 |
 |

Neomycin Sensitivity in theNormal (Nonatopic) Individual
Judith Patrick, MD;
James D. Panzer, MD, PhD;
Vincent J. Derbes, MD
Arch Dermatol. 1970;102(5):532-535.
Abstract
Sensitivity to various concentrations of neomycin sulfate was determined by means of patch and intradermal testing in 100 normal (non-atopic) subjects with a negative history for skin disorders. Sensitivity occurred in 8% of the subjects (7% with patch testing alone) when all reactions were considered, and occurred in 4% (3% with patch testing alone) when extremely mild reactions were considered negative (irritative). This sensitivity was associated with the higher concentrations or with the intradermal testing, and was rare when the usual commercially available preparation was considered. The occurrence of neomycin sulfate sensitivity in the normal population found in this study is less than that found in a population of atopics or patients with nonatopic dermatoses, and this relationship is discussed.
Author Affiliations
New Orleans; Kalamazoo, Mich; New Orleans
From the Section of Allergy and Dermatology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans (Drs. Patrick and Derbes), and the Upjohn Co, Kalamazoo, Mich (Dr. Panzer).
Footnotes
Accepted for publication July 21, 1970.
Reprint requests to the Upjohn Co, Kalamazoo, Mich 49001 (Dr. Panzer).
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Contact Dermatitis to Neomycin Sulfate
Leyden and Kligman
JAMA 1979;242:1276-1278.
ABSTRACT
Allergic Contact Hypersensitivity to Nickel, Neomycin, Ethylenediamine, and Benzocaine: Relationships Between Age, Sex, History of Exposure, and Reactivity to Standard Patch Tests and Use Tests in a General Population
Prystowsky et al.
Arch Dermatol 1979;115:959-962.
ABSTRACT
Allergic Hypersensitivity to Neomycin: Relationship Between Patch Test Reactions and 'Use' Tests
Prystowsky et al.
Arch Dermatol 1979;115:713-715.
ABSTRACT
Allergic Contact Sensitivity in Atopic Dermatitis
Jones et al.
Arch Dermatol 1973;107:217-222.
ABSTRACT
|