Recent trends in epidemiology, sensitization and legal requirements of selected relevant contact allergens

References

• Martin SF. Immunological mechanisms in allergic contact dermatitis. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015;15(2):124–130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thyssen JP, Linneberg A, Menne T, et al. The epidemiology of contact allergy in the general population–prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;57(5):287–299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thyssen JP, Linneberg A, Menne T, et al. The prevalence and morbidity of sensitization to fragrance mix I in the general population. Br J Dermatol. 2009;161(1):95–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwensen JF, White IR, Thyssen JP, et al. Failures in risk assessment and risk management for cosmetic preservatives in Europe and the impact on public health. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73(3):133–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston GA. Contributing members of the British Society for Cutaneous A. The rise in prevalence of contact allergy to methylisothiazolinone in the British Isles. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70(4):238–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosteing S, Meyer N, Waton J, et al. Outbreak of contact sensitization to methylisothiazolinone: an analysis of French data from the REVIDAL-GERDA network. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70(5):262–269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uter W, Geier J, Bauer A, et al. Risk factors associated with methylisothiazolinone contact sensitization. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69(4):231–238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundov MD, Opstrup MS, Johansen JD. Methylisothiazolinone contact allergy–growing epidemic. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69(5):271–275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aerts O, Baeck M, Constandt L, et al. The dramatic increase in the rate of methylisothiazolinone contact allergy in Belgium: a multicentre study. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;71(1):41–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lammintausta K, Aalto-Korte K, Ackerman L, et al. An epidemic of contact allergy to methylisothiazolinone in Finland. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70(3):184–185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madsen JT, Andersen KE. Further evidence of the methylisothiazolinone epidemic. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70(4):246–247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gameiro A, Coutinho I, Ramos L, et al. Methylisothiazolinone: second ‘epidemic’ of isothiazolinone sensitization. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70(4):242–243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castanedo-Tardana MP, Zug KA. Methylisothiazolinone. Dermatitis. 2013;24(1):2–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goncalo M, Goossens A. Whilst Rome burns: the epidemic of contact allergy to methylisothiazolinone. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68(5):257–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruze M, Uter W, Goncalo M, et al. Incompetence and failure to regulate methylisothiazolinone. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72(6):353–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwensen JF, Lundov MD, Bossi R, et al. Methylisothiazolinone and benzisothiazolinone are widely used in paint: a multicentre study of paints from five European countries. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72(3):127–138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yazar K, Johnsson S, Lind ML, et al. Preservatives and fragrances in selected consumer-available cosmetics and detergents. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;64:265–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnano M, Silvani S, Vincenzi C, et al. Contact allergens and irritants in household washing and cleaning products. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;61:337–341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schnuch A, Mildau G, Kratz EM, et al. Risk of sensitization to preservatives estimated on the basis of patch test data and exposure, according to a sample of 3541 leave-on products. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;61:167–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isaksson M, Persson L. ‘Mislabelled’ make-up remover wet wipes as a cause of severe, recalcitrant facial eczema. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73(1):56–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanneste L, Persson L, Zimerson E, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by methylisothiazolinone from different sources, including ‘mislabelled’ household wet wipes. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69(5):311–312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwensen JF, Menne T, Andersen KE, et al. Occupations at risk of developing contact allergy to isothiazolinones in Danish contact dermatitis patients: results from a Danish multicentre study (2009–2012). Contact Dermatitis. 2014;71(5):295–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yazar K, Lundov MD, Faurschou A, et al. Methylisothiazolinone in rinse-off products causes allergic contact dermatitis: a repeated open-application study. Br J Dermatol. 2015;173:115–122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friis UF, Menne T, Flyvholm MA, et al. Isothiazolinones in commercial products at Danish workplaces. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;71(2):65–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundov MD, Kolarik B, Bossi R, et al. Emission of isothiazolinones from water-based paints. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48(12):6989–6994.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundov MD, Mosbech H, Thyssen JP, et al. Two cases of airborne allergic contact dermatitis caused by methylisothiazolinone in paint. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;65(3):176–179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aerts O, Cattaert N, Lambert J, et al. Airborne and systemic dermatitis, mimicking atopic dermatitis, caused by methylisothiazolinone in a young child. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68(4):250–251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bregnbak D, Lundov MD, Zachariae C, et al. Five cases of severe chronic dermatitis caused by isothiazolinones. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69(1):57–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). Opinion on Methylisothiazolinone (P94) Submission II (sensitisation only). SCCS/1521/13. [ revised 2014 Mar 27]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_145.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). Opinion on Methylisothiazolinone (P94) – Submission III. SCCS/1557/15. 2015 Jun 25 [cited 2015 Jul 14]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_178.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Guidance on labelling and packaging in accordance with regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008. Reference ECHA-11-G-04-EN. 2011 Apr [cited 2015 Jun 21]. Available from: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13562/clp_labelling_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Friis UF, Menné T, Flyvholm MA, et al. Difficulties in using material safety data sheets to analyse occupational exposures to cantact allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72:147–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harmonised classification and labelling current consultations on 2-methylisothiazol-3(2H)-one. European Chemical Agency (ECHA). [ cited 2015 Aug 5]. Available from: http://echa.europa.eu/harmonised-classification-and-labelling-consultation/-/substance-rev/9671/term.
   Google Scholar
• Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Menne T. Contact allergy epidemics and their controls. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;56(4):185–195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bregnbak D, Johansen JD, Jellesen MS, et al. Chromium allergy and dermatitis: prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73(5):261–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia-Gavin J, Armario-Hita JC, Fernandez-Redondo V, et al. Epidemiology of contact dermatitis in Spain. Results of the Spanish surveillance system on contact allergies for the year 2008. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2011;102(2):98–105.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Martin T, Iva K. Allergic contact dermatitis and changes in the frequency of the causative allergens demonstrated with patch testing in 2008–2012. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2015;159(3):480–488.
   Google Scholar
• Reduta T, Bacharewicz J, Pawlos A. Patch test results in patients with allergic contact dermatitis in the Podlasie region. Postepy Dermatologii i Alergologii. 2013;30(6):350–357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rui F, Bovenzi M, Prodi A, et al. Nickel, chromium and cobalt sensitization in a patch test population in north-eastern Italy (1996–2010). Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68(1):23–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bregnbak D, Thyssen JP, Zachariae C, et al. Characteristics of chromium-allergic dermatitis patients prior to regulatory intervention for chromium in leather: a questionnaire study. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;71(6):338–347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo YL, Wang BJ, Yeh KC, et al. Dermatoses in cement workers in southern Taiwan. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;40(1):1–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang BJ, Wu JD, Sheu SC, et al. Occupational hand dermatitis among cement workers in Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc = Taiwan yi zhi. 2011;110(12):775–779.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong CC, Gamboni SE, Palmer AM, et al. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis to chromium from cement: estimating the size of the problem in Australia. Australas J Dermatol. 2014. doi:10.1111/ajd.12238. [Epub ahead of print]
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedberg YS, Gumulka M, Lind ML, et al. Severe occupational chromium allergy despite cement legislation. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70(5):321–323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aslan A. Determination of heavy metal toxicity of finished leather solid waste. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2009;82(5):633–638.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chromium (VI) in leather clothing and shoes problematic for allergy sufferers! Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung. 2007 Oct. Published 2007 Sep 2. [cited 2015 Jul 31]. Available from: http://www.bfr.bund.de/cd/9575
   Google Scholar
• Thyssen JP, Strandesen M, Poulsen PB, et al. Chromium in leather footwear-risk assessment of chromium allergy and dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66(5):279–285.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim JH, Kim HS, Park YM, et al. A case of chromium contact dermatitis due to exposure from a golf glove. Ann Dermatol. 2010;22(1):63–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedberg YS, Liden C, Lindberg M. Chromium dermatitis in a metal worker due to leather gloves and alkaline coolant. Acta Derm Venereol. 2015. doi:10.2340/00015555-2160. [Epub ahed of print]
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bregnbak D, Johansen JD, Jellesen MS, et al. Chromium(VI) release from leather and metals can be detected with a diphenylcarbazide spot test. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73(5):281–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hald M, Agner T, Blands J, et al. Allergens associated with severe symptoms of hand eczema and a poor prognosis. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;61(2):101–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thyssen JP, Jensen P, Carlsen BC, et al. The prevalence of chromium allergy in Denmark is currently increasing as a result of leather exposure. Br J Dermatol. 2009;161(6):1288–1293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter D, Horev L, Slodovnik D, et al. Investigation of the threshold for allergic reactivity to chromium. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;44(2):70–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thyssen JP, Menné T, Johansen JD. Hexavalent chromium in leather is now regulated in European member states to limit chromium allergy and dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:1–2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Union. Directive 2003/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on Cement. 2003 [cited 2014 Feb 18]. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:178:0024:0027:EN:PDF
   Google Scholar
• Thyssen JP, Linneberg A, Menne T, et al. Contact allergy to allergens of the TRUE-test (panels 1 and 2) has decreased modestly in the general population. Br J Dermatol. 2009;161(5):1124–1129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uter W, Ramsch C, Aberer W, et al. The European baseline series in 10 European countries, 2005/2006–results of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA). Contact Dermatitis. 2009;61(1):31–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uter W, Aberer W, Armario-Hita JC, et al. Current patch test results with the European baseline series and extensions to it from the ‘European Surveillance System on Contact Allergy’ network, 2007–2008. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67(1):9–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lidén C, Bruze M, Thyssen JP, et al. Metals. In: Johansen JD, Lepoittevin J-P, Frosch PJ, editors. Contact dermatitis. Berlin: Springer; 2011. p. 643–681.
   Google Scholar
• Julander A, Skare L, Mulder M, et al. Skin deposition of nickel, cobalt, and chromium in production of gas turbines and space propulsion components. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010;54(3):340–350.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kettelarij JA, Lidén C, Axen E, et al. Cobalt, nickel, and chromium release from dental tools and alloys. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:3–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thyssen JP, Menne T, Johansen JD, et al. A spot test for detection of cobalt release - early experience and findings. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;63(2):63–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamann C, Hamann D, Hamann KK, et al. Cobalt release from inexpensive earrings from Thailand and China. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64(4):238–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thyssen JP, Jensen P, Liden C, et al. Assessment of nickel and cobalt release from 200 unused hand-held work tools for sale in Denmark - Sources of occupational metal contact dermatitis? Sci Total Environ. 2011;409(22):4663–4666.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jakobsen SS, Liden C, Soballe K, et al. Failure of total hip implants: metals and metal release in 52 cases. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;71(6):319–325.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nardelli A, Taveirne M, Drieghe J, et al. The relation between the localization of foot dermatitis and the causative allergens in shoes: a 13-year retrospective study. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;53(4):201–206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Jellesen MS, et al. Consumer leather exposure: an unrecognized cause of cobalt sensitization. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69(5):276–279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rui F, Bovenzi M, Prodi A, et al. Concurrent sensitization to metals and occupation. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67(6):359–366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bregnbak D, Thyssen JP, Zachariae C, et al. Association between cobalt allergy and dermatitis caused by leather articles–a questionnaire study. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72(2):106–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allmers H, Schmengler J, Sjudlik C. Primary prevention of natural rubber latex allergy in the German health care system through education and intervention. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002;110:318–323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blaabjerg MS, Andersen KE, Bindslev-Jensen C, et al. Decrease in the rate of sensitization and clinical allergy to natural rubber latex. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73:21–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filon FL, Bochdanovits L, Capuzzo C, et al. Ten years incidence of natural rubber latex sensitization and symptoms in a prospective cohort of health care workers using non-powdered latex gloves 2000–2009. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2014;87:463–469.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner S, McNamee R, Agius R, et al. Evaluating interventions aimed at reducing occupational exposure to latex and rubber glove allergens. Occup Environ Med. 2012;69:925–931.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly KJ, Wang ML, Klancnik M, et al. Revention of IgE sensitization to latex in health care workers after reduction of antigen exposures. J Occup Environ Med. 2011;53:934–940.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergendorff O, Persson C, Ludtke A, et al. Chemical changes in rubber allergens during vulcanization. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;57:152–157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansson C, Ponten A, Svedman C, et al. Reaction profile in patch testing with allergens formed during vulcanization of rubber. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70(5):300–308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warburton KL, Urwin R, Carder M, et al. UK rates of occupational skin disease attributed to rubber accelerators, 1996–2012. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72(5):305–311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warburton KL, Bauer A, Chowdhury MM, et al. ESSCA results with the baseline series, 2009–2012: rubber allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73(5):305–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwensen JF, Menne T, Sommerlund M, et al. Contact allergy in Danish healthcare workers: a retrospective matched case-control study. Acta Derm Venereol. 2015. doi:10.2340/00015555-2202. [Epub ahead of print]
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwensen JF, Menné T, Johansen JD, et al. Persistent periorbital allergic contact dermatitis in a dental technician caused by airborne thiuram exposure. Contact Dermatitis. 2015 Jun 18. doi:10.1111/cod.12443. Epub ahead of print.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen P, Menné T, Thyssen JP. Allergic contact dermatitis in a nurse caused by airborne rubber additives. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;65:54–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices. European Parliament. 1993 Jun 14 [cited 2015 Jul 31]. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1993L0042:20071011:en:PDF
   Google Scholar
• Schwensen JF, Menné T, Hald M, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by rubber chemicals during dental treatment. Contact Dermatitis. 2015 Jul 31. doi:10.1111/cod12461
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geier J, Lessmann H, Mahler V, et al. Occupational contact allergy caused by rubber gloves–nothing has changed. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67(3):149–156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uter W, Johansen JD, Borje A, et al. Categorization of fragrance contact allergens for prioritization of preventive measures: clinical and experimental data and consideration of structure-activity relationships. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69(4):196–230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frosch PJ, Duus Johansen J, Schuttelaar ML, et al. Patch test results with fragrance markers of the baseline series - analysis of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA) network 2009–2012. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73(3):163–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belloni Fortina A, Cooper SM, Spiewak R, et al. Patch test results in children and adolescents across Europe Analysis of the ESSCA Network feminine 2002–2010. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2015. doi:10.1111/pai.12397. [Epub ahead of print]
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heisterberg MV, Menne T, Johansen JD. Fragrance allergy and quality of life - a case-control study. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70(2):81–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heisterberg MV, Menne T, Andersen KE, et al. Deodorants are the leading cause of allergic contact dermatitis to fragrance ingredients. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64(5):258–264.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansen JD, Andersen TF, Kjoller M, et al. Identification of risk products for fragrance contact allergy: a case-referent study based on patients’ histories. Am J Contact Dermat. 1998;9(2):80–86.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brared Christensson J, Andersen KE, Bruze M, et al. Positive patch test reactions to oxidized limonene: exposure and relevance. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;71(5):264–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansen JD, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, et al. European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing - recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73(4):195–221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann J, McFadden JP, White JM, et al. Baseline series fragrance markers fail to predict contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70(5):276–281.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansen JD, Andersen TF, Veien N, et al. Patch testing with markers of fragrance contact allergy. Do clinical tests correspond to patients’ self-reported problems? Acta Derm Venereol. 1997;77(2):149–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heydorn S, Johansen JD, Andersen KE, et al. Fragrance allergy in patients with hand eczema - a clinical study. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48(6):317–323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckley DA, Rycroft RJ, White IR, et al. Contact allergy to individual fragrance mix constituents in relation to primary site of dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;43(5):304–305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wohrl S, Hemmer W, Focke M, et al. The significance of fragrance mix, balsam of Peru, colophony and propolis as screening tools in the detection of fragrance allergy. Br J Dermatol. 2001;145(2):268–273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansen JD, Rastogi SC, Bruze M, et al. Deodorants: a clinical provocation study in fragrance-sensitive individuals. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;39(4):161–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edman B. The influence of shaving method on perfume allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;31(5):291–292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). Opinion on Fragrance allergens in cosmetic products (SCCS/1459/11). 2012 Jun 26–27 [cited 2015 Aug 5]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_102.pdf
   Google Scholar