Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug · 2016
Propolis, Colophony, and Fragrance Cross-Reactivity and Allergic Contact Dermatitis.
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.
Shi Yiwen, Nedorost Susan, Scheman Loren, Scheman Andrew
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Colophony and propolis are among the complex plant resins used in a wide variety of medicinal and personal care products. A number of studies of colophony, propolis, and fragrance mixes suggest that contact with one of these allergens may increase the risk of delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions with additional compounds of significant cross-reactivity.
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to determine rates of cross-reactivity between propolis, colophony, and different fragrance mixes and to determine significant cross-reactivity thresholds for which to counsel patient avoidance.
METHODS: Rates of cross-reactivity were calculated from the databases of 2 midwestern US patch testing centers. Rates were calculated both separately and collectively.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients allergic to colophony, fragrance and propolis may be considered significant cross-reactors. For patients allergic to propolis, fragrance and colophony may be considered significant cross-reactors. Cross-reactions between colophony, propolis, and fragrance mixes are unidirectional so, for patients allergic to fragrance, cross-reaction to propolis or colophony is not significant. Colophony allergy is found in only a small number of fragrance-allergic patients and is not a good indicator for fragrance allergy.
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to determine rates of cross-reactivity between propolis, colophony, and different fragrance mixes and to determine significant cross-reactivity thresholds for which to counsel patient avoidance.
METHODS: Rates of cross-reactivity were calculated from the databases of 2 midwestern US patch testing centers. Rates were calculated both separately and collectively.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients allergic to colophony, fragrance and propolis may be considered significant cross-reactors. For patients allergic to propolis, fragrance and colophony may be considered significant cross-reactors. Cross-reactions between colophony, propolis, and fragrance mixes are unidirectional so, for patients allergic to fragrance, cross-reaction to propolis or colophony is not significant. Colophony allergy is found in only a small number of fragrance-allergic patients and is not a good indicator for fragrance allergy.