Library

Notes: Purpose - The aim of this paper is discussing about the similarities between the life cycle of knowledge management and the processes in which learning objects are created, evaluated and used. Design/methodology/approach - The paper describes LO and learning designs and depicts their integration into the knowledge life cycle (KLC) of the KMCI, showing the main ontological definitions required to represent the proposed integration, putting them into relation with previous research in the topic. Findings - The main points in that the "learning object" concept can be connected to existing KLC models in order to provide a more comprehensive framework for reuse-oriented e-learning and knowledge management. Originality/value - The paper describes how to integrate learning-oriented artefacts as part of the organizational context, in particular, as part of the knowledge life cycle (KLC). It also depicts the integration of a reuse-oriented e-learning framework into the KLC of the KMCI in the form of ontological definitions.

Notes: Patch test results with products brought in by the patients collected by the members of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) between 1998 and 2002 were analysed. 5911 patients were patch tested with their own cosmetics and toiletries during this period. The 34 082 single test preparations applied to these 5911 patients were manually assigned to 1 of 26 categories, based on the EU Classification Annex I to 76/768/EEC, which had been further refined. The leave-on product category most commonly tested was ‘creams, emulsions, lotions, gels and oils for the skin’ (n = 3621 tested, n = 312 positive). The rinse-off product type most commonly tested was ‘bath and shower preparations’ (n = 1333 tested, n = 71 positive). In one-third of patients tested positive to these products, no other positive test result was observed. In the remainder, positive reactions to the fragrance mix, Myroxylon pereirae resin, methyldibromo glutaronitrile, (chloro-)methylisothiazolinone, 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diole and further ingredients of cosmetics and toiletries were more common than in product-negative patients. However, in view of the potential for false-positive reactions mainly to rinse-off products, the results must be interpreted with caution. In conclusion, testing of patients' own products can be regarded as efficient and safe, if in accordance with current recommendations.

Notes: A 5-year retrospective study of the frequency of sensitization to the 25 allergens of the European standard series (ESS) was conducted in 10 centres in 8 European countries. Included were the results of 26 210 patients. The range in sensitivities differed moderately between the centres. Combining results of different centres and drawing conclusions on incidences can be done only with great care. The information on the ranking of the allergens and their sensitization incidence in the clinics are useful for decisions on the future composition of the standard series. The ESS is still a valid screening tool, and no substances should be deleted.

Notes: Since January 2001, the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA), supported by European Union funding (contract QLK4-CT-2001-00343), has started to collect patch-test data. This comprises a standardized clinical history and the patch-test results using the European standard series, from 17 centres in 9 European countries listed above. In 2002 and 2003, 10 511 patients' test results have been pooled and analysed. The anamnestic data partly reflect the subspecialties of some centres. The most common allergen was nickel sulfate (17.3%); however, large international variations were observed. The prevalence of contact allergy to Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru) (5.8%) is coming close to the frequency found with the fragrance mix (6.4%). Regarding contact allergy to chromium compounds, different frequencies were noted in the 2 centres focused on occupational dermatitis (2.3% in the FIOH versus 7.4% in the Nofer Institute). These most likely reflect the beneficial effect of addition of ferrous sulfate in one, but not the other country. As differences may partly be due to different patch-test reading, standardization may need to be refined further. By providing post-marketing surveillance in the field of contact allergy, ESSCA will meet its objective of increased consumer safety across Europe.

Notes: Terpenes are widely used fragrance compounds in fine fragrances, but also in domestic and occupational products. Terpenes oxidize easily due to autoxidation on air exposure. Previous studies have shown that limonene, linalool and caryophyllene are not allergenic themselves but readily form allergenic products on air-exposure. This study aimed to determine the frequency and characteristics of allergic reactions to selected oxidized fragrance terpenes other than limonene. In total 1511 consecutive dermatitis patients in 6 European dermatology centres were patch tested with oxidized fragrance terpenes and some oxidation fractions and compounds. Oxidized linalool and its hydroperoxide fraction were found to be common contact allergens. Of the patients tested, 1.3% showed a positive reaction to oxidized linalool and 1.1% to the hydroperoxide fraction. About 0.5% of the patients reacted to oxidized caryophyllene whereas 1 patient reacted to oxidized myrcene. Of the patients reacting to the oxidized terpenes, 58% had fragrance-related contact allergy and/or a positive history for adverse reaction to fragrances. Autoxidation of fragrance terpenes contributes greatly to fragrance allergy, which emphasizes the need of testing with compounds that patients are actually exposed to and not only with the ingredients originally applied in commercial formulations.

Notes: Axillary dermatitis is common and overrepresented in people with contact allergy to fragrances. Many people suspect their deodorants to be the incriminating products. In order to investigate the significance of isoeugenol in deodorants for the development of axillary dermatitis when used by people with and without contact allergy to isoeugenol, patch tests with deodorants and ethanol solutions with isoeugenol, as well as repeated open application tests (ROAT) with roll-on deodorants with and without isoeugenol at various concentrations, were performed in 35 dermatitis patients, 10 without and 25 with contact allergy to isoeugenol. A positive ROAT was observed only in patients hypersensitive to isoeugenol (P 〈 0.001) and only in the axilla to which the deodorants containing isoeugenol had been applied (P 〈 0.001). Deodorants containing isoeugenol in the concentration range of 0.0063–0.2% used 2 times daily on healthy skin can thus elicit axillary dermatitis within a few weeks in people with contact allergy to isoeugenol.

Notes: Contact allergy to methyldibromo glutaronitrile (MDBGN), often combined with phenoxyethanol (PE) (e.g., Euxyl K 400®), increased throughout the 1990s in Europe. Consequently, in 2003, the European Commission banned its use in leave-on products, where its use concentration was considered too high and the non-sensitizing use concentration as yet unknown. The 2 objectives of the study are (a) to find a maximum non-eliciting concentration in a leave-on product in MDBGN/PE-sensitized patients, which could possibly also be considered safe regarding induction and (b) to find the best patch test concentration for MDBGN. We, therefore, performed a use-related test (ROAT) in patients sensitized to MDBGN/PE (n = 39) with 3 concentrations of MDBGN/PE (50, 100 and 250 p.p.m. MDBGN, respectively). A subset of these patients (n = 24) was later patch-tested with various concentrations (0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.5% MDBGN, respectively). 15 patients (38%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 23–55%) had a negative and 24 (62%; 95% CI = 45–77%) a positive overall repeated open application test (ROAT) result. 13 reacted to the lowest (50 p.p.m.), 8 to the middle (100 p.p.m.) and 3 to the highest concentration (250 p.p.m.) only. In those 13 reacting to the lowest ROAT concentration, dermatitis developed within a few days (1–7). The strength of the initial and the confirmatory patch test result, respectively, and the outcome of the ROAT were positively associated. Of the 24 patients with a use and confirmatory patch test, 15 reacted to 0.1% MDBGN, 16 to 0.2%, 17 to 0.3% and 22 to 0.5%. With the patch test concentration of 0.5%, the number of ROAT-negative patients but patch-test-positive patients increases considerably, particularly due to + reactions. A maximum sensitivity of 94% (95% CI = 70–100%) is reached with a patch test concentration of 0.2%, and is not further improved by increasing the concentration. However, the specificity decreases dramatically from 88 (95% CI = 47–100%) with 0.2% to a mere 12.5% (95% CI = 0–53%) with 0.5%. It can be concluded (a) that for MDBGN 0.2% is very likely the best patch test concentration and (b) that 50 p.p.m. in a leave-on product can elicit contact dermatitis in sensitized persons. We were, therefore, unable to find a safe, still microbicidal, concentration for leave-on products. By contrast, with other contact allergens, dose–response use tests may be able to identify a non-eliciting concentration, which could give valuable clues to a non-inducing (i.e., safe) concentration in products.

Notes: The currently used 8% fragrance mix (FM I) does not identify all patients with a positive history of adverse reactions to fragrances. A new FM II with 6 frequently used chemicals was evaluated in 1701 consecutive patients patch tested in 6 dermatological centres in Europe. FM II was tested in 3 concentrations – 28% FM II contained 5% hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral®), 2% citral, 5% farnesol, 5% coumarin, 1% citronellol and 10%α-hexyl-cinnamic aldehyde; in 14% FM II, the single constituents' concentration was lowered to 50% and in 2.8% FM II to 10%. Each patient was classified regarding a history of adverse reactions to fragrances: certain, probable, questionable, none. Positive reactions to FM I occurred in 6.5% of the patients. Positive reactions to FM II were dose-dependent and increased from 1.3% (2.8% FM II), through 2.9% (14% FM II) to 4.1% (28% FM II). Reactions classified as doubtful or irritant varied considerably between the 6 centres, with a mean value of 7.2% for FM I and means ranging from 1.8% to 10.6% for FM II. 8.7% of the tested patients had a certain fragrance history. Of these, 25.2% were positive to FM I; reactivity to FM II was again dose-dependent and ranged from 8.1% to 17.6% in this subgroup. Comparing 2 groups of history – certain and none – values for sensitivity and specificity were calculated: sensitivity: FM I, 25.2%; 2.8% FM II, 8.1%; 14% FM II, 13.5%; 28% FM II, 17.6%; specificity: FM I, 96.5%; 2.8% FM II, 99.5%; 14% FM II, 98.8%; 28% FM II, 98.1%. 31/70 patients (44.3%) positive to 28% FM II were negative to FM I, with 14% FM II this proportion being 16/50 (32%). In the group of patients with a certain history, a total of 7 patients were found reacting to FM II only. Conversely, in the group of patients without any fragrance history, there were significantly more positive reactions to FM I than to any concentration of FM II. In conclusion, the new FM II detects additional patients sensitive to fragrances missed by FM I; the number of false-positive reactions is lower with FM II than with FM I. Considering sensitivity, specificity and the frequency of doubtful reactions, the medium concentration, 14% FM II, seems to be the most appropriate diagnostic screening tool.

Notes: A new fragrance mix (FM II), with 6 frequently used chemicals not present in the currently used fragrance mix (FM I), was evaluated in 6 dermatological centres in Europe, as previously reported. In this publication, test results with the individual constituents and after repeated open application test (ROAT) of FM II are described. Furthermore, cosmetic products which had caused a contact dermatitis in patients were analysed for the presence of the individual constituents. In 1701 patients, the individual constituents of the medium (14%) and the highest (28%) concentration of FM II were simultaneously applied with the new mix at 3 concentrations (break-down testing for the lowest concentration of FM II (2.8%) was performed only if the mix was positive). ROAT was performed with the concentration of the FM II which had produced a positive or doubtful (+ or ?+) patch test reaction. Patients' products were analysed for the 6 target compounds by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Results: 50 patients (2.9%) showed a positive reaction to 14% FM II and 70 patients (4.1%) to 28% FM II. 24/50 (48%) produced a positive reaction to 1 or more of the individual constituents of 14% FM II and 38/70 (54.3%) to 28% FM II, respectively. If doubtful reactions to individual constituents are included, the break-down testing was positive in 74% and 70%, respectively. Patients with a positive reaction to 14% FM II showed a higher rate of reactions to the individual constituent of the 28% FM II: 36/50 (72%). Positive reactions to individual constituents in patients negative to FM II were exceedingly rare. If doubtful reactions are regarded as negative, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for the medium concentration of FM II towards at least 1 individual constituent was 92.3% (exact 95% confidence interval 74.9–99.1%), 98.4% (97.7–99.0%), 48% (33.7–62.6%) and 99.9% (99.6–"100.0%), respectively. For the high concentration, the figures were very similar. The frequency of positive reactions to the individual constituents in descending order was the same for both FM II concentrations: hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral®) 〉 citral 〉  farnesol 〉 citronellol 〉 α-hexyl-cinnamic aldehyde (AHCA). No unequivocally positive reaction to coumarin was observed. Lyral® was the dominant individual constituent, with positive reactions in 36% of patients reacting to 14% FM II and 37.1% to 28% FM II. 5/11 patients developed a positive ROAT after a median of 7 days (range 2–10). The 5 patients with a doubtful or negative reaction to 28% FM II were all ROAT negative except 1. There were 7 patients with a certain fragrance history and a positive reaction to either 28% or 14% FM II but a negative reaction to FM I. Analysis with GC-MS in a total of 24 products obtained from 12 patients showed at least 1–5 individual constituents per product: Lyral® (79.2%), citronellol (87.5%), AHCA (58.3%), citral (50%) and coumarin (50%). The patients were patch test positive to Lyral®, citral and AHCA. In conclusion, patients with a certain fragrance history and a negative reaction to FM I can be identified by FM II. Testing with individual constituents is positive in about 50% of cases reacting to either 14% or 28% FM II.

Notes: Contact allergy to and allergic contact dermatitis from methyldibromo glutaronitrile (MDBGN) have frequently been reported. As there has been no agreement on which MDBGN test preparation to use, a study was initiated to help determine the optimal patch test preparation for MDBGN. 2661 consecutively patch tested patients at 11 test clinics representing 9 European countries participated. Petrolatum preparations with MDBGN at 1.0%, 0.5%, 0.3% and 0.1% were inserted in the standard series. Contact allergy rates were noted in the range 4.4–1.1% following decreasing test concentrations. Reactions not fulfilling all criteria to be classified as allergic reactions could represent either weak allergic or irritant reactions, and such reactions were noted in the range 8.2–0.5% with decreasing concentrations. A significant number of these reactions represented weak allergic reactions, as allergic reactions were obtained to higher patch test concentrations in the same individual. Morphologically irritant reactions were noted only for the highest test concentrations. In summary, the contact allergy rates and frequencies of doubtful and irritant reactions vary with the patch test concentration. The final decision on patch test concentration for MDBGN should not only rely on these factors but also include information on patch test concentrations required to diagnose individual cases with allergic contact dermatitis from MDBGN as well as results of repeated open application tests.