Myroxylon pereirae (balsam of Peru): Still worth testing?
Myroxylon pereirae
balsam of Peru
fragrance allergy
fragrance mix 1
patch test
Journal
Contact dermatitis
ISSN: 1600-0536
Titre abrégé: Contact Dermatitis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7604950
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Sep 2021
Historique:
revised:
17
03
2021
received:
09
11
2020
accepted:
19
03
2021
pubmed:
23
3
2021
medline:
17
12
2021
entrez:
22
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Because Myroxylon pereirae (MP), or balsam of Peru, is nowadays almost not used "as such," and fragrance mix 1 (FM1) apparently is more sensitive in detecting fragrance allergy, the usefulness of testing MP in baseline series was recently questioned. Identification of the number of clinically relevant patch test reactions to MP not detected by FM1. Retrospective analysis of 12 030 patients patch tested with MP and FM1 for contact dermatitis between January 2018 and December 2019 in 13 Italian dermatology clinics. Four hundred thirty-nine patients (3.6%) had a positive patch test reaction to MP; 437 (3.6%) had a positive patch test reaction to FM1. Positive reactions to both MP and FM1 were observed in 119 subjects (1.0%), 310 (2.6%) reacted to MP only, 304 (2.5%) to FM1 only, 5 to MP and sorbitan sesquioleate (SSO), 9 to FM1 and SSO, and 5 to MP, FM1, and SSO. Single sensitizations were clinically relevant in 75.2% of cases for MP (62.9% current, 12.3% past) and 76.3% for FM1 (70.1% current, 6.2% past). Based on our results, MP appears to be still worth testing along with FM1 in baseline series, because it allows detection of a remarkable number of fragrance allergies, often relevant, which would be otherwise missed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Because Myroxylon pereirae (MP), or balsam of Peru, is nowadays almost not used "as such," and fragrance mix 1 (FM1) apparently is more sensitive in detecting fragrance allergy, the usefulness of testing MP in baseline series was recently questioned.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
Identification of the number of clinically relevant patch test reactions to MP not detected by FM1.
METHODS
METHODS
Retrospective analysis of 12 030 patients patch tested with MP and FM1 for contact dermatitis between January 2018 and December 2019 in 13 Italian dermatology clinics.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Four hundred thirty-nine patients (3.6%) had a positive patch test reaction to MP; 437 (3.6%) had a positive patch test reaction to FM1. Positive reactions to both MP and FM1 were observed in 119 subjects (1.0%), 310 (2.6%) reacted to MP only, 304 (2.5%) to FM1 only, 5 to MP and sorbitan sesquioleate (SSO), 9 to FM1 and SSO, and 5 to MP, FM1, and SSO. Single sensitizations were clinically relevant in 75.2% of cases for MP (62.9% current, 12.3% past) and 76.3% for FM1 (70.1% current, 6.2% past).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our results, MP appears to be still worth testing along with FM1 in baseline series, because it allows detection of a remarkable number of fragrance allergies, often relevant, which would be otherwise missed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33748955
doi: 10.1111/cod.13839
pmc: PMC8453940
doi:
Substances chimiques
Balsams
0
Hexoses
0
sorbitan sesquioleate
0W8RRI5W5A
Peruvian balsam
8P5F881OCY
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
269-273Investigateurs
Alessandro Borghi
(A)
Katharina Hansel
(K)
Giovanni Damiani
(G)
Ilaria Trave
(I)
Emanuela Martina
(E)
Giacomo Dal Bello
(G)
Massimo Gola
(M)
Maria L Musumeci
(ML)
Viviana Piras
(V)
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Contact Dermatitis. 2019 Apr;80(4):208-216
pubmed: 30378136
Br J Dermatol. 2018 Mar;178(3):776-780
pubmed: 28960261
Contact Dermatitis. 2009 Oct;61(4):217-23
pubmed: 19825093
Contact Dermatitis. 2014 May;70(5):276-81
pubmed: 24731084
G Ital Dermatol Venereol. 2019 Jun;154(3):227-253
pubmed: 30717577
Contact Dermatitis. 2010 Aug;63(2):77-84
pubmed: 20573166
Contact Dermatitis. 2001 May;44(5):304-7
pubmed: 11298698
Contact Dermatitis. 2011 Nov;65(5):266-75
pubmed: 21943251
Contact Dermatitis. 2003 Dec;49(6):287-9
pubmed: 15025700
Nat Prod Res. 2020 Apr 21;:1-6
pubmed: 32316792
Contact Dermatitis. 2019 Jun;80(6):335-353
pubmed: 30843216
Contact Dermatitis. 1997 Jun;36(6):291-6
pubmed: 9237007
Contact Dermatitis. 2021 Sep;85(3):269-273
pubmed: 33748955
Br J Dermatol. 1996 Sep;135(3):419-22
pubmed: 8949436
Contact Dermatitis. 2010 Nov;63(5):254-61
pubmed: 20731693
Contact Dermatitis. 2019 Dec;81(6):454-456
pubmed: 31328272
Sci Total Environ. 2020 Nov 10;742:140640
pubmed: 32721747