Btc distribution montpellier

Abstract : A 33‐year‐old female with a history of atopic dermatitis and seasonal rhinoconjunctivitis was referred for the investigation of eczema. The atopic dermatitis had been active since infancy, ceased during her teenage years, but relapsed when she was aged 25 years, mainly on the hands. She reported a recent flare‐up of inflammatory skin lesions on her chest, arms and face after applying a moisturizing cream to attenuate atopic skin‐related dryness on these areas. After this episode, patch tests were performed on the upper back, with IQ Ultra patch test chambers (Chemotechnique Diagnostics, Vellinge, Sweden) occluded for 2 days with Oper tape (Iberhospitex; Innovative Health Technologies, Barcelona, Spain); the European baseline series was tested along with a cosmetic series (Chemotechnique Diagnostics) and the suspected cream “as is.” Tests were read on day (D) 2 and D4 according to ICDRG criteria. All patch tests gave negative results except for the emollient cream (+ on D2; ++ on D4) (Supporting Information Figure S1). In a second step, all ingredients of this cream, kindly provided by the manufacturer, were tested either individually or as a mix of different ingredients. The patch test with polyacrylamide/C13‐4 isoparaffin/laureth‐7 mix “as is” was the only one to give positive reactions (+ on D2; ++ on D4) (Figure 1). We patch tested five control patients, and all had negative results with this ingredient mixture. The corresponding individual ingredients could not be obtained from the manufacturer; however, laureth‐7 was later tested separately, but only in a citrated form (BTC Chemical Distribution, Monheim, Germany) 1%, 5% and 10% aq. and pet. A patch test with polidocanol 3% pet., which corresponds to laureth‐9 (AllergEAZE, Smart Practice, Calgary, Canada), was also carried out to search for a cross‐reaction. All latter tests gave negative results on D2 and D4. We advised the patient to avoid this mixture.