Contact dermatitis · 2018
Can the epoxides of cinnamyl alcohol and cinnamal show new cases of contact allergy?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hagvall Lina, Niklasson Ida B, Luthman Kristina, Karlberg Ann-Therese
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cinnamyl alcohol is considered to be a prohapten and prehapten with cinnamal as the main metabolite. However, many individuals who are allergic to cinnamyl alcohol do not react to cinnamal. Sensitizing epoxides of cinnamyl alcohol and cinnamal have been identified as metabolites and autoxidation products of cinnamyl alcohol.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical relevance of contact allergy to epoxycinnamyl alcohol and epoxycinnamal.
METHODS: Irritative effects of the epoxides were investigated in 12 dermatitis patients. Epoxycinnamyl alcohol and epoxycinnamal were patch tested in 393 and 390 consecutive patients, respectively. In parallel, cinnamyl alcohol and cinnamal were patch tested in 607 and 616 patients, respectively.
RESULTS: Both epoxides were irritants, but no more positive reactions were detected than when testing was performed with cinnamyl alcohol and cinnamal. Late allergic reactions to epoxycinnamyl alcohol were observed. In general, patients with late reactions showed doubtful or positive reactions to cinnamal and fragrance mix I at regular patch testing.
CONCLUSION: The investigated epoxides are not important haptens in contact allergy to cinnamon fragrance. The high frequency of fragrance allergy among patients included in the irritancy study showed the difficulty of suspecting fragrance allergy on the basis of history; patch testing broadly with fragrance compounds is therefore important.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical relevance of contact allergy to epoxycinnamyl alcohol and epoxycinnamal.
METHODS: Irritative effects of the epoxides were investigated in 12 dermatitis patients. Epoxycinnamyl alcohol and epoxycinnamal were patch tested in 393 and 390 consecutive patients, respectively. In parallel, cinnamyl alcohol and cinnamal were patch tested in 607 and 616 patients, respectively.
RESULTS: Both epoxides were irritants, but no more positive reactions were detected than when testing was performed with cinnamyl alcohol and cinnamal. Late allergic reactions to epoxycinnamyl alcohol were observed. In general, patients with late reactions showed doubtful or positive reactions to cinnamal and fragrance mix I at regular patch testing.
CONCLUSION: The investigated epoxides are not important haptens in contact allergy to cinnamon fragrance. The high frequency of fragrance allergy among patients included in the irritancy study showed the difficulty of suspecting fragrance allergy on the basis of history; patch testing broadly with fragrance compounds is therefore important.