Monitoring the European standard series in 10 centres 1996–2000

Bruynzeel, D. P.; Diepgen, T. L.; Andersen, K. Lange; Brandão, Francisco Menezes; Bruze, M.; Frosch, P J; Goossens, An; Lahti, Arto; Mahler, Vera; Hi, Maibach; Menné, Torkil; Wilkinson, J. D.

doi:10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00541.x

Cited by 86 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Fragrances evoked positive reactions in 8.25% of patients, ranking the third. This is similar in proportion to the results found in many other European countries, but higher than the results from Spain (3.8%) and lower than in Germany (12.4%), the Netherlands (12.8%), Belgium (11.2%) and Denmark (11%) [14, 27]. When compared with a period of 10 years ago in Bialystok, there has been a slight increase in allergies to fragrances, which seems to reflect a general trend [27].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patch test results in patients with allergic contact dermatitis in the Podlasie region

Reduta¹,

Bacharewicz²,

Pawłoś³

2013

pdia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe aim of the study was to provide current data on the incidence of allergy to various contact allergens in patients with allergic contact eczema and the analysis of selected socio-demographic data of the patients.Material and methodsThe study included 1532 patients (1010 women and 522 men) treated for allergic contact dermatitis at the Department of Dermatology and Venereology and at the Dermatology Outpatient Clinic in Bialystok in 2007–2011. The assessment of selected demographic data and skin lesions was based on the MOAHFLA index, while the results of patch tests were analyzed with modified Baseline European Series consisting of 31 allergens.ResultsIn the group of patients with eczema, 34.1% were men, and 55% of all respondents were people over 40 years of age. The occupational character of skin lesions was found in 22.5%. Most frequently (38.9%) skin lesions were localized on the hands, rarely involved legs (3.98%). Atopic dermatitis was diagnosed in 4.5% of patients. The ten most frequent allergens were: nickel sulfate (24%), cobalt chloride (15.3%), fragrance mix (8.25%), potassium dichromate (6.8%), balsam of Peru (5.5%), neomycin (4.42%), paraphenylenediamine (3.85%), Quatermium-15 (2.1%), detreomycin (1.83%) and budesonide (1.44% of tested patients).ConclusionsFrequent allergy to detreomycin indicates the need of patch testing for this allergen of all examined patients with allergic contact dermatitis. The increased frequency of the nickel allergy is a worrying problem and indicates the need for education about the risk factors for nickel allergy development and the implementation of appropriate legal regulations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…As in most other countries, we observed almost double the number of women among eczema patients (percentage of men 34.1%). Fifty-five percent of people examined were above 40 years old, which was similar to other groups of eczema patients [9, 10, 14]. …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Patch test results in patients with allergic contact dermatitis in the Podlasie region

Reduta¹,

Bacharewicz²,

Pawłoś³

2013

pdia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The regularly reported ongoing prevalence study of the NACDG showed steady prevalence rates of 7.8% in 1992-1994 (76), 9.2% in 1994-1996 (73), 9.3% in 1996-1998 (71), 9.2% in 1998-2000 (68) (55)). In most European countries, prevalence rates vary between 2% and 3% (Table 5), and in the recent multicentre European investigations performed by the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG) and the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA), prevalence rates were between 2.0% and 2.3% (59,60,65). These figures, both from the USA and from Europe, thus seem to be reproducible and real.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Formaldehyde‐releasers: relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy. Contact allergy to formaldehyde and inventory of formaldehyde‐releasers

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is one of series of review articles on formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasers (others: formaldehyde in cosmetics, in clothes and in metalworking fluids and miscellaneous). Thirty-five chemicals were identified as being formaldehyde-releasers. Although a further seven are listed in the literature as formaldehyde-releasers, data are inadequate to consider them as such beyond doubt. Several (nomenclature) mistakes and outdated information are discussed. Formaldehyde and formaldehyde allergy are reviewed: applications, exposure scenarios, legislation, patch testing problems, frequency of sensitization, relevance of positive patch test reactions, clinical pattern of allergic contact dermatitis from formaldehyde, prognosis, threshold for elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis, analytical tests to determine formaldehyde in products and frequency of exposure to formaldehyde and releasers. The frequency of contact allergy to formaldehyde is consistently higher in the USA (8-9%) than in Europe (2-3%). Patch testing with formaldehyde is problematic; the currently used 1% solution may result in both false-positive and false-negative (up to 40%) reactions. Determining the relevance of patch test reactions is often challenging. What concentration of formaldehyde is safe for sensitive patients remains unknown. Levels of 200-300 p.p.m. free formaldehyde in cosmetic products have been shown to induce dermatitis from short-term use on normal skin. Formaldehyde is a common cause of contact allergy. In Europe, 2-3% of patients suspected of contact dermatitis have positive patch test reactions, and in the USA prevalence rates of sensitization of 8-9% are reported in this selected group of patients. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by formaldehyde is often chronic, presumably because it is difficult to avoid exposure to the allergen completely. Indeed, formaldehyde may be found in many cosmetics, toiletries, household products such as washing and cleaning agents and in a great number of industrial applications including adhesives, paints, lacquers and metalworking fluids. Often, the products are not preserved with formaldehyde itself, but with agents that release formaldehyde under usage conditions, the so-called formaldehydereleasers (or formaldehyde donors). Well-known examples are quaternium-15, imidazolidinyl urea, diazolidinyl urea, DMDM hydantoin and 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol, preservatives frequently used in cosmetic products. Industrial products such as metalworking fluids frequently contain formaldehyde donors, such as the Bioban ® product range of biocides and tris(N-hydroxyethyl) hexahydrotriazine (better known by its trade name Grotan ® BK).Other products containing and releasing formaldehyde are the formaldehyde resins including urea formaldehyde and melamine formaldehyde resins. These were formerly used extensively as textile

show abstract

“…As CA surveillance approaches, these networks follow the same objectives as outlined above, but differ essentially with regard to the size of the population studied, the scope of data generated, continuity over larger time periods, timeliness and completeness. Nevertheless, all certainly meet the objectives of surveillance systems: the 'persistence of problems' was shown by European (60,61) and North American (59) as well as national networks, from Sweden (46), Denmark, (18), Italy (62), UK (63) and Spain (64). The 'emergence of allergens' (sentinel events) was noted regarding methyldibromo glutaronitrile (MDBGN) in Europe (65), methylisothiazolinone in Finland (66), nickel in Spain (67) and octocrylene in France (68).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surveillance of contact allergies: methods and results of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK)

Schnuch

Geier

Lessmann

et al. 2012

Allergy

138

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contact allergy (CA) surveillance networks provide information to a multitude of stakeholders, which is indispensable for evidence-based decision-making in the field of prevention. Methods and results of the German surveillance system on CA are reviewed and discussed with reference to other systems. The German network structure comprises 56 departments of dermatology and includes all patients who are patch-tested for suspected CA. Data analysis considers the results of patch testing and further pertinent information for each patient. Following aspects are addressed: (i) the description of the clinical population, (ii) evaluation of patch test reactions, (iii) relationship between patch test results and population characteristics. Trend analyses on chromate (decreasing), epoxy resin (increasing) and nickel (heterogeneous) served as examples for surveillance system analyses, with the identification of sentinel events, as well as proof of success or failure of prevention. In addition, external data sources can be used such as sales data of patch test preparations to estimate frequencies of sensitization on a population level. National prescription data of drugs and statistics of labelling of preservatives on cosmetics can be included, the latter two approaches allowing for risk estimates conferred by specific allergens.

show abstract

Monitoring the European standard series in 10 centres 1996–2000

Cited by 86 publications

References 12 publications

Patch test results in patients with allergic contact dermatitis in the Podlasie region

Patch test results in patients with allergic contact dermatitis in the Podlasie region

Formaldehyde‐releasers: relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy. Contact allergy to formaldehyde and inventory of formaldehyde‐releasers

Surveillance of contact allergies: methods and results of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About