Nickel: the search for alternative, optimal and non‐irritant patch test preparations

Wahlberg, Jan E.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0846.1996.tb00075.x

Cited by 20 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The irritation potential of the salts was determined by application under occlusion to healthy volunteers and evaluation of irritancy by objective measurement with the laser Doppler technique. Comparison of equimolar concentrations in the range of 0.01-0.38 M showed a clear doseresponse relationship, whereby the chloride and the nitrate were more irritating than the sulfate; 0.30 M nickel chloride and nickel nitrate caused erythema, while lower concentrations (0.01-0.10 M) did not affect skin blood flow [6].…”

Section: Nickel Compoundsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…False-negative results may occur due to actual allergen concentrations which fall short of label concentration [25] or the extremely long induction or lag times, demonstrated in skin penetration experiments with nickel salts [6][7][8]. In practice, also 2.5% nickel sulfate is used in the USA, Sweden and Japan instead of 5% [26], but, as Cronin [43] pointed out, up to 20% of true nickel sensitivities can thereby be missed [44].…”

Section: False-positive and False-negative Reactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The pronounced irritancy of nickel salts (nickel sulfate, nickel nitrate, nickel chloride) is one difficulty encountered in the appropriate performance of NAH diagnostic patch testing [6]. For that reason, the role of the counterion on the irritation potential of nickel salts under simulated patch test conditions has been investigated in human skin in vivo, whereby the irritation potential was considered the expression of skin permeability [7][8][9].…”

Section: Nickel Compoundsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most common cause for a false-positive diagnosis is the irritant effect of the patch test concentration used, as testing is performed at levels close to the irritating dose; also uneven distribution of the salt (usually nickel sulfate crystals) in the vehicle (usually petrolatum) may cause foci of high concentration under the patch [6][7][8]. Intradermal testing has been proposed as an alternative, bypassing the SC barrier [36,37].…”

Section: False-positive and False-negative Reactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Diagnostic Testing for Nickel Allergic Hypersensitivity: Patch Testing versus Lymphocyte Transformation Test

Hostýnek

Reagan²,

Maibach

2002

Exog Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review evaluates the lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) as an in vitro alternative to the traditional patch testing. Patch test results require knowledge, practice and experience for correct biological and clinical interpretation, and in spite of long-term use, the method is fraught with technical and interpretative limitations. Nickel in particular is an allergen eliciting false-positive reactions in patch testing due to the irritancy of test materials; it is sometimes difficult to distinguish an irritant reaction from a true allergic response, and patients may need to be tested more than once. Also false-negative reactions can occur due to varying sensitivity of the patient. It therefore appears reasonable to search for a more objective, in vitro alternative; the LTT appears one procedure which gives relatively reliable results. Still, at this point this method can only be used in association with patch testing, and it has often given results inconsistent with the patch test.

show abstract

Section: Nickel Compoundsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: False-positive and False-negative Reactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Nickel Compoundsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: False-positive and False-negative Reactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Diagnostic Testing for Nickel Allergic Hypersensitivity: Patch Testing versus Lymphocyte Transformation Test

Hostýnek

Reagan²,

Maibach

2002

Exog Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Especially in the nickel chloride experiment, no lag time was observed preceding diffusion, while through SC the lag times measured with various nickel salts would reach up to 90 h preceding the appearance of the permeant in the receptor phase [14,15].…”

Section: Choice Of Barrier Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flux of a Nickel(II) Salt versus a Nickel(II) Soap across Human Skin in vitro

Hostýnek¹

2003

Exog Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Contrary to in vitro data on skin diffusivity of nickel salts indicating slow rates of diffusion, contact allergy to nickel among the general population is frequent, indicating facile skin penetration. Objective: To demonstrate that the preferred diffusion of a lipophilic oxidation product of nickel formed in contact with the skin follows the multilamellar lipid region which envelops the corneocytes. Method: Diffusion of nickel chloride was compared with that of the lipophilic nickel soap, the dioctanoate. Results: The dioctanoate soap showed a significantly lower rate of diffusion (K_p = 1.4 × 10^–3 ± 5.7 × 10^–4 cm/h) than the chloride salt (K_p = 9.8 × 10^–3 ± 4.8 × 10^–4 cm/h), with a relatively high level of nickel retained in the tissue. Conclusions: (a) The molecular volume of the nickel dioctanoate overrides the effect of compound polarity; (b) the rates of diffusion measured through dermatomed skin are higher than those heretofore measured through full-thickness skin, epidermal tissue or stratum corneum; (c) both the nickel salt and soap appear to diffuse primarily via appendages; (d) the cause for the pronounced immune response to nickel in contact with the skin appears to lie in amounts retained in the viable skin strata; (e) skin from a young donor appears more permeable to nickel compounds than skin from an older source stemming from the same anatomical site.

show abstract

Patch Testing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nickel: the search for alternative, optimal and non‐irritant patch test preparations

Abstract: The laser Doppler technique is more sensitive than the naked eye and can indicate nickel patch test preparations with marginal irritant properties. Some promising alternative candidates have been identified.

Cited by 20 publications

References 25 publications

Diagnostic Testing for Nickel Allergic Hypersensitivity: Patch Testing versus Lymphocyte Transformation Test

Diagnostic Testing for Nickel Allergic Hypersensitivity: Patch Testing versus Lymphocyte Transformation Test

Flux of a Nickel(II) Salt versus a Nickel(II) Soap across Human Skin in vitro

Patch Testing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About