Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Magnus Bruze

Publications and source records attributed to Magnus Bruze.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2007

Variation in the amount of petrolatum preparation applied at patch testing.

The elicitation of a positive patch test reaction in a given individual depends upon the dose of the sensitizer applied, the patch test technique and the occlusion time. The dose is determined by the concentration and volume/amount of test preparation applied. If the same amount/volume of a test preparation is applied all the time with the same test technique (same area of skin) and occlusion time, it is appropriate to use concentration as a dose parameter. Most contact sensitizers are incorporated in petrolatum (pet.). With pet. as vehicle, it is impossible to repeatedly apply an exact volume/amount. This study was performed to investigate the inter- and intra-individual variation of pet. preparation applied at patch testing by 3 technicians. Weighing demonstrated that the 3 technicians had about the same precision in their pet. application. The investigation demonstrates that there is both an inter-individual (statistically significant) and intra-individual variation in the amounts of pet. applied at patch testing for the 3 technicians. Presently, there is no recommendation on what amount of pet. preparation to apply, which merits a decision to be taken based on thorough investigations on the appropriate volumes of pet. preparation to be applied in various patch test systems.

Dermatitis, Contact↗
PubMed2007

Is it possible to improve the patch-test diagnostics for isocyanates? A stability study of petrolatum preparations of diphenylmethane-4,4'-diisocyanate and polymeric diphenylmethane diisocyanate.

We have previously shown that the concentration of diphenylmethane-4,4'-diisocyanate (4,4'-MDI) in commercial test preparations was so low that patch testing with the same was not reliable. The stability of 4,4'-MDI in petrolatum (pet.) was compared with pet. preparations of polymeric diphenylmethane diisocyanate (PMDI), which consists of a complex mixture of monomeric isomers and oligomers of MDI. Preparations of 4,4'-MDI and PMDI were stored under 3 different conditions, i.e. at room temperature, refrigerated and frozen. They were analysed continuously during 1 year with regard to the content of 4,4'-MDI, 3-ring oligomers and 4-ring oligomers using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. PMDI preparations kept frozen were stable for a year. All other preparations failed to fulfil the requirements of stability, i.e. +/-20% of the initial concentration. Storage in a freezer prolonged the lifetime for 4,4'-MDI. The decrease in concentration for preparations kept at room temperature and refrigerated was less rapid in PMDI preparations than in 4,4'-MDI preparations. PMDI preparations are better suited for patch testing patients exposed to MDI because they are more stable and homogeneous than 4,4'-MDI preparations. They better reflect possible allergens that workers are exposed to because products used in industry contain both monomers and oligomers.

Chromatography, Liquid↗
PubMed2006

Photoallergic contact dermatitis from ketoprofen in southern Sweden.

The non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug ketoprofen is widely used for topical treatment. In Sweden, ketoprofen has been available for topical application since 1995. Photoallergic contact dermatitis from ketoprofen-containing topical preparations usually includes severe eczematous reactions. Ketoprofen is derived from propionic acid, and it is also a substituted benzophenone and therefore structurally similar to fenofibrate and sunscreen agents based on benzophenones. During the last 2 years, 35 patients have been refereed to our department with suspected photoallergic or allergic reactions after having used ketoprofen-containing gels. Photopatch testing with the photopatch standard series, the ketoprofen-containing gels and their ingredients, fenofibrate, benzophenone-3, benzophenone-10 and benzophenone-4, was performed. Photoallergic reactions to ketoprofen were noted in 35 patients and a simultaneous contact allergy to ketoprofen in 2 patients. Simultaneous photoallergy to fentichlor, tetrachlorosalicylanilide and fenofibrate was registered in 74%, 40% and 73% of the patients, respectively.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Contact allergy to herbal teas derived from Asteraceae plants.

Contact allergy to herbal teas derived from the Asteraceae plant family was investigated in patients allergic to sesquiterpene lactones (SLs). 20 patients with a known contact allergy to SLs were recalled and patch tested with aqueous extracts of 8 different herbal teas based on Asteraceae plants as well as with parthenolide and other SLs. In 18 of 20 patients with SL allergy, there were positive test reactions to the Asteraceae teas, mainly to those based on German chamomile, dandelion and wormwood. Among the SLs, parthenolide was the most frequent co-reactor. Obviously, most patients with a contact allergy to SLs are allergic to commercial teas derived from the Asteraceae plant family as well.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

A clinically relevant contact allergy to methyldibromo glutaronitrile at 1% (0.32 mg/cm) detected by a patch test.

Recently, the preservative methyldibromo glutaronitrile (MDBGN) at 0.5% w/w in petrolatum was included in the European standard patch test series based on the studies on chemical stability and consideration of rates of contact allergy, doubtful and irritant reactions as well as information on clinical relevance represented by results of a repeated open application test (ROAT) and patch test concentrations required to diagnose allergic contact dermatitis from MDBGN in individual cases. In this report, a case with a clinically relevant contact allergy to MDBGN, which on the mandatory reading occasion on D3 only was traced by a patch test with MDBGN at 1.0% (0.32 mg/cm2), is presented. The patient suffered from a chronic hand dermatitis, and when the patient stopped using a liquid soap containing MDBGN, the hand dermatitis substantially improved. A ROAT performed in a blinded and controlled way with applications twice daily on the hands with 2 moisturizers with and without MDBGN resulted in a deterioration of the hand dermatitis on the hand to which the MDBGN-preserved moisturizer had been applied.

Allergens↗
PubMed2006

Can an imidazolidinyl urea-preserved corticosteroid cream be safely used in individuals hypersensitive to formaldehyde?

A topical corticosteroid preparation on the Swedish market, Flutivate cream, contains a fairly high concentration of formaldehyde (FA). In this study, we have investigated the clinical relevance of contact allergy to FA when treating an allergic eczema with Flutivate cream, containing an FA-releasing preservative. In a randomized, double-blind study, 7 patients hypersensitive to both FA and nickel repeatedly applied Flutivate cream containing FA or Betnovate cream not containing FA to areas of experimentally induced nickel dermatitis. 17 controls allergic to nickel, but not FA, went through the same procedure. In 29 per cent of the FA-allergic individuals, the experimental dermatitis healed when treated with Flutivate cream compared with 71 per cent of the controls (P = 0.04). The conclusion to draw from this study is that an individual hypersensitive to FA should not use the corticosteroid preparation Flutivate cream on dermatitis skin.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Comparison of elicitation potential of chloroatranol and atranol--2 allergens in oak moss absolute.

Chloroatranol and atranol are degradation products of chloroatranorin and atranorin, respectively, and have recently been identified as important contact allergens in the natural fragrance extract, oak moss absolute. Oak moss absolute is widely used in perfumery and is the cause of many cases of fragrance allergic contact dermatitis. Chloroatranol elicits reactions at very low levels of exposure. In oak moss absolute, chloroatranol and atranol are present together and both may contribute to the allergenicity and eliciting capacity of the natural extract. In this study, 10 eczema patients with known sensitization to chloroatranol and oak moss absolute were tested simultaneously to a serial dilution of chloroatranol and atranol in ethanol, in equimolar concentrations (0.0034-1072 microM). Dose-response curves were estimated and analysed by logistic regression. The estimated difference in elicitation potency of chloroatranol relative to atranol based on testing with equimolar concentrations was 217% (95% confidence interval 116-409%). Both substances elicited reactions at very low levels of exposure. It is concluded that the differences in elicitation capacity between the 2 substances are counterbalanced by exposure being greater to atranol than to chloroatranol and that both substances contribute to the clinical problems seen in oak moss absolute-sensitized individuals.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Mercaptobenzothiazole or the mercapto-mix: which should be in the standard series?

Mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT) compounds are well known contact allergens. To detect rubber allergic patients we use both MBT (2% in petrolatum) and a mercapto-mix with 4 constituents of 0.5% each in our standard series. In this article the EECDRG presents data of in total 32,475 consecutive tested patients attending the respective contact dermatitis clinics from 11 centres in Europe to determine if the mix and MBT detected the same allergic patients. We found 327 patients positive to the mix or MBT, or to both. 261 were positive to the mix and 254 to MBT. MBT was negative in 73 patients who were positive to the mix. If the mix had not been in the standard series, on average 22% of patients allergic to a mercapto-compound would have been missed, for MBT this would have been on average 20%. All clinics would have missed a significant number of positive reactions if both compounds had not been tested. We conclude, that both the mercapto mix and MBT are required in the standard series.

Benzothiazoles↗
PubMed2006

The validity of a questionnaire-based epidemiological study of occupational dermatosis.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of a questionnaire and medical anamnesis to identify persons with dermatitis in an occupational setting. The design was a clinical epidemiological cross-sectional study. The study was performed between the second and fourth week of January 2001. A questionnaire was followed a week later by a medical occupational interview and a clinical dermatological examination, including a comprehensive patch test with potential workplace chemicals. The anamnesis and the clinical examination were made independently by occupational and dermatological physicians, and the skin examination was performed blinded to anamnestic data. The setting was the mother plants of a Danish-based international company producing wind turbine systems. The study population was a workplace cohort, highly exposed to epoxy resin systems and other chemicals, and totalled 724 production workers at 4 facilities. The rate of participation was 84.7%. Using enquete questions of current skin rash against the clinical presence of dermatitis, we found a sensitivity of 22% and a specificity of 89%, compared to 45% and 87%, respectively, when the anamnestic work history, taken by an occupational physician, was the screening parameter. Using 'workplace periodic prevalence' of dermatitis, we found sensitivities in the range of 63-76% by a questionnaire and 70-83% by medical anamnesis. Questionnaire screening by skin symptoms gave the highest values for redness, a sensitivity of 33% and a specificity of 76%, and decreasing validity parameters as more symptoms were added to the list of screening questions. We found that the use of a questionnaire and medical anamnesis were problematic, when the purpose was screening for contact dermatitis and allergy, in this industrial cohort manufacturing reinforced plastic products. But these instruments might be useful for epidemiological surveillance, when the questionnaire has been validated in the given occupational setting.

Cross-Sectional Studies↗
PubMed2006

Contact allergy to (meth)acrylates in the dental series in southern Sweden: simultaneous positive patch test reaction patterns and possible screening allergens.

Contact allergy to dental allergens is a well-studied subject, more so among dental professionals than dental patients. 1632 subjects had been patch tested to either the dental patient series or dental personnel series at the department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, Malmö, Sweden. Positive patch tests to (meth)acrylate allergens were seen in 2.3% (30/1322) of the dental patients and 5.8% (18/310) of the dental personnel. The most common allergen for both groups was 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA), followed by ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate, and methyl methacrylate. 47 (29 dental patients and 18 dental personnel) out of these 48 had positive patch tests to 2-HEMA. All 30 subjects who had a positive reaction to EGDMA had a simultaneous positive reaction to 2-HEMA. One dental patient reacted only to 2,2-bis[4-(2-hydroxy-3-methacryloxypropoxy) phenyl]propane (bis-GMA). From our data, screening for (meth)acrylate contact allergy with 2-HEMA alone would have picked up 96.7% (29/30) of our (meth)acrylate-allergic dental patients and 100% (18/18) of our (meth)acrylate-allergic dental personnel. The addition of bis-GMA in dental patients would increase the pick-up rate to 100%.

Allergens↗
PubMed2006

Not only oxidized R-(+)- but also S-(-)-limonene is a common cause of contact allergy in dermatitis patients in Europe.

Limonene, one of the most often used fragrance terpenes in any kind of scented products, is prone to air-oxidation. The oxidation products formed have a considerable sensitizing potential. In previous patch test studies on consecutively tested dermatitis patients, oxidized R-limonene has been proven to be a good and frequent indicator of fragrance-related contact allergy. The current study extends these investigations to 6 European clinics of dermatology, where the oxidation mixture of both enantiomers of limonene (R and S) have been tested in 2411 dermatitis patients. Altogether, 63 out of 2411 patients tested (2.6%) reacted to 1 or both the oxidized limonene preparations. Only 2.3% reacted to the oxidized R-limonene and 2.0% to the oxidized S-limonene. In 57% of the cases, simultaneous reactions were observed to both oxidation mixtures. Concomitant reactions to the fragrance mix, colophonium, Myroxylon pereirae, and fragrance-related contact allergy were common in patients reacting to 1 or both the oxidized limonene enantiomers. Our study provides clinical evidence for the importance of oxidation products of limonene in contact allergy. It seems advisable to screen consecutive dermatitis patients with oxidized limonene 3% petrolatum, although this patch test material is not yet commercially available.

Cyclohexenes↗
PubMed2006

Patch testing with components of water-based metalworking fluids: results of a multicentre study with a second series.

BACKGROUND: Although many allergens in metalworking fluids (MWF) are identified, there are still some MWF components, which are not sufficiently investigated concerning their sensitizing properties. OBJECTIVES: To investigate sensitization to 10 frequently used MWF components, which are not part of the established MWF test series, in metalworkers with suspected occupational dermatitis due to MWF. PATIENTS/METHODS: Oleyl alcohol, myristyl alcohol, dimethylolurea, 4,4'-methylenebis morpholine, imazalil, 1-amino-2-propanol (monoisopropanolamine; MIPA), 2-amino-2-ethyl-1,3-propanediol (AEPD), 2,5-bis(n-octyldithio)-1,3,4-thiadiazole, zinc alkyl dithiophosphate and dibenzyl disulfide have been patch tested in 144 patients. RESULTS: 7 patients reacted positively to the formaldehyde releaser 4,4'-methylenebis morpholine, and 6 of these patients also reacted to formaldehyde and/or other formaldehyde releasers. 4 patients reacted positively to myristyl alcohol tested at 10% petrolatum (pet.). Additionally, 20 doubtful or irritant reactions occurred. 1 patient each reacted positively to oleyl alcohol, MIPA, and AEPD. None of the other test substances mentioned above elicited any clear-cut positive reaction. Patch testing with well-known MWF allergens showed proportions of positive reactions, which were comparable to those from other studies, e.g. 11% to monoethanolamine, 8% to colophonium and 3%-5% to various preservatives. CONCLUSIONS: 4,4'-methylenebis morpholine may be an important MWF allergen, although clinical relevance could not be stated definitely in every case. Myristyl alcohol should not be patch tested at 10% pet., but at a lesser concentration, due to irritant properties.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Corticosteroids.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Administration, Topical↗
PubMed2005

Recommendation to include methyldibromo glutaronitrile in the European standard patch test series.

The preservative methyldibromo glutaronitrilc (MDBGN) is used non-occupationally and occupationally. High contact allergy rates have been reported when tested in consecutive dermatitis patients as well as clinical cases with allergic contact dermatitis. Up till now there has been no agreement on which patch test preparation to use to trace contact allergy to MDBGN. From the year 2005 on, MDBGN at 0.5% w/w in petrolatum is recommended for the European standard patch test series. The choice of 0.5% is based on consideration of rates of contact allergy, doubtful and irritant reactions, as well as on information on clinical relevance represented by results of a repeated open application test, and patch test concentrations to diagnose allergic contact dermatitis from MDBGN in individual cases.

Allergens↗
PubMed2005

Patch testing with a new fragrance mix - reactivity to the individual constituents and chemical detection in relevant cosmetic products.

UNLABELLED: A new fragrance mix (FM II), with 6 frequently used chemicals not present in the currently used fragrance mix (FM I), was evaluated in 6 dermatological centres in Europe, as previously reported. In this publication, test results with the individual constituents and after repeated open application test (ROAT) of FM II are described. Furthermore, cosmetic products which had caused a contact dermatitis in patients were analysed for the presence of the individual constituents. In 1701 patients, the individual constituents of the medium (14%) and the highest (28%) concentration of FM II were simultaneously applied with the new mix at 3 concentrations (break-down testing for the lowest concentration of FM II (2.8%) was performed only if the mix was positive). ROAT was performed with the concentration of the FM II which had produced a positive or doubtful (+ or ?+) patch test reaction. Patients' products were analysed for the 6 target compounds by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). RESULTS: 50 patients (2.9%) showed a positive reaction to 14% FM II and 70 patients (4.1%) to 28% FM II. 24/50 (48%) produced a positive reaction to 1 or more of the individual constituents of 14% FM II and 38/70 (54.3%) to 28% FM II, respectively. If doubtful reactions to individual constituents are included, the break-down testing was positive in 74% and 70%, respectively. Patients with a positive reaction to 14% FM II showed a higher rate of reactions to the individual constituent of the 28% FM II: 36/50 (72%). Positive reactions to individual constituents in patients negative to FM II were exceedingly rare. If doubtful reactions are regarded as negative, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for the medium concentration of FM II towards at least 1 individual constituent was 92.3% (exact 95% confidence interval 74.9-99.1%), 98.4% (97.7-99.0%), 48% (33.7-62.6%) and 99.9% (99.6-"100.0%), respectively. For the high concentration, the figures were very similar. The frequency of positive reactions to the individual constituents in descending order was the same for both FM II concentrations: hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral) > citral > farnesol > citronellol > alpha-hexyl-cinnamic aldehyde (AHCA). No unequivocally positive reaction to coumarin was observed. Lyral) was the dominant individual constituent, with positive reactions in 36% of patients reacting to 14% FM II and 37.1% to 28% FM II. 5/11 patients developed a positive ROAT after a median of 7 days (range 2-10). The 5 patients with a doubtful or negative reaction to 28% FM II were all ROAT negative except 1. There were 7 patients with a certain fragrance history and a positive reaction to either 28% or 14% FM II but a negative reaction to FM I. Analysis with GC-MS in a total of 24 products obtained from 12 patients showed at least 1-5 individual constituents per product: Lyral (79.2%), citronellol (87.5%), AHCA (58.3%), citral (50%) and coumarin (50%). The patients were patch test positive to Lyral, citral and AHCA. In conclusion, patients with a certain fragrance history and a negative reaction to FM I can be identified by FM II. Testing with individual constituents is positive in about 50% of cases reacting to either 14% or 28% FM II.

Acrolein↗
PubMed2005

Patch testing with a new fragrance mix detects additional patients sensitive to perfumes and missed by the current fragrance mix.

The currently used 8% fragrance mix (FM I) does not identify all patients with a positive history of adverse reactions to fragrances. A new FM II with 6 frequently used chemicals was evaluated in 1701 consecutive patients patch tested in 6 dermatological centres in Europe. FM II was tested in 3 concentrations - 28% FM II contained 5% hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral), 2% citral, 5% farnesol, 5% coumarin, 1% citronellol and 10%alpha-hexyl-cinnamic aldehyde; in 14% FM II, the single constituents' concentration was lowered to 50% and in 2.8% FM II to 10%. Each patient was classified regarding a history of adverse reactions to fragrances: certain, probable, questionable, none. Positive reactions to FM I occurred in 6.5% of the patients. Positive reactions to FM II were dose-dependent and increased from 1.3% (2.8% FM II), through 2.9% (14% FM II) to 4.1% (28% FM II). Reactions classified as doubtful or irritant varied considerably between the 6 centres, with a mean value of 7.2% for FM I and means ranging from 1.8% to 10.6% for FM II. 8.7% of the tested patients had a certain fragrance history. Of these, 25.2% were positive to FM I; reactivity to FM II was again dose-dependent and ranged from 8.1% to 17.6% in this subgroup. Comparing 2 groups of history - certain and none - values for sensitivity and specificity were calculated: sensitivity: FM I, 25.2%; 2.8% FM II, 8.1%; 14% FM II, 13.5%; 28% FM II, 17.6%; specificity: FM I, 96.5%; 2.8% FM II, 99.5%; 14% FM II, 98.8%; 28% FM II, 98.1%. 31/70 patients (44.3%) positive to 28% FM II were negative to FM I, with 14% FM II this proportion being 16/50 (32%). In the group of patients with a certain history, a total of 7 patients were found reacting to FM II only. Conversely, in the group of patients without any fragrance history, there were significantly more positive reactions to FM I than to any concentration of FM II. In conclusion, the new FM II detects additional patients sensitive to fragrances missed by FM I; the number of false-positive reactions is lower with FM II than with FM I. Considering sensitivity, specificity and the frequency of doubtful reactions, the medium concentration, 14% FM II, seems to be the most appropriate diagnostic screening tool.

Acrolein↗