Allergic contact dermatitis caused by parabens: 2 case reports and a review

2000 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
C Mowad
Keyword(s):  
Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Allergic Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Allergic Contact

Allergic contact dermatitis to hearing aids: literature and case reports

2009 ◽  
Vol 60 (5) ◽  
pp. 291-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Di Berardino ◽  
P. D. Pigatto ◽  
U. Ambrosetti ◽  
A. Cesarani
Keyword(s):  
Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Allergic Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Allergic Contact

scholarly journals Allergic contact dermatitis caused by acrylates in nail cosmetic products: Case reports and review of the literatures

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 218-221
Author(s):  
Yi-Tsz Lin ◽  
Shih-Wei Tsai ◽  
Ching-Wen Yang ◽  
Yu-Hsian Tseng ◽  
Chia-Yu Chu
Keyword(s):  
Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Allergic Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Cosmetic Products ◽  
Allergic Contact

Evaluating clinical case report data for SAR modeling of allergic contact dermatitis

1996 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 489-493 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Gealy ◽  
Cynthia Graham ◽  
Nancy B Sussman ◽  
Orest T Macina ◽  
Herbert S Rosenkranz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Allergic Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Clinical Case ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Structure Activity ◽  
Report Data ◽  
Allergic Contact ◽  
Structure Evaluation

Clinical case reports can be important sources of information for alerting health professionals to the existence of possible health hazards. Isolated case reports, however, are weak evidence of causal relationships between exposure and disease because they do not provide an indication of the frequency of a particular exposure leading to a disease event. A database of chemicals causing allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) was compiled to discern structure-activity relationships. Clinical reports repre sented a considerable fraction of the data. Multiple Computer Automated Structure Evaluation (MultiCASE) was used to create a structure-activity model to be used in predicting the ACD activity of untested chemicals. We examined how the predictive ability of the model was influenced by including the case report data in the model. In addition, the model was used to predict the activity of chemicals identified from clinical case reports. The following results were obtained: • When chemicals which were identified as dermal sensitizers by only one or two case reports were included in the model, the specificity of the model was reduced. • Less than one half of these chemicals were predicted to be active by the most highly evidenced model. • These chemicals possessed substructures not pre viously encountered by any of the models. We conclude that chemicals classified as sensitizers based on isolated clinical case reports be excluded from our model of ACD. The approach described here for evaluating activity of chemicals based on sparse evidence should be considered for use with other endpoints of toxicity when data are correspondingly limited.

scholarly journals Immediate and Delayed Hypersensitivity Reactions to Antibiotics: Aminoglycosides, Clindamycin, Linezolid, and Metronidazole

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Dilley ◽  
Bob Geng
Keyword(s):  
Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Allergic Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Skin Testing ◽  
Neutrophilic Dermatosis ◽  
Hypersensitivity Reactions ◽  
Fixed Drug Eruption ◽  
Acute Febrile Neutrophilic Dermatosis ◽  
Ige Mediated ◽  
Allergic Contact

AbstractHypersensitivity reactions including IgE-mediated and delayed cell-mediated reactions to aminoglycosides, clindamycin, linezolid, and metronidazole are rare. For aminoglycosides, allergic contact dermatitis is the most frequent reaction for which patch testing can be a useful step in evaluation. For clindamycin, delayed maculopapular exanthems are the most common reactions. There are case reports of clindamycin associated with drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis, and symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE). For linezolid, cases of hypersensitivity were exceedingly rare and included urticaria, angioedema, anaphylaxis, delayed rashes, and DRESS. For metronidazole, only rare cases were found across a broad spectrum of reactions including allergic contact dermatitis, fixed drug eruption, angioedema, anaphylaxis, serum sickness-like reaction, SJS/TEN, AGEP, SDRIFE, and a possible case of DRESS. IgE-mediated reactions and anaphylaxis to these types of antibiotics are uncommon, and reports of skin testing concentrations and desensitization protocols are largely limited to case reports and series. Non-irritating skin testing concentrations have been reported for gentamycin, tobramycin, and clindamycin. Published desensitization protocols for intravenous and inhaled tobramycin, oral clindamycin, intravenous linezolid, and oral and intravenous metronidazole have also been reported and are reviewed.

Severe eyelid allergic contact dermatitis secondary to eyelash tint: two case reports

2017 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lareb Ali ◽  
Jonathan S. Foulds ◽  
Sharizan Abdul Ghaffar
Keyword(s):  
Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Allergic Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Allergic Contact

scholarly journals Acrylic sculpting nails, an occupational hazard for contact dermatitis. Case reports and review of the literature

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-51
Author(s):  
Laura Georgiana Moise ◽  
Sonia Bădulici ◽  
Agripina Rașcu ◽  
Alexandra Maria Rașcu
Keyword(s):  
Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Allergic Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Clinical Manifestations ◽  
Hydroxyethyl Methacrylate ◽  
Plastic Materials ◽  
Occupational Setting ◽  
Exposed Workers ◽  
Allergic Contact

Abstract Acrylates are plastic materials formed by the polymerization of monomers, which are recognized as powerful sensitizers that may cause allergic contact dermatitis both in occupational and non-occupational environment. In the occupational setting, the most exposed workers are the dentists, dental technicians, prosthesis technicians, printers, painters, fiberglass workers and nail technicians. We describe four cases of occupational allergic contact dermatitis in nail technicians caused by acrylic compounds that illustrate numerous clinical manifestations. Clinical manifestations ranged from edema, erythema, scaling and fissuring fingertips to erythematous patches around the chin, mandible and abdomen. Patch testing results revealed positive reaction to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate in all patients. Of the four patients, two changed jobs, one stopped exposure because of pregnancy and one patient continued working, showing no improvement, despite undergoing treatment. These cases underline the importance of improvement of preventive measures in the workplace.

scholarly journals Compositae dermatitis

2003 ◽  
Vol 56 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 43-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mirjana Jovanovic ◽  
Mirjana Poljacki
Keyword(s):  
Contact Dermatitis ◽  
American Literature ◽  
Allergic Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Sesquiterpene Lactone ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Sesquiterpene Lactones ◽  
Clinical Manifestations ◽  
Elderly Persons ◽  
Allergic Contact ◽  
Compositae Plants

Introduction Compositae dermatitis is an allergic contact dermatitis caused by plant species of the Compositae family. The first report of a cutaneous reaction to the Chrysanthemum genus was made by Howe JS in 1887. In 1895 Maiden JH reported about skin lesions among men working with Tagetes minute Case reports of contact allergic-ragweed dermatitis appeared in the American literature as early as 1919. The North American feverfew - Parthenium Hysterophorus was brought to India from America in 1956 and it caused thousands of cases of so-called parthenium dermatitis. Ragweed and parthenium dermatitis became prototypes for the classic, so-called 'airborne' Compositae dermatitis, that affects primarily exposed skin surfaces, and produces a universal erythroderma. Epidemiology The frequency of contact allergy to Compositae in Europe is higher than previously believed. It occurs most frequently in middle-aged and elderly persons, but also in all age groups During the two past decades a more equal sex ratio has been established. The prevalence varies from 0.7-1.4% in the general population, up to 4.5% among occupationally exposed persons. Compositae allergy is among the top ten contact sensitivities in Europe. In North Europe plants were the cause of 4.4% cases of occupational allergic contact dermatitis. Etiology and pathogenesis Among cultivated Compositae plants, Chrysanthemum is considered to be a major sensitizer in Europe (60%). Among the edible types, it is lettuce - Lactuca sativa and endive Cichorium endivia (20-30%), and wild-growing feverfew - Tanacetum parthenium (70-90%), tansy - Tanacetum vulgare (54%), and dandelion - Taraxacum officinale (65%). Sesquiterpene lactones are the main sensitizers of the Compositae family. Other components thiophenes and acetylenes are said to elicit only phytophotodermatitis, but recent studies have demonstrated that some thiophenes and benzofuran derivates possess not only phototoxic activity, but also sensitizing properties. Photosensitivity is present in 22-75% Compositae sensitive individuals. Extracts from Compositae are known to be phototoxic in vitro Photoreactivity of alpha-methylene-gamma-lactone group of sesquiterpene-lactone directed towards the DNA base thymine, thus producing intermolecular 2+2 photoadducts (antigen within the cell), was also thought to be related to photosensitivity. Clinical manifestations vary from generalized eczema (20-30%), eczema of hands and face (24%), hand (36-44%) or facial eczema (11-28%). 65% of patients have vesicular hand eczema Diagnosis Routine patch testing with sesquiterpene lactone mix, aimed testing with Compositae extracts screening mix, Compositae plants, and with their extracts, whereas the treatment of choice is a specific allergen-immunotherapy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document