PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Klaus E Andersen

Publications and source records attributed to Klaus E Andersen.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

ROAT: morphology of ROAT on arm, neck and face in formaldehyde and diazolidinyl urea sensitive individuals.

The morphology of early allergic contact dermatitis reactions was studied in formaldehyde allergic individuals exposed to a cream product preserved with 4 different concentrations of diazolidinyl urea. The study was made using a dose-escalating design in 3 different anatomical regions, the upper arm, neck and face. On the arm and neck, the dominant initial morphology was an eczematous papular eruption. In the face, the initial skin changes were more homogeneous and infiltrated erythema.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Comparison of elicitation potential of chloroatranol and atranol--2 allergens in oak moss absolute.

Chloroatranol and atranol are degradation products of chloroatranorin and atranorin, respectively, and have recently been identified as important contact allergens in the natural fragrance extract, oak moss absolute. Oak moss absolute is widely used in perfumery and is the cause of many cases of fragrance allergic contact dermatitis. Chloroatranol elicits reactions at very low levels of exposure. In oak moss absolute, chloroatranol and atranol are present together and both may contribute to the allergenicity and eliciting capacity of the natural extract. In this study, 10 eczema patients with known sensitization to chloroatranol and oak moss absolute were tested simultaneously to a serial dilution of chloroatranol and atranol in ethanol, in equimolar concentrations (0.0034-1072 microM). Dose-response curves were estimated and analysed by logistic regression. The estimated difference in elicitation potency of chloroatranol relative to atranol based on testing with equimolar concentrations was 217% (95% confidence interval 116-409%). Both substances elicited reactions at very low levels of exposure. It is concluded that the differences in elicitation capacity between the 2 substances are counterbalanced by exposure being greater to atranol than to chloroatranol and that both substances contribute to the clinical problems seen in oak moss absolute-sensitized individuals.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Retrospective evaluation of the consequence of alleged patch test sensitization.

The risk of actively sensitizing a patient in connection with diagnostic patch tests exists. This risk, however, is extremely low, especially from standard allergens, and if the test is carried out according to internationally accepted guidelines. This retrospective study investigates the clinical consequences in cases of possible patch test sensitization. Among 7619 consecutively tested eczema patients in a 14-year period 26 (0.3%) were identified in the database as having had a late patch test reaction, which may be an indication of patch test sensitization. 9 of these cases were not suitable or available for the follow-up investigation and 3 patients were not traceable. Among the 14 remaining patients 1 had a reaction to gold sodium thiosulphate, which was assessed to be a persistent reaction and not a late reaction, and in 2 patients a clear relevance for the late reacting allergen was found. For the remaining 11 patients we could not rule out that they were patch test sensitized, and they were investigated further. 1 was diseased and 10 were interviewed regarding the possible consequences of the alleged patch test sensitization. 9 had not experienced any dermatitis problems, and 1 could not exclude the possibility that the alleged patch test sensitization had aggravated her dermatitis problems, although we find it unlikely based on the full clinical history. Even though the patient material is small and the limitations inherent in such a retrospective study, the results and the literature indicate that development of clinical contact dermatitis following patch test sensitization is very rare.

Dermatitis, Allergic Contact↗
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

Identification and classification of skin sensitizers: identifying false positives and false negatives.

The first step in regulatory evaluation of substances involves the identification of their intrinsic hazards, including the potential for skin sensitization. This is, quite properly, entirely different from assessment of the risks to human health, which might arise from incorporation of substances in products. EU guidance on regulations concerning the classification of skin sensitizers suggests a range of sources of information be deployed in the hazard identification process. These include chemical structure, predictive animal tests, and various types of human data. Where the information is clear-cut, then uncertainties rarely arise. However, for some materials, discordant information arises, perhaps because the substance is on the borderline of test sensitivity and classification (sensitizing materials of insufficient potency do not classified according to the EU scheme), due to conflicting results in predictive tests or for other reasons. In this study, we review data on a number of substances where a classification decision is complicated by such discordances and seek to use these examples to demonstrate how best to make a weight of evidence decision on whether a substance should, or should not, be classified as a skin sensitizer.

Allergens↗
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

The prevalence of suspected and challenge-verified penicillin allergy in a university hospital population.

Suspected penicillin allergy is common among hospitalised patients, but the quality of the information given by the patient is often doubtful. Alleged penicillin allergic are likely to be treated with more toxic, broad-spectrum, and more expensive antibiotics, with effects on microbial resistance patterns and public economy as a consequence. We performed a cross-sectional case-control study with two visits to all clinical departments of a large university hospital in order to find in-patients with medical files labelled "penicillin allergy" or who reported penicillin allergy upon admission. Patient histories were obtained via a questionnaire, and they were offered investigation for penicillin allergy with specific IgE, basophil histamine release, skin prick tests, intradermal tests and drug challenge tests. Finally, the pharmaco-economical consequences of the penicillin allergy were estimated. In a cohort of 3642 patients, 96 fulfilled the inclusion criteria giving a point-prevalence of alleged penicillin allergy of 5% in a hospital in-patient population. Mean time elapsed since the alleged first reaction to penicillin was 20 years. The skin was the most frequently affected organ (82.2%), maculo-papular exanthema (35.4%) and urticaria (10.4%) being the most frequently reported reactions. 25% did not recall the time of their reaction. 82.2% did not remember the name of the penicillin they reacted to. 34.8% had been treated with penicillins after suspicion of penicillin allergy had been raised. None of these reacted to penicillins. 33.3% of the patients receiving antibiotics during their current hospitalisation were prescribed penicillins. 2% developed non-severe exanthema. The average acquisition costs for antibiotics to penicillin allergic patients were euro 278, compared to euro 119 had they been non-allergic. The prevalence of suspected penicillin allergy was lower than reported elsewhere. A substantial number of patients failed to recall basic information about their alleged allergy. Patients reporting penicillin allergy upon admission and labels stating penicillin allergy on medical files are ignored in almost a third of patients receiving antibiotics. The acquisition costs for antibiotics to penicillin allergic patients were higher, compared to the cost had the patients been non-allergic.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

The prevalence of acute cutaneous drug reactions in a Scandinavian university hospital.

To investigate the epidemiology of acute cutaneous adverse drug reactions, a cross-sectional study was designed with four visits, equally distributed over one year, to all clinical departments of a large university hospital in order to find patients with possible drug-induced exanthema of less than 2 weeks' duration. Patients were examined clinically and offered investigation for possible drug allergy, including blood tests, and skin tests when appropriate. Subsequent drug challenge tests were performed in selected cases. Finally, the history and test results were evaluated to determine the imputability of each drug as the possible culprit. In a cohort of 11,371 in- and out-patients, 131 were referred for evaluation. Twenty-nine cases of acute cutaneous drug reactions were identified, giving a prevalence of 0.33% in in-patients, 0.14% in out-patients, and 0.25% overall. Twenty-five percent of the case patients died within 6 months after the study period. The most common type of skin reactions were symmetrically distributed maculo-papular exanthema and eczematous eruptions. Several more rare types of skin reactions were each represented by a single case. Beta-lactam antibiotics and chemotherapeutics were the most common eliciting drugs. The prevalence was lower than reported previously, but similar to a recent study. However, prospective studies are few and rarely performed in large hospital settings. Furthermore, variations in the pharmacotherapeutic traditions between countries may affect the outcome of such studies.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2006

Cutaneous adverse drug reactions seen at a university hospital department of dermatology.

Patients with suspected cutaneous adverse drug reactions are often referred to allergy clinics or departments of dermatology for evaluation. These patients are selected compared with patients identified in prospective and cross-sectional studies of hospital populations. This explains the observed variation in prevalence of specific reactions and of eliciting drugs. This study investigated the prevalence of cutaneous adverse drug reactions in a university hospital department of dermatology that is specially focused on allergy. An 8-month survey was carried out during the period April-December 2003. Consecutive patients suspected of having cutaneous adverse drug reactions during this period were examined by dermatologists and investigated. Drug imputability was assessed in the 194 patients included; 33.5% had an exanthema with certain or likely drug imputability. Urticaria and local reactions at injection sites were the most frequent reactions (25% and 18.8%, respectively). Beta-lactam antibiotics, extracts for desensitization and insulins were the main drug groups involved, and accounted for 22.8%, 17.1% and 14.2%, respectively, of the reactions. Extracts for desensitization and insulins elicited more reactions than expected. This probably reflects the referral pattern to an allergy clinic.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2005

Evaluation of the skin sensitizing potency of chemicals by using the existing methods and considerations of relevance for elicitation.

The Technical Committee of Classification and Labelling dealing with harmonized classification of substances and classification criteria under Directive 67/548/EEC on behalf of the European Commission nominated an expert group on skin sensitization in order to investigate further the possibility for potency consideration of skin sensitizers for future development of the classification criteria. All substances and preparations should be classified on the basis of their intrinsic properties and should be labelled accordingly with the rules set up in the Directive 67/548/EEC. The classification should be the same under their full life cycle and in the case that there is no harmonized classification the substance or preparation should be self-classified by the manufacturer in accordance with the same criteria. The Directive does not apply to certain preparations in the finished state, such as medical products, cosmetics, food and feeding stuffs, which are subject to specific community legislation. The main questions that are answered in this report are whether it would be possible to give detailed guidance on how to grade allergen potency based on the existing methods, whether such grading could be translated into practical thresholds and whether these could be set for both induction and elicitation. Examples are given for substances falling into various potency groups for skin sensitization relating to results from the local lymph node assay, the guinea pig maximization test, the Buehler method and human experience.

Advisory Committees↗
PubMed2005

Course of contact allergy in consecutive eczema patients patch tested with TRUE Test panels 1 and 2 at least twice over a 12-year period.

Non-reproducibility of positive patch test reactions is common. In this retrospective study, we investigated the reproducibility of previously positive patch test reactions and the appearance of new positive reactions in a consecutive series of 264 eczema patients tested at least twice over a 12-year period using the TRUE Test standardized patch test system. Out of 297 positive reactions, 66% remained positive in a 2nd test, 10% were scored as doubtful and 24% as negative. Among the previously recorded doubtful reactions, 13% were positive in the 2nd test, 13% were again doubtful and 74% negative. In relation to the degree of patch test reactivity, 48% of the + reactions were reproducible, compared to 87% of ++ and +++ reactions. No difference in reproducibility was observed between patients tested with a short or a long-time interval between tests. With the use of the TRUE Test panels 1 and 2, methodological factors are minimized. The variation in patch test positivity may then be attributed to biological variation, which depends on several individual factors such as patch test reading, patient-related factors such as changed immunological sensitivity, regional variation of the skin on the back and the presence of more or less active dermatitis.

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

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

Experimental elicitation of contact allergy from a diazolidinyl urea-preserved cream in relation to anatomical region, exposure time and concentration.

The elicitation potential of the cosmetic preservative diazolidinyl urea was studied in formaldehyde- and diazolidinyl urea-sensitized volunteer patients using a stepwise controlled exposure design. The test product was a facial moisturizer, preserved with varying concentrations of diazolidinyl urea, ranging from 0.05% to 0.6%. A repeated open application-like exposure test was performed on volunteers and a control group with the test product containing increasing preservative concentrations, on arm, neck and face, sequentially, for 2 weeks or until dermatitis developed. The preservative action in the cream at different test concentrations was tested in microbial challenge tests and was found effective at all concentrations tested. The study established a non-eliciting concentration of diazolidinyl urea of 0.05% in formaldehyde-sensitive patients and showed that the skin reactivity depends on the anatomical region, increasing from the upper arm to neck and, possibly, to the face. The study design, beginning on the upper arm and moving on to the neck and face seems to be relevant for the study of reactions to cosmetic products. A clear dose-response relationship was seen regarding preservative concentration in the product.

Adolescent↗