Allergy to oxidized limonene and linalool is frequent in the U.K

Contact sensitization to limonene and linalool hydroperoxides in Spain: a GEIDAC* prospective study

BACKGROUND

Limonene and linalool are common fragrance terpenes widely used in cosmetic, household and hygiene products. Their primary oxidation products formed after air exposure, the hydroperoxides, have been recognized as important contact haptens.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the prevalence of contact allergy to hydroperoxides of limonene (Lim-OOHs) and hydroperoxides of linalool (Lin-OOHs) in Spain, and to define the optimal concentration for screening in consecutive patients.

METHODS

Three different concentrations of Lim-OOHs (0.1%, 0.2% and 0.3% pet.) and Lin-OOHs (0.25%, 0.5% and 1.0% pet.) were simultaneously tested in 3639 consecutive patients at 22 departments of dermatology in Spain.

RESULTS

Lim-OOHs at 0.1%, 0.2% and 0.3% yielded positive patch test reactions in 1.4%, 3.4% and 5.1% of the tested patients, respectively; and Lin-OOHs at 0.25%, 0.5% and 1.0% yielded positive reactions in 1.3%, 2.9% and 4.9% of the tested patients, respectively. Few irritant (1.5-1.9%) and doubtful reactions (0.4-0.5%) to both terpene hydroperoxides were registered at the highest concentrations tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Lim-OOHs and Lin-OOHs can be considered as common causes of contact allergy, and their inclusion in an extended baseline patch test series therefore seems to be appropriate. The patch test preparations of Lim-OOHs 0.3% pet. and Lin-OOHs 1.0% pet. are useful tools for screening of contact sensitization.

Can contact allergy to p-phenylenediamine explain the high rates of terpene hydroperoxide allergy? - An epidemiological study based on consecutive patch test results

BACKGROUND

Contact allergy to linalool hydroperoxides (Lin-OOHs) and limonene hydroperoxides (Lim-OOHs) is common. Similarly to what occurs with the terpene hydroperoxides, reactive intermediates formed from p-phenylenediamine (PPD) can cause oxidative modifications of tryptophan residues on proteins in mechanistic studies.

OBJECTIVES

To test the hypothesis that patients sensitized to PPD are at increased risk of concomitant reactivity to either of the terpene hydroperoxides, owing to a 'common pathway' of skin protein oxidation.

METHODS

A database study of consecutively patch tested eczema patients (n = 3843) from 2012 to 2015, tested concomitantly with PPD, Lim-OOHs and Lin-OOHs, was performed. Associations were examined by level of concordance and odds ratios (ORs) adjusted for age, sex, and contact allergy to fragrance mix I and fragrance mix II.

RESULTS

Concomitant reactions to PPD were seen in 2.2% of Lim-OOH-positive patients and in 4.9% of Lin-OOH-positive patients. Neither proportion was higher than expected by chance. No association existed between PPD and Lim-OOH patch test reactivity. In a multiple logistic regression analysis, PPD allergy was associated with an insignificantly increased risk (OR 2.11, 95%CI:0.92-4.80) of a positive patch test reaction to Lin-OOHs.

CONCLUSIONS

PPD sensitization cannot explain the high rates of sensitization to Lin-OOHs and/or Lim-OOHs. Contact allergy to oxidized linalool is more strongly associated with fragrance allergy than with PPD allergy.

Oxidized limonene and oxidized linalool - concomitant contact allergy to common fragrance terpenes

BACKGROUND

Limonene and linalool are common fragrance terpenes. Both oxidized R-limonene and oxidized linalool have recently been patch tested in an international setting, showing contact allergy in 5.2% and 6.9% of dermatitis patients, respectively.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate concomitant reactions between oxidized R-limonene and oxidized linalool in consecutive dermatitis patients.

METHODS

Oxidized R-limonene 3.0% (containing limonene hydroperoxides 0.33%) and oxidized linalool 6% (linalool hydroperoxides 1%) in petrolatum were tested in 2900 consecutive dermatitis patients in Australia, Denmark, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

RESULTS

A total of 281 patients reacted to either oxidized R-limonene or oxidized linalool. Of these, 25% had concomitant reactions to both compounds, whereas 29% reacted only to oxidized R-limonene and 46% only to oxidized linalool. Of the 152 patients reacting to oxidized R-limonene, 46% reacted to oxidized linalool, whereas 35% of the 200 patients reacting to oxidized linalool also reacted to oxidized R-limonene.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of the patients (75%) reacted to only one of the oxidation mixtures, thus supporting the specificity of the reactions. The concomitant reactions to the two fragrance allergens suggest multiple sensitizations, which most likely reflect the exposure to the different fragrance materials in various types of consumer products. This is in accordance with what is generally seen for patch test reactions to fragrance materials.

Contact allergy to essential oils cannot always be predicted from allergy to fragrance markers in the baseline series

BACKGROUND

Essential oils are fragrance substances that are labelled on cosmetic products by their INCI names, potentially confusing consumers.

OBJECTIVES

To establish whether contact allergy to essential oils might be missed if not specifically tested for.

METHODS

We tested 471 patients with 14 essential oils and 2104 patients with Melaleuca alternifolia oil between January 2008 and June 2014. All patients were tested with fragrance mix I, fragrance mix II, hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde, and Myroxylon pereirae. Three hundred and twenty-six patients were tested with hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients had a +/++/+++ reaction to at least one essential oil. Eleven had no reaction to any of the six marker fragrance substances. Thus, 4 of 11 positive reactions to M. alternifolia oil, 2 of 7 reactions to Cymbopogon flexuosus oil, 1 of 5 reactions to Cananga odorata oil, 3 of 4 reactions to Santalum album oil and 2 of 3 reactions to Mentha piperita oil would have been missed without individual testing.

CONCLUSION

A small number of patients who are allergic to essential oils could be missed if these are not specifically tested. Labelling by INCI names means that exposure may not be obvious. Careful inspection of so-called 'natural' products and targeted testing is recommended.

Severe Photo-oxidative Injury from Over-the-Counter Skin Moisturizer: A Child Abuse Mimic

BACKGROUND

The cutaneous manifestations of pathological conditions have been described to mirror findings commonly associated with child abuse. Although it is important for clinicians to report suspected abuse, vigilance is required to detect conditions that mimic abuse. Phytophotodermatitis, a phototoxic reaction to furocoumarin-containing plants, is a well-described mimicker of nonaccidental trauma. However, non-furocoumarin-containing chemicals may cause similar presentations through a process called auto-oxidation. Typically, these chemical reactions occur as a result of aero-oxidation or, less commonly, photo-oxidation.

CASE REPORT

We report the first pediatric case of photo-oxidative contact dermatitis from an over-the-counter skin moisturizer. A 12-month-old Hispanic boy presented to the Emergency Department with an apparent scald burn over his anterior chest and left shoulder. Given the lack of apparent cause, a nonaccidental injury was suspected. He was admitted to the pediatric service under the consult of Dermatology and the child maltreatment team. Further history and clinical progression strongly suggested a photo-oxidation reaction from chemical components in a widely available over-the-counter skin moisturizer. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: This case highlights an infrequently reported cause of pediatric contact dermatitis: a photo-oxidative reaction to chemical components in skin moisturizer. It is important for the clinician to be able to differentiate injuries secondary to nonaccidental trauma from conditions that mirror their presentation. The clinical features of this case mimicked child maltreatment and underscore the importance of an interdisciplinary team approach in the care of these children.