Diagnosing lanolin contact allergy with lanolin alcohol and Amerchol L101.


Journal

Contact dermatitis
ISSN: 1600-0536
Titre abrégé: Contact Dermatitis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7604950

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
May 2019
Historique:
received: 22 08 2018
revised: 31 12 2018
accepted: 04 01 2019
pubmed: 10 1 2019
medline: 11 9 2019
entrez: 10 1 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The prevalence of lanolin contact allergy in dermatitis patients varies from 1.2% to 6.9%. Different lanolin derivatives are used in patch testing. To determine which combination of lanolin derivatives is most effective in patch testing for the diagnosis of lanolin contact allergy. A retrospective analysis of patients patch tested between 2016 and 2017 was performed. Patients were eligible if they had been tested with lanolin alcohol 30% pet., Amerchol L101 50% pet., and a supplementary series containing other lanolin derivatives. Lanolin alcohol and Amerchol L101 were tested in duplicate. Of 594 patients, 28.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 25.1%-32.3%) had a positive patch test reaction to at least one lanolin derivative. Reactions to lanolin alcohol (14.7%, 95%CI: 11.3%-18.2%) and Amerchol L101 (15.0%, 95%CI: 11.5%-18.5%) were common in the routinely tested series. Reactions to other test preparations were significantly less frequent (P < 0.05). The addition of Amerchol L101 to lanolin alcohol significantly increased the number of positive cases (odds ratio 1.79, P < 0.001). The combination of lanolin alcohol and Amerchol L101 is effective in patch testing for the diagnosis of lanolin contact allergy. Routinely testing with other lanolin derivatives may not be worthwhile, as it detects only a few additional patients.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The prevalence of lanolin contact allergy in dermatitis patients varies from 1.2% to 6.9%. Different lanolin derivatives are used in patch testing.
OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE
To determine which combination of lanolin derivatives is most effective in patch testing for the diagnosis of lanolin contact allergy.
METHODS METHODS
A retrospective analysis of patients patch tested between 2016 and 2017 was performed. Patients were eligible if they had been tested with lanolin alcohol 30% pet., Amerchol L101 50% pet., and a supplementary series containing other lanolin derivatives. Lanolin alcohol and Amerchol L101 were tested in duplicate.
RESULTS RESULTS
Of 594 patients, 28.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 25.1%-32.3%) had a positive patch test reaction to at least one lanolin derivative. Reactions to lanolin alcohol (14.7%, 95%CI: 11.3%-18.2%) and Amerchol L101 (15.0%, 95%CI: 11.5%-18.5%) were common in the routinely tested series. Reactions to other test preparations were significantly less frequent (P < 0.05). The addition of Amerchol L101 to lanolin alcohol significantly increased the number of positive cases (odds ratio 1.79, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The combination of lanolin alcohol and Amerchol L101 is effective in patch testing for the diagnosis of lanolin contact allergy. Routinely testing with other lanolin derivatives may not be worthwhile, as it detects only a few additional patients.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30624788
doi: 10.1111/cod.13210
pmc: PMC6593808
doi:

Substances chimiques

Alcohols 0
Amerchol L101 0
Lanolin 8006-54-0

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

298-303

Informations de copyright

© 2019 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Références

Contact Dermatitis. 2018 Jan;78(1):70-75
pubmed: 28940210
Contact Dermatitis. 2002 Feb;46(2):118
pubmed: 11918612
Contact Dermatitis. 2000 Jul;43(1):1-3
pubmed: 10902580
Dermatitis. 2009 Mar-Apr;20(2):79-88
pubmed: 19426613
Dermatitis. 2008 Mar-Apr;19(2):63-72
pubmed: 18413106
J Am Acad Dermatol. 1994 Oct;31(4):584-91
pubmed: 8089284
Contact Dermatitis. 1992 Sep;27(3):203-4
pubmed: 1451481
Contact Dermatitis. 2003 May;48(5):280-2
pubmed: 12868978
Contact Dermatitis. 2017 Mar;76(3):151-159
pubmed: 27861990
Dermatitis. 2013 May-Jun;24(3):119-23
pubmed: 23665833
Contact Dermatitis. 2015 Oct;73(4):195-221
pubmed: 26179009
Contact Dermatitis. 1997 Mar;36(3):150-1
pubmed: 9145265
Contact Dermatitis. 1979 Mar;5(2):65-72
pubmed: 467028
Br J Dermatol. 2001 Jul;145(1):28-31
pubmed: 11453903
Contact Dermatitis. 1979 May;5(3):137-9
pubmed: 455960
J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989 Dec;21(6):1196-202
pubmed: 2584455
Contact Dermatitis. 2003 Nov;49(5):270-1
pubmed: 14996062
Contact Dermatitis. 2008 Jul;59(1):63-5
pubmed: 18598314
Allergy. 2014 Jan;69(1):28-36
pubmed: 24372195
Contact Dermatitis. 2018 May;78(5):367-369
pubmed: 29611262
Contact Dermatitis. 2019 May;80(5):298-303
pubmed: 30624788

Auteurs

Jannet Knijp (J)

Department of Dermatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Derk P Bruynzeel (DP)

Department of Dermatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Thomas Rustemeyer (T)

Department of Dermatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH