Cutaneous Sensitivity to Merthiolate and Other Mercurial Compounds

Ellis, Francis A.

doi:10.1001/archderm.1942.01500150091011

Cited by 19 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Organic mercury, in particular, can be responsible for delayed-type hypersensitivity, but an important role for the other constituent of thimerosal, thiosalicylate, is uncertain ( Fig. I) (2,(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12). The ethyl mercury radical appears to be the allergic determinant of the thimerosal molecule (4,12).…”

Section: Delayed-type Hypersensitivity and Cross-sensitizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitization to thimerosal (Merthiolate) is still present today

Veen

Joost

1994

Contact Dermatitis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results on thimerosal (Merthiolate) hypersensitivity of a retrospective study, together with the relevant data on thimerosal hypersensitivity referred to in the literature up to 1993, are presented. Positive patch test reactions to thimerosal (0.1% pet.) were observed in 32 (1.3%) of 2461 adult patients with suspected contact allergy examined in the period 1987-1992. 20 (0.8%) patients had a solitary positive patch test to thimerosal. The observed incidence is low. Clinical symptoms related to thimerosal hypersensitivity were observed in only 3 patients. The collected results are discussed with emphasis on the clinical implications of sensitization to thimerosal. It appears that a positive patch test to thimerosal is frequently clinically irrelevant.

show abstract

Section: Delayed-type Hypersensitivity and Cross-sensitizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitization to thimerosal (Merthiolate) is still present today

Veen

Joost

1994

Contact Dermatitis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As demonstrated in animals, reactions to a merthiolate-containing skin test antigen such as coccidioidin are significantly enhanced by prior exposure to merthiolate. Since merthiolate sensitivity in humans is known (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)8), this may give rise to false-positive delayed reactions. If a positive reaction is produced in response to coccidioidin, it would not be known whether the individual produced the reaction to the coccidioidin itself or to the merthiolate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hypersensitivity to merthiolate in humans has been studied (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)8). The exact nature of the reaction is not known, although Epstein (3) has suggested that it may be of the delayed type.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Coccidioidin and merthiolate in previously sensitized animals

Flynt¹,

Sinski²,

Kelley³

1975

Infect Immun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of merthiolate, which is used as a preservative in skin test materials, on skin test reactions was determined in guinea pigs. In four groups of animals, merthiolate in basal medium produced skin tests at 24 and 48 h characterized by erythema and/or induration in an intermediate region, i.e., 5 i 2.2 mm. One of the four groups of animals was a nonsensitized control group. The other three groups were subcutaneously sensitized with (i) merthiolate and saline, (ii) killed Coccidioides immitis arthrospores, and (iii) merthiolate with killed C. immitis arthrospores. Coccidioidin only and merthiolate in coccidioidin produced positive delayed results in groups 3 and 4, which were sensitized with arthrospores. A synergistic effect of merthiolate and coccidioidin was observed in animals of group 4 sensitized by merthiolate with killed C. immitis arthrospores. This effect was observed at 24 h when positive reactions of coccidioidin with merthiolate were significantly greater than skin tests with plain coccidioidin.

show abstract

“…When mercuric . :hloridc is used for elicitation, skin irritation is a strong possibility; when thimerosal is used, the possibility arises that some component (thiosalicylic acid) other than mercury may be responsible (Ellis 1947, Ellis & Robinson 1942. Hansson & Moller (1970) suggest that young skin may react differently from old skin to thimerosal; in addition, this compound may have a peculiar predilection to produce false positive responses.…”

Section: Mercurymentioning

confidence: 99%

Contact allergy: Predictive testing in man

Marzulli

Maibach

1976

Contact Dermatitis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predictive tests are of value in forecasting the response of a population to a sensitizer; diagnostic testing is used to determine what substances may actually be producing dermatologic problems. Skin sensitization predictive and diagnostic data for the eleven most frequently encountered skin sensitizers in Western Europe, Canada and the United States are reviewed. These compounds include two drugs (benzocaine and neomycin), two cosmetic ingredients (p-phenylenediamine and balsam of Peru), four preservatives (formaldehyde, ethylenediamine, parabens and mercurials) and three ingredients of wearing apparel (nickel, chromium and thiram). Many of the data were collected by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group and the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group on tests with 1,200 and 4,825 dermatologic patients, respectively; the remainder were obtained by individual investigators with smaller groups of subjects. The data obtained by various investigators are discussed in relation to the factors which affect the extent and degree of sensitization which they can cause.

show abstract

Cutaneous Sensitivity to Merthiolate and Other Mercurial Compounds

Cited by 19 publications

References 7 publications

Sensitization to thimerosal (Merthiolate) is still present today

Sensitization to thimerosal (Merthiolate) is still present today

Coccidioidin and merthiolate in previously sensitized animals

Contact allergy: Predictive testing in man

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About