You could be reading the full-text of this article now if you...

If you have access to this article through your institution,
you can view this article in

Diagnosis and Prevalence of Lanolin Allergy

Miest, Rachel Y. N. MD*; Yiannias, James A. MD; Chang, Yu-Hui H. PhD; Singh, Nidhi RN

Dermatitis:
doi: 10.1097/DER.0b013e3182937aa4
Studies
Abstract

Background: Current evaluation of suspected allergic contact dermatitis to lanolin includes patch testing to lanolin alcohol (30% in petrolatum). Using this method, the prevalence of lanolin allergy is low (1.8%–2.5%).

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine whether patch testing to a single lanolin derivative results in underdiagnosis compared with patch testing to 12 lanolin derivatives.

Methods: Patients were prospectively patch tested to (1) lanolin alcohol (30% in petrolatum) in our standard allergen series; (2) Amerchol L101 (50% in petrolatum) in our cosmetic series; and (3) 10 lanolin derivatives (using concentrations and vehicles recommended in the literature) in a supplemental series.

Results: Of 286 patients, the overall prevalence of positive reactions to lanolin in at least 1 of the 3 patch test series was 6.29% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.48%-9.11%) (n = 18). The prevalence rates of lanolin allergy using the standard, cosmetic, and supplemental series were 1.05% (95% CI, 0%–2.23%), 3.85% (95% CI, 1.62%–6.07%), and 3.85% (95% CI, 1.62%–6.07%), respectively. Amerchol L101 was associated with increased reaction rates compared with the standard (odds ratio, 3.81; P = 0.007) and supplemental (odds ratio, 8.85; P < 0.001) series, whereas reaction rates were similar for the standard and supplemental series (P = 0.78).

Conclusions: Amerchol L101 and patients’ own products should be added to a standard patch testing allergen series to adequately identify lanolin allergy.

Author Information

From the *Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and †Department of Dermatology and ‡Division of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ.

Address reprint requests to James A. Yiannias, MD, Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, 13400 E Shea Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ. E-mail: yiannias.j@mayo.edu.

Portions of the Methods section were published previously in Arch Dermatol (2008;144(1):67–72), copyright transferred from ©2013 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research.

Dr Yiannias has received royalties from Preventice, Inc. The other authors have no funding or conflicts to declare.

© 2013 American Contact Dermatitis Society

You currently do not have access to this article.

You may need to:

Note: If your society membership provides for full-access to this article, you may need to login on your society’s web site first.