Usage Tests of Oak Moss Absolutes Containing High and Low Levels of Atranol and Chloroatranol.

Atranol and chloroatranol are strong contact allergens in oak moss absolute, a lichen extract used in perfumery. Fifteen subjects with contact allergy to oak moss absolute underwent a repeated open application test (ROAT) using solutions of an untreated oak moss absolute (sample A) and an oak moss absolute with reduced content of atranol and chloroatranol (sample B). All subjects were in addition patch-tested with serial dilutions of samples A and B. Statistically significantly more subjects reacted to sample A than to sample B in the patch tests. No corresponding difference was observed in the ROAT, though there was a significant difference in the time required to elicit a positive reaction. Still, the ROAT indicates that the use of a cosmetic product containing oak moss absolute with reduced levels of atranol and chloroatranol is capable of eliciting an allergic reaction in previously sensitised individuals

Contact allergy to fragrances with a focus on oak moss absolute

The exposure to fragrances is widespread and contact allergy to fragrance substances affects 1–4% of the general population. Many fragrance substances are volatile and it can therefore be suspected that they may evaporate from petrolatum patch test preparations applied in test chambers. In the first two papers included in this thesis the aims were to i) to investigate the stability of fragrance preparations in petrolatum when applied in patch test chambers, and ii) to investigate the patch test reactivity to samples of fragrance mix I (FM I) and fragrance mix II (FM II) when applied in test cambers 6 days in advance or immediately before the patch test occasion. Oak moss absolute (OMA), an extract derived from the lichen Evernia prunastri, is a common cause of fragrance contact allergy. OMA contains several allergens, among them atranol and chloroatranol, which have been found to be strong allergens in humans. Therefore, the fragrance industry nowadays provides treated OMAs, where the content of atranol and chloroatranol has been reduced. The aims of studies III and IV in the thesis were to iii) compare the eliciting capacity of treated and untreated OMA samples in patch tests with dilution series and in repeated open application tests (ROATs), and iv) to investigate the reaction pattern in OMA-allergic subjects patch-tested with thin-layer chromatography (TLC) strips of treated and untreated OMA samples. The findings were as follows: i) The concentrations of 4 of 7 substances investigated decreased by ≥20% within 8 h when stored in Finn chambers at room temperature. The decrease in concentration was slower when the test preparations were stored in a refrigerator. Statistically significantly more reactions were observed for the freshly applied sample of FM I than to the pre-loaded sample, demonstrating that FM I patch test prepared in advance may give false-negative reactions. No corresponding difference was observed for FM II. This is likely explained by differences in volatilities between the ingredients of FM I and FM II. iii) OMA-allergic subjects were statistically significantly less patch test reactive to the treated OMA sample than to the untreated sample. No significant difference was observed in the ROAT, though there was a significant difference in the time required to elicit a positive reaction. iv) The TLC patch tests indicate the presence of sensitisers other than atranol and chloroatranol in the untreated OMA sample. The studies on OMA indicate that the residual levels of atranol and chloroatranol and/or the presence of other sensitisers in the treated OMA samples may elicit allergic reactions in previously sensitised individuals

Two cases of contact allergic reactions to Finn Chamber Aqua test chambers

Multiple reactions on patch testing can be related to contact allergy to components of the patch test system used, for example, contact allergy to aluminium.1-11 We report on two cases with contact allergy to Finn Chamber AQUA (FCA) test chambers (SmartPractice, Phoenix, Arizona)

Two cases of contact allergic reactions to Finn Chamber AQUA test chambers

Multiple reactions on patch testing can be related to contact allergy to components of the patch test system used, for example, contact allergy to aluminium.1-11 We report on two cases with contact allergy to Finn Chamber AQUA (FCA) test chambers (SmartPractice, Phoenix, Arizona)

A Retrospective Study of Aimed Patch Testing With Aqueous Nickel Sulfate Hexahydrate at 30% and 15% in Patients With Dermatitis

Background Sometimes, patients with a history of metal intolerance react negatively or doubtfully to nickel at patch testing. Objective The aim of the study was to investigate whether aqueous nickel sulfate hexahydrate at 15% and 30% traces more contact allergy than the nickel preparation in the baseline series at 5%. Methods In the period 1995-2015, more than 800 of 16,059 patients with a negative or doubtful patch test reaction to the petrolatum preparation of nickel at 5% on the day 3 reading were additionally tested with aqueous nickel at 15% and/or 30%. Conclusions In this retrospective study with aimed patch testing with aqueous nickel solutions, significantly more (P < 0.001) contact allergy was obtained as compared with the 5% preparation in petrolatum. The 30% solution was significantly better (P < 0.001) than the 15% solution. To demonstrate that patch testing with nickel at 15% or 30% is better than the present testing with 5% requires simultaneous testing with the 3 nickel preparations

A Retrospective Study of Aimed Patch Testing with Aqueous Nickel Sulfate Hexahydrate at 30% and 15% in Patients with Dermatitis

Background Sometimes, patients with a history of metal intolerance react negatively or doubtfully to nickel at patch testing. Objective The aim of the study was to investigate whether aqueous nickel sulfate hexahydrate at 15% and 30% traces more contact allergy than the nickel preparation in the baseline series at 5%. Methods In the period 1995-2015, more than 800 of 16,059 patients with a negative or doubtful patch test reaction to the petrolatum preparation of nickel at 5% on the day 3 reading were additionally tested with aqueous nickel at 15% and/or 30%. Conclusions In this retrospective study with aimed patch testing with aqueous nickel solutions, significantly more (P < 0.001) contact allergy was obtained as compared with the 5% preparation in petrolatum. The 30% solution was significantly better (P < 0.001) than the 15% solution. To demonstrate that patch testing with nickel at 15% or 30% is better than the present testing with 5% requires simultaneous testing with the 3 nickel preparations