PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

An Goossens

Publications and source records attributed to An Goossens.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2007

Allergic contact dermatitis from modified colophonium in wound dressings.

This study concerns a 69-year-old female patient with a longstanding history of venous ulcerations on both lower legs and multiple sensitivities, who developed eczematous lesions with the hydrocolloid dressing Combiderm (Convatec Ltd., a Bristol-Myers Squibb division, Ickenham, Middlesex, UK). Epicutaneous tests were positive to this dressing and to a modified colophonium derivative, i.e. glyceryl rosinate, however not to the unmodified colophonium from the standard series. A review of the literature showed several case reports about sensitization to similar hydrocolloids being distributed under various brand names in different countries and which contain the pentaerythritol ester of the hydrogenated rosin as the tackifying agent. Some of the patients described did, while others did not, react to colophonium but only to a modified derivative. In our patient, the reaction to glyceryl rosinate most probably represent cross-sensitivity with the modified colophonium derivative used in Combiderm, the presence (but not the exact nature) of which was showed by the company. In patients where allergic contact dermatitis from hydrocolloid dressings is strongly suspected and colophonium tests negatively, patch testing to modified colophonium derivatives should therefore be performed. As the complete composition of wound dressings is most often unknown, we urgently advocate legal requirements for labelling of those and in fact all medically used devices.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

Mercaptobenzothiazole or the mercapto-mix: which should be in the standard series?

Mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT) compounds are well known contact allergens. To detect rubber allergic patients we use both MBT (2% in petrolatum) and a mercapto-mix with 4 constituents of 0.5% each in our standard series. In this article the EECDRG presents data of in total 32,475 consecutive tested patients attending the respective contact dermatitis clinics from 11 centres in Europe to determine if the mix and MBT detected the same allergic patients. We found 327 patients positive to the mix or MBT, or to both. 261 were positive to the mix and 254 to MBT. MBT was negative in 73 patients who were positive to the mix. If the mix had not been in the standard series, on average 22% of patients allergic to a mercapto-compound would have been missed, for MBT this would have been on average 20%. All clinics would have missed a significant number of positive reactions if both compounds had not been tested. We conclude, that both the mercapto mix and MBT are required in the standard series.

Benzothiazoles↗
PubMed2006

Contact allergy to para-phenylenediamine in a permanent eyelash dye.

We present the case of a 30-year-old atopic lady with a known history of intolerance to several materials, including dark stockings, who developed a severe dermatitis on the eyelids and peri-orbital regions, as well as a conjunctivitis after having her eyelashes tinted by a beautician with a permanent black eyelash and eyebrow dye (Combinal, Dr Temt Laboratories, Austria). Patch tests revealed positive reactions to para-phenylenediamine (PPD), both diluted 0.01% and 1% in pet., to the eyelash dye (tested semiopen as is) and to some of the azo-dyes tested. The permanent eyelash dye did contain PPD, the use of which is illegal but seems to be a common practice. The patient had most probably been sensitized through nylon stockings containing azo-dyes, with PPD itself cross-reacting to them. With the growth in popularity of tattooing and permanent make-up, doctors should be aware of the new uses of this old allergen. Moreover, although many manufacturers have made great efforts to improve cosmetics concerning their safety, some of them remain uninformed about cosmetic legislation or do not respect it at all. Because many of these products are acquired via internet, lack of legislation about this shopping modality is also a serious problem.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Not only oxidized R-(+)- but also S-(-)-limonene is a common cause of contact allergy in dermatitis patients in Europe.

Limonene, one of the most often used fragrance terpenes in any kind of scented products, is prone to air-oxidation. The oxidation products formed have a considerable sensitizing potential. In previous patch test studies on consecutively tested dermatitis patients, oxidized R-limonene has been proven to be a good and frequent indicator of fragrance-related contact allergy. The current study extends these investigations to 6 European clinics of dermatology, where the oxidation mixture of both enantiomers of limonene (R and S) have been tested in 2411 dermatitis patients. Altogether, 63 out of 2411 patients tested (2.6%) reacted to 1 or both the oxidized limonene preparations. Only 2.3% reacted to the oxidized R-limonene and 2.0% to the oxidized S-limonene. In 57% of the cases, simultaneous reactions were observed to both oxidation mixtures. Concomitant reactions to the fragrance mix, colophonium, Myroxylon pereirae, and fragrance-related contact allergy were common in patients reacting to 1 or both the oxidized limonene enantiomers. Our study provides clinical evidence for the importance of oxidation products of limonene in contact allergy. It seems advisable to screen consecutive dermatitis patients with oxidized limonene 3% petrolatum, although this patch test material is not yet commercially available.

Cyclohexenes↗
PubMed2006

Allergic contact granuloma due to palladium following ear piercing.

Two cases of sarcoidal-type allergic contact granuloma due to metals in ear piercing are presented, the first to palladium (Pd) only, and the second to Pd and possibly also to other metals. Both the patients developed papulonodular lesions at the helices following ear piercing, which after 3-4 weeks, became more granulomatous and very resistant to treatment. Indeed, repeated intralesional injections with corticosteroids produced only a temporary regression of the lesions. Biopsies from the persistent granulomatous lesions from the helices in both the patients and the positive test to Pd in case 2, 3 weeks after the patch-testing procedure, demonstrated epithelioid granulomas, with some multinucleate histiocytes surrounded by a lymphocytic-histiocytic infiltrate. Areas of fibrinoid necrosis were found in both the helix biopsies. An infectious pathology was excluded. Patch testing showed a strong positive reaction to Pd only in case 1 and to Pd and nickel in case 2. Chemical analysis of the earring of patient 1 confirmed the presence of Pd; however, analysis of the earrings of the second patient did not show the presence of Pd, but showed the presence of nickel and copper. Both the clinical and histological findings concur with some rarely reported similar observations in the literature.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Allergic contact dermatitis to copolymers in cosmetics--case report and review of the literature.

Copolymers or heteropolymers are large molecules with high molecular weights (>1000 D). They have been underestimated for a long time as to their sensitizing capacities. Allergic contact dermatitis to 6 copolymers in cosmetics and 1 in a medical dressing has been described; however, the nature of the hapten is still unknown. We report a case of allergic contact dermatitis to polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP)/hexadecene copolymer in a purple-colored lipstick and review the literature on allergic contact dermatitis to 7 copolymers: PVP/hexadecene, PVP/eicosene, PVP/1-triacontene, methoxy polyethyleneglycol (PEG)-22/dodecyl glycols, methoxy PEG-17/dodecyl glycols, phthalic anhydride/trimellitic anhydride/glycols, and polyvinyl methyl/maleic acid anhydride.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Airborne dermatosis.

Dermatologists and occupational physicians are those who have to deal with airborne allergens and irritants most often, and the awareness of these substances has grown over the years. In this report, skin symptoms of airborne dermatosis, the nature of airborne contactans, and the localization of lesions are presented, along with the differential diagnoses. Recognizing the characteristic nature of these reactions can greatly facilitate the diagnosis.

Air Pollutants↗
PubMed2005

Recommendation to include methyldibromo glutaronitrile in the European standard patch test series.

The preservative methyldibromo glutaronitrilc (MDBGN) is used non-occupationally and occupationally. High contact allergy rates have been reported when tested in consecutive dermatitis patients as well as clinical cases with allergic contact dermatitis. Up till now there has been no agreement on which patch test preparation to use to trace contact allergy to MDBGN. From the year 2005 on, MDBGN at 0.5% w/w in petrolatum is recommended for the European standard patch test series. The choice of 0.5% is based on consideration of rates of contact allergy, doubtful and irritant reactions, as well as on information on clinical relevance represented by results of a repeated open application test, and patch test concentrations to diagnose allergic contact dermatitis from MDBGN in individual cases.

Allergens↗
PubMed2005

Patch testing with a new fragrance mix - reactivity to the individual constituents and chemical detection in relevant cosmetic products.

UNLABELLED: A new fragrance mix (FM II), with 6 frequently used chemicals not present in the currently used fragrance mix (FM I), was evaluated in 6 dermatological centres in Europe, as previously reported. In this publication, test results with the individual constituents and after repeated open application test (ROAT) of FM II are described. Furthermore, cosmetic products which had caused a contact dermatitis in patients were analysed for the presence of the individual constituents. In 1701 patients, the individual constituents of the medium (14%) and the highest (28%) concentration of FM II were simultaneously applied with the new mix at 3 concentrations (break-down testing for the lowest concentration of FM II (2.8%) was performed only if the mix was positive). ROAT was performed with the concentration of the FM II which had produced a positive or doubtful (+ or ?+) patch test reaction. Patients' products were analysed for the 6 target compounds by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). RESULTS: 50 patients (2.9%) showed a positive reaction to 14% FM II and 70 patients (4.1%) to 28% FM II. 24/50 (48%) produced a positive reaction to 1 or more of the individual constituents of 14% FM II and 38/70 (54.3%) to 28% FM II, respectively. If doubtful reactions to individual constituents are included, the break-down testing was positive in 74% and 70%, respectively. Patients with a positive reaction to 14% FM II showed a higher rate of reactions to the individual constituent of the 28% FM II: 36/50 (72%). Positive reactions to individual constituents in patients negative to FM II were exceedingly rare. If doubtful reactions are regarded as negative, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for the medium concentration of FM II towards at least 1 individual constituent was 92.3% (exact 95% confidence interval 74.9-99.1%), 98.4% (97.7-99.0%), 48% (33.7-62.6%) and 99.9% (99.6-"100.0%), respectively. For the high concentration, the figures were very similar. The frequency of positive reactions to the individual constituents in descending order was the same for both FM II concentrations: hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral) > citral > farnesol > citronellol > alpha-hexyl-cinnamic aldehyde (AHCA). No unequivocally positive reaction to coumarin was observed. Lyral) was the dominant individual constituent, with positive reactions in 36% of patients reacting to 14% FM II and 37.1% to 28% FM II. 5/11 patients developed a positive ROAT after a median of 7 days (range 2-10). The 5 patients with a doubtful or negative reaction to 28% FM II were all ROAT negative except 1. There were 7 patients with a certain fragrance history and a positive reaction to either 28% or 14% FM II but a negative reaction to FM I. Analysis with GC-MS in a total of 24 products obtained from 12 patients showed at least 1-5 individual constituents per product: Lyral (79.2%), citronellol (87.5%), AHCA (58.3%), citral (50%) and coumarin (50%). The patients were patch test positive to Lyral, citral and AHCA. In conclusion, patients with a certain fragrance history and a negative reaction to FM I can be identified by FM II. Testing with individual constituents is positive in about 50% of cases reacting to either 14% or 28% FM II.

Acrolein↗
PubMed2005

Patch testing with a new fragrance mix detects additional patients sensitive to perfumes and missed by the current fragrance mix.

The currently used 8% fragrance mix (FM I) does not identify all patients with a positive history of adverse reactions to fragrances. A new FM II with 6 frequently used chemicals was evaluated in 1701 consecutive patients patch tested in 6 dermatological centres in Europe. FM II was tested in 3 concentrations - 28% FM II contained 5% hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral), 2% citral, 5% farnesol, 5% coumarin, 1% citronellol and 10%alpha-hexyl-cinnamic aldehyde; in 14% FM II, the single constituents' concentration was lowered to 50% and in 2.8% FM II to 10%. Each patient was classified regarding a history of adverse reactions to fragrances: certain, probable, questionable, none. Positive reactions to FM I occurred in 6.5% of the patients. Positive reactions to FM II were dose-dependent and increased from 1.3% (2.8% FM II), through 2.9% (14% FM II) to 4.1% (28% FM II). Reactions classified as doubtful or irritant varied considerably between the 6 centres, with a mean value of 7.2% for FM I and means ranging from 1.8% to 10.6% for FM II. 8.7% of the tested patients had a certain fragrance history. Of these, 25.2% were positive to FM I; reactivity to FM II was again dose-dependent and ranged from 8.1% to 17.6% in this subgroup. Comparing 2 groups of history - certain and none - values for sensitivity and specificity were calculated: sensitivity: FM I, 25.2%; 2.8% FM II, 8.1%; 14% FM II, 13.5%; 28% FM II, 17.6%; specificity: FM I, 96.5%; 2.8% FM II, 99.5%; 14% FM II, 98.8%; 28% FM II, 98.1%. 31/70 patients (44.3%) positive to 28% FM II were negative to FM I, with 14% FM II this proportion being 16/50 (32%). In the group of patients with a certain history, a total of 7 patients were found reacting to FM II only. Conversely, in the group of patients without any fragrance history, there were significantly more positive reactions to FM I than to any concentration of FM II. In conclusion, the new FM II detects additional patients sensitive to fragrances missed by FM I; the number of false-positive reactions is lower with FM II than with FM I. Considering sensitivity, specificity and the frequency of doubtful reactions, the medium concentration, 14% FM II, seems to be the most appropriate diagnostic screening tool.

Acrolein↗
PubMed2005

Deodorants: an experimental provocation study with isoeugenol.

Axillary dermatitis is common and overrepresented in people with contact allergy to fragrances. Many people suspect their deodorants to be the incriminating products. In order to investigate the significance of isoeugenol in deodorants for the development of axillary dermatitis when used by people with and without contact allergy to isoeugenol, patch tests with deodorants and ethanol solutions with isoeugenol, as well as repeated open application tests (ROAT) with roll-on deodorants with and without isoeugenol at various concentrations, were performed in 35 dermatitis patients, 10 without and 25 with contact allergy to isoeugenol. A positive ROAT was observed only in patients hypersensitive to isoeugenol (P<0.001) and only in the axilla to which the deodorants containing isoeugenol had been applied (P<0.001). Deodorants containing isoeugenol in the concentration range of 0.0063-0.2% used 2 times daily on healthy skin can thus elicit axillary dermatitis within a few weeks in people with contact allergy to isoeugenol.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Selected oxidized fragrance terpenes are common contact allergens.

Terpenes are widely used fragrance compounds in fine fragrances, but also in domestic and occupational products. Terpenes oxidize easily due to autoxidation on air exposure. Previous studies have shown that limonene, linalool and caryophyllene are not allergenic themselves but readily form allergenic products on air-exposure. This study aimed to determine the frequency and characteristics of allergic reactions to selected oxidized fragrance terpenes other than limonene. In total 1511 consecutive dermatitis patients in 6 European dermatology centres were patch tested with oxidized fragrance terpenes and some oxidation fractions and compounds. Oxidized linalool and its hydroperoxide fraction were found to be common contact allergens. Of the patients tested, 1.3% showed a positive reaction to oxidized linalool and 1.1% to the hydroperoxide fraction. About 0.5% of the patients reacted to oxidized caryophyllene whereas 1 patient reacted to oxidized myrcene. Of the patients reacting to the oxidized terpenes, 58% had fragrance-related contact allergy and/or a positive history for adverse reaction to fragrances. Autoxidation of fragrance terpenes contributes greatly to fragrance allergy, which emphasizes the need of testing with compounds that patients are actually exposed to and not only with the ingredients originally applied in commercial formulations.

Allergens↗
PubMed2005

Allergic contact dermatitis associated with reactive dyes in a dark garment: a case report.

In this study, we present a case of a patient who has not been occupationally exposed to reactive dyes, but did present with a dermatitis from wearing a dark cotton garment. The patient experienced reactivation of his dermatitis when rewearing a new unwashed dark T-shirt made of 100% cotton (in fact, the patient reported that it had to be washed at least 3 times before the skin reaction disappeared). He presented positive patch tests to 6 reactive dyes from Chemotechnique textile series. The clothing could not be proved as the true cause of the dermatitis, but resolution occurred upon removal of the suspected garment. This suggests that contact allergy to the reactive dyes (he did not react to any other dyes and his garment was a natural fabric) was likely responsible. With this report, we would like to emphasize that reactive dyes, as a class, should be considered as potential allergens, both occupationally and from non-occupational exposure such as garments. If garments containing reactive dyes are not properly rinsed in the manufacturing process, we believe that excess of dye can be retained that may cause allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). As the reactive dyes and their hydrolysis products are very water-soluble, they can be easily washed off to prevent ACD.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Allergic contact dermatitis from methyldibromoglutaronitrile.

BACKGROUND: Arriving at a diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis is a multistep procedure including the establishing of contact allergy, demonstration of current exposure to the sensitizer, and assessment of clinical relevance. Sometimes, these steps are easy to get through; at other times, there may be problems with every step. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the possible difficulties and pitfalls in establishing the presence of contact allergy and diagnosing allergic contact dermatitis from exposure to the preservative methyldibromoglutaronitrile (MDBGN). METHODS: Simultaneous patch-testing with petrolatum preparations of MDBGN at various concentrations, use testing, and chemical analysis with high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). RESULTS: Contact allergy to MDBGN was established in two cases, with MDBGN in petrolatum at 0.5%. Results of HPLC investigation of moisturizers used by the patients and yielding positive results on patch and use tests disagreed with the information about preservatives on the labels of the moisturizers and with the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs). CONCLUSIONS: Patch testing with MDBGN in petrolatum at a concentration of less than 0.5% may fail to diagnose a clinically relevant contact allergy. The information on labels of products, on MSDSs, and from manufacturers may not be reliable, which indicates the need for chemical analyses.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Photoallergic contact dermatitis.

PURPOSE: To determine whether photoallergic contact dermatitis is as uncommon as it is usually considered to be and to review the associated clinical features. METHODS: We reviewed the literature on photoallergic reactions induced by the topical contact of the skin with a chemical in the presence of, or followed by, exposure to UV or visible light. Some of the more recently observed photo-allergens and those presenting special clinical features are discussed. RESULTS: The literature cites several topical substances that give rise to photoallergic contact dermatitis, some of them only exceptionally but others quite frequently. The clinical features are not always those of a eczematous eruption, and several parts of the body may be affected. CONCLUSIONS: Many topical photoallergic culprits have been reported in the literature, the most important of which are sunscreen agents and, recently, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs). Not at all exceptional is the occurrence of photoaggravation and recurrent transient or even persistent light reactions on previously exposed as well as non-exposed areas (often sparing the original application site), particularly with the NSAID ketoprofen. Moreover, cross-reactions with chemically-related as well as non-chemically related molecules are common. The potentially misleading clinical features observed in some cases, the diversity of the casual substances identified, and the low frequency with which photopatch testing is carried out in general indicate that the occurrence of photoallergic contact dermatitis might well be underestimated.

Allergens↗
PubMed2004

Contact allergic reactions of the vulva: a 14-year review.

BACKGROUND: In women with vulval complaints, irritant contact dermatitis is more common than allergic contact dermatitis, but secondary sensitization has to be taken into consideration since these patients often use several topical medications. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this retrospective study were to establish the prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis in patients with vulval complaints and to verify how many patients with allergic contact dermatitis suffered from a previous pathology. METHODS: We reviewed patch- and prick-test results from 92 women. The women had all been administered the European Standard series, and most had also been tested for other allergens such as the ingredients of topical pharmaceutical products and cosmetics. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients (38%) presented with one or more positive allergic reactions. For 15 of the patients, these reactions were considered to be relevant to their clinical condition and were most often due to contact dermatitis from topical pharmaceutical products. Three patients presented with positive and relevant contact urticaria syndrome from latex, and two patients presented with protein contact dermatitis from human seminal plasma. CONCLUSION: Patients with vulval dermatitis are at risk of developing contact sensitivities, particularly to topical pharmaceutical products; therefore, attention should be paid to this problem when such products are prescribed.

Administration, Cutaneous↗
PubMed2003

Contact allergy to oak moss: search for sensitizing molecules using combined bioassay-guided chemical fractionation, GC-MS, and structure-activity relationship analysis.

In addition to pure synthetic fragrance materials several natural extracts are still in use in the perfume industry. Among them oak moss absolute, prepared from the lichen Evernia prunastri (L.) Arch., is considered a major contact sensitizer and is therefore included in the fragrance mix used for diagnosing perfume allergy. The process of preparing oak moss absolute has changed during recent years and, even though several potential sensitizers have been identified from former benzene extracts, its present constituents and their allergenic status are not clear. In the study reported here, we applied a method developed for the identification of contact allergens present in natural complex mixtures to oak moss absolute. The method is based on the combination of bioassay-guided chemical fractionation, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis and structure-activity relationship studies. Our first results showed that atranol and chloroatranol, formed by transesterification and decarboxylation of the lichen depsides, atranorin and chloroatranorin, during the preparation of oak moss absolute, are strong elicitants in most patients sensitized to oak moss. Methyl-beta-orcinol carboxylate, a depside degradation product and the most important monoaryl derivative of oak moss from an olfactory standpoint, was also found to elicit a reaction in most patients.

Allergens↗