Advanced

Sensitization to dimethyl fumarate with multiple concurrent patch test reactions

Lammintausta, Kaija; Zimerson, Erik LU ; Winhoven, Sandra; Susitaival, Paivikki; Hasan, Taina; Gruvberger, Birgitta LU ; Williams, Jason; Beck, Michael and Bruze, Magnus LU (2010) In Contact Dermatitis 62(2). p.88-96
Abstract
Background: Chairs and sofas imported from China to Europe were shown to contain dimethyl fumarate (DMF), a sensitizing, volatile chemical. Many of the sensitized patients also had positive patch test reactions to acrylates. Objectives: To analyse the occurrence and strength of DMF sensitization and the appearance of concomitant reactions. Methods: Patch testing with DMF in concentrations of 0.1-0.00001% was carried out in 37 patients. Diethyl fumarate (DEF), diethyl maleate (DEM), dimethyl maleate (DMM), ethyl acrylate (EA), methyl acrylate (MA), and methyl methacrylate (MMA) were also tested with a dilution series at equimolar concentrations. Results: The lowest concentration of DMF eliciting a reaction varied between 0.0001% and 0.1%... (More)
Background: Chairs and sofas imported from China to Europe were shown to contain dimethyl fumarate (DMF), a sensitizing, volatile chemical. Many of the sensitized patients also had positive patch test reactions to acrylates. Objectives: To analyse the occurrence and strength of DMF sensitization and the appearance of concomitant reactions. Methods: Patch testing with DMF in concentrations of 0.1-0.00001% was carried out in 37 patients. Diethyl fumarate (DEF), diethyl maleate (DEM), dimethyl maleate (DMM), ethyl acrylate (EA), methyl acrylate (MA), and methyl methacrylate (MMA) were also tested with a dilution series at equimolar concentrations. Results: The lowest concentration of DMF eliciting a reaction varied between 0.0001% and 0.1% and all but four patients reacted concurrently to DEF. DEM elicited positive patch test reactions in 21/37 patients and DMM reactions were seen in all 9 patients tested. EA elicited positive reactions in 13/37 patients and a positive MA reaction was seen in 7/37 patients, 2 of whom also reacted to MMA. Conclusions: The strength of the sensitization to DMF showed variation and concurrent reactions were common. Concurrent reactions to (meth)acrylates were seen in patients, who reacted to lower (0.001% or less) DMF concentration probably elicited by cross-reactivity. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
patch test, fumarate, dimethyl, cross-reactions, concurrent reactions, contact sensitization
in
Contact Dermatitis
volume
62
issue
2
pages
88 - 96
publisher
Federation of European Neuroscience Societies and Blackwell Publishing Ltd
external identifiers
  • wos:000274167800003
  • scopus:76149086793
ISSN
0105-1873
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
d8ff476c-7b07-4cdb-9e04-615fba444e13 (old id 1571092)
date added to LUP
2010-03-16 15:06:27
date last changed
2018-05-29 11:07:54
@article{d8ff476c-7b07-4cdb-9e04-615fba444e13,
  abstract     = {Background: Chairs and sofas imported from China to Europe were shown to contain dimethyl fumarate (DMF), a sensitizing, volatile chemical. Many of the sensitized patients also had positive patch test reactions to acrylates. Objectives: To analyse the occurrence and strength of DMF sensitization and the appearance of concomitant reactions. Methods: Patch testing with DMF in concentrations of 0.1-0.00001% was carried out in 37 patients. Diethyl fumarate (DEF), diethyl maleate (DEM), dimethyl maleate (DMM), ethyl acrylate (EA), methyl acrylate (MA), and methyl methacrylate (MMA) were also tested with a dilution series at equimolar concentrations. Results: The lowest concentration of DMF eliciting a reaction varied between 0.0001% and 0.1% and all but four patients reacted concurrently to DEF. DEM elicited positive patch test reactions in 21/37 patients and DMM reactions were seen in all 9 patients tested. EA elicited positive reactions in 13/37 patients and a positive MA reaction was seen in 7/37 patients, 2 of whom also reacted to MMA. Conclusions: The strength of the sensitization to DMF showed variation and concurrent reactions were common. Concurrent reactions to (meth)acrylates were seen in patients, who reacted to lower (0.001% or less) DMF concentration probably elicited by cross-reactivity.},
  author       = {Lammintausta, Kaija and Zimerson, Erik and Winhoven, Sandra and Susitaival, Paivikki and Hasan, Taina and Gruvberger, Birgitta and Williams, Jason and Beck, Michael and Bruze, Magnus},
  issn         = {0105-1873},
  keyword      = {patch test,fumarate,dimethyl,cross-reactions,concurrent reactions,contact sensitization},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {88--96},
  publisher    = {Federation of European Neuroscience Societies and Blackwell Publishing Ltd},
  series       = {Contact Dermatitis},
  title        = {Sensitization to dimethyl fumarate with multiple concurrent patch test reactions},
  volume       = {62},
  year         = {2010},
}