Can exposure limitations for well-known contact allergens be simplified? An analysis of dose-response patch test data

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 64, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 337-342

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b NONE   (Denmark)

Author keywords

allergy prevention; dose response; elicitation; exposure limitation; patch test

Indexed keywords

2 BROMO 2 BROMOMETHYLGLUTARONITRILE; 2 METHYL 4 ISOTHIAZOLIN 3 ONE; 5 CHLORO 2 METHYL 4 ISOTHIAZOLIN 3 ONE; CHROMIUM; COBALT; CONTACT ALLERGEN; CYCLOHEXENE DERIVATIVE; FORMALDEHYDE; ISOEUGENOL; NICKEL;

ALLERGIC REACTION; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ENVIRONMENT; NONHUMAN; PATCH TEST; SENSITIZATION;

ALDEHYDES; ALLERGENS; ANIMALS; CHROMIUM; COBALT; CYCLOHEXENES; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; EUGENOL; FORMALDEHYDE; HUMANS; MICE; NICKEL; NITRILES; PATCH TESTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; THIAZOLES;

EID: 79955889900     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: 16000536     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2011.01876.x     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Lachappelle J M, Wigger-Alberti W, Boman A, et al., Prevention and therapy. In: Contact Dermatitis, Vol. 4, Frosch P, Menné T, Lepoittevin J P, (eds): Berlin, Springer, 2006: pp. 831-867.
2. Api A M, Basketter D A, Cadby P A, et al., Dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2008: 52: 3-23.
3. Friedmann P S., The immunology of allergic contact dermatitis: the DNCB story. Adv Dermatol 1990: 5: 175-195.
4. 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. (Pubitemid 37414817)
5. Jensen C S, Lisby S, Baadsgaard O, Volund A, Menné T., Decrease in nickel sensitization in a Danish schoolgirl population with ears pierced after implementation of a nickel-exposure regulation. Br J Dermatol 2002: 146: 636-642. (Pubitemid 34437777)
6. Johansen J, Menné T, Christophersen J, Kaaber K, Veien N., Changes in the pattern of sensitization to common contact allergens in Denmark between 1985-1986 and 1997-1998, with a special view to the effect of preventive strategies. Br J Dermatol 2000: 142: 490-495. (Pubitemid 30159073)
7. Schnuch A, Uter W., Decrease in nickel allergy in Germany and regulatory interventions. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 49: 107-108. (Pubitemid 37523859)
8. Pasche F, Hunziker N., Sensitization to Kathon CG in Geneva and Switzerland. Contact Dermatitis 1989: 20: 115-119. (Pubitemid 19051487)
9. Flyvholm M A, Hall B M, Agner T, et al., Threshold for occluded formaldehyde patch test in formaldehyde-sensitive patients. Relationship to repeated open application test with a product containing formaldehyde releaser. Contact Dermatitis 1997: 36: 26-33. (Pubitemid 27077924)
10. Fischer L A, Johansen J D, Menné T., Nickel allergy-relationship between patch test and repeated open application test thresholds. Br J Dermatol 2007: 157: 723-729. (Pubitemid 47389885)
11. Hindsén M, Bruze M, Christensen O B., The significance of previous allergic contact dermatitis for elicitation of delayed hypersensitivity to nickel. Contact Dermatitis 1997: 37: 101-106. (Pubitemid 27443270)
12. Hindsén M, Bruze M., The significance of previous contact dermatitis for elicitation of contact allergy to nickel. Acta Derm Venereol 1998: 78: 367-370. (Pubitemid 28396690)
13. Hindsén M, Bruze M, Christensen O B., Individual variation in nickel patch test reactivity. Am J Contact Dermat 1999: 10: 62-67. (Pubitemid 29269404)
14. Hindsén M, Spiren A, Bruze M., Cross-reactivity between nickel and palladium demonstrated by systemic administration of nickel. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 53: 2-8. (Pubitemid 40977213)
15. Basketter D, Horev L, Slodovnik D, Merimes S, Trattner A, Ingber A., Investigation of the threshold for allergic reactivity to chromium. Contact Dermatitis 2001: 44: 70-74. (Pubitemid 32055686)
16. Andersen K E, Johansen J D, Bruze M, et al., The time-dose-response relationship for elicitation of contact dermatitis in isoeugenol allergic individuals. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2001: 170: 166-171. (Pubitemid 32215847)
17. Bruze M, Johansen J D, Andersen K E, et al., Deodorants: an experimental provocation study with isoeugenol. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 260-267. (Pubitemid 40756564)
18. Fischer L A, Menné T, Avnstorp C, Kasting G B, Johansen J D., Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde allergy: relationship between patch test and repeated open application test thresholds. Br J Dermatol 2009: 161: 560-567.
19. Johansen J D, Frosch P J, Svedman C, Andersen K E, Bruze M, Pirker C, Menné T., Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde-known as Lyral: quantitative aspects and risk assessment of an important fragrance allergen. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 48: 310-316. (Pubitemid 37330263)
20. Jorgensen P H, Jensen C D, Rastogi S, Andersen K E, Johansen J D., Experimental elicitation with hydroxyisohexyl-3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde- containing deodorants. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 56: 146-150. (Pubitemid 46232963)
21. Fischer L A, Johansen J D, Menné T., Methyldibromo glutaronitrile allergy-relationship between patch test and repeated open application test thresholds. Br J Dermatol 2008: 159: 1138-1143.
22. Jensen C D, Johansen J D, Menne T, Andersen K E., Methyldibromo glutaronitrile in rinse-off products causes allergic contact dermatitis: an experimental study. Br J Dermatol 2004: 150: 90-95. (Pubitemid 38234011)
23. Andersen K E, Lidén C, Hansen J, Volund A., Dose-response testing with nickel sulphate using the TRUE test in nickel-sensitive individuals. Multiple nickel sulphate patch-test reactions do not cause an 'angry back'. Br J Dermatol 1993: 129: 50-56. (Pubitemid 23211048)
24. Frankild S, Volund A, Wahlberg J E, Andersen K E., Comparison of the sensitivities of the Buehler test and the guinea pig maximization test for predictive testing of contact allergy. Acta Derm Venereol 2000: 80: 256-262.
25. Johansen J D, Bernard G, Gimenez-Arnau E, Lepoittevin J P, Bruze M, Andersen K E., Comparison of elicitation potential of chloroatranol and atranol-2 allergens in oak moss absolute. Contact Dermatitis 2006: 54: 192-195.
26. 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.
27. Magnusson B, Kligman A M., Induction of Hypersensitivity. Allergic Contact Dermatitis in the Guinea Pig, Identifications of Contact Allergens: Springfield, Charles C Thomas, 1970: pp. 44-76.
28. Schnitzer A., Beitrag zur Frage das Mechanisms der Sensibiliserung. Dermatologica 1942: 85: 339-347.
29. 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. (Pubitemid 17181890)
30. Kimber I, Basketter D A., The murine local lymph node assay: a commentary on collaborative studies and new directions. Food Chem Toxicol 1992: 30: 165-169.
31. Gerberick G F, Robinson M K, Ryan C A, et al., Contact allergenic potency: correlation of human and local lymph node assay data. Am J Contact Dermat 2001: 12: 156-161. (Pubitemid 32862092)
32. Kimber I, Dearman R J, Basketter D A, Ryan C A, Gerberick G F., The local lymph node assay: past, present and future. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 47: 315-328. (Pubitemid 36246404)
33. Lewis P, Heeringa S., A set of scientific issues being considered by the Environmental Protection Agency Regarding: Consultation on Dermal Issues for Exposure to Pesticides. In: Meeting minutes, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting, May 4-6, 2004 held at Holiday Inn Rosslyn Hotel at Key Bridge Hotel Arlington, Virginia, SAP Report. No. 2004-2002, 2004 July 1.
34. Basketter D A, Gerberick F, Kimber I., The local lymph node assay and the assessment of relative potency: status of validation. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 57: 70-75.
35. Api A M, Basketter D, Cadby P A, et al., GRA Expert Group. Dermal Sensitization Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) for Fragrance Ingredients, Technical Dossier, Revised 26 May, 2006: Revised 22 June, 2006, 15 March 2006.
36. Ryan C A, Cruse L W, Skinner R A, Dearman R J, Kimber I, Gerberick G F., Examination of a vehicle for use with water soluble materials in the murine local lymph node assay. Food Chem Toxicol 2002: 40: 1719-1725.
37. Warbrick E V, Dearman R J, Basketter D A, Kimber I., Influence of application vehicle on skin sensitization to methylchloroisothiazolinone/ methylisothiazolinone: an analysis using the local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 41: 325-329. (Pubitemid 30018888)
38. Fischer L A, Menné T, Johansen J D., Experimental nickel elicitation thresholds-a review focusing on occluded nickel exposure. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 57-64. (Pubitemid 40343852)
39. Basketter D A, Andersen K E, Lidén C, Van Loveren H, Boman A, Kimber I, Alanko K, Berggren E., Evaluation of the skin sensitizing potency of chemicals by using the existing methods and considerations of relevance for elicitation. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 39-43. (Pubitemid 40293090)
40. Paramasivan P, Lai C, Pickard C, Ardern-Jones M, Healy E, Friedmann PS., Repeated low-dose skin exposure is an effective sensitizing stimulus, a factor to be taken into account in predicting sensitization risk. Br J Dermatol 2010: 162: 594-547.
41. Basketter D A, Jefferies D, Safford B J, et al., The impact of exposure variables on the induction of skin sensitization. Contact Dermatitis 2006: 55: 178-185. (Pubitemid 44199276)
42. Johansen J D, Skov L, Volund A, Andersen K, Menné T., Allergens in combination have a synergistic effect on the elicitation response: a study of fragrance-sensitized individuals. Br J Dermatol 1998: 139: 264-270. (Pubitemid 28389399)
43. Wahlberg J E, Skog E., Nickel allergy and atopy. Threshold of nickel sensitivity and immunoglobulin E determinations. Br J Dermatol 1971: 85: 97-104.
44. Hannuksela M., Sensitivity of various skin sites in the repeated open application. Am J Contact Dermat 1991: 2: 102-104.
45. Zachariae C, Hall B, Cottin M, Cupferman S, Andersen K E, Menné 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. (Pubitemid 41719276)
46. Fischer L A, Voelund A, Andersen K E, Menné T, Johansen J D., The dose-response relationship between the patch test and ROAT and the potential use for regulatory purposes. Contact Dermatitis 2009: 61: 201-208.