The value of patch testing with plants "as is" in diagnosing plant sensitization.
Asteraceae
Compositae
Philodendron
allergic contact dermatitis
falcarinol
occupational
patch test
plants
tomato
tulipalin A
Journal
Contact dermatitis
ISSN: 1600-0536
Titre abrégé: Contact Dermatitis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7604950
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Sep 2024
18 Sep 2024
Historique:
revised:
06
08
2024
received:
26
06
2024
accepted:
11
08
2024
medline:
19
9
2024
pubmed:
19
9
2024
entrez:
19
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The number of commercially available plant allergens/extracts is limited and therefore patch testing with fresh/dried plant material may be a necessary supplement in diagnosing plant allergy. To evaluate the usefulness of patch testing with plants "as is" compared to patch testing with commercial and in-house produced plant test materials and to report on species eliciting positive patch test reactions. Consecutive eczema patients, who were patch tested between January 2019 and December 2023 and who had at least one positive reaction to a plant allergen and/or extract and/or plant "as is" were included in the study. A total 57 out of 1893 patients tested (3%) were sensitised to plants. Compositae plants were the most frequent sensitizers, followed by tomato, tulipalin A, falcarinol, and Philodendron plants. In 12 patients (21%), the diagnosis was based on patch testing with fresh plants only. Occupational sensitization occurred in 32%. Other sensitizers included Hydrangea, Pelargonium zonale, and Monstera. A large minority of plant-sensitised patients would have been undiagnosed without patch testing with plants "as is." Most of the culprit plants were known sensitizers, but not commercially available, and these and new species taken into cultivation makes patch testing with fresh plants unavoidable and worthwhile.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The number of commercially available plant allergens/extracts is limited and therefore patch testing with fresh/dried plant material may be a necessary supplement in diagnosing plant allergy.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the usefulness of patch testing with plants "as is" compared to patch testing with commercial and in-house produced plant test materials and to report on species eliciting positive patch test reactions.
PATIENTS/MATERIALS/METHODS
METHODS
Consecutive eczema patients, who were patch tested between January 2019 and December 2023 and who had at least one positive reaction to a plant allergen and/or extract and/or plant "as is" were included in the study.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total 57 out of 1893 patients tested (3%) were sensitised to plants. Compositae plants were the most frequent sensitizers, followed by tomato, tulipalin A, falcarinol, and Philodendron plants. In 12 patients (21%), the diagnosis was based on patch testing with fresh plants only. Occupational sensitization occurred in 32%. Other sensitizers included Hydrangea, Pelargonium zonale, and Monstera.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
A large minority of plant-sensitised patients would have been undiagnosed without patch testing with plants "as is." Most of the culprit plants were known sensitizers, but not commercially available, and these and new species taken into cultivation makes patch testing with fresh plants unavoidable and worthwhile.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
World Plants. Total numbers of accepted species. https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/total-species-count.
Hausen BM, Vieluf IK. Allergiepflanzen/Pflanzenallergene. Handbuch und Atlas der allergie‐induzierenden Wild‐ und Kulturpflanzen. Kontaktallergene. Allergische Frühreaktionen. 2nd ed. Ecomed Verlagsgesellschaft mbH; 1997.
Padilla‐Gonzalez GF, Antunes Dos Santos F, Batista Da Costa F. Sesquiterpene lactones: more than protective plant compounds with high toxicity. Crit Rev Plant Sci. 2016;35(1):18‐37.
Paulsen E, Andersen KE, Hausen BM. Sensitization and cross‐reaction patterns in Danish Compositae‐allergic patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;45(4):197‐204.
Paulsen E, Christensen LP, Andersen KE. Tomato contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67(6):321‐327.
Johansen JD, Aalto‐Korte K, Agner T, et al. European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing – recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73(4):195‐221.
Herman A, Aerts O, Baeck M, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by isobornyl acrylate in Freestyle®Libre, a newly introduced glucose sensor. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;77(6):367‐373.
Dendooven E, Dirinck E, Foubert K, Aerts O. “Re‐testing” suggests that cosensitizations to isobornyl acrylate and sesquiterpene lactones may be due to cross‐reactivity. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;86(1):57‐59.
Paulsen E, Andersen KE. Lettuce contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;74(2):67‐75.
Reider N, Komericki P, Hausen BM, Fritsch P, Aberer W. The seamy side of natural medicines: contact sensitization to arnica (Arnica montana L.) and marigold (Calendula officinalis L.). Contact Dermatitis. 2001;45(5):269‐272.
Burry JN, Kloot PM. The spread of composite (Compositae) weeds in Australia. Contact Dermatitis. 1982;8(6):410‐413.
Elkhayat ES. Chemical constituents from Gazania linearis cultivated in Egypt. Bullet Faculty Pharm Cairo Univ. 2016;54(2):257‐261.
Paulsen E, Christensen LP, Hindsén M, Andersen KE. Contact sensitization to calocephalin, a sesquiterpene lactone of the guaianolide type from cushion bush (Leucophyta brownii, Compositae). Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69(5):303‐310.
Paulsen E, Hyldgaard MG, Andersen KE, Andersen F, Christensen LP. Allergenic sesquiterpene lactones from cushion bush (Leucophyta brownii Cass.): new and old sensitizers in a shrub‐turned‐a‐pot plant. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;76(5):280‐286.
Paulsen E, Skousgaard SG, Hvid L. Sensitization to Australian Compositae allergens may go under the radar in Europe. Contact Dermatitis. 2023;89(6):511‐513.
Christensen LP. Aliphatic C17‐polyacetylenes of the falcarinol type as potential health promoting compounds in food plants of the Apiaceae family. Recent Pat Food Nutr Agri. 2011;3(1):64‐77.
Pardo‐Castello V. Dermatitis venenata. A study of the tropical plants producing dermatitis. Arch Derm Syphilol. 1923;7(1):81‐90.
Ayres S Jr, Ayres S III. Philodendron as a cause of contact dermatitis. Arch Dermatol. 1958;78(3):330‐333.
Hammershøy O, Verdich J. Allergic contact dermatitis from Philodendron scandens Koch et Sello subsp. oxycardium (Schott) bunting (“Philodendron scandens cordatum”). Contact Dermatitis. 1980;6(2):95‐99.
Pesonen M, Aalto‐Korte K. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis and contact urticaria caused by indoor plants in plant keepers. Contact Dermatitis. 2020;83(6):515‐518.
Spoerke DG Jr, Smolinske SC. Toxicity of Houseplants. CRC Press; 1990.
Reffstrup T, Boll PM. Allergenic 5‐alkyl‐ and 5‐alkenylresorcinols from Philodendron species. Phytochemistry. 1985;24(11):2563‐2565.
Mitchell JC, Rook A. Botanical Dermatology. Plants and Plant Products Injurious to the Skin. Green Grass; 1979.
Hausen BM, Schulz KH. Occupational contact dermatitis due to croton (Codiaeum variegatum (L.) A. Juss var. pictum (Lodd.) Muell.Arg). Sensitization by plants of the Euphorbiaceae. Contact Dermatitis. 1977;3(6):289‐292.
Njoya EM, Fewou PM, Niedermeyer THJ. Codiaeum variegatum (L.) Rumph. Ex A. Juss. (Euphorbiaceae): an overview of its botanical diversity, traditional uses, phytochemistry, pharmacological effects and perspectives towards developing its plant‐based products. J Ethnopharmacol. 2021;277:114244. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2021.114244
Allen PH. Poisonous and injurious plants of Panama. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1943;23(1 Suppl):3‐76.
Tafelkruyer J, van Ketel WG. Sensitivity to Codiaeum variegatum. Contact Dermatitis. 1976;2(5):288.
Paulsen E. Occupational dermatitis in Danish gardeners and greenhouse workers. (II). Etiological factors. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;38(1):14‐19.
Hjorth N. Contact sensitivity to plants and balsams. In: The Sixth European Congress of Allergology: Symposium on Allergic Contact Eczema in Theory and Practice, September 1965. E Skog (Ed): Stockholm, Sweden, Acta Dermato‐Venereologica; 1966, pp. 65‐79.
Zachariae C, Engkilde K, Johansen JD, Menné T. Primin in the European standard patch test series for 20 years. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;56(6):344‐346.
Christensen LP, Larsen E. Primin‐free Primula obconica plants available. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;43(1):45‐46.
Hausen BM. Primelallergie. Hintergründe Und Aspekte. Materia Medica Nordmark. 1979;31(3–4):57‐76.
Connolly M, Mc Cune J, Dauncey E, Lovell CR. Primula obconica – is contact allergy on the decline? Contact Dermatitis. 2004;51(4):167‐171.
Wilkinson M, Gonçalo M, Aerts O, et al. The European baseline series and recommended additions: 2019. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80(1):1‐4.
de Groot AC. Fragrances and Essential Oils. Monographs in Contact Allergy. Vol 2. CRC Press; 2019.
Agrup G. Hand eczema and other hand dermatoses in South Sweden. Acta Derm Venereol. 1969;49 (Suppl 61):1‐91.
Paulsen E, Andersen KE, Hvid L. Occupational contact sensitization to Pelargonium zonale hybrids. Contact Dermatitis. 2023;88(4):328‐329.
Paulsen E, Hvid L, Andersen F. Immediate and delayed contact reactions to white and green tea blends. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;86(2):134‐136.