4.5 Article

Shoe contact dermatitis from dimethyl fumarate: clinical manifestations, patch test results, chemical analysis, and source of exposure

Journal

CONTACT DERMATITIS
Volume 61, Issue 5, Pages 249-260

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2009.01628.x

Keywords

allergic contact dermatitis; allergy; contact dermatitis; contact urticaria; dimethyl fumarate; fumaric acid; irritant contact dermatitis; shoe; urticaria

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The methyl ester form of fumaric acid named dimethyl fumarate (DMF) is an effective mould-growth inhibitor. Its irritating and sensitizing properties were demonstrated in animal models. Recently, DMF has been identified as responsible for furniture contact dermatitis in Europe. Objective To describe the clinical manifestations, patch test results, shoe chemical analysis, and source of exposure to DMF-induced shoe contact dermatitis. Patients, Materials, and Methods Patients with suspected shoe contact dermatitis were studied in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Patch test results obtained with their own shoe and the European baseline series, acrylates and fumaric acid esters (FAE), were recorded according to international guidelines. The content of DMF in shoes was analysed with gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. Results Acute, immediate irritant contact dermatitis and non-immunological contact urticaria were observed in eight adults and two children, respectively. All the adult patients studied developed a delayed sensitization demonstrated by a positive patch testing to DMF < 0.1% in pet. Cross-reactivity with other FAEs and acrylates was observed. At least 12 different shoe brands were investigated. The chemical analysis from the available shoes showed the presence of DMF. Conclusion DMF in shoes was responsible for severe contact dermatitis. Global preventive measures for avoiding contact with DMF are necessary.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available