- Email: [email protected]
S192 Occupational contact urticaria
S44
IS189
Symposia
-
The Contact
Contact urticaria to protein hydrolysates
A. Niinimlki ’ , M. Niinimlki M. Hannuksela’ . ‘Department
’ , S. Makinen-Kiljunen2,
of Dermatology University Hospital of Oulu, Oulu; 2University Central Hospital, Department of Dermatology and Allergic Diseases, Helsinki, Finland
Cosmetics may contain different protein hydrolysates (PHs). They are added into hair conditioners, for example, to repair “broken” hair and to give the hair a thicker and more voluminous appearance. Case reports of even extreme angioedema and u&aria caused by PHs in hair conditioners have been reported. In this study, the commonness of protein urticaria produced by PHs was studied in 3 patient groups. Scratch or prick tests with 3-24 different PHs (1% in saline) were performed on 1) 11 hair dressers with occupational hand dermatitis, 2) 1232 unselected adult patients referred for standard prick tests for suspected IgE-mediated allergy, mostly rhinitis or asthma, and 3) 26 adult patients with chronic atopic dermatitis. The tested PHs had been originally produced from collagen, keratin, elastin, milk, wheat, silk and almond. Positive reactions were noticed on 8 patients. All of them reacted to a quatemised collagen hydrolysate, stearyl trimonium hydroxyethyl hydrolysed collagen (Crotein Q’), down to 0.01-0.0001% concentrations. Two patients additionally reacted to another PH. Serum specific 1gE to Crotein Q’ (0.4-l. 1 PRU/ml) was observed in all of the 8 patients. All the 8 were atopics (females, aged 22-37 years). Seven had atopic dermatitis on the face, neck and hands, and 1 had allergic rhinitis. Four had noticed contact urticaria and 1 conjunctivitis from hair conditioners. The results suggest that PHs used in cosmetics may cause allergic contact urticaria and, in that way, also aggravate atopic dermatitis.
Vrticaria
urticants. There was no significant correlation with age or sex on the degree of NIICR. Therefore, the prospect of identifying a panel of individuals generally sensitive to non-immune immediate contact reactions seems limited. El391
immediate
contact reactions
K.-P. Wilhelm ’ , D. Wilhelm ‘, D.A. Basketter 2. ‘proDERM Institute for Schenefeld, Laboratory,
Applied Dermatological Research Germany, 2 U&ever Environmental Sharnbrook Bedford, UK
GmbH, Safety
Non-immune immediate contact reactions (NIICR) arising from skin contact with a wide range of chemicals have been well described. There is evidence that many, if not all, individuals are susceptible to this effect; it may be just a matter of applying a higher dose to the most resistant types of skin. In this work we chose to evaluate susceptibility to development of NIICR in a large unselected population. Skin tests were made with three known &cants (benzoic acid, transcinnamic acid and methyl nicotinate), each used at two concentrations. In a group of 200 volunteers, it was demonstrated that all three chemicals induced NIICR in the majority of people. However, there was only limited evidence of a dose response effect. Approximately 10% of the volunteers appeared particularly sensitive, reacting fairly strongly to 2/3 urticants. In contrast, another subset, also about 10% failed to respond to any of the chemicals at any dose. However, strong reactivity to one urticant was not always predictive of the reaction to the other
Contact urticaria and dermatitis to caterpillars and butterflies
G. Ducombs. Hopital
Pellegrin,
33076
Bordeaux,
France
Moths can provoke contact dermatitis. The mecanism is the most often non immunologic and sometimes immunologic. Clinical studies have given prominence to the symptoms: its primary and secondary cutaneous lesions, their localisation and evolution as well as its accompanying symptoms such as respiratory pathology. Epidemiology survey shows the parallelism between the occurrence of symptoms and the presence of moths: in Europe, several species of caterpillars (Thaumetopea pityocampa Stiff, Thaumetopea processionnae L., Europroctis chrysorrhea L.) are responsible for pruritus and eruptions. In tropical areas (South America and Africa), butterflies (Ylesia urticans, Ylesia negricans Berg.? Ylesia s.p. and Ylesia volvex Dyar., Anaphae venata) can provoke dermatitis (“papillonite”). The mechanism of action has been studied: the urticant apparatus was studied with a scanning microscope. The findings seem to incriminate an histamino-liberation. Symptoms are due to direct or airbom contact. Diagnosis is performed by anamnesis and skin testing. I S192 Occupational contact urticaria L. Kanerva. Section of Dermatology, Finnish Institute Occupational
I S190 Studies on non-immunologic
Syndrome
Health,
Helsinki,
of
Finland
815 cases of occupational contact urticaria (OCU) were reported to the Finnish Register of Occupational Diseases during a 5-year-period, compared with 1944 cases of occupational allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Accordingly, the total number of occupational allergic contact dermatoses was 2759, 29.5% being OCU and 70.5% being ACD. OCU was much more common in women (70%) than in men (30%). The most common causes were (1) cow dander (44.4%), (2) natural rubber latex (23.7%), (3) flour, grains and feed (11.3%), (4) handling of foodstuffs (3.1%), (5) industrial enzymes (1.7%) and (6) decorative plants (1.6%). The occupations with the highest numbers of OCU were (1) farmers, (2) domestic animal attendants, (3) bakers, (4) nurses, (5) chefs and (6) dental assistants. The most common occupations with OCU per 100 000 employed workers were: (1) bakers (140.5 cases per 100,000 employed persons), (2) preparers of processed food, (3) dental assistants, (4) veterinary surgeons, (5) domestic animal attendants, (6) farmers. In conclusion, occupational contact urticaria forms a large group of occupational contact dermatoses, and dermatologists need to be able to diagnose IgE-mediated immediate skin allergic diseases. The diagnosis of OCU should include an appropriate history, combined with specific skin tests, IgE determinations (e.g., RASTs), provocation tests, RAST inhibition tests, immunoblotings etc.
IS189
Symposia
-
The Contact
Contact urticaria to protein hydrolysates
A. Niinimlki ’ , M. Niinimlki M. Hannuksela’ . ‘Department
’ , S. Makinen-Kiljunen2,
of Dermatology University Hospital of Oulu, Oulu; 2University Central Hospital, Department of Dermatology and Allergic Diseases, Helsinki, Finland
Cosmetics may contain different protein hydrolysates (PHs). They are added into hair conditioners, for example, to repair “broken” hair and to give the hair a thicker and more voluminous appearance. Case reports of even extreme angioedema and u&aria caused by PHs in hair conditioners have been reported. In this study, the commonness of protein urticaria produced by PHs was studied in 3 patient groups. Scratch or prick tests with 3-24 different PHs (1% in saline) were performed on 1) 11 hair dressers with occupational hand dermatitis, 2) 1232 unselected adult patients referred for standard prick tests for suspected IgE-mediated allergy, mostly rhinitis or asthma, and 3) 26 adult patients with chronic atopic dermatitis. The tested PHs had been originally produced from collagen, keratin, elastin, milk, wheat, silk and almond. Positive reactions were noticed on 8 patients. All of them reacted to a quatemised collagen hydrolysate, stearyl trimonium hydroxyethyl hydrolysed collagen (Crotein Q’), down to 0.01-0.0001% concentrations. Two patients additionally reacted to another PH. Serum specific 1gE to Crotein Q’ (0.4-l. 1 PRU/ml) was observed in all of the 8 patients. All the 8 were atopics (females, aged 22-37 years). Seven had atopic dermatitis on the face, neck and hands, and 1 had allergic rhinitis. Four had noticed contact urticaria and 1 conjunctivitis from hair conditioners. The results suggest that PHs used in cosmetics may cause allergic contact urticaria and, in that way, also aggravate atopic dermatitis.
Vrticaria
urticants. There was no significant correlation with age or sex on the degree of NIICR. Therefore, the prospect of identifying a panel of individuals generally sensitive to non-immune immediate contact reactions seems limited. El391
immediate
contact reactions
K.-P. Wilhelm ’ , D. Wilhelm ‘, D.A. Basketter 2. ‘proDERM Institute for Schenefeld, Laboratory,
Applied Dermatological Research Germany, 2 U&ever Environmental Sharnbrook Bedford, UK
GmbH, Safety
Non-immune immediate contact reactions (NIICR) arising from skin contact with a wide range of chemicals have been well described. There is evidence that many, if not all, individuals are susceptible to this effect; it may be just a matter of applying a higher dose to the most resistant types of skin. In this work we chose to evaluate susceptibility to development of NIICR in a large unselected population. Skin tests were made with three known &cants (benzoic acid, transcinnamic acid and methyl nicotinate), each used at two concentrations. In a group of 200 volunteers, it was demonstrated that all three chemicals induced NIICR in the majority of people. However, there was only limited evidence of a dose response effect. Approximately 10% of the volunteers appeared particularly sensitive, reacting fairly strongly to 2/3 urticants. In contrast, another subset, also about 10% failed to respond to any of the chemicals at any dose. However, strong reactivity to one urticant was not always predictive of the reaction to the other
Contact urticaria and dermatitis to caterpillars and butterflies
G. Ducombs. Hopital
Pellegrin,
33076
Bordeaux,
France
Moths can provoke contact dermatitis. The mecanism is the most often non immunologic and sometimes immunologic. Clinical studies have given prominence to the symptoms: its primary and secondary cutaneous lesions, their localisation and evolution as well as its accompanying symptoms such as respiratory pathology. Epidemiology survey shows the parallelism between the occurrence of symptoms and the presence of moths: in Europe, several species of caterpillars (Thaumetopea pityocampa Stiff, Thaumetopea processionnae L., Europroctis chrysorrhea L.) are responsible for pruritus and eruptions. In tropical areas (South America and Africa), butterflies (Ylesia urticans, Ylesia negricans Berg.? Ylesia s.p. and Ylesia volvex Dyar., Anaphae venata) can provoke dermatitis (“papillonite”). The mechanism of action has been studied: the urticant apparatus was studied with a scanning microscope. The findings seem to incriminate an histamino-liberation. Symptoms are due to direct or airbom contact. Diagnosis is performed by anamnesis and skin testing. I S192 Occupational contact urticaria L. Kanerva. Section of Dermatology, Finnish Institute Occupational
I S190 Studies on non-immunologic
Syndrome
Health,
Helsinki,
of
Finland
815 cases of occupational contact urticaria (OCU) were reported to the Finnish Register of Occupational Diseases during a 5-year-period, compared with 1944 cases of occupational allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Accordingly, the total number of occupational allergic contact dermatoses was 2759, 29.5% being OCU and 70.5% being ACD. OCU was much more common in women (70%) than in men (30%). The most common causes were (1) cow dander (44.4%), (2) natural rubber latex (23.7%), (3) flour, grains and feed (11.3%), (4) handling of foodstuffs (3.1%), (5) industrial enzymes (1.7%) and (6) decorative plants (1.6%). The occupations with the highest numbers of OCU were (1) farmers, (2) domestic animal attendants, (3) bakers, (4) nurses, (5) chefs and (6) dental assistants. The most common occupations with OCU per 100 000 employed workers were: (1) bakers (140.5 cases per 100,000 employed persons), (2) preparers of processed food, (3) dental assistants, (4) veterinary surgeons, (5) domestic animal attendants, (6) farmers. In conclusion, occupational contact urticaria forms a large group of occupational contact dermatoses, and dermatologists need to be able to diagnose IgE-mediated immediate skin allergic diseases. The diagnosis of OCU should include an appropriate history, combined with specific skin tests, IgE determinations (e.g., RASTs), provocation tests, RAST inhibition tests, immunoblotings etc.