Allergic reactivity for different dilutions of eugenol in repeated open application test and patch testing.
ROAT
allergic contact dermatitis
contact allergy
delayed hypersensitivity
elicitation threshold
eugenol
Journal
Contact dermatitis
ISSN: 1600-0536
Titre abrégé: Contact Dermatitis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7604950
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2023
Aug 2023
Historique:
revised:
21
04
2023
received:
19
01
2023
accepted:
27
04
2023
medline:
10
7
2023
pubmed:
23
5
2023
entrez:
23
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Eugenol is a known contact sensitiser included in fragrance mix I. To assess the allergic reactivity to eugenol in different concentrations using patch test as well as repeated open application test (ROAT). Overall 67 subjects from 6 European dermatology clinics participated in the study. The ROAT was performed for 21 days twice a day, applying 3 dilutions of eugenol (2.7%-0.5%) and a control. Before and after the ROAT, patch testing with 17 dilutions of eugenol (2.0%-0.00006%) and controls was performed. Out of the 34 subjects with contact allergy to eugenol, 21 (61.8%) showed a positive patch test before ROAT was performed, the lowest positive concentration was 0.031%. The ROAT was positive in 19 (55.9%) of the 34 subjects, the time until a positive reaction occurred was negatively associated with the concentration of the ROAT solution, as well as with the allergic reactivity of the subjects as defined by patch testing. In the patch test after ROAT, 20 of the 34 test subjects (58.8%) showed a positive reaction. In 13 (38.2%) of the 34 test subjects, the patch test result was not reproduceable, still 4 (31.0%) of these 13 subjects developed a positive ROAT. Eugenol can provoke a positive patch test reaction in a very low dose; besides, this hypersensitivity may persist even if a former positive patch test is not reproduceable.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Eugenol is a known contact sensitiser included in fragrance mix I.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To assess the allergic reactivity to eugenol in different concentrations using patch test as well as repeated open application test (ROAT).
METHODS
METHODS
Overall 67 subjects from 6 European dermatology clinics participated in the study. The ROAT was performed for 21 days twice a day, applying 3 dilutions of eugenol (2.7%-0.5%) and a control. Before and after the ROAT, patch testing with 17 dilutions of eugenol (2.0%-0.00006%) and controls was performed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Out of the 34 subjects with contact allergy to eugenol, 21 (61.8%) showed a positive patch test before ROAT was performed, the lowest positive concentration was 0.031%. The ROAT was positive in 19 (55.9%) of the 34 subjects, the time until a positive reaction occurred was negatively associated with the concentration of the ROAT solution, as well as with the allergic reactivity of the subjects as defined by patch testing. In the patch test after ROAT, 20 of the 34 test subjects (58.8%) showed a positive reaction. In 13 (38.2%) of the 34 test subjects, the patch test result was not reproduceable, still 4 (31.0%) of these 13 subjects developed a positive ROAT.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Eugenol can provoke a positive patch test reaction in a very low dose; besides, this hypersensitivity may persist even if a former positive patch test is not reproduceable.
Substances chimiques
Eugenol
3T8H1794QW
Allergens
0
Perfume
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
95-102Subventions
Organisme : RIFM
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Api AM, Belsito D, Bhatia S, et al. RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, Eugenol, CAS Registry Number 97-53-0. Food Chem Toxicol. 2016;97S:S25-S37. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2015.12.013
Bruze M, Engfeldt M, Ofenloch R, et al. Validation of a questionnaire algorithm based on repeated open application testing with the constituents of fragrance mix I. Br J Dermatol. 2020;182:955-964. doi:10.1111/bjd.18224
Nakada T, Hostynek JJ, Maibach HI. Use tests: ROAT (repeated open application test)/PUT (provocative use test): an overview. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;43(1):1-3. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0536.2000.043001001.x
Hannuksela M, Salo H. The repeated open application test (ROAT). Contact Dermatitis. 1986;14:221-227. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1986.tb01229.x
Hauksson I, Pontén A, Gruvberger B, Isaksson M, Engfeldt M, Bruze M. Skincare products containing low concentrations of formaldehyde detected by the chromotropic acid method cannot be safely used in formaldehyde-allergic patients. Br J Dermatol. 2016;174(2):371-379. doi:10.1111/bjd.14241
Andersen KE, Johansen JD, Bruze M, et al. The time-dose-response relationship for elicitation of contact dermatitis in isoeugenol allergic individuals. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2001;170:166-171. doi:10.1006/taap.2000.9095
Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Menné T. Quantitative aspects of isoeugenol contact allergy assessed by use and patch tests. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34:414-418. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1996.tb02244.x
Isaksson M, Gruvberger B, Frick-Engfeldt M, Bruze M. Which test chambers should be used for acetone, ethanol, and water solutions when patch testing? Contact Dermatitis. 2007;57(2):134-136. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01094.x
Mowitz M, Zimerson E, Svedman C, Bruze M. Stability of fragrance patch test preparations applied in test chambers. Br J Dermatol. 2012;167:822-827. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2012.11143.x
Mowitz M, Svedman C, Zimerson E, Bruze M. Fragrance patch tests prepared in advance may give false-negative reactions. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;71:289-294. doi:10.1111/cod.12300
Fregert S. Manual of Contact Dermatitis. 2nd ed. Munksgaard; 1981.
Hindsén M, Bruze M, Christensen OB. Individual variation in nickel patch test reactivity. Am J Contact Dermat. 1999;10:62-67. doi:10.1016/S1046-199X(99)90001-5
Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Rastogi SC, Menne T. Threshold responses in cinnamic-aldehyde-sensitive subjects: results and methodological aspects. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34:165-171. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1996.tb02167.x
Bruze M, Johansen JD, Andersen KE, et al. Deodorants: an experimental provocation study with cinnamic aldehyde. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003;48:194-200.
Svedman C, Bruze M, Johansen JD, et al. Deodorants: an experimental provocation study with hydroxycitronellal. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48:217-223. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0536.2003.00094.x
Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Svedman C, et al. Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde-known as Lyral: quantitative aspects and risk assessment of an important fragrance allergen. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48:310-316. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0536.2003.00126.x
Bruze M, Johansen JD, Andersen KE, et al. Deodorants: an experimental provocation study with isoeugenol. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;52:260-267. doi:10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00576.x
Fischer LA, Menné T, Avnstorp C, Kasting GB, Johansen JD. Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde allergy: relationship between patch test and repeated open application test thresholds. Br J Dermatol. 2009;161:560-567. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09256.x
Schnuch A, Uter W, Dickel H, et al. Quantitative patch and repeated open application testing in hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde sensitive-patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;61:152-162. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2009.01601.x
Fischer LA, Voelund A, Andersen KE, Menné T, Johansen JD. The dose-response relationship between the patch test and ROAT and the potential use for regulatory purposes. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;61:201-208. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2009.01607.x
Svedman C, Engfeldt M, Api AM, et al. Does the new standard for eugenol designed to protect against contact sensitization protect those sensitized from elicitation of the reaction? Dermatitis. 2012;23:32-38. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e31823d17b8
Svedman C, Engfeldt M, Api AM, et al. A pilot study aimed at finding a suitable eugenol concentration for a leave-on product for use in a repeated open application test. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66:137-139. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2011.02041.x
Mowitz M, Svedman C, Zimerson E, Bruze M. Usage tests of oak moss absolutes containing high and low levels of atranol and chloroatranol. Acta Derm Venereol. 2014;94:398-402. doi:10.2340/00015555-1725
Andersen F, Andersen KH, Bernois A, et al. Reduced content of chloroatranol and atranol in oak moss absolute significantly reduces the elicitation potential of this fragrance material. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72:75-83. doi:10.1111/cod.12312
Bennike NH, Palangi L, Christensson JB, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by hydroperoxides of limonene and dose-response relationship-A repeated open application test (ROAT) study. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:208-216. doi:10.1111/cod.13168
Bruze M, Engfeldt M, Elsner P, et al. Validation of questionnaire algorithm based on repeated open application testing (ROAT) with the constituents of fragrance mix II: the EDEN Fragrance Study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2021;35:1692-1701. doi:10.1111/jdv.17315
Keczkes K, Basheer AM, Wyatt EH. The persistence of allergic contact sensitivity: a 10-year follow-up in 100 patients. Br J Dermatol. 1982;107:461-465. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.1982.tb00389.x
Masjedi K, Bruze M, Hindsen M, Minang J, Ahlborg N. Is the variability of nickel patch test reactivity over time associated with fluctuations in the systemic T-cell reactivity to nickel? Br J Dermatol. 2009;161:102-109. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09182.x
Siemund I, Mowitz M, Zimerson E, Bruze M, Hindsén M. Variation in aluminium patch test reactivity over time. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;77(5):288-296. doi:10.1111/cod.12836
Rosholm Comstedt L, Engfeldt M, Svedman C, Åkesson A, Hindsén M, Bruze M. Variation and covariation in patch test reactivity to palladium and nickel salts. Eur J Dermatol. 2018;28(5):668-676. doi:10.1684/ejd.2018.3423
Björk AK, Bruze M, Engfeldt M, Nielsen C, Svedman C. The reactivity of the back revisited. Are there differences in reactivity in different parts of the back? Contact Dermatitis. 2017;76:19-26. doi:10.1111/cod.12657