Increased retest reactivity by both patch and use test with methyldibromoglutaronitrile in sensitized individuals

Acta Dermato-Venereologica

Volumn 86, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 8-12

  Jensen, Charlotte Devantier ^a,b   Johansen, Jeanne Duus ^b   Menné, Torkil ^b,c   Andersen, Klaus Ejner ^a,b  

^a ODENSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^b National Allergy Research Centre   (Denmark)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Hyperreactivity; Re challenge; Rinse off; Use test

Indexed keywords

2 BROMO 2 BROMOMETHYLGLUTARONITRILE; SOAP; 1,2-DIBROMO-2,4-DICYANOBUTANE; ALLERGEN; NITRILE; PRESERVATIVE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL FEATURE; CONTACT ALLERGY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PATCH TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROVOCATION TEST; CASE CONTROL STUDY; IMMUNOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; SKIN ALLERGY;

ADULT; AGED; ALLERGENS; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NITRILES; PATCH TESTS; PRESERVATIVES, PHARMACEUTICAL; SOAPS;

EID: 33744741659     PISSN: 00015555     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2340/00015555-0009     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Hindsén M, Bruze M, Christensen OB. The significance of previous allergic contact dermatitis for elicitation of delayed hypersensitivity to nickel. Contact Dermatitis 1997; 37: 101-106.
2. Hindsén M, Bruze M, Christensen OB. Flare-up reactions after oral challenge with nickel in relation to challenge dose and intensity and time of previous patch test reactions. J Am Acad Dermatol 2001; 44: 616-623.
3. Rustemeycr T, de Groot J, von Blomberg BM, Bruynzeel DP, Frosch PJ, Scheper RJ. Assessment of contact allergen crossreactivity by retesting. Exp Dermatol 2002; 11: 257-265.
4. Scheper RJ, von Blomberg M, Boerrigter GH, Bruynzeel D, van Dinther A, Vos A. Induction of immunological memory in the skin. Role of local T-cell retention. Clin Exp Immunol 1983; 51: 141-148.
5. Nakagawa S, Fukushiro S, Gotoh M, Kohda M, Namba M, Tanioku K. Studies on the retest reaction in contact sensitivity to DNCB. Dermatologica 1978; 157: 13-20.
6. 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 methyldibromoglutaronitrile. Contact Dermatitis 1999; 41: 330-338.
7. Basketter DA, Evans P, Gerberick GF, Kimber IA. Factors affecting thresholds in allergic contact dermatitis: safety and regulatory considerations. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 47: 1-6.
8. Wilkinson JD, Shaw S, Andersen KE, Brandao FM, Bruynzeel DP, Bruze M, et al. Monitoring levels of preservative sensitivity in Europe. A 10-year overview (1991-2000). Contact Dermatitis 2002; 46: 207-210.
9. Wahlberg JE. Patch testing. In: Rycroft RJG, Menné T, Frosch PJ, eds. Textbook of contact dermatitis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1995: 438-468.
10. Hindsén M, Bruze M. The significance of previous contact dermatitis for elicitation of contact allergy to nickel. Acta Derm Venereol 1998; 78: 367-370.
11. Mitchell JC. The angry back syndrome: eczema creates eczema. Contact Dermatitis 1975; 1: 193-194.
12. Van der Valk PG, Maibach HI. Potential for irritation increases from the wrist to the cubital fossa. Br J Dermatol 1989; 121: 709-712.
13. Christensen OB, Lindström C, Löfberg H, Möller H. Micromorphology and specificity of orally induced flareup reactions in nickel-sensitive patients. Acta Derm Venereol 1981; 61: 505-510.
14. Möller H, Björkner B, Bruze M. Clinical reactions to systemic provocation with gold sodium thiomalate in patients with contact allergy to gold. Br J Dermatol 1996; 135: 423-427.
15. Moed H, Boorsma DM, Tensen CP, Flier J, Jonker MJ, Stoof TJ, et al. Increased CCL27-CCR10 expression in allergic contact dermatitis: implications for local skin memory. J Pathol 2004; 204: 39-46.
16. Allenby CF, Basketter DA. An arm immersion model of compromised skin (II). Influence on minimal eliciting patch test concentrations of nickel. Contact Dermatitis 1993; 28: 129-133.
17. Lee JY, Effendy I, Maibach HI. Acute irritant contact dermatitis: recovery time in man. Contact Dermatitis 1997; 36: 285-290.
18. Choi JM, Lee JY, Cho BK. Chronic irritant contact dermatitis: recovery time in man. Contact Dermatitis 2000; 42: 264-269.
19. Widmer J, Elsner P, Burg G. Skin irritant reactivity following experimental cumulative irritant contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1994; 30: 35-39.
20. Lammintausta K, Maibach HI, Wilson D. Human cutaneous irritation: induced hyporeactivity. Contact Dermatitis 1987; 17: 193-198.
21. Freeman S, Maibach H. Study of irritant contact dermatitis produced by repeat patch test with sodium lauryl sulfate and assessed by visual methods, transepidermal water loss, and laser Doppler velocimetry. J Am Acad Dermatol 1988; 19: 496-502.
22. Proksch E, Brasch J. Influence of epidermal permeability barrier disruption and Langerhans' cell density on allergic contact dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol 1997; 77: 102-104.
23. Andersen KE, Maibach HI. Cumulative irritancy in the guinea pig from low grade irritant vehicles and the angry skin syndrome. Contact Dermatitis 1980; 6: 430-434.
24. Agner T, Johansen JD, Overgaard L, Volund A, Basketter D, Menné T. Combined effects of irritants and allergens. Synergistic effects of nickel and sodium lauryl sulfate in nickel-sensitized individuals. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 47: 21-26.