Allergic contact dermatitis caused by glycyrrhetinic acid and castor oil
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A 19-year-old woman with a past history of eczematous lesions at sites of contact with costume jewellery and adhesive dressings was referred for investigation of repeated episodes of contact dermatitis that occurred over a period of 3 years. The lesions involved the lips, the axillae, and the face. The patient implicated two lip balms, a deodorant, and a post-sun moisturizing cream. Patch testing was performed in two separate sessions. In August 2008, the patient was first tested with the North American Contact Dermatitis Group baseline series (AllergEAZE™; SmartPractice® , Calgary, Canada) applied on Finn Chambers® (SmartPractice® , Phoenix, AZ, USA), the antimicrobials/vehicles/cosmetics series, and the four suspected cosmetics, applied on IQ Ultra® chambers (Chemotechnique Diagnostics AB, Vellinge, Sweden) (Table 1). The patches were removed at D2, and the reactions were scored according to the criteria of the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group at D2 and D4. The patient's positive reactions to colophonium and nickel sulfate were deemed to be of past relevance. She had strong reactions to each of her four cosmetics, none of which contained benzalkonium chloride. The relevance of this last reaction remained undetermined (Table 1). The manufacturers of the cosmetics provided their separate ingredients, and a second session of patch testing took place in June 2010 (Table 2). Positive reactions were seen to Ricinus communis seed oil, present in Labello® NIVEA Med Protection Lip Balm (Beiersdorf AG, Hamburg, Germany) and Lipolèvres lip protector (La Roche-Posay Laboratoire Dermatologique, La Roche-Posay, France), and to glycyrrhetinic acid, an ingredient common to Lait Après Soleil (Lancôme, Paris, France) and to Déodorant Peau Très Sensible (Laboratoires Vichy, Vichy, France). The oil extracted from the seeds of R. communis, or the castor oil plant, is used in most lipsticks as a humectant and pigment stabilizer. Its main fatty acid is ricinoleic acid, and allergic contact dermatitis caused by it and its derivatives, although rare, has been repeatedly reported (1–4). Glycyrrhetinic acid, or enoxolone, is a pentacyclic triterpene derived from the hydrolysis of glycyrrhizic acid (glycyrrhizin), one of the main components of licorice root, or Glycyrrhiza glabra. Because of its steroid-like chemical structure, it possesses anti-inflammatory activity, as well as antibacterial, antiviral and antifungal activities. In a mouse model of allergic contact dermatitis, glycyrrhetinic acid showed weak inhibitory activity (5). As an ingredient in Atopiclair® (Graceway Pharmaceuticals, Bristol, TN, USA) it is used for its anti-inflammatory and antipruritic effects in the treatment of atopic dermatitis (6). Allergic contact dermatitis caused by glycyrrhetinic acid appears to be extremely rare, as we could find only three previous reports (7–9). One publication describes delayed facial angioedema following oral ingestion (10), and another mentions allergic contact dermatitis caused by glycyrrhizin in a topical hair-restoring preparation (11). Our patient's reactions to R. communis and to glycyrrhetinic acid represent concomitant reactions, as the two molecules have completely different chemical structures (Fig. 1). Her weaker reaction to the higher concentration of glycyrrhetinic acid may be explained on the basis of its anti-inflammatory effect, as seen when testing with topical glucocorticosteroids (12). Given the recent increase in the use of glycyrrhetinic acid in cosmetics and therapeutic adjuncts, we expect to see more cases of allergic contact dermatitis in the future. Chemical structures of glycyrrhiretinic acid and ricinoleic acid.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle