Clinical relevance of positive patch test reactions to lanolin: A ROAT study.
allergic contact dermatitis, Amerchol L101, CAS no. 8027-33-6, emollient, lanolin, patch testing, relevance, repeated open application test
Journal
Contact dermatitis
ISSN: 1600-0536
Titre abrégé: Contact Dermatitis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7604950
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
15
05
2020
revised:
20
08
2020
accepted:
23
08
2020
pubmed:
28
8
2020
medline:
9
9
2021
entrez:
27
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Lanolin is often included when patch testing for common contact allergens. The clinical relevance of a positive patch test reaction to lanolin markers is, however, still a subject for debate. To evaluate Amerchol L101 as a marker of lanolin allergy and investigate the clinical impact of lanolin-containing moisturizers on healthy and damaged skin using the repeated open application test (ROAT). Twelve test subjects and 14 controls were patch tested with Amerchol L 101 and additional lanolin markers. Subsequently, a blinded ROAT was performed on the arms of the study participants for 4 weeks. Each participant applied a lanolin-free cream base and two different lanolin-containing test creams twice daily on one arm with intact skin and on the other arm with irritant dermatitis, induced by sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS). Eleven test subjects (92%) had positive patch test reactions to Amerchol L 101 when retested and one test subject (8%) had a doubtful reaction. None of the study participants had any skin reactions to the ROAT on intact skin and all participants healed during the ROAT on damaged skin. Lanolin-containing emollients do not cause or worsen existing dermatitis when performing ROAT in volunteers patch test positive to Amerchol L101.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Lanolin is often included when patch testing for common contact allergens. The clinical relevance of a positive patch test reaction to lanolin markers is, however, still a subject for debate.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate Amerchol L101 as a marker of lanolin allergy and investigate the clinical impact of lanolin-containing moisturizers on healthy and damaged skin using the repeated open application test (ROAT).
METHODS
METHODS
Twelve test subjects and 14 controls were patch tested with Amerchol L 101 and additional lanolin markers. Subsequently, a blinded ROAT was performed on the arms of the study participants for 4 weeks. Each participant applied a lanolin-free cream base and two different lanolin-containing test creams twice daily on one arm with intact skin and on the other arm with irritant dermatitis, induced by sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Eleven test subjects (92%) had positive patch test reactions to Amerchol L 101 when retested and one test subject (8%) had a doubtful reaction. None of the study participants had any skin reactions to the ROAT on intact skin and all participants healed during the ROAT on damaged skin.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Lanolin-containing emollients do not cause or worsen existing dermatitis when performing ROAT in volunteers patch test positive to Amerchol L101.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32844454
doi: 10.1111/cod.13689
pmc: PMC7756495
doi:
Substances chimiques
Amerchol L101
0
Lanolin
8006-54-0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
41-49Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Contact Dermatitis. 1985 Feb;12(2):93-8
pubmed: 3157537
Contact Dermatitis. 2017 Jan;76(1):19-26
pubmed: 27593358
Dermatitis. 2009 Mar-Apr;20(2):79-88
pubmed: 19426613
Dermatitis. 2008 Mar-Apr;19(2):63-72
pubmed: 18413106
Br J Nurs. 2000 Jan 13-26;9(1):54-7
pubmed: 10887849
Contact Dermatitis. 2003 Feb;48(2):99-107
pubmed: 12694214
Contact Dermatitis. 2021 Jan;84(1):41-49
pubmed: 32844454
Contact Dermatitis. 2007 May;56(5):281-5
pubmed: 17441852
Dermatitis. 2011 Jul-Aug;22(4):204-10
pubmed: 21781636
Dermatitis. 2013 May-Jun;24(3):119-23
pubmed: 23665833
Br J Dermatol. 2005 Apr;152(4):709-19
pubmed: 15840103
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. 2018 Jan;78(1):70-75
pubmed: 28940210
Br J Dermatol. 2016 Feb;174(2):371-9
pubmed: 26480304
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017 Apr;31(4):664-671
pubmed: 27896884
Eur J Dermatol. 2018 Oct 1;28(5):668-676
pubmed: 30530435
Acta Derm Venereol. 2015 May;95(5):583-6
pubmed: 25367826
Arch Dermatol. 2008 Oct;144(10):1329-36
pubmed: 18936397
Contact Dermatitis. 1983 Sep;9(5):425-6
pubmed: 6627932
Contact Dermatitis. 2017 Sep;77(3):151-158
pubmed: 28194803
Br J Dermatol. 1996 Feb;134(2):208-14
pubmed: 8746331
Contact Dermatitis. 1997 Aug;37(2):53-69
pubmed: 9285167
Contact Dermatitis. 1989 Apr;20(4):287-90
pubmed: 2752739
Br J Dermatol. 2001 Jul;145(1):38-44
pubmed: 11453905
Contact Dermatitis. 2018 May;78(5):367-369
pubmed: 29611262
Contact Dermatitis. 2019 May;80(5):298-303
pubmed: 30624788
Contact Dermatitis. 2017 Mar;76(3):151-159
pubmed: 27861990
Trans St Johns Hosp Dermatol Soc. 1963;49:127-40
pubmed: 14116129
Br J Dermatol. 1991 Dec;125(6):573-6
pubmed: 1760363
Contact Dermatitis. 2015 Oct;73(4):195-221
pubmed: 26179009
Contact Dermatitis. 1998 Aug;39(2):95-6
pubmed: 9746200
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016 Nov;25(11):1305-1312
pubmed: 27464585
Contact Dermatitis. 1981 Mar;7(2):80-3
pubmed: 7238016