Thoughts on sensitizers in a standard patch test series

Bruze, Magnus; Condé‐Salazar, L.; Goossens, An; Kanerva, Lasse; White, Ian R.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1999.tb06154.x

Cited by 225 publications

(268 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

256

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This test has to be carried out by a dermatologist who needs all the relevant ingredients as single substances or adequate mixtures. At least substances from the European baseline patch test series [14][15][16] should be tested, and they contain different fragrance mixes as well as preservatives and other relevant substances. Preferably the product as is could be included in the test.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experiences and Statistical Evaluation of Serious Undesirable Effects of Cosmetic Products in the EU

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Council of Europe created an outline for a vigilant system of undesirable effects of cosmetic products in 2006. In 2013, some of those aspects were included in the European Cosmetics Regulation (EC) 1223/2009. Since then, serious undesirable effects (SUEs), which are the tip of the iceberg of all undesirable effects of cosmetic products, have to be reported to competent authorities. Neglecting the first phase of establishing the system, we have about two years of experience regarding the notification of SUEs. This notification system is based on a huge amount of cases that allow us to identify occurring problems at an early stage through a signal of increased reported cases for a certain product. It has already been shown that the system is able to identify products that have the potential to cause health risks even if they seem to comply with the legal requirements and the safeguard clause was applied. Until May 2016, 680 cases of SUEs were shared in the EU. The statistics of SUEs indicate that hair dyes and skin care products are the product types that cause the most SUEs. Almost 80% of all SUEs occurred in the head area, especially the skin of the face was affected.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experiences and Statistical Evaluation of Serious Undesirable Effects of Cosmetic Products in the EU

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The patch test is considered to be indicative for a delayed type contact allergy which requires a previous exposition to the allergen [8][9][10]. For two patients, additionally a prick test was conducted because the reaction occurred within a very short period of time after the exposure, being indicative for an immediate type (type I) of allergy, for which the prick test would be adequate for verification [11].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A rare allergy to a polyether dental impression material

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Polyether impression materials have been used in dentistry for more than 40 years. Allergic reactions to these materials such as reported in the 1970s ceased after replacement of a catalyst. Very recently, however, patients have started to report symptoms that suggest a new allergic reaction from polyether impression materials. Here, we report on the results of allergy testing with polyether impression materials as well as with its components. Eight patients with clinical symptoms of a contact allergy (swelling, redness or blisters) after exposure to a polyether impression material were subjected to patch tests, two of them additionally to a prick test. A further patient with atypical symptoms of an allergy (nausea and vomiting after contact with a polyether impression material in the oral cavity) but with a history of other allergic reaction was also patch tested. The prick tests showed no immediate reactions in the two patients tested. In the patch tests, all eight patients with typical clinical symptoms showed positive reactions to the mixed polyether impression materials, to the base paste or to a base paste component. The patient with the atypical clinical symptoms did not show any positive patch test reactions. Polyether impression materials may evoke type IV allergic reactions. The causative agent was a component of the base paste. In consideration of the widespread use of this impression material (millions of applications per year) and in comparison to the number of adverse reactions from other dental materials, the number of such allergic reactions is very low. In very scarce cases, positive allergic reactions to polyether impression materials are possible.

show abstract

“…It has been suggested that an allergen should be included in the standard series when > 0.5-1% of routinely tested patients react positively. 5 There are, however, other important factors to consider, such as the relevance of these positive reactions and certain allergens, where missing a positive patch test reaction to a certain allergen would be detrimental to treatment; such as those used in medicament creams. It is, therefore, understandable that the baseline series will vary across centres, reflecting regional differences in allergen exposures and the threshold chosen for testing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%