Fragrance- and Botanical-Related Allergy and Associated Concomitant Reactions: A Retrospective Analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data 2007-2016.
Acrolein
/ adverse effects
Adolescent
Adult
Allergens
/ adverse effects
Asteraceae
/ adverse effects
Cross Reactions
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact
/ etiology
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Myroxylon
/ adverse effects
Odorants
Perfume
/ adverse effects
Propolis
/ adverse effects
Retrospective Studies
Young Adult
Journal
Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug
ISSN: 2162-5220
Titre abrégé: Dermatitis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101207335
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
pubmed:
5
12
2020
medline:
26
10
2021
entrez:
4
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
When fragrance- and botanical-related (F/BR) allergy is identified, concomitant reaction (CR) frequencies can help direct avoidance recommendations. This study aimed to determine the CR rates for F/BR allergens. A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group data 2007-2016 was conducted. Frequencies of demographics, positive reactions, strength of reactions, trends, and CR rates were calculated. A total of 5504 (22.7%) of 24,246 patients had F/BR allergic reactions. The F/BR-sensitive patients were more likely to be female, older than age 40 years, and White and have face, leg, or anal/genital dermatitis. Top allergens included fragrance mix I (FMI, 10.6%), Myroxylon pereirae (balsam of Peru [BOP], 8%), and fragrance mix II (FMII, 4.9%). There were increasing trends for FMI, FMII, cinnamic aldehyde, and Compositae mix and decreasing trends for BOP and propolis. When patients were positive to any F/BR allergen, they were likely to be positive to FMI, FMII, and BOP. Concomitant reactions were bidirectional between multiple fragrance allergens and propolis, colophony, and Compositae mix. Concomitant reactions were identified between fragrances, between fragrances and BR allergens, and between BR allergens and fragrances. If CRs of greater than 10% suggest cross-reactivity, then all patients with fragrance sensitivity should avoid BR allergens and vice versa.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33273222
pii: 01206501-202101000-00009
doi: 10.1097/DER.0000000000000661
doi:
Substances chimiques
Allergens
0
Perfume
0
Acrolein
7864XYD3JJ
Propolis
9009-62-5
cinnamaldehyde
SR60A3XG0F
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
42-52Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 American Contact Dermatitis Society. All Rights Reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no funding or conflict of interest to declare.
Références
International Fragrance Association. International Fragrance Association Code of Practice—Definitions 2014:1. Available at: https://ifrafragrance.org/docs/default-source/ifra-code-of-practice-and-standards/code-of-practice/23496_gd_2014_11_25_ifra_guidelines_definitions.pdf?sfvrsn=64abab9b_0. Accessed August 1, 2020.
de Groot AC, Schmidt E. Part II: general aspects. Dermatitis 2016;27(2):43–49.
Shi Y, Nedorost S, Scheman L, et al. Propolis, colophony, and fragrance cross-reactivity and allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatitis 2016;27(3):123–126.
Nardelli A, Carbonez A, Drieghe J, et al. Results of patch testing with fragrance mix 1, fragrance mix 2, and their ingredients, and Myroxylon pereirae and colophonium, over a 21-year period. Contact Dermatitis 2013;68(5):307–313.
Diepgen TL, Ofenloch R, Bruze M, et al. Prevalence of fragrance contact allergy in the general population of five European countries: a cross-sectional study. Br J Dermatol 2015;173(6):1411–1419.
Warshaw EM, Zug KA, Belsito DV, et al. Positive patch-test reactions to essential oils in consecutive patients from North America and Central Europe. Dermatitis 2017;28(4):246–252.
Scheman A, Severson D. American Contact Dermatitis Society Contact Allergy Management Program: an epidemiologic tool to determine relative prevalence of contact allergens. Dermatitis 2016;27(1):9–10.
Scheman A, Hipolito R, Severson D, et al. Contact allergy cross-reactions: retrospective clinical data and review of the literature. Dermatitis 2017;28(2):128–140.
DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Zug KA, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2015–2016. Dermatitis 2018;29(6):297–309.
Uter W, Schwitulla J, Frosch PJ, et al. The ‘overall yield’ with the baseline series - a useful addition to the array of MOAHLFA factors describing departmental characteristics of patch tested patients. Contact Dermatitis 2011;65(6):322–328.
Buckley DA, Rycroft RJG, White IR, et al. The frequency of fragrance allergy in patch-tested patients increases with their age. Br J Dermatol 2003;149(5):986–989.
Corazza M, Borghi A, Lauriola MM, et al. Use of topical herbal remedies and cosmetics: a questionnaire-based investigation in dermatology out-patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2009;23(11):1298–1303.
Oosterhaven JAF, Uter W, Aberer W, et al. European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA): contact allergies in relation to body sites in patients with allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 2019;80(5):263–272.
Warshaw EM, Kimyon RS, Silverberg JI, et al. Evaluation of patch test findings in patients with anogenital dermatitis. JAMA Dermatol 2019;156(1):85–91.
Bhate K, Landeck L, Gonzalez E, et al. Genital contact dermatitis: a retrospective analysis. Dermatitis 2010;21(6):317–320.
Vermaat H, Smienk F, Rustemeyer T, et al. Anogenital allergic contact dermatitis, the role of spices and flavour allergy. Contact Dermatitis 2008;59(4):233–237.
Salam TN, Fowler JF Jr.Balsam-related systemic contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2001;45(3):377–381.
de Groot AC, Schmidt E. Essential oils, part IV: contact allergy. Dermatitis 2016;27(4):170–175.
Rosholm Comstedt L, Dahlin J, Bruze M, et al. Prevalence of contact allergy to metals: nickel, palladium, and cobalt in Southern Sweden from 1995–2016. Contact Dermatitis 2020;82(4):218–226.
Mowitz M, Svedman C, Zimerson E, et al. Simultaneous patch testing with fragrance mix I, fragrance mix II and their ingredients in southern Sweden between 2009 and 2015. Contact Dermatitis 2017;77(5):280–287.
Uter W, Geier J, Frosch P, et al. Contact allergy to fragrances: current patch test results (2005–2008) from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology. Contact Dermatitis 2010;63(5):254–261.
Uter W, Schmidt E, Lessmann H, et al. Contact sensitization to tree moss (Evernia furfuracea extract, INCI) is heterogeneous. Contact Dermatitis 2012;67(1):36–41.
Walgrave SE, Warshaw EM, Glesne LA. Allergic contact dermatitis from propolis. Dermatitis 2005;16(4):209–215.
Hausen B. Identification of new allergenic constituents and proof of evidence for coniferyl benzoate in balsam of Peru. Am J Contact Dermat 1995;6(4):199–208.
de Groot AC. Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru)—a critical review of the literature and assessment of the significance of positive patch test reactions and the usefulness of restrictive diets. Contact Dermatitis 2019;80(6):335–353.
de Groot AC, Popova MP, Bankova VS. An Update on the Constituents of Poplar-Type Propolis. Wapserveen, the Netherlands: Acdegroot Publishing; 2014.
Hausen BM, Evers P, Stuwe HT, et al. Propolis allergy (IV). Studies with further sensitizers from propolis and constituents common to propolis, poplar buds and balsam of Peru. Contact Dermatitis 1992;26(1):34–44.
Paulsen E, Andersen KE. Colophonium and Compositae mix as markers of fragrance allergy: cross-reactivity between fragrance terpenes, colophonium and Compositae plant extracts. Contact Dermatitis 2005;53(5):285–291.
von der Werth JM, Ratcliffe J, English JS. Compositae mix is a more sensitive test for Compositae dermatitis than the sesquiterpene lactone mix. Contact Dermatitis 1999;40(5):273–276.
Ducombs G, Benezra C, Talaga P, et al. Patch testing with the “sesquiterpene lactone mix”: a marker for contact allergy to Compositae and other sesquiterpene-lactone-containing plants. A multicentre study of the EECDRG. Contact Dermatitis 1990;22(5):249–252.
Paulsen E, Andersen KE, Brandão FM, et al. Routine patch testing with the sesquiterpene lactone mix in Europe: a 2-year experience. A multicentre study of the EECDRG. Contact Dermatitis 1999;40(2):72–76.
Goulden V, Wilkinson SM. Patch testing for Compositae allergy. Br J Dermatol 1998;138(6):1018–1021.
Thomson KF, Wilkinson SM. Allergic contact dermatitis to plant extracts in patients with cosmetic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 2000;142(1):84–88.
de Groot AC, Schmidt E. Essential oils, part III: chemical composition. Dermatitis 2016;27(4):161–169.
Uter W, Schmidt E, Geier J, et al. Contact allergy to essential oils: current patch test results (2000–2008) from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis 2010;63(5):277–283.
de Groot A, Schmidt E. Essential oils, part V: peppermint oil, lavender oil, and lemongrass oil. Dermatitis 2016;27(6):325–332.
Herro E, Jacob SE. Mentha piperita (peppermint). Dermatitis 2010;21(6):327–329.
de Groot AC, Schmidt E. Essential Oils: Contact Allergy and Chemical Composition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group; 2016.
Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, Menne T, et al. Further important sensitizers in patients sensitive to fragrances. Contact Dermatitis 2002;47(5):279–287.
Rudzki E, Grzywa Z. Dermatitis from propolis. Contact Dermatitis 1983;9(1):40–45.
Dooms-Goossens A, Degreef H, Holvoet C, et al. Turpentine-induced hypersensitivity to peppermint oil. Contact Dermatitis 1977;3(6):304–308.
Morton CA, Garioch J, Todd P, et al. Contact sensitivity to menthol and peppermint in patients with intra-oral symptoms. Contact Dermatitis 1995;32(5):281–284.
Magnusson B, Wilkinson DS. Cinnamic aldehyde in toothpaste. 1. Clinical aspects and patch tests. Contact Dermatitis 1975;1(2):70–76.
Cheng HS, Konya J, Lobel E, et al. Patch testing for cheilitis: a 10-year series. Dermatitis 2019;30(6):347–351.
Fischer T, Maibach HI. Easier patch testing with TRUE Test. J Am Acad Dermatol 1989;20(3):447–453.
Suneja T, Belsito DV. Comparative study of Finn Chambers and T.R.U.E. Test methodologies in detecting the relevant allergens inducing contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2001;45(6):836–839.
Goh CL. Comparative study of TRUE Test and Finn Chamber patch test techniques in Singapore. Contact Dermatitis 1992;27(2):84–89.
Lachapelle JM, Bruynzeel DP, Ducombs G, et al. European multicenter study of the TRUE Test. Contact Dermatitis 1988;19(2):91–97.
Fernandez Vozmediano JM, Hita JC. Concordance and discordance between TRUE Test and Finn Chamber. Contact Dermatitis 2000;42(3):182–183.
Lazarov A, David M, Abraham D, et al. Comparison of reactivity to allergens using the TRUE Test and IQ chamber system. Contact Dermatitis 2007;56(3):140–145.
Mortz CG, Andersen KE. Fragrance mix I patch test reactions in 5006 consecutive dermatitis patients tested simultaneously with TRUE Test® and Trolab® test material. Contact Dermatitis 2010;63(5):248–253.