Dose per unit area - A study of elicitation of nickel allergy

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 56, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 255-261

  Fischer, Louise Arup ^a,b   Menné, Torkil ^a   Johansen, Jeanne Duus ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b National Allergy Research Centre   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Contact allergy; Dose per unit area; Elicitation; Nickel allergy; Patch testing; Repeated open application test; ROAT

Indexed keywords

ALLERGEN; NICKEL;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); FEMALE; FUNCTION TEST; HUMAN; LATENT PERIOD; MALE; NICKEL HYPERSENSITIVITY; PATCH TEST; REPEATED OPEN APPLICATION TEST; SKIN; SKIN MANIFESTATION; SKIN SENSITIZATION; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

ADULT; AGED; ALLERGENS; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NICKEL; PATCH TESTS; SKIN;

EID: 34247208680     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: 16000536     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01096.x     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Upadhye M R, Maibach H I. Influence of area of application of allergen on sensitization in contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1992: 27: 281-286.
2. Schnitzer A. Beitrag zur Frage des Mechanismus der Sensibiliserung. Dermatologica 1942: 85: 339-347.
3. Magnusson B, Kligman A M. Induction of hypersensitivity. In: Allergic Contact Dermatitis in the Guinea Pig, Identifications of Contact Allergens. Springfield, Thomas C C. 1970: 44-76.
4. 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.
5. White S I, Friedmann P S, Moss C, Simpson J M. The effect of altering area of application and dose per unit area on sensitization by DNCB. Br J Dermatol 1986: 115: 663-668.
6. Friedmann P S. Contact hypersensitivity. Curr Opin Immunol 1989: 1: 690-693.
7. Friedmann P S. The immunology of allergic contact dermatitis: the DNCB story. Adv Dermatol 1990: 5: 175-195.
8. Rees J L, Friedmann P S, Matthews J N. The influence of area of application on sensitization by dinitrochlorobenzene. Br J Dermatol 1990: 122: 29-31.
9. Friedmann P S, Moss C, Shuster S, Simpson J M. Quantitative relationships between sensitizing dose of DNCB and reactivity in normal subjects. Clin Exp Immunol 1983: 53: 709-715.
10. Griem P, Goebel C, Scheffler H. Proposal for a risk assessment methodology for skin sensitization based on sensitization potency data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2003: 38: 269-290.
11. Gerberick G F, Robinson M K, Ryan C A, Dearman R J, Kimber I, Basketter D A, Wright Z, Marks J G. Contact allergenic potency: correlation of human and local lymph node assay data. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2001: 12: 156-161.
12. Hindsen M, Bruze M. The significance of previous contact dermatitis for elicitation of contact allergy to nickel. Acta Derm Venereol 1998: 78: 367-370.
13. Johansen J D, Bruze M, Andersen K E et al. The repeated open application test: suggestions for a scale of evaluation. Contact Dermatitis 1998: 39: 95-96.
14. Hannuksela A, Niinimaki A, Hannuksela M. Size of the test area does not affect the result of the repeated open application test. Contact Dermatitis 1993: 28: 299-300.
15. Zachariae C, Hall B, Cottin M, Cupferman S, Andersen K E, Menne T. Experimental elicitation of contact allergy from a diazolidinyl urea-preserved cream in relation to anatomical region, exposure time and concentration. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 53: 268-277.
16. Brasch J, Szliska C, Grabbe J. More positive patch test reactions with larger test chambers? Results from a study group of the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG). Contact Dermatitis 1997: 37: 118-120.
17. Dykes P J, Hill S, Marks R. The effect of area of application on the intensity of response to a cutaneous irritant. Br J Dermatol 1991: 125: 330-334.