false negative patch tests: allergy established by intradermal and usage tests. Contact Dermatitis 1980;6:219-20.
12. Panzer JD, Epstein WL. Percutaneous absorption following topical application of neomycin. Arch Dermatol 1970;102:536-9.
13. Wester R, Maibach HI. Regional variation in percutaneous absorption. In: Bronaugh RL, Maibach HI, eds. Percutaneous absorption: drugs-cosmetics mechanisms-methodology. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1999. p. 107-16.
14. Matura M, Goossens A. Contact allergy to corticosteroids. Allergy 2000;55:698-704.