Cross-reactivity between thiuram disulfides and dithiocarbamates. A study of TETD and ZDEC using mouse models.
TETD
ZDEC
allergic contact dermatitis
contact allergy
contact dermatitis
dermatitis
dithiocarbamates
immunology
rubber accelerators
thiurams
Journal
Contact dermatitis
ISSN: 1600-0536
Titre abrégé: Contact Dermatitis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7604950
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Sep 2024
28 Sep 2024
Historique:
revised:
10
09
2024
received:
18
04
2024
accepted:
18
09
2024
medline:
28
9
2024
pubmed:
28
9
2024
entrez:
28
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Rubber accelerators are used in the vulcanization of rubber. However, rubber accelerators for example tetraethylthiuram disulfide (TETD) and zinc diethyldithiocarbamate (ZDEC) may cause contact allergy. Concomitant reactions between ZDEC and TETD have been observed in patients which could be explained by co- or cross-reactivity. To investigate cross-reactivity between TETD and ZDEC and vice versa. Groups of mice were sensitized with TETD or ZDEC based on reported EC3-values. Proliferation of lymphocytes were measured on day 5. To test cross-reactivity, mice were sensitized and challenged 3 weeks later with TETD or ZDEC. The inflammatory response was measured by changes in ear thickness and the proliferative response in CD4 Sensitization of mice with doses of ZDEC 3%, TETD 5.6% or TETD 16.2% induced significant increased ear thickness and proliferation of CD4 We show cross-reactivity between TETD and ZDEC. Patients sensitized to TETD or ZDEC should avoid exposure to both ZDEC and TETD.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Rubber accelerators are used in the vulcanization of rubber. However, rubber accelerators for example tetraethylthiuram disulfide (TETD) and zinc diethyldithiocarbamate (ZDEC) may cause contact allergy. Concomitant reactions between ZDEC and TETD have been observed in patients which could be explained by co- or cross-reactivity.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To investigate cross-reactivity between TETD and ZDEC and vice versa.
METHODS
METHODS
Groups of mice were sensitized with TETD or ZDEC based on reported EC3-values. Proliferation of lymphocytes were measured on day 5. To test cross-reactivity, mice were sensitized and challenged 3 weeks later with TETD or ZDEC. The inflammatory response was measured by changes in ear thickness and the proliferative response in CD4
RESULTS
RESULTS
Sensitization of mice with doses of ZDEC 3%, TETD 5.6% or TETD 16.2% induced significant increased ear thickness and proliferation of CD4
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We show cross-reactivity between TETD and ZDEC. Patients sensitized to TETD or ZDEC should avoid exposure to both ZDEC and TETD.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : the LEO Foundation
Organisme : the Carlsberg Foundation
Organisme : the Danish Environmental Protection Agency under the Ministry of Environment of Denmark
Organisme : the Danish Research Council
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Scheinman PL, Vocanson M, Thyssen JP, et al. Contact dermatitis. Nat Rev Dis Prim. 2021;7(1):1‐26. doi:10.1038/S41572‐021‐00271‐4
Warburton KL, Uter W, Geier J, et al. Patch testing with rubber series in Europe: a critical review and recommendation. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;76(4):195‐203. doi:10.1111/COD.12736
Wilkinson SM, Gonçalo M, Aerts O, et al. The European baseline series and recommended additions: 2023. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;28:92. doi:10.1111/COD.14255
Kursawe Larsen C, Schwensen JFB, Zachariae C, Johansen JD. Contact allergy to rubber accelerators in consecutively patch tested Danish eczema patients: a retrospective observational study from 1990 to 2019. Contact Dermatitis. 2024;90(2):116‐125. doi:10.1111/COD.14421
Geier J, Lessmann H, Mahler V, Pohrt U, Uter W, Schnuch A. Occupational contact allergy caused by rubber gloves—nothing has changed. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67(3):149‐156. doi:10.1111/J.1600‐0536.2012.02139.X
Andersen KE, Burrows D, Cronin E, Dooms‐Goossens A, Rycroft RJG, White IR. Recommended changes to standard series. Contact Dermatitis. 1988;19(5):389‐390. doi:10.1111/J.1600‐0536.1988.TB02965.X
Mortz CG, Jensen E, Madsen JT, Andersen KE. Should carba mix be reintroduced into the European baseline series? Contact Dermatitis. 2016;75(1):48‐50. doi:10.1111/COD.12543
Bergendorff O, Persson C, Hansson C. High‐performance liquid chromatography analysis of rubber allergens in protective gloves used in health care. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;55(4):210‐215. doi:10.1111/J.1600‐0536.2006.00912.X
Pontén A, Hamnerius N, Bruze M, et al. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by sterile non‐latex protective gloves: clinical investigation and chemical analyses. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68(2):103‐110. doi:10.1111/COD.12010
Goodier MC, Ronkainen SD, Hylwa SA. Rubber accelerators in medical examination and surgical gloves. Dermatitis. 2018;29(2):66‐76. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000342
Knudsen B, Lerbæk A, Johansen JD, Menné T. Reduction in the frequency of sensitization to thiurams. A result of legislation? Contact Dermatitis. 2006;54(3):170‐171. doi:10.1111/J.0105‐1873.2005.0739C.X
Siegel PD, Fowler JF, Storrs FJ, et al. Allergen content of patient problem and nonproblem gloves: relationship to allergen‐specific patch‐test findings. Dermatitis. 2010;21(2):77‐83. doi:10.2310/6620.2010.09088
Benezra C, Maibach H. True cross‐sensitization, false cross‐sensitization and otherwise. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;11(2):65‐69. doi:10.1111/J.1600‐0536.1984.TB00928.X
Basketter D, Dooms‐Goossens A, Karlberg A‐T, Lepoittevin J‐P. The chemistry of contact allergy: why is a molecule allergenic? Contact Dermatitis. 1995;32(2):65‐73. doi:10.1111/J.1600‐0536.1995.TB00748.X
Mukkanna KS, Stone NM, Ingram JR. Para‐phenylenediamine allergy: current perspectives on diagnosis and management. J Asthma Allergy. 2017;10:9‐15. doi:10.2147/JAA.S90265
Schwensen JF, Menné Bonefeld C, Zachariae C, et al. Cross‐reactivity between methylisothiazolinone, octylisothiazolinone and benzisothiazolinone using a modified local lymph node assay. Br J Dermatol. 2017;176(1):176‐183. doi:10.1111/BJD.14825
Chipinda I, Hettick JM, Simoyi RH, Siegel PD. Zinc diethyldithiocarbamate allergenicity: potential haptenation mechanisms. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;59(2):79‐89. doi:10.1111/J.1600‐0536.2008.01399.X
Funch AB, Mraz V, Gadsbøll ASØ, et al. CD8+ tissue‐resident memory T cells recruit neutrophils that are essential for flare‐ups in contact dermatitis. Allergy. 2022;77(2):513‐524. doi:10.1111/ALL.14986
Hansson C, Pontén A, Svedman C, Bergendorff O. Reaction profile in patch testing with allergens formed during vulcanization of rubber. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70(5):300‐308. doi:10.1111/COD.12168
Funch AB, Weber JF, Lohmann RKD, et al. CD4+ T cells inhibit the generation of CD8+ epidermal‐resident memory T cells directed against clinically relevant contact allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2023;88(6):425‐437. doi:10.1111/COD.14316
Lanz J, Biniaz‐Harris N, Kuvaldina M, Jain S, Lewis K, Fallon BA. Disulfiram: mechanisms, applications, and challenges. Antibiotics. 2023;12(3):1‐27. doi:10.3390/ANTIBIOTICS12030524/S1
Koppaka V, Thompson DC, Chen Y, et al. Aldehyde dehydrogenase inhibitors: a comprehensive review of the pharmacology, mechanism of action, substrate specificity, and clinical application. Pharmacol Rev. 2012;64(3):520‐539. doi:10.1124/PR.111.005538
Huang C, Greig D, Cheng H. Allergic contact dermatitis in healthcare workers. Occup Med. 2021;71(6–7):294‐297. doi:10.1093/OCCMED/KQAB118
Kohli N, Nedorost S. Inflamed skin predisposes to sensitization to less potent allergens. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;75(2):312‐317.e1. doi:10.1016/J.JAAD.2016.03.010
Schwensen JF, Menné T, Sommerlund M, et al. Contact allergy in Danish healthcare workers: a retrospective matched case‐control study. Acta Derm Venereol. 2016;96(2):237‐240. doi:10.2340/00015555‐2202
Warshaw EM, Kwon GP, Mathias CGT, et al. Occupationally related contact dermatitis in North American food service workers referred for patch testing, 1994 to 2010. Dermatitis. 2013;24(1):22‐28. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e31827b14e1
Hansen A, Brans R, Sonsmann F. Allergic contact dermatitis to rubber accelerators in protective gloves: problems, challenges, and solutions for occupational skin protection. Allergol Sel. 2021;5(1):335‐344. doi:10.5414/ALX02265E
Herman A, Uter W, Rustemeyer T, et al. Position statement: the need for EU legislation to require disclosure and labelling of the composition of medical devices. J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol. 2021;35(7):1444‐1448. doi:10.1111/JDV.17238
Clément A, Ferrier le Bouëdec MC, Crépy MN, et al. Hand eczema in glove‐wearing patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2023;89(3):143‐152. doi:10.1111/COD.14357
Schwensen JF, Menné T, Johansen JD, Thyssen JP. Contact allergy to rubber accelerators remains prevalent: retrospective results from a tertiary clinic suggesting an association with facial dermatitis. J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol. 2016;30(10):1768‐1773. doi:10.1111/JDV.13684
Brans R, Werner S, Obermeyer L, Hansen A, Altenburg C, Nienhaus A. Allergic contact dermatitis to accelerators in rubber gloves marketed as accelerator‐free. Contact Dermatitis. 2023;89(1):65‐68. doi:10.1111/COD.14321