Suchergebnisse

<i>Background:</i> Sensitisation to fragrances is generally diagnosed with the fragrance mix (FM), which should sensitively detect contact allergy to its single compounds (SCs). <i>Objective:</i> To study the frequency of sensitisation to the FM and to the SCs, and to evaluate the sensitivity of the FM to diagnose sensitisation to SCs. <i>Methods:</i> During a 4-year period, 4,900 patients were patch tested with the FM (8% pet.) and with its 8 SCs (1% pet.) by departments of dermatology participating in the multicentre project Information Network of Departments of Dermatology. <i>Results:</i> The overall frequency of sensitisation of the FM was 20.2%, that of SCs ranged from 6.8% (oak moss) to 0.6% (α-amylcinnamic aldehyde). Based on our results, we propose 3 groups of SCs according to their importance relative to the frequency of sensitisation: oak moss and iso-eugenol are considered very important, geraniol and α-amylcinnamic aldehyde appear less important in terms of frequency of sensitisation and the remaining allergens can be regarded as important. In 61% of the + reactions to the FM, no positive reaction to any SC was observed, whereas most ++ and +++ reactions to the FM were accompanied by a positive SC test result (69.1 and 93.6%, respectively). In contrast, a negative reaction to the FM was strongly associated with negative reactions to the SCs. Overall, the sensitivity of the FM was high (86.7, 95% confidence interval, CI: 83.7–89.3), but the positive predictive value was low (53.8, 95% CI: 50.6–56.9). <i>Conclusion:</i> The FM is a sensitive diagnostic tool to detect contact allergy to its single fragrance constituents. However, a + reaction to the FM without a history of fragrance allergy should be interpreted with caution. Epidemiological and regulatory discussions should address this important aspect, because the frequency of sensitisation as expressed by overall positive reactions (+ to +++) to the FM can be misleading.

Background Changing patterns of exposure lead to changes in the spectrum of contact allergy in the general population and in patients patch tested for suspected contact allergy. The main contact allergens (haptens) are assembled in the so‐called 'baseline series'. Objectives To present the current spectrum of contact allergy to baseline series allergens, and its temporal development over the last 12 years, based on data collected by the 56 active departments of the trinational Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK). Methods Patch‐test data, along with core demographic and clinical information, subdivided into 4‐year periods for all patients patch tested with the baseline series in the IVDK, were analysed descriptively. Moreover, log‐binomial regression analysis addressed temporal trends of specific contact allergies, adjusted for potentially confounding factors. Results Among the 125 436 patients tested with the German baseline series, the most common allergens were nickel (14·7%), fragrance mix I (8·1%), Myroxylon pereirae resin (7·5%) and cobalt (5·2%), with no conclusive trend. The rise and fall of contact allergy to methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MI), following (self‐) regulation in the European Union, reflected the MI contact allergy epidemic. Propolis showed a marked upward trend with a prevalence of 3·94% during the period 2015–2018. Conclusions Decreases in sensitization prevalence likely reflect reduced exposure, with some lag, as seen with hydroxyisohexyl 3‐cyclohexene carboxaldehyde. If no (sufficient) decrease can be observed despite interventions, such as for nickel and chromium, affected subgroups should be identified and their causative exposures explored. Finally, increases such as that observed with propolis, certainly warrant targeted investigation of the exposures driving sensitization, and possibly intervention.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, skin reactions secondary to the use of medical devices (MD), such as allergic contact dermatitis have increasingly been observed (e.g. to continuous blood sugar monitoring systems, insulin pumps, wound dressings, medical gloves, etc.): this is regarded as a developing epidemic. Lack of labelling of the composition of MD, as well as frequent lack of cooperation of manufacturers to disclose this relevant information, even when contacted by the clinician for the individual case of an established adverse reaction, significantly impede patient care. OBJECTIVES: To advocate for full ingredient labelling in the implementation of EU regulation for MD. METHODS: This position paper reviews the scientific literature, the current regulatory framework adopted for MD to date, and the likely impact, including some costs data in case of the absence of such labelling. RESULTS: Efforts made by several scientific teams, who are trying to identify the culprit of such adverse effects, either via asking for cooperation from companies, or using costly chemical analyses of MD, can only partly, and with considerable delay, compensate for the absence of meaningful information on the composition of MD; hence, patient management is compromised. Indeed, without knowing the chemical substances present, physicians are unable to inform patients about which substances they should avoid, and which alternative MD may be suitable/tolerated. CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need for full and accurate labelling of the chemical composition of MD in contact with the human body.

Background: In recent years, skin reactions secondary to the use of medical devices (MD), such as allergic contact dermatitis have increasingly been observed (e.g. to continuous blood sugar monitoring systems, insulin pumps, wound dressings, medical gloves, etc.): this is regarded as a developing epidemic. Lack of labelling of the composition of MD, as well as frequent lack of cooperation of manufacturers to disclose this relevant information, even when contacted by the clinician for the individual case of an established adverse reaction, significantly impede patient care. Objectives: To advocate for full ingredient labelling in the implementation of EU regulation for MD. Methods: This position paper reviews the scientific literature, the current regulatory framework adopted for MD to date, and the likely impact, including some costs data in case of the absence of such labelling. Results: Efforts made by several scientific teams, who are trying to identify the culprit of such adverse effects, either via asking for cooperation from companies, or using costly chemical analyses of MD, can only partly, and with considerable delay, compensate for the absence of meaningful information on the composition of MD; hence, patient management is compromised. Indeed, without knowing the chemical substances present, physicians are unable to inform patients about which substances they should avoid, and which alternative MD may be suitable/tolerated. Conclusion: There is an urgent need for full and accurate labelling of the chemical composition of MD in contact with the human body.

Background: In recent years, skin reactions secondary to the use of medical devices (MD), such as allergic contact dermatitis have increasingly been observed (e.g. to continuous blood sugar monitoring systems, insulin pumps, wound dressings, medical gloves, etc.): this is regarded as a developing epidemic. Lack of labelling of the composition of MD, as well as frequent lack of cooperation of manufacturers to disclose this relevant information, even when contacted by the clinician for the individual case of an established adverse reaction, significantly impede patient care. Objectives: To advocate for full ingredient labelling in the implementation of EU regulation for MD. Methods: This position paper reviews the scientific literature, the current regulatory framework adopted for MD to date, and the likely impact, including some costs data in case of the absence of such labelling. Results: Efforts made by several scientific teams, who are trying to identify the culprit of such adverse effects, either via asking for cooperation from companies, or using costly chemical analyses of MD, can only partly, and with considerable delay, compensate for the absence of meaningful information on the composition of MD; hence, patient management is compromised. Indeed, without knowing the chemical substances present, physicians are unable to inform patients about which substances they should avoid, and which alternative MD may be suitable/tolerated. Conclusion: There is an urgent need for full and accurate labelling of the chemical composition of MD in contact with the human body.

In recent years, skin reactions secondary to the use of medical devices (MD), such as allergic contact dermatitis have increasingly been observed (e.g. to continuous blood sugar monitoring systems, insulin pumps, wound dressings, medical gloves, etc.): this is regarded as a developing epidemic. Lack of labelling of the composition of MD, as well as frequent lack of cooperation of manufacturers to disclose this relevant information, even when contacted by the clinician for the individual case of an established adverse reaction, significantly impede patient care. To advocate for full ingredient labelling in the implementation of EU regulation for MD. This position paper reviews the scientific literature, the current regulatory framework adopted for MD to date, and the likely impact, including some costs data in case of the absence of such labelling. Efforts made by several scientific teams, who are trying to identify the culprit of such adverse effects, either via asking for cooperation from companies, or using costly chemical analyses of MD, can only partly, and with considerable delay, compensate for the absence of meaningful information on the composition of MD; hence, patient management is compromised. Indeed, without knowing the chemical substances present, physicians are unable to inform patients about which substances they should avoid, and which alternative MD may be suitable/tolerated. There is an urgent need for full and accurate labelling of the chemical composition of MD in contact with the human body.

In recent years, skin reactions secondary to the use of medical devices (MD), such as allergic contact dermatitis have increasingly been observed (e.g. to continuous blood sugar monitoring systems, insulin pumps, wound dressings, medical gloves, etc.): this is regarded as a developing epidemic. Lack of labelling of the composition of MD, as well as frequent lack of cooperation of manufacturers to disclose this relevant information, even when contacted by the clinician for the individual case of an established adverse reaction, significantly impede patient care. To advocate for full ingredient labelling in the implementation of EU regulation for MD. This position paper reviews the scientific literature, the current regulatory framework adopted for MD to date, and the likely impact, including some costs data in case of the absence of such labelling. Efforts made by several scientific teams, who are trying to identify the culprit of such adverse effects, either via asking for cooperation from companies, or using costly chemical analyses of MD, can only partly, and with considerable delay, compensate for the absence of meaningful information on the composition of MD; hence, patient management is compromised. Indeed, without knowing the chemical substances present, physicians are unable to inform patients about which substances they should avoid, and which alternative MD may be suitable/tolerated. There is an urgent need for full and accurate labelling of the chemical composition of MD in contact with the human body.