Diagnostic approach in allergic and irritant contact dermatitis

Expert Review of Clinical Immunology

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 291-310

  Ale, Iris S ^a   Maibach, Howard A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF URUGUAY   (Uruguay)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Allergens; Allergic contact dermatitis; Contact dermatitis; Irritant contact dermatitis; Irritants; Patch testing; Skin testing

Indexed keywords

ALLERGEN;

ALGORITHM; CLINICAL FEATURE; CONTACT SENSITIZATION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; DISEASE COURSE; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HUMAN; IRRITANT DERMATITIS; MORPHOLOGY; PATCH TEST; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PATIENT EDUCATION; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; PREDICTOR VARIABLE; PROVOCATION TEST; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SKIN ALLERGY; SKIN DISEASE;

ALGORITHMS; COMORBIDITY; DATABASES AS TOPIC; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; DERMATITIS, IRRITANT; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; HEALTH PLANNING GUIDELINES; HUMANS; IMMUNOTHERAPY; MEDICAL HISTORY TAKING; PATCH TESTS; PATHOLOGY, MOLECULAR;

EID: 77949473032     PISSN: 1744666X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/eci.10.4     Document Type: Review

References (176)

1. Mathias CGT. Contact dermatitis and workers' compensation: criteria for establishing occupational causation and aggravation. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 20(5), 842-848 (1989).
2. Mathias CG, Maibach HI. Dermatotoxicology monographs I. Cutaneous irritation: factors influencing the response to irritants. Clin. Toxicol. 13(3), 399-415 (1978).
3. Berardesca E, Distante F. Mechanisms of skin irritations. Curr. Probl. Dermatol. 23, 1-8 (1995).
4. Nickoloff BJ, Naidu Y. Perturbation of epidermal barrier function correlates with initiation of cytokine cascade in human skin. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 30(4), 535-546 (1994).
5. McKenzie RC, Sauder DN. The role of keratinocyte cytokines in inflammation and immunity. J. Invest. Dermatol. 95(6 Suppl.), 105S-107S (1990).
6. Gober MD, Gaspari AA. Allergic contact dermatitis. Curr. Dir. Autoimmun. 10, 1-26 (2008).
7. Gober MD, Fishelevich R, Zhao Y, Unutmaz D, Gaspari AA. Human natural killer T cells infiltrate into the skin at elicitation sites of allergic contact dermatitis. J. Invest. Dermatol. 128(6), 1460-1469 (2008).
8. He D, Wu L, Kim HK, Li H, Elmets CA, Xu H. IL-17 and IFN-g mediate the elicitation of contact hypersensitivity responses by different mechanisms and both are required for optimal responses. J. Immunol. 183(2), 1463-1470 (2009).
9. Xu H, Banerjee A, Dilulio NA, Fairchild RL. Development of effector CD8+ T cells in contact hypersensitivity occurs independently of CD4+ T cells. J. Immunol. 158(10), 4721-4728 (1997).
10. Baadsgaard O, Wang T. Immune regulation in allergic and irritant skin reactions. Int. J. Dermatol. 30(3), 161-172 (1991).
11. Ale SI, Maibach HI. Irritant contact dermatitis vs allergic contact dermatitis. In: Irritant Dermatitis. Chew AL, Maibach HI (Eds). Springer, Berlin, Germany, 11-18 (2005).
12. Hunziker T, Brand CU, Kapp A, Waelti ER, Braathen LR. Increased levels of inflammatory cytokines in human skin lymph derived from sodium lauryl sulphate-induced contact dermatitis. Br. J. Dermatol. 127(3), 254-257 (1992).
13. Ulfgren AK, Klareskog L, Lindberg M. An immunohistochemical analysis of cytokine expression in allergic and irritant contact dermatitis. Acta Derm. Venereol. 80(3), 167-170 (2000).
14. Effendy I, Maibach HI. Cytokines and irritant dermatitis syndrome. In: Toxicology of Skin. Maibach HI (Ed.). Taylor & Francis, PA, USA, 85-104 (2001).
15. Effendy I, Loffler H, Maibach HI. Epidermal cytokines in murine cutaneous irritant responses. J. Appl. Toxicol. 20(4), 335-341 (2000).
16. Brasch J, Bugard J, Sterry W. Common pathogenetic pathways in allergic and irritant contact dermatitis. J. Invest. Dermatol. 98(2), 166-170 (1992).
17. Brand CU, Yawalkar N, Hunziker T, Braathen LR. Human skin lymph derived from irritant and allergic contact dermatitis: interleukin 10 is increased selectively in elicitation reactions. Dermatology 194(3), 221-228 (1997).
18. Gawkrodger DJ, McVittie E, Carr MM, Ross JA, Hunter JA. Phenotypic characterization of the early cellular responses in allergic and irritant contact dermatitis. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 66(3), 590-598 (1986).
19. Mohamadzadeh M, Müller M, Hultsch T, Enk A, Saloga J, Knop J. Enhanced expression of IL-8 in normal human keratinocytes and human keratinocyte cell line HaCaT in vitro after stimulation with contact sensitizers, tolerogens and irritants. Exp. Dermatol. 3(6), 298-303 (1994).
20. Pedersen LK, Johansen JD, Held E, Agner T. Augmentation of skin response by exposure to a combination of allergens and irritants - a review. Contact Derm. 50(5), 265-273 (2004).
21. Kartono F, Maibach HI. Irritants in combination with a synergistic or additive effect on the skin response: an overview of tandem irritation studies. Contact Derm. 54(6), 303-312 (2006).
22. Matzinger P. An innate sense of danger. Semin. Immunol. 10(5), 399-415 (1998).
23. Gallucci S, Matzinger P. Danger signals: SOS to the immune system. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 13(1), 114-119 (2001).
24. McFadden JP, Basketter DA. Contact allergy, irritancy and 'danger'. Contact Derm. 42(3), 123-127 (2000).
25. Smith HR, Basketter DA, McFadden JP. Irritant dermatitis, irritancy and its role in allergic contact dermatitis. Clin. Exp. Dermatol. 27(2), 138-146 (2002).
26. Ale SI, Maibach HI. Operational definition of allergic contact dermatitis. In: Toxicology of Skin. Maibach H (Ed.). Taylor & Francis, PA, USA, 345-355 (2001).
27. Fregert S. Occupational dermatitis in a 10-year material. Contact Derm. 1(2), 96-107 (1975).
28. Bruynzeel DP, van Ketel WG, Scheper RJ, von Blombergvan der Flier BM. Delayed time course of irritation by sodium lauryl sulfate: observations on threshold reactions. Contact Derm. 8(4), 236-239 (1982).
29. Malten KE, den Arend JA, Wiggers RE. Delayed irritation: hexanediol diacrylate and butanediol diacrylate. Contact Derm. 5(3), 178-184 (1979).
30. Coenraads PJ, Diepgen TL. Risk for hand eczema in employees with past or present atopic dermatitis. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 71(1), 7-13 (1998).
31. Baurecht H, Irvine AD, Novak N et al. Toward a major risk factor for atopic eczema: meta-analysis of filaggrin polymorphism data. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 120(6), 1406-1412 (2007).
32. de Jongh CM, Khrenova L, Verberk MM et al. Loss-of-function polymorphisms in the filaggrin gene are associated with an increased susceptibility to chronic irritant contact dermatitis: a case-control study. Br. J. Dermatol. 159(3), 621-627 (2008).
33. Lerbaek A, Bisgaard H, Agner T, Ohm Kyvik K, Palmer CN, Menné T. Filaggrin null alleles are not associated with hand eczema or contact allergy. Br. J. Dermatol. 157(6), 1199-1204 (2007).
34. Novak N, Baurecht H, Schäfer T et al. Loss-of-function mutations in the filaggrin gene and allergic contact sensitization to nickel. J. Invest. Dermatol. 128(6), 1430-1435 (2008).
35. Thyssen JP, Carlsen BC, Menné T. Nickel sensitization, hand eczema, and loss-of-function mutations in the filaggrin gene. Dermatitis 19(6), 303-307 (2008).
36. Ale SI, Maibach H. Hand dermatitis and psoriasis syndrome. In: Hand Eczema (2nd Edition). CRC Press, FL, USA, 377-385 (2000).
37. Goh CL. Non-eczematous contact reactions. In: Textbook of Contact Dermatitis. Rycroft RJG, Menné T, Frosch PJ (Eds). Springer, Berlin, Germany, 221-236 (1995).
38. Goh CL. Non-eczematous occupational contact reactions. In: Handbook of Occupational Dermatology. Kanerva L, Elsner P, Wahlberg JE, Maicbach HI (Eds). Springer, Berlin, Germany, 275-279 (2000).
39. Kerre S, Busschots A, Dooms-Goossens A. Erythema-multiforme-like contact dermatitis due to phenylbutazone. Contact Derm. 33(3), 213-214 (1995).
40. Stingeni L, Caraffini S, Assalve D, Lapomarda V, Lisi P. Erythema-multiforme-like contact dermatitis from budesonide. Contact Derm. 34(2), 154-155 (1996).
41. Yiannias JA, el-Azhary RA, Hand JH, Palizad SY, Rogers RS. Relevant contact sensitivities in patients with the diagnosis of oral lichen planus. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 42(2 Pt 1), 177-182 (2000).
42. Roed-Petersen J, Clemmensen OJ, Menné T, Larsen E. Purpuric contact dermatitis from black rubber chemicals. Contact Derm. 18(3), 166-168 (1988).
43. Katoh N, Hirano S, Kishimoto S, Yasuno H. Dermal contact dermatitis caused by allergy to palladium. Contact Derm. 40(4), 226-227 (1999).
44. Orbaneja JG, Diez LI, Lozano JLS, Conde-Salazar L. Lymphomatoid contact dermatitis: a syndrome produced by epicutaneous hypersensitivity. Contact Derm. 2(3), 139-143 (1976).
45. Sánchez-Motilla JM, Pont V, Nagore E, Rodriguez-Serna M, Sanchez YL, Aliaga A. Pustular allergic contact dermatitis from minoxidil. Contact Derm. 38(5), 283-284 (1998).
46. Wattanakrai P, Miyamoto L, Taylor JS. Occupational pigmentary disorders. In: Handbook of Occupational Dermatology. Kanerva L, Elsner P, Wahlberg JE, Maibach HI (Eds). Springer, Berlin, Germany, 280-294 (2000).
47. Stransky L. The so-called contact dermatoses. Contact Derm. 38(4), 216-217 (1998).
48. Lammintausta K, Maibach HI. Contact dermatitis due to irritation: general principles, etiology and histology. In: Occupational Skin Disease. Adams RM (Ed.). Saunders, PA, USA, 1-15 (1990).
49. Judge MR, Griffiths HA, Basketter DA. Variation in response of human skin to irritant challenge. Contact Derm. 34(2), 115-117 (1996).
50. Lammintausta K, Maibach HI, Wilson D. Irritant reactivity in males and females. Contact Derm. 17(5), 276-280 (1987).
51. Berardesca E, Maibach HI. Racial differences in sodium lauryl sulphate induced cutaneous irritation: black and white. Contact Derm. 18(2), 65-70 (1988).
52. Lammintausta K, Maibach HI. Exogenous and endogenous factors in skin irritation. Int. J. Dermatol. 27 (4), 213-222 (1988).
53. Patil S, Maibach HI. Effect of age and sex on the elicitation of irritant contact dermatitis. Contact Derm. 30(5), 257-264 (1994).
54. Wilhelm KP, Maibach HI. Susceptibility to irritant dermatitis induced by sodium lauryl sulfate. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 23(1), 122-124 (1990).
55. Rietschel RL. Mechanism in irritant contact dermatitis. Clin. Dermatol. 15(4), 557-559 (1997).
56. Agrup G, Dahlquist I, Fregert S et al. Value of history and testing in suspected contact dermatitis. Arch. Dermatol. 101, 212-215 (1970).
57. Cronin E. Clinical prediction of patch test results. Trans. St. John's Hosp. Derm. Soc. 58, 153-162 (1972).
58. Podmore P, Burrows D, Bingham EA. Prediction of patch test results. Contact Derm. 11, 283-284 (1984).
59. Fleming CJ, Burden AD, Forsyth A. Accuracy of questions related to allergic contact dermatitis. Am. J. Contact Dermatitis 11 (4), 218-221 (2000).
60. Maibach HI, Epstein E. Eczematous psoriasis. Semin. Dermatol. 2, 45-50 (1983).
61. Roenigk HH Jr, Epstein E, Maibach HI. Skin manifestations of psoriasis and eczematous psoriasis: maturation. In: Psoriasis (3rd Edition). Roenigk HH Jr, Maibach HI (Eds). Marcel Dekker, NY, USA, 3-11 (1998).
62. Barbaud A, Reichert-Penetrat S, Trechot P et al. The use of skin testing in the investigation of cutaneous adverse drug reactions. Br. J. Dermatol. 139(1), 49-58 (1998).
63. Ale SI, Maibach HI. Evidence-based patch testing. In: Evidence-based Dermatology. Maibach HI, Bashir SJ, McKibbon A (Eds). BC Decker Inc., Hamilton, ON, Canada, 149-174 (2002).
64. Fischer T, Maibach HI. The thin layer rapid use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test), a new patch test method with high accuracy. Br. J. Dermatol. 112(1), 63-68 (1985).
65. Fischer T, Maibach HI. Patch test allergens in petrolatum: a reappraisal. Contact Derm. 11, 224-228 (1984).
66. Wahlberg JE. Petrolatum - a reliable vehicle for metal allergens? Contact Derm. 6, 134-136 (1980).
67. Van Ketel WG. Petrolatum again: an adequate vehicle in cases of metal allergy? Contact Derm. 5, 192-193 (1979).
68. Kreilgård B, Hansen J. Aspects of pharmaceutical and chemical standardization of patch test materials J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 21(4 Pt 2), 836-838 (1989).
69. Kreilgård B, Hansen J, Fischer T. Chemical, pharmaceutical and clinical standardization of the TRUE Test caine mix. Contact Derm. 21(1), 23-27 (1989).
70. Fischer T, Maibach HI. Improved, but not perfect, patch testing, Am. J. Contact Dermatitis 1, 73-90 (1990).
71. de Groot AC. Water versus petrolatum as vehicle for patch testing methylisothiazolinone + methylchloroisothiazolinone (Kathon CG). Contact Derm. 22(5), 300-301 (1990).
72. Agner T, Andersen KE, Björkner B et al. Standardization of the TRUE Test imidazolidinyl urea and diazolidinyl urea patches. Contact Derm. 45(1), 21-25 (2001).
73. Bruze M, Isaksson M, Gruvberger B, Frick-Engfeldt M. Recommendation of appropriate amounts of petrolatum preparation to be applied at patch testing. Contact Derm. 56(5), 281-285 (2007).
74. Antoine JL, Lachapelle JM. Variations in the quantities of petrolatum applied in patch testing. Derm Beruf Umwelt 36(6), 191-194 (1988).
75. Bruze M, Frick-Engfeldt M, Gruvberger B, Isaksson M. Variation in the amount of petrolatum preparation applied at patch testing. Contact Derm. 56(1), 38-42 (2007).
76. Shaw DW, Zhai H, Maibach HI, Niklasson B. Dosage considerations in patch testing with liquid allergens. Contact Derm. 47(2), 86-90 (2002).
77. Marzulli FN, Maibach HI. Effect of vehicles and elicitation concentration in contact dermatitis testing (I). Experimental contact sensitization in humans. Contact Derm. 2, 325-329 (1976).
78. Marzulli FN, Maibach HI. Further studies of the effects of vehicles and the elicitation concentration in experimental contact sensitization testing in humans. Contact Derm. 6, 131-133 (1980).
79. Tanglertsampan C, Maibach HI. The role of vehicles in diagnostic patch testing. A reappraisal. Contact Derm. 29, 169-174 (1993).
80. Samsoen M, Stampf JL, Lelièvre G, Foussereau J. Patch testing with hexavalent chromium salts in different vehicles and with nickel and cobalt in petrolatum. Derm Beruf Umwelt 30(6), 181-184 (1982).
81. Rietschel RL, Warshaw EM, Sasseville D et al. Sensitivity of petrolatum and aqueous vehicles for detecting allergy to imidazolidinylurea, diazolidinylurea, and DMDM hydantoin: a retrospective analysis from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group. Dermatitis 18(3), 155-162 (2007).
82. Vanneste D, Martin P, Lachapelle J-M. Comparative study of the density of particles in suspensions for patch testing. Contact Derm. 6, 197-203 (1980).
83. Gammelgaard B, Fullerton A, Avnstorp C, Menné T. In vitro evaluation of water and petrolatum as vehicles in chromate patch testing. Contact Derm. 27(5), 317-318 (1992).
84. Fisher T, Rystedt I. False-positive, follicular and irritant patch test reactions to metal salts. Contact Derm. 12, 93-98 (1985).
85. Fischer T, Maibach H. Amount of nickel applied with a standard patch test. Contact Derm. 11(5), 285-287 (1984).
86. Ryberg K, Gruvberger B, Zimerson E et al. Chemical investigations of disperse dyes in patch test preparations. Contact Derm. 58(4), 199-209 (2008).
87. Ryberg K, Goossens A, Isaksson M et al. Patch testing of patients allergic to disperse blue 106 and disperse blue 124 with thin-layer chromatograms and purified dyes. Contact Derm. 60(5), 270-278 (2009).
88. Uter W, Hildebrandt S, Geier J, Schnuch A, Lessmann H. Current patch test results in consecutive patients with, and chemical analysis of, disperse blue (DB) 106, DB 124, and the mix of DB 106 and 124. Contact Derm. 57(4), 230-234 (2007).
89. Frick M, Zimerson E, Karlsson D et al. Poor correlation between stated and found concentrations of diphenylmethane-4,4'- diisocyanate (4,4'-MDI) in petrolatum patch-test preparations. Contact Derm. 51(2), 73-78 (2004).
90. Frick-Engfeldt M, Zimerson E, Karlsson D, Skarping G, Isaksson M, Bruze M. Is it possible to improve the patch-test diagnostics for isocyanates? A stability study of petrolatum preparations of diphenylmethane-4,4'-diisocyanate and polymeric diphenylmethane diisocyanate. Contact Derm. 56(1), 27-34 (2007).
91. Nilsson U, Magnusson K, Karlberg O, Karlberg AT. Are contact allergens stable in patch test preparations? Investigation of the degradation of d-limonene hydroperoxides in petrolatum. Contact Derm. 40(3), 127-132 (1999).
92. Erikstam U, Bruze M, Goossens A. Degradation of triglycidyl isocyanurate as a cause of false-negative patch test reaction. Contact Derm. 44(1), 13-17 (2001).
93. Sadhra S, Foulds IS, Gray CN. Oxidation of resin acids in colophony (rosin) and its implications for patch testing. Contact Derm. 39(2), 58-63 (1998).
94. Nakada T, Hostinek JJ, Maibach HI. Nickel content of standard patch test materials. Contact Derm. 39(2), 68-70 (1998).
95. Cyran C, Maibach H. Alternate vehicles for diagnostic patch testing: an update. G. Ital. Dermatol. Venereol. 143(2), 91-94 (2008).
96. Mathias CGT, Maibach HI. When to read a patch test? Int. J. Derm. 18, 127-128 (1979).
97. Macfarlane AW, Curley RK, Graham RM, Lewis-Jones MS, King CM. Delayed patch test reactions at days 7 and 9. Contact Derm. 20(2), 127-132 (1989).
98. Davis MD, Bhate K, Rohlinger AL, Farmer SA, Richardson DM, Weaver AL. Delayed patch test reading after 5 days: the Mayo Clinic experience. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 59(2), 225-233 (2008).
99. Wilkinson DS, Fregert S, Magnusson B et al. Terminology of contact dermatitis. Acta Derm. Venereol. 50 (4), 287-292 (1970).
100. Menné T, White I. Standardization in contact dermatitis. Contact Derm. 58(6), 321-321 (2008).
101. Ivens U, Serup J, O'Gosh K. Allergy patch test reading from photographic images: disagreement on ICDRG grading but agreement on simplified tripartite reading. Skin Res. Technol. 13(1), 110-113 (2007).
102. Bruze M, Isaksson M, Edman B, Björkner B, Fregert S, Möller H. A study on expert reading of patch test reactions: inter-individual accordance. Contact Derm. 32(6), 331-337 (1995).
103. Ale SI, Maibach HI. Scientific basis of patch testing part I. Derm Beruf Umwelt 50(2), 43-50 (2002).
104. Ale SI, Maibach HI. Scientific basis of patch testing part II. Derm Beruf Umwelt 50(3), 91-96 (2002).
105. Ale SI, Maibach HI. Scientific basis of patch testing part III. Derm Beruf Umwelt 50(4), 131-133 (2002).
106. Nethercott, J. Sensitivity and specificity of patch tests. Am. J. Contact Dermatitis 5, 136-142 (1994).
107. Ale SI, Maibach HI. Diagnostic patch test: science and art. In: Dermatotoxicology (7th Edition). Zhai H, Maibach HI, Wilhelm KE (Eds). CRC Press, FL, USA, 673-687 (2007).
108. Diepgen TL, Coenraads PJ. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of patch testing: the more you test, the more you get? Contact Derm. 42(6), 315-317 (2000).
109. Nethercott J. Practical problems in the use of patch test in the evaluation of patients with contact dermatitis. Curr. Probl. Dermatol. 4, 101-123 (1990).
110. Lachapelle JM, Ale SI, Freeman S et al. Proposal for a revised international standard series of patch tests. Contact Derm. 36(3), 121-123 (1997).
111. Cohen DE, Rao S, Brancaccio RR. Use of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group Standard 65-allergen series alone in the evaluation of allergic contact dermatitis: a series of 794 patients. Dermatitis 19(3), 137-141 (2008).
112. Bruze M, Conde-Salazar L, Goossens A, Kanerva L, White IR. Thoughts on sensitizers in a standard patch test series. Contact Derm. 41(5), 241-250 (1999).
113. James WD, Rosenthal LE, Brancaccio RR, Marks JG Jr. American Academy of Dermatology Patch Testing Survey: use and effectiveness of this procedure. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 26(6), 991-994 (1992).
114. Nethercott JR, Holness DL. Validity of patch test screening trays in the evaluation of patients with allergic contact dermatitis. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 21(3 Pt 1), 568 (1989).
115. Menné T, Dooms-Goossens A, Wahlberg JE, White IR, Shaw S. How large a proportion of contact sensitivities are diagnosed with the European standard series? Contact Derm. 26(3), 201-202 (1992).
116. Sheretz EF, Swartz SM. Is the screening patch test tray still worth using? J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 29(6), 1057-1058 (1993).
117. de Groot AC. Patch Testing: Test Concentrations and Vehicles for 2800 Allergens. Elsevier Science Publishers BV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1986).
118. Lachapelle JM. A proposed relevance scoring system for positive allergic patch test reactions: practical implications and limitations. Contact Derm. 36(1), 39-43 (1997).
119. Ale SI, Maibach HI. Clinical relevance in allergic contact dermatitis: an algorithmic approach. Derm Beruf Umwelt 43(3), 119-121 (1995).
120. Ale SI, Maibach HI. Mechanisms in irritant and allergic contact dermatitis. In: Dermatotoxicology (7th Edition). Zhai H, Maibach HI, Wilhelm KE (Eds). CRC Press, FL, USA, 238-263 (2007).
121. Hannuksela M, Salo H. The repeated open application test (ROAT). Contact Derm. 14(4), 221-227 (1986).
122. Christensen O, Møller H. External and internal exposure to the antigen in the hand eczema of nickel allergy. Contact Derm. 1(3), 136-141 (1975).
123. Nakada T, Hostynek JJ, Maibach HI. Use tests: ROAT (repeated open application test)/PUT (provocative use test): an overview. Contact Derm. 43(1), 1-3 (2000).
124. Fischer LA, Johansen JD, Menné T. Methyldibromoglutaronitrile allergy: relationship between patch test and repeated open application test thresholds. Br. J. Dermatol. 159(5), 1138-1143 (2008).
125. Fischer LA, Johansen JD, Menné T. Nickel allergy: relationship between patch test and repeated open application test thresholds. Br. J. Dermatol. 157(4), 723-729 (2007).
126. Andersen KE, Rastogi SC, Carlsen L. The allergen bank: a source of extra contact allergens for the dermatologist in practice. Acta Derm. Venereol. 76, 136-140 (1996).
127. Rustemeyer T, von Blomberg BM, van Hoogstraten IM, Bruynzeel DP, Scheper RJ. Analysis of effector and regulatory immune reactivity to nickel. Clin. Exp. Allergy 34(9), 1458-1466 (2004).
128. Traidl-Hoffmann C, Ring J. Is there an in vitro test for type IV allergy discriminating between sensitization and allergic disease? Clin. Exp. Allergy 38(9), 1412-1415 (2008).
129. Aspegren S, Rorsman H. Short term culture of leucocytes in nickel hypersensitivity. Acta Derm. Venereol. 42, 412-417 (1962).
130. Schpf E, Schulz KH. Lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) for the diagnosis of drug allergy. Arch. Klin. Exp. Dermatol. 237, 177-180 (1970).
131. Pappas A, Orfanos CE, Bertram R. Non-specific lymphocyte transformation in vitro by nickel acetate. A possible source of errors in lymphocyte transformation test (LLT). J. Invest. Dermatol. 55, 198-200 (1970).
132. Nordlin K. Lymphocyte transformation test in diagnosis of nickel allergy. Int. Arch. Allergy Appl. Immunol. 73(2), 151-154 (1984).
133. Svejgaard E, Morling N, Svejgaard A, Veien NK. Lymphocyte transformation induced by nickel sulphate: an in vitro study of subjects with and without a positive nickel patch test. Acta Derm. Venereol. 58, 245-250 (1978).
134. von Blomberg-van der Flier M, van der Burg CK et al. In vitro studies in nickel allergy: diagnostic value of a dual parameter analysis. J. Invest. Dermatol. 88, 362-368 (1987).
135. Lisby S, Hansen LH, Skov L, Menné T, Baadsgaard O. Nickel-induced activation of T cells in individuals with negative patch test to nickel sulphate. Arch. Dermatol. Res. 291(5), 247-252 (1999).
136. Loftenius A, Skoglund A, Ekstrand J, Hovmark A, Möller E. No evidence for specific in vitro lymphocyte reactivity to HgCl2 in patients with dental amalgam-related contact lesions. J. Oral Pathol. Med. 28(8), 364-370 (1999).
137. Cederbrant K, Anderson C, Andersson T, Marcusson-Ståhl M, Hultman P. Cytokine production, lymphocyte proliferation and T-cell receptor Vb expression in primary peripheral blood mononuclear cell cultures from nickel-allergic individuals. Int. Arch. Allergy Immunol. 132, 373-379 (2003).
138. Cavani A, Mei D, Guerra E et al. Patients with allergic contact dermatitis to nickel and nonallergic individuals display different nickel-specific T cell responses. Evidence for the presence of effector CD8+ and regulatory CD4+ T cells. J. Invest. Dermatol. 111, 621-628 (1998).
139. Falsafi-Amin H, Lundeberg L, Bakhiet M, Nordlind K. Early DNA synthesis and cytokine expression in the nickel activation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells in nickel-allergic subjects. Int. Arch. Allergy Immunol. 123(2), 170-176 (2000).
140. Minang JT, Areström I, Troye- Blomberg M, Lundeberg L, Ahlborg N. Nickel, cobalt, chromium, palladium and gold induce a mixed Th1- and Th2-type cytokine response in vitro in subjects with contact allergy to the respective metals. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 146, 417-426 (2006).
141. Schliemann-Willers S, Wigger-Alberti W, Elsner P. Efficacy of a new class of perfluoropolyethers in the prevention of irritant contact dermatitis. Acta Derm. Venereol. 81, 392-394 (2001).
142. Zhai H, Brachman F, Pelosi A et al. A bioengineering study on the efficacy of a skin protectant lotion in prevention SLS-induced dermatitis. Skin Res. Technol. 6, 77-80 (2000).
143. Held E, Agner T. Effect of moisturizers on skin susceptibility to irritants. Acta Derm. Venereol. 81, 104-107 (2001).
144. Held E, Lund H, Agner T. Effect of different moisturizers on SLS-irritated human skin. Contact Derm. 44, 229-234 (2001).
145. Loden M. Barrier recovery and influence of irritant stimuli in skin treated with a moisturizing cream. Contact Derm. 36, 256-260 (1997).
146. Ramsing D, Anger T. Preventive and therapeutic effects of a moisturizer. Acta Derm. Venereol. 77, 335-337 (1997).
147. Ramsing D, Agner T. Effect of glove occlusion on human skin (II). Contact Derm. 34, 258-262 (1996).
148. Jacob SE, Brod B, Crawford GH. Clinically relevant patch test reactions in children - a United States based study. Pediatr. Dermatol. 25(5), 520-527 (2008).
149. Gelmetti C. Skin cleansing in children. JEADV 15(Suppl. 1), 12-15 (2001).
150. Jensen CS, Lisby S, Baadsgaard O, Volund A, Menne T. Decrease in nickel sensitisation in a Danish schoolgirl population with ears pierced after implementation of the nickel-exposure regulation. Br. J. Dermatol. 146(4), 636-642 (2002).
151. European Parliament and Council Directive 94/27/EEC. Official Journal of the European Communities. No.L 188/1-2 (Nickel) (22 July 1994).
152. Swedish National Chemicals Inspectorate. Code of Status 1998:8 (Chromate in cement).
153. Finnish Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Ordinance 1988:210/88 (Formaldehyde in clothes).
154. Technische Regeln fur Gefahrstoffe (Technical rules for hazardous substances) (TRGS) 531st Chemicals Act/law. Leaflets for Hazardous Substances - 93 Erg. Lfg 11/96 (1996).
155. European Council Directive 76/768/EEC. Official Journal of the European Communities. No.L 262 (Cosmetics) (27 September 1976).
156. Lidén C. Legislative and preventive measures related to contact dermatitis. Contact Derm. 44 (2), 65-69 (2001).
157. Hogan D, Ledet, J. Impact of regulation on contact dermatitis. Dermatol. Clin. 27, 385-394 (2009).
158. Wesley NO, Maibach HI. Decreasing allergic contact dermatitis frequency through dermatotoxicologic and epidemiologic based intervention? Food Chem. Toxicol. 41, 857-860 (2003).
159. Mirshahpanah P, Maibach HI. Relationship of patch test positivity in a general versus an eczema population. Contact Derm. 56, 125-130 (2007).
160. White IR, Basketter D. Legislation. In: Contact Dermatitis. Frosch JP. Menné T, Lepoittevin J-P (Eds). Springer, Berlin, Germany, 869-873 (2004).
161. Menne T, Wahlberg, JE. Risk assessment failures of chemicals commonly used in consumer products. Contact Derm. 46, 189-190 (2002).
162. Nielsen NH, Linneberg A, Menne T et al. Incidence of allergic sensitization in Danish adults between 1990 and 1998; the Copenhagen Allergy Study, Denmark. Br. J. Dermatol. 147, 487-492 (2002).
163. Wahlberg JE, Maibach HI. Nonanoic acid irritation - a positive control at routine patch testing? Contact Derm. 6(2), 128-130 (1980).
164. Reiche L, Willis C, Wilkinson J, Shaw S, de Lacharrière O. Clinical morphology of sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) and nonanoic acid (NAA) irritant patch test reactions at 48 h and 96 h in 152 subjects. Contact Derm. 39(5), 240-243 (1998).
165. Löffler H, Becker D, Brasch J, Geier J; German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG). 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. 152(4), 709-719 (2005).
166. Löffler H, Pirker C, Aramaki J, Frosch PJ, Happle R, Effendy I. Evaluation of skin susceptibility to irritancy by routine patch testing with sodium lauryl sulfate. Eur. J. Dermatol. 11(5), 416-419 (2001).
167. Van Beelen AJ, Teunissen MB, Kapsenberg ML, de Jong EC. Interleukin-17 in inflammatory skin disorders. Curr. Opin. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 7, 374-381 (2007).
168. He D, Wu L, Kim HK, Li H, Elmets CA, Xu H. CD8+ IL-17-producing T cells are important in effector functions for the elicitation of contact hypersensitivity responses. J. Immunol. 177(10), 6852-6858 (2006).
169. He D, Wu L, Kim HK, Li H, Elmets CA, Xu H. IL-17 and IFN-g mediate the elicitation of contact hypersensitivity responses by different mechanisms and both are required for optimal responses. J. Immunol. 183(2), 1463-1470 (2009).
170. Asarch A, Barak O, Loo DS, Gottlieb AB. Th17 cells: a new therapeutic target in inflammatory dermatoses. J. Dermatolog. Treat. 19(6), 318-326 (2008).
171. Nakae S, Komiyama Y, Nambu A et al. Antigen-specific T cell sensitization is impaired in IL-17-deficient mice, causing suppression of allergic cellular and humoral responses. Immunity 17, 375-387 (2002).
172. Moed H, von Blomberg M, Bruynzeel DP, Scheper R, Gibbs S, Rustemeyer T. Improved detection of allergen-specific T-cell responses in allergic contact dermatitis through the addition of 'cytokine cocktails'. Exp. Dermatol. 14(8), 634-640 (2005).
173. Bordignon V, Palamara F, Cordiali-Fei P et al. Nickel, palladium and rhodium induced IFN-g and IL-10 production as assessed by in vitro ELISpot-analysis in contact dermatitis patients. BMC Immunol. 15, 9-19 (2008).
174. Depar Morhenn VB, Chang EY, Rheins LA. A noninvasive method for quantifying and distinguishing inflammatory skin reactions. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 41, 687-692 (1999).
175. Andersen KE. The allergen bank: the idea behind it and the preliminary results with it. Curr. Probl. Dermatol. 22, 1-7 (1995).
176. Yiannias JA, Miller R, Kist JM. Creation, history, and future of the Contact Allergen Replacement Database (CARD). Dermatitis 20(6), 322-326 (2009).