PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

A C de Groot

Publications and source records attributed to A C de Groot.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
PubMed1989

The role of contact allergy to aeroallergens in atopic dermatitis.

In some patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), delayed-type allergy to aeroallergens, such as house dust mite, can be demonstrated by patch testing. Positive patch tests can be expected only in patients with AD and, in them, only to aeroallergens to which type 1 reactions have also been demonstrated. In an as yet unknown number of such cases, aeroallergens appear to play a role in AD. Studies to date have varied too widely in experimental method and design to allow more definite conclusions to be drawn. It is essential that future studies are standardised with regard to patch test system and designed to include adequate controls and assessment of relevance.

Air↗
PubMed1988

The allergens in cosmetics.

The ingredients responsible for allergy to cosmetics were determined in 119 patients suffering from cosmetic-related contact dermatitis. Most reactions (56.3%) were caused by skin care products, followed by nail cosmetics (13.4%), perfumes (8.4%), and hair cosmetics (5.9%). Preservatives were most frequently implicated (32.0%), followed by fragrances (26.5%) and emulsifiers (14.3%). By far the most important cosmetic allergen was Kathon CG, (a preservative system containing, as active ingredients, a mixture of methylisothiazolinone and methyl chloroisothiazolinone) reacting in 33 patients (27.7%). Other frequent causes of cosmetic-related contact allergic reactions were toluenesulfonamide/formaldehyde resin in nail hardener and/or nail lacquer (15 patients [12.6%]), and oleamidopropyl dimethylamine, an emulsifier in baby body lotion (13 patients [10.9%]).

Adolescent↗
PubMed1988

Kathon CG: a review.

Kathon CG, a cosmetics preservative containing, as active ingredients, 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one and 2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one, appears to be a frequent cause of contact dermatitis in Europe. In the United States, where Kathon CG was introduced some 5 years later, the use of this preservative system for cosmetics and toiletries is rapidly increasing. Undoubtedly cases of contact sensitization will soon emerge in this country. Most cases of contact allergy are caused by the use of moisturizing creams on (slightly) damaged skin. Sensitization by the use of cosmetic products on previously healthy skin, especially the face, does occur but appears to be less frequent. Rinse-off products do not seem to have a substantial potential for the induction and elicitation of contact allergic reactions to Kathon CG because of dilution of the product and the allergen with water as well as a short contact time with the skin. This review provides a synopsis of current knowledge on the preservative system Kathon CG, with emphasis on the risk of sensitization and diagnostic procedures.

Animals↗
PubMed1988

Patch test reactivity to DMDM hydantoin. Relationship to formaldehyde allergy.

The relationship between contact allergy to formaldehyde and positive patch test reactions to DMDM hydantoin was investigated. 35 formaldehyde-allergic patients were patch tested with serial dilutions of formaldehyde (0.1%-0.3%-1.0% aq.) and DM hydantoin (the non-formaldehyde-containing parent compound of DMDM hydantoin). 21 were also patch tested with MDM hydantoin (1 molecule formaldehyde) in serial dilutions: 7 (33%) reacted to 1 or more concentrations. The other 14 were also tested with DMDM hydantoin (2 molecules formaldehyde) in serial dilutions: 8 (57%) reacted to 1 or more concentrations. Patients patch-test-positive to formaldehyde 0.1% and/or 0.3% tended to show more patch test reactivity to (D)MDM hydantoin than those who reacted only to 1%. Aqueous solutions of (D)MDM hydantoin in concentrations as used in cosmetic products therefore contain enough free formaldehyde to cause dermatitis in a patch test system in some formaldehyde-allergic patients: 12 such patients applied a cream containing 1% DMDM hydantoin to the flexor aspect of the lower arm twice daily for 1 week; 4 (33%) developed dermatitis. The use of a cream containing 0.25% DMDM hydantoin in these 4 patients still caused dermatitis in 1 and provoked itching in another. An increase in the use of DMDM hydantoin in cosmetic products will also inevitable increase the risk of cosmetic dermatitis in consumers allergic to formaldehyde.

Cosmetics↗
PubMed1988

Contact allergy to diazolidinyl urea (Germall II).

4 cases of contact allergy to diazolidinyl urea (Germall II) in a "hypoallergenic" brand of cosmetics are described. 2 patients sensitized by these cosmetics were not allergic to formaldehyde. 2 other patients already sensitive to formaldehyde had exacerbations of dermatitis due to diazolidinyl urea. The following tentative conclusions were drawn. (i) Contact allergy to diazolidinyl urea may or may not be due to formaldehyde sensitivity. (ii) Patients allergic to formaldehyde may suffer contact allergic reactions from the use of cosmetics containing diazolidinyl urea. (iii) Patients sensitized to diazolidinyl urea may cross-react to imidazolidinyl urea and vice-versa. (iv) It is suggested that the sensitizing potential of diazolidinyl urea is greater than that of imidazolidinyl urea. (v) Aq. solutions may be preferable to pet. for patch testing with diazolidinyl urea.

Adult↗
PubMed1988

The role of contact allergy in the spectrum of adverse effects caused by cosmetics and toiletries.

Of 982 female clients of beauticians interviewed, 254 (25.9%) claimed to have experienced adverse reactions to cosmetics and toiletries in the preceding 5 years. Most reactions were caused by skin-care products (36.6%), followed by personal cleanliness products (29.5%), eye cosmetics (24.0%), deodorants and antiperspirants (12.6%), and facial make-up products (8.3%). 150 women were patch tested. In the European standard series, only a few positive reactions were seen to possible cosmetic allergens: fragrance mix (n = 3), wool alcohols (n = 3), formaldehyde (n = 2), balsam of Peru (n = 1), and colophony (n = 1). In the cosmetic series, only Kathon CG elicited positive patch test reactions (n = 3). Cosmetic allergy was considered to be "proven" in 3 patients (2.0%), and "possible" in 7 (4.7%). It is concluded that contact allergy is responsible for a minority (less than 10%) of all reactions to cosmetics and toiletries. The majority of reactions are due to irritation from personal cleanliness products such as soaps, shampoos, bath foams and from deodorants, or worsening of pre-existing dermatoses such as seborrhoeic dermatitis and acne.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1988

Cross-reaction pattern of the cationic emulsifier oleamidopropyl dimethylamine.

13 patients allergic to the cationic emulsifier oleamidopropyl dimethylamine were tested with a series of related amide-amine type surfactants in order to investigate its cross-reaction pattern. With 1 exception, all patients reacted to at least 4 of the test materials. Most reactions were observed to ricinoleamidopropyl dimethylamine lactate and tallowamidopropyl dimethylamine (11 patients, 85%); 9 patients (of 12 tested, 75%) reacted to lauramidopropyl dimethylamine and 6 (46%) to myristamidopropyl dimethylamine. A certain pattern of cross-reactivity was recognised.

Adolescent↗