Skip to main content

In-vitro-Tests zum Nachweis von Kontaktallergien

In vitro testing for allergic contact dermatitis

Der Hautarzt volume 56, pages 1141–1143 (2005)Cite this article

Zusammenfassung

Der Epikutantest ist das etablierte Verfahren zum Nachweis von Kontaktallergien. Aus praktischen und methodischen Erwägungen sind einfache, sichere und preiswerte In-vitro-Testverfahren zum Nachweis von Typ-IV-Allergien wünschenswert. Mittels Lymphozytentransformationstest (LTT) können allergenspezifische Lymphozyten, die im Mittelpunkt in der Pathogenese von Typ-IV-Allergien stehen, nachgewiesen werden. In verschiedenen Studien wurde die Wertigkeit des LTT in der Kontaktallergiediagnostik untersucht. Nach heutigem Wissensstand kann der Test für die Unterscheidung zwischen irritativen und allergischen Reaktionen hilfreich sein. Insbesondere hat der Test Bedeutung für den Nachweis von Medikamentenallergien und kann auch zum Nachweis von Sensibilisierungen gegen gasförmige oder toxische Substanzen eingesetzt werden. Eine Alternative zu dem in der klinischen Routine etablierten Epikutantest ist der LTT derzeit aber nicht.

Abstract

Patch testing is the standard method to identify allergic contact dermatitis. Simple, safe and accurate in vitro methods identifying contact allergies would offer both theoretical and practical advantages. Using the lymphocyte transformation test (LTT), allergen-specific lymphocytes central to the pathogenesis of Type IV allergies can be identified. Various studies have assessed the value of LTT in the diagnosis of contact allergies. The current assessment is that the test can be helpful in distinguishing between irritant and allergic reactions. LTT is especially useful in demonstrating drug allergies and can also be employed to prove sensitization to gases or toxic substances. At the present time, it is not an alternative for patch testing in daily practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Literatur

  1. Basketter D, Menné T (2005) Lymphocyte transformation test in patients with allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 53:1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brasch J, Grabbe J (1997) More positive patch test reactions with larger test chambers? Results from a study group of the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG). Contact Derm 37:118–120

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brehler R, Hellweg B (1995) Beurteilung von Epikutantestreaktionen nach Empfehlungen der Deutschen Kontaktallergie-Gruppe (DKG). Dtsch Derm 43:688–690

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brehler R, Becker D, Merck H (1998) MELISA-In-Vitro-Test zum Nachweis einer Kontaktallergie? Eine Stellungnahme der Deutschen Kontaktallergie-Gruppe. Hautarzt 49:418–419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cederbrant K, Gunnarsson LG, Hultman P et al. (1999) In-vitro lymphoproliferative assays with HgCl2 can not identify patients with systemic symptoms attributed to dental amalgam. J Dent Res 78:1450–1458

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cederbrant K, Gunnarsson LG, Marcusson JA (2000) Mercury intolerance and lymphocyte transformation test with nickel sulfate, palladium chloride, mercuric chloride, and gold sodium thiosulfate. Environ Res 84:140–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hagemann T, Schlütter-Böhmer B, Allam JP et al. (2005) Positive lymphocyte transformation test in a patient with allergic contact dermatitis of the scalp after short term use of topical minoxidil solution. Contact Dermatitis 53:53–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hosoi J, Hariya T, Denda M, Tsuchiya T (2000) Regulation of the cutaneous allergic reaction by humidity. Contact Dermatitis 42:81–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jakobson E, Masjedi K, Ahlborg N et al. (2002) Cytokine production in nickel-sensitized individuals analysed with enzyme-linked immunospot assay: possible implication for diagnosis. Br J Dermatol 147:442–449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lindemann M, Bohmer J, Zabel M, Grosse-Wilde H (2003) ELISpot: a new tool for the detection of nickel sensitization. Br Clin Exp Allergy 33:992–998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Merk HF, Abel J, Baron JM, Krutmann J (2004) Molecular pathways in dermatotoxicology. Toxicol Applied Pharmacol 195:267–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Moed H, M, Bruynzeel DP, Scheper R et al. (2005) Improved detection of allergen-specific T-cell responses in allergic contact dermatitis through the addition of „cytokine cocktails“. Exp Dermatol 14:634–640

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Podzimek S, Prochazkova J, Pribylova L et al. (2003) Effect of heavy metals on immune reactions in patients with infertility. Cas Lek Cesk 142:285–288

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Prochazkova J, Sterzl I, Kucerova H et al. (2004) The beneficial effect of amalgam replacement on health in patients with autoimmunity. Neuroendocrinol Lett 25:211–218

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rasanen L, Kaipiainen-Seppanen O, Myllykangas-Luosujarvi R et al. (1999) Hypersesnitivity to gold in gold sodiumthiomalate-induced dermatosis. Br J Dermatol 141:683–688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rustemeyer T, von Blomberg BM, van Hoogstraten IM et al. (2004) Analysis of effector and regulatory immune reactivity to nickel. Clin Exp Allergy 34:1458–1466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sachs B, Erdmann S, al Masaoudi T, Merk HF (2001) Molecular features determining lymphocyte reactivity in allergic contact dermatitis to chloramphenicol and azidamphenicol. Allergy 56: 69–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, Gefeller O (2002) Epidemiology of contact allergy: an estimation of morbidity employing the clinical epidemiology and drug-utilization research (CE-DUR) approach. Contact Derm 47:32–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sieben S, Hertl M, Massaoudi TA et al. (2001) Characterization of T cell responses to fragrances. Toxicol Applied Pharmacol 172:172–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sieben S, Kawakubo Y, Massaoudi TA et al. (2002) Delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction to paraphenylendiamine is mediated by 2 different pathways of antigen recognition by specific αβ+human T-cell clones. J Allergy Clin Immunol 109:1005–1101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Stejskal VD, Danersund A, Lindvall A et al. (1999) Metal-specific lymphocytes: biomarkers of sensitivity in man. Neuroendocrinol Lett 20:289–298

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sterzl I, Prochazkova J, Hrda P et al. (1999) Mercury and nickel allergy: risk factors in fatigue and autoimmunity. Neuroendocrinol Lett 20:221–228

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Valentine-Thon E, Schiwara HW. Validity of MELISA for metal sensitivity testing. Neuroendocrinol Lett 2003;24:57–64

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wahlberg JE (2001) Patch testing. In: Rycroft RJG, Menné T, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin JP (eds) Textbook of contact dermatitis, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokyo, pp 435–468

Download references

Interessenkonflikt:

Keine Angaben

Author information

Affiliations

  1. UKM, Klinik und Poliklinik für Hautkrankheiten, Münster

    R. Brehler

  2. Universitäts-Hautklinik Aachen

    H. Merk

  3. Klinik und Poliklinik für Hautkrankheiten — Allgemeine Dermatologie und Venerologie, UKM, Zentrum für Dermatologie, WWU Münster, Von Esmarch Straße 58, 48149 , Münster

    R. Brehler

Authors
  1. R. Brehler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Merk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Brehler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brehler, R., Merk, H. In-vitro-Tests zum Nachweis von Kontaktallergien. Hautarzt 56, 1141–1143 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00105-005-1056-9

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00105-005-1056-9

Schlüsselwörter

  • Epikutantest
  • Kontaktallergien
  • Typ-IV-Allergien
  • Lymphozytentransformationstest
  • Allergenspezifische Lymphozyten

Keywords

  • Patch testing
  • Contact allergies
  • Type IV allergies
  • Lymphocytetransformation test
  • Allergen-specific lymphocytes