Literature DB >> 19426613

Positive patch test reactions to lanolin: cross-sectional data from the north american contact dermatitis group, 1994 to 2006.

Erin M Warshaw1, David D Nelsen, Howard I Maibach, James G Marks, Kathryn A Zug, James S Taylor, Robert L Rietschel, Joseph F Fowler, C G Toby Mathias, Melanie D Pratt, Denis Sasseville, Frances J Storrs, Donald V Belsito, Vincent A DeLeo.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of lanolin sensitivity in referred patients is less than 4%.
OBJECTIVES: To (1) describe patients with positive patch-test reactions to lanolin, (2) determine clinical and occupational relevance associated with reactions to lanolin and common sources, and (3) examine the frequency of co-reacting allergens.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 26,479 patients patch-tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG), 1994 to 2006.
RESULTS: Overall, 2.5% of patients (643 of 25,811) tested to lanolin alcohol 30% in petrolatum had positive reactions. Prevalence decreased from 3.7% in 1996 to 1998 to 1.8% in 2005 to 2006 (p <.0001); 83.4% of all positive reactions were currently relevant, but only 2.5% were occupationally relevant. Lanolin-positive patients were 1.2 times more likely to be male and 1.4 times more likely to have a history of atopic dermatitis when compared to allergic, but lanolin-negative, patients (p < .0002 and p < .0001, respectively). Cosmetics were the most common source. Lanolin-positive patients were significantly more likely to be co-sensitized to another NACDG standard screening allergen (p <.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of allergic patch-test reactions to lanolin in North America patch-test populations is decreasing. Current relevance of reactions was high, but occupational relevance was low. Concomitant reactions were more common in lanolin-positive patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19426613

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dermatitis        ISSN: 1710-3568            Impact factor:   4.845


  7 in total

Review 1.  The Role and Diagnosis of Allergic Contact Dermatitis in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis.

Authors:  Joshua L Owen; Paras P Vakharia; Jonathan I Silverberg
Journal:  Am J Clin Dermatol       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 7.403

2.  Diagnosing lanolin contact allergy with lanolin alcohol and Amerchol L101.

Authors:  Jannet Knijp; Derk P Bruynzeel; Thomas Rustemeyer
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  2019-03-19       Impact factor: 6.600

3.  Tobramycin/dexamethasone eye drops as a better choice for lacrimal duct probing in persistent congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: A consort study.

Authors:  Qin Xiang; Dan Hu; Xu Gao
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 1.817

4.  A Case Report on Stomatitis Venenata Due to the Use of Lip Balm.

Authors:  Kaushik Prakash; Protyusha Guha Biswas; Manoj Prabhakar; Shanmugapriya Sankaravel
Journal:  Med Arch       Date:  2020-02

5.  Contact allergy in children with and without atopic dermatitis: An Italian multicentre study.

Authors:  Domenico Bonamonte; Katharina Hansel; Paolo Romita; Anna Belloni Fortina; Giampiero Girolomoni; Gabriella Fabbrocini; Cataldo Patruno; Maddalena Napolitano; Annalisa Patrizi; Giuseppe Argenziano; Giuseppe Micali; Piergiacomo Calzavara Pinton; Caterina Foti; Luca Stingeni
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  2022-04-28       Impact factor: 6.419

6.  Investigating the role of allergic contact dermatitis in residual ocular surface disease on dupilumab (ROSDD),.

Authors:  Jodie Raffi; Raagini Suresh; Harvey Fishman; Nina Botto; Jenny E Murase
Journal:  Int J Womens Dermatol       Date:  2019-11-07

7.  Clinical relevance of positive patch test reactions to lanolin: A ROAT study.

Authors:  Ada Uldahl; Malin Engfeldt; Cecilia Svedman
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  2020-10-05       Impact factor: 6.600

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.