Literature DB >> 20731693

Contact allergy to fragrances: current patch test results (2005-2008) from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology.

Wolfgang Uter1, Johannes Geier, Peter Frosch, Axel Schnuch.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Contact sensitization to fragrances is common both in clinical and in population samples. The spectrum of allergens is broad and diverse, and to some extent covered by a set of screening agents.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the current frequency of contact sensitization to fragrance allergens in patients routinely patch tested for suspected allergic contact dermatitis with the baseline series and special series. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2005 and 2008, 40 709 patients were patch tested in the departments of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (http://www.ivdk.org). Results with selected fragrances were analysed.
RESULTS: Of all patients tested with the German baseline series, 15.1% reacted positively to fragrance mix (FM) I (6.6% positive), FM II (4.6% positive) or Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru, 6.8% positive). Among the single constituents of FM I, Evernia prunastri [oak moss absolute (abs.)] was the leading allergen, and amyl cinnamal the least frequent allergen. Among fragrances not included in FM I or FM II, Evernia furfuracea (tree moss abs.) was the most common allergen.
CONCLUSIONS: For diagnostic purposes, it is necessary to combine several screening agents. The frequency of contact sensitization differs greatly between single fragrances.
© 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20731693     DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2010.01759.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contact Dermatitis        ISSN: 0105-1873            Impact factor:   6.600


  7 in total

Review 1.  [Current contact allergens].

Authors:  J Geier; W Uter; H Lessmann; A Schnuch
Journal:  Hautarzt       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 0.751

2.  Evaluating Confidence in Toxicity Assessments Based on Experimental Data and In Silico Predictions.

Authors:  Candice Johnson; Lennart T Anger; Romualdo Benigni; David Bower; Frank Bringezu; Kevin M Crofton; Mark T D Cronin; Kevin P Cross; Magdalena Dettwiler; Markus Frericks; Fjodor Melnikov; Scott Miller; David W Roberts; Diana Suarez-Rodriguez; Alessandra Roncaglioni; Elena Lo Piparo; Raymond R Tice; Craig Zwickl; Glenn J Myatt
Journal:  Comput Toxicol       Date:  2021-11-08

3.  Positive results of patch tests with fragrance markers: analysis of a 15-year period at a Brazilian dermatology center.

Authors:  Mariana de Figueiredo Silva Hafner; Sandy Daniele Germano Munhoz; Ariel Garcia Jeldes; Rosana Lazzarini
Journal:  An Bras Dermatol       Date:  2018 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 1.896

Review 4.  Contact allergy to fragrances: current clinical and regulatory trends.

Authors:  W Uter
Journal:  Allergol Select       Date:  2017-08-04

Review 5. 

Authors:  Jörg Kleine-Tebbe; Richard Brans; Uta Jappe
Journal:  Allergo J       Date:  2022-03-21

6.  Weight of Evidence Approach for Skin Sensitization Potency Categorization of Fragrance Ingredients.

Authors:  Mihwa Na; Devin O'Brien; Maura Lavelle; Isabelle Lee; G Frank Gerberick; Anne Marie Api
Journal:  Dermatitis       Date:  2022 Mar-Apr 01       Impact factor: 4.867

7.  Myroxylon pereirae (balsam of Peru): Still worth testing?

Authors:  Fabrizio Guarneri; Monica Corazza; Luca Stingeni; Cataldo Patruno; Maddalena Napolitano; Paolo D M Pigatto; Rosella Gallo; Antonio Cristaudo; Paolo Romita; Annamaria Offidani; Donatella Schena; Nicola Milanesi; Giuseppe Micali; Myriam Zucca; Caterina Foti
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 6.600

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.