Contact dermatitis in leg ulcers

Kokeli, E.; Cantarutti, Ana Luíza Laguardia

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1986.tb01271.x

Cited by 15 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It depends on many factors, two important ones being the chronicity of stasis ulcers and the surrounding dermatitis [3]. Kokely and Cantamtti reported that 84% of their patients with leg ulcers had one or more positive patch tests [7], and Malten et al reported that 76% of patients had a positive patch test [2]. Lower rates (55%) were reported by Paramsothy and coworkers [3] and Angelini et al (58%) [8].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Contact allergens in patients with leg ulcers

Katsarou-Katsari

Armenaka

Katsenis

et al. 1998

Acad Dermatol Venereol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Contact allergens in patients with leg ulcers

Katsarou-Katsari

Armenaka

Katsenis

et al. 1998

Acad Dermatol Venereol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bone scintigraphic study with 99m-Technetium showing increased radioactive uptake in the left sternoclavicular joint (arrow). two distinct entities [2]. The association of PPP with osteoarticular manifestations was described for the first time by Sonozaki et al [3] in 1981, who called this pustulotic arthro-osteitis (PAO).…”

Section: Palmoplantar Pustulosis and Sternoclavicular Arthro-osteitismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These procedures may explain our low level of sensitization to wool alcohols and antibiotics of the neomycin group; on the other hand, our experience confirms that sensitization in subjects with leg ulcers is still a problem. Like the majority of investigators [MI, we have tested a wide battery of allergens, but we believe that the standard GIRDCA series, with the addition of a few other allergens (gentamycin, benzalkonium chloride, chlorocresol, chlorexidine, propylene glycol and cetyl stearyl alcohol [2,5,6]), may be adequate and less costly for testing subjects with leg ulcers.…”

Section: Cost Effectiveness In Testing For Sensitization In Cases Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost effectiveness in testing for sensitization in cases of leg ulcers

Corazza

Bertelli

Malfa

1999

Acad Dermatol Venereol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Positive patch tests occurred in 22 patients, no irritant reactions occurred, and four of the positive tests were clinically explainable. Kokelj and Cantarutti (1986) performed patch tests in order to evaluate contact dermatitis to Dichlorophene in 25 subjects with leg ulcers present from 1 to ≥5 years. Only one subject had a positive response to the patch test to Dichlorophene during the vehicle series.…”

Section: Dermal Sensitization-proactive Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety Assessment of Dichlorophene and Chlorophene1

Yamarik¹

2004

Int J Toxicol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dichlorophene is a halogenated phenolic compound that functions as a bacteriocide and fungicide in cosmetics. Chlorophene is a halogenated phenolic compound that functions as a biocide and preservative in cosmetics. Dichlorophene was reported to be used in a total of five cosmetic formulations at concentrations of 0% to 1.0%, but Chlorophene was not reported to be used. Dichlorophene is prohibited for use in cosmetic ingredients in Japan. In Europe, the maximum authorized concentration allowed for Dichlorophene is 0.5% and for Chlorophene is 0.2%. The major impurity of Dichlorophene is the trimer 4-chloro-2,6-bis(5-chloro-2-hydroxy-benzyl)phenol. In rats, Dichlorophene sulfate, Dichlorophene monoglucuronide, and Dichlorophene diglucuronide were the major metabolites of Dichlorophene and were excreted, mainly in the urine. The glucuronic acid conjugate, the sulfate ester conjugate, and two minor metabolites of Chlorophene were the metabolites found in rat urine. Chlorophene was incompletely absorbed through the rat skin. These chemicals exhibited low toxicity in acute oral toxicity studies in several animal species. Some evidence of toxicity with both chemicals was found in short-term oral toxicity studies in mice and rats; nephropathy was the principal finding. Chronic toxicity data were not available for Dichlorophene. Rats and mice dosed with Chlorophene for 2 years had a dose-related and sex-related increase in the severity of nephropathy. In animal tests, Dichlorophene and Chlorophene were ocular irritants. No inhalation toxicity data were available for these ingredients. Dichlorophene up to 10% concentration resulted in no to minimal irritation when applied to the intact and abraded skin of rabbits. Chlorophene was severely irritating to rabbits in most dermal irritation studies. Studies on guinea pigs gave positive and negative results in sensitization tests of Dichlorophene. A dose-related contact hypersensitivity response to Chlorophene was reported in mice. No reproductive or developmental toxicity data were available for Dichlorophene, but there was some evidence of non-dose-dependent developmental toxicity with Chlorophene in rabbits. Dichlorophene was positive in the Ames mutagenicity assay, but not in mammalian or fruit fly test systems. Chlorophene was mutagenic in four in vitro mammalian test systems. Carcinogenicity studies for Dichlorophene were not found. Neoplasms were not observed in rats treated with Chlorophene for 2 years; however a significant incidence of neoplasms was observed in mice so treated. A 1-year National Toxicology Program (NTP) study concluded that Chlorophene was a cutaneous irritant and a weak skin tumor promoter but had no activity as an initiator or complete carcinogen. Dichlorophene was not a sensitizer in clinical dermal sensitization tests. Some reactions to Chlorophene occurred in some, but not all, clinical dermal sensitization tests. Positive photopatch tests to Dichlorophene were found in 13/469 patients. Although these ingredients were ocular irritants at high concentrations, the risk at concentrations which are actually used in cosmetic formulations was uncertain. Overall, the available data were insufficient to support safety of Dichlorophene or Chlorophene. Additional data needed include (1) method of manufacture and impurities data (especially the trimer in Dichlorophene); (2) photosensitization and photo-carcinogenicity data for Dichlorophene; (3) dermal reproductive and developmental toxicity data for Dichlorophene (as a function of dose); and (4) ocular irritation at concentration of use, if available.

show abstract

Contact dermatitis in leg ulcers

Cited by 15 publications

References 3 publications

Contact allergens in patients with leg ulcers

Contact allergens in patients with leg ulcers

Cost effectiveness in testing for sensitization in cases of leg ulcers

Safety Assessment of Dichlorophene and Chlorophene1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About