Biomedical subjects

Daniel W Shaw

Publications and source records attributed to Daniel W Shaw.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Allergic contact dermatitis from pimecrolimus in a patient with tacrolimus allergy.

A 15-year-old male with previously documented allergic contact dermatitis from tacrolimus was allergic to pimecrolimus. This was demonstrated by double-blinded, right-versus-left provocative use testing with pimecrolimus cream 1% versus inactive vehicle applied twice daily to normal skin. The active cream but not its vehicle caused preauricular dermatitis starting after 1 week and caused isolated papules on the extensor wrist starting after 2 weeks. Patch testing on the patient's back was weakly positive (1+) with pimecrolimus cream 1% and negative with the vehicle. Higher concentrations of pimecrolimus were not available for testing. Patch tests on 30 control patients with pimecrolimus cream 1% were negative.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2006

Allergic contact dermatitis from octisalate and cis-3-hexenyl salicylate.

A 62-year-old woman developed allergic contact dermatitis from sunscreens containing octisalate (octyl salicylate, 2-ethylhexyl salicylate) and from a fragrance containing cis-3-hexenyl salicylate. Results of patch testing and provocative use testing confirmed that she was allergic to octisalate. Provocative use testing indicated that she was also allergic to cis-3-hexenyl salicylate.

Administration, Cutaneous↗

PubMed2004

Allergic contact dermatitis from tacrolimus.

A 9-year-old boy developed allergic contact dermatitis from tacrolimus ointment. Tacrolimus was proven to be the allergen by right-versus-left double-blinded provocative use testing of tacrolimus ointment 0.1% versus inactive vehicle applied twice daily to normal preauricular and antecubital skin. Facial dermatitis appeared after 1 week and antecubital dermatitis after 7 weeks. Furthermore, patch testing of each individual ingredient was positive only with tacrolimus; a concentration of 2.5% in ethanol was required. Forty control patients had negative patch tests with tacrolimus 5% in ethanol. We hypothesize that the unusually long time required to elicit a positive use test on the arm and the high patch test concentration required on the back are caused by low percutaneous absorption through normal extrafacial skin. This is likely to be caused in part by the high molecular weight of tacrolimus. A similar phenomenon may occur when patch testing with neomycin sulfate.

Child↗

PubMed2002

Dosage considerations in patch testing with liquid allergens.

This study examines reproducibility of water and ethanol drop volumes from plastic squeeze dropper bottles, examines the difference in drop volumes between commonly used liquid patch test solutions, and evaluates the volumes of water and ethanol needed to saturate Finn and IQ Chamber filter papers. 2 plastic squeeze dropper bottles recommended for use in patch testing have poor reproducibility compared to other bottles tested. 3 aqueous allergens tested (formaldehyde 1%, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone 0.01%, and dimethylol dihydroxyethyleneurea 4.5%) have drop volumes equivalent to water. Smaller drop volumes are produced by ethanol, hydrocortisone butyrate 1% in ethanol, cocamidopropyl betaine 1% a.q., and propylene glycol 30% a.q. Filter paper saturation volumes using distilled water are 16-19 micro L in standard Finn Chambers and 29-35 micro L in IQ Chambers. Ethanol saturation volumes are slightly lower. Previously recommended volumes of application for aqueous allergens of 15 micro L for standard Finn Chambers and 25 micro L for IQ Chambers (slightly below the filter paper saturation points) are appropriate. Selection of dropper bottles should consider drop volume reproducibility, differing drop volumes for different allergens, and the patch test chamber system being used.

Allergens↗