OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Contact dermatitis
Nov, 2019;81 (5): 368-373.

Screening for Compositae contact sensitization with sesquiterpene lactones and Compositae mix 2.5% pet.

Evy Paulsen, Klaus E Andersen
Author Information
  1. Evy Paulsen: Department of Dermatology and Allergy Centre, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. ORCID
  2. Klaus E Andersen: Department of Dermatology and Allergy Centre, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. ORCID
PMID: 31265134 DOI: 10.1111/cod.13346

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Compositae contact sensitization may be difficult to diagnose, because of a lack of reliable screening allergens.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the suitability of Compositae mix II 2.5% pet. (CM2.5) as a screening mix in the baseline series combined with sesquiterpene lactone (SL) mix and parthenolide (PTH).
METHODS: CM2.5 was added to the baseline series, which included SL mix and PTH 0.1% pet., in January 2015, and PTH was included in TRUE Test Panel 3 in October 2015. All Compositae-sensitive patients diagnosed or tested in the next 4 years were assessed.
RESULTS: Altogether, 57 patients (2.7%) presented with Compositae allergy. On primary testing in 53 newly diagnosed patients, SL mix elicited positive reactions most frequently (53% positive), followed by CM2.5 (47% positive), and PTH (45% positive). CM2.5 and PTH pet. elicited a few irritant reactions. Three patients had late reactions. Altogether, 16 patients (28%) were not detected by any of the three screening agents.
CONCLUSIONS: SL mix is an indispensable, although insufficient, screening mixture in Denmark. It may be relatively safely supplemented with CM2.5 and PTH in the TRUE Test system for screening, but, when Compositae sensitization is suspected, further extracts should be tested on the basis of the history.

Keywords

Asteraceae Compositae mix II 2.5% Compositae mix II 5% allergic contact dermatitis baseline series parthenolide patch testing sesquiterpene lactone mix

References

  1. English J, Norris P, White I, Cronin E. Variability in the clinical patterns of Compositae dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 1989;121 suppl(34):27.
  2. Paulsen E, Andersen KE. Clinical patterns of Compositae dermatitis in Danish monosensitized patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78:185-193.
  3. Green C, Ferguson J. Sesquiterpene lactone mix is not an adequate screen for Compositae allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;31:151-153.
  4. von der Werth JM, Ratcliffe J, English JSC. Compositae mix is a more sensitive test for Compositae dermatitis than the sesquiterpene lactone mix. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;40:273-276.
  5. Goulden V, Wilkinson SM. Patch testing for Compositae allergy. Br J Dermatol. 1998;138:1018-1021.
  6. Paulsen E, Andersen KE, Hausen BM. An 8-year experience with routine SL mix patch testing supplemented with Compositae mix in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;45:29-35.
  7. Paulsen E, Andersen KE. Screening for Compositae sensitization with pure allergens: implications of molecular structure, strength of reaction, and time of testing. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64:96-103.
  8. Hausen BM. A 6-year experience with Compositae mix. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 1996;7:94-99.
  9. Wilkinson SM, Pollock B. Patch test sensitization after use of the Compositae mix. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;40:277-278.
  10. Isaksson M, Hansson C, Inerot A, et al. Multicentre patch testing with Compositae mix by the Swedish Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Acta Derm Venereol. 2011;91:295-298.
  11. 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;73:195-221.
  12. Ross JS, du Peloux Menagé H, Hawk JLM, White IR. Sesquiterpene lactone contact sensitivity: clinical patterns of Compositae dermatitis and relationship to chronic actinic dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1993;29:84-87.
  13. Du H, Menagé P, Hawk JLM, White IR. Sesquiterpene lactone mix contact sensitivity and its relationship to chronic actinic dermatitis: a follow-up study. Contact Dermatitis 1998; 39: 119-122.
  14. Paulsen E, Andersen KE, Brandão FM, et al. Routine patch testing with the sesquiterpene lactone mix in Europe: a 2-year experience. A multicentre study of the EECDRG. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;40:72-76.
  15. The ESSCA Writing Group. The European Surveillance System of Contact Allergies (ESSCA): results of patch testing the standard series, 2004. JEADV. 2008;22:174-181.
  16. De Koven JG, Warshaw EM, Zug KA, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2015-2016. Dermatitis. 2018;29:297-309.
  17. Cheng S, Cao M, Zhang Y, et al. Time trends of contact allergy to a modified European baseline series in Beijing between 2001 and 2006. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;65:22-27.
  18. Geier J, Hausen BM. Epikutantestung mit dem Kompositen-Mix. Ergebnisse einer Studie der Deutschen Kontaktallergie-Gruppe (DKG) und des Informationsverbundes Dermatologischer Kliniken (IVDK). Allergologie. 2000;23:334-341.
  19. Hansen SR, Kroon S. Epikutantesting og nikkelallergi. Tidsskr Nor Legeforen. 2008;128:433-435.
  20. Bong JL, English JSC. Compositae mix: what is the optimum concentration for patch testing? Contact Dermatitis. 2001;44:251-252.
  21. Bong JL, English JSC, Wilkinson SM. Diluted Compositae mix versus sesquiterpene lactone mix as a screening agent for Compositae dermatitis: a multicentre study. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;45:26-28.
  22. Belloni Fortina A, Fontana E, Peserico A. Contact sensitization in children: a retrospective study of 2614 children from a single center. Pediatr Dermatol. 2016;33:399-404.
  23. Wilkinson M, Gonçalo M, Aerts O, et al. The European baseline series and recommended additions: 2019. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:1-4.
  24. Stanway A, English J, Omerod A, et al. Trolab™ Compositae mix vs. Chemotechnique™ Compositae mix. Br J Dermatol. 2005;153 (Suppl. 1):57.
  25. Paulsen E, Andersen KE. Patch testing with constituents of Compositae mixes. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66:241-246.
  26. Bauer A, Geier J, Schreiber S, Schubert S. (for the IVDK). Contact sensitization to plants of the Compositae family: data of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) from 2007 to 2016. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:222-227.
  27. Paulsen E, Andersen KE, Hausen BM. Sensitization and cross-reaction patterns in Danish Compositae-allergic patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;45:197-204.
  28. Hausen BM, Vieluf IK. Allergiepflanzen-Pflanzenallergene: Handbuch und Atlas der allergie-induzierenden Wild- und Kulturpflanzen. Kontaktallergene. Allergische Frühreaktionen. 2nd ed. Landsberg/München: ecomed Verlagsgesellschaft; 1997.
  29. Tschiggerl C, Bucar F. Guaianolides and volatile compounds in chamomile tea. Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 2012;67:129-135.
  30. Hendriks H, Bos R. The presence of parthenolide in Dutch tansy. Planta Med. 1990;56:540.
  31. Mockutė D, Judžentienė A. Chemotypes of the essential oils of Achillea millefolium L. ssp. millefolium growing wild in Eastern Lithuania. Chem. 2002;13:168-173.
  32. Vera M, Romero R, Rodríguez-Guitián MA, Barros RM, Real C, Bouza C. Phylogeography and genetic variability of the Arnica montana chemotypes in NW Iberian Peninsula. Silvae Genetica. 2014;63:293-300.
  33. Isaac O. Chamaemelum nobile (L.) Allioni- Römische Kamille. Z Phytother. 1993;14:212-222.
  34. Shum KW, English JSC. Allergic contact dermatitis in food handlers, with patch tests positive to Compositae mix, but negative to sesquiterpene lactone mix. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;39:207-208.

MeSH Term

Adolescent
Adult
Allergens
Asteraceae
Child
Child, Preschool
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact
Female
Humans
Lactones
Male
Middle Aged
Patch Tests
Plant Extracts
Sesquiterpenes
Young Adult

Chemicals

Allergens
Lactones
Plant Extracts
Sesquiterpenes
parthenolide
Journal Article
Article has an altmetric score of 3

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0mixCompositaePTHscreeningCM25patients25%petSLpositivecontactsensitizationIIbaselineseriessesquiterpenereactionsmaylactoneparthenolideincluded2015TRUETestdiagnosedtestedAltogethertestingelicitedBACKGROUND:difficultdiagnoselackreliableallergensOBJECTIVES:assesssuitabilitycombinedMETHODS:added01%JanuaryPanel3OctoberCompositae-sensitivenext4yearsassessedRESULTS:577%presentedallergyprimary53newlyfrequently53%followed47%45%irritantThreelate1628%detectedthreeagentsCONCLUSIONS:indispensablealthoughinsufficientmixtureDenmarkrelativelysafelysupplementedsystemsuspectedextractsbasishistoryScreeninglactonesAsteraceaeallergicdermatitispatch

Similar Articles

No available data.

Cited By (4)