Wolfgang Uter1, Radoslaw Spiewak2, Susan M Cooper3, Mark Wilkinson4, Javier Sánchez Pérez5, Axel Schnuch6, Marie-Louise Schuttelaar7. 1. Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Erlangen/Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. wolfgang.uter@fau.de. 2. Department of Experimental Dermatology and Cosmetology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland. 3. Department of Dermatology, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, UK. 4. Department of Dermatology, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, UK. 5. Department of Dermatology, Hospital Universitario la Princesa, Madrid, Spain. 6. Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), University Medicine Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany. 7. Department of Dermatology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to give an overview of the prevalence of contact allergy to active ingredients and excipients of topical medications across Europe. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data collected by the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (www.essca-dc.org) with substances applied to consecutively patch tested patients, 2009-2012, in 54 departments in 12 European countries. RESULTS: In view of the varying composition of the baseline series used in the previously mentioned departments and countries, between 58 833 (lanolin alcohols) and 16 498 patients (sodium metabisulfite) were patch tested with the topical agents covered in this study. Among these, positive (allergic) reactions were most commonly observed to sodium metabisulfite (3.12% positive), followed by propolis (2.48%), Compositae mix (1.73%), lanolin alcohols (1.65%) and caine mix III (benzocaine, cinchocaine and tetracaine; 1.27%). CONCLUSIONS: Several of the substances warrant routine screening for contact allergy, i.e. patch testing in a baseline series. However, in view of a vast number of other topical agents, additional patch testing with the suspect topical drug preparations (including natural remedies and cosmetics) is warranted. In the event of a positive test to the (pharmaceutical) product, single ingredients should be tested individually to precisely identify the hapten(s).
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to give an overview of the prevalence of contact allergy to active ingredients and excipients of topical medications across Europe. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data collected by the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (www.essca-dc.org) with substances applied to consecutively patch tested patients, 2009-2012, in 54 departments in 12 European countries. RESULTS: In view of the varying composition of the baseline series used in the previously mentioned departments and countries, between 58 833 (lanolin alcohols) and 16 498 patients (sodium metabisulfite) were patch tested with the topical agents covered in this study. Among these, positive (allergic) reactions were most commonly observed to sodium metabisulfite (3.12% positive), followed by propolis (2.48%), Compositae mix (1.73%), lanolin alcohols (1.65%) and caine mix III (benzocaine, cinchocaine and tetracaine; 1.27%). CONCLUSIONS: Several of the substances warrant routine screening for contact allergy, i.e. patch testing in a baseline series. However, in view of a vast number of other topical agents, additional patch testing with the suspect topical drug preparations (including natural remedies and cosmetics) is warranted. In the event of a positive test to the (pharmaceutical) product, single ingredients should be tested individually to precisely identify the hapten(s).
Authors: Gunnar S A Nyman; Ana Maria Giménez-Arnau; Jurate Grigaitiene; Laura Malinauskiene; Evy Paulsen; Lina Hagvall Journal: Acta Derm Venereol Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 3.875
Authors: Jart A F Oosterhaven; Wolfgang Uter; Werner Aberer; José C Armario-Hita; Barbara K Ballmer-Weber; Andrea Bauer; Magdalena Czarnecka-Operacz; Peter Elsner; Juan García-Gavín; Ana M Giménez-Arnau; Swen M John; Beata Kręcisz; Vera Mahler; Thomas Rustemeyer; Anna Sadowska-Przytocka; Javier Sánchez-Pérez; Dagmar Simon; Skaidra Valiukevičienė; Elke Weisshaar; Marie L A Schuttelaar Journal: Contact Dermatitis Date: 2019-01-14 Impact factor: 6.600
Authors: Cynthia C A van Amerongen; Robert Ofenloch; Daan Dittmar; Marie L A Schuttelaar Journal: Contact Dermatitis Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 6.600