Allergy to lanolin has been recognized by dermatologists for decades. This review summarizes the history, epidemiology, and allergenicity of lanolin and its derivatives. “The lanolin paradox” and the safety of pharmaceutical-grade lanolin products are also discussed.
KligmanAM. Lanolin allergy: crisis or comedy. Contact Dermatitis, 1983; 9:99-107.
3.
BarnettG. Lanolin and derivatives. Cosmet Toilet, 1986; 101:21-44.
4.
ClarkEW. A brief history of lanolin. Pharm Hist, 1980; 10:5-6.
5.
HoppeU. The lanolin book. Hamburg: Beiersdorf;. 1999.
6.
SchlossmanML, McCarthyJP. Lanolin and derivatives chemistry: relationship to allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis, 1979; 5:65-72.
7.
BarnettG. Lanolin derivatives and modifications (part 2). Drug Cosmet Ind, 1957; 80:744-5, 846-53.
8.
ClarkE, SteelI. Investigations into the biomechanisms of the moisturizing function of lanolin. J Soc Cosmet Chem, 1993; 44:181-95.
9.
ClarkE, SteelI. Short-term penetration of lanolin into the human stratum corneum. J Soc Cosmet Chem, 1993; 43:219-27.
10.
JenningsMB, AlfieriDM, Ramsey ParkerE, et al.A double blind clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of pure lanolin versus ammonium lactate 12% cream for the treatment of moderate to severe foot xerosis. Cutis, 2003; 71:78-82.
11.
SuleymanF. Role of lanolin in managing eczema and dry skin conditions. Community Nurse, 2000; 6:30-1.
12.
ChvapilM, GainesA, GilmanT. Lanolin and epidermal growth factor in healing of partial-thickness pig wounds. J Burn Care Rehab, 1988; 9:279-84.
13.
BrentN, RudySJ, ReddB, et al.Sore nipples in breast-feeding women. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 1998; 152:1077-82.
14.
DoddV, ChalmersC. Comparing the use of hydrogel dressings to lanolin ointment with lactating mothers. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs, 2003; 32:486-94.
15.
Morland-ShultzK, HillPD. Prevention and therapies for nipple pain: a systematic review. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs, 2005; 34: 428-37.
16.
CalnanCD. Lanolin in protective metal coatings. Contact Dermatitis, 1979; 5:267-8.
17.
O'DonnellBF, HodgsonC. Allergic contact dermatitis due to lanolin in an adhesive plaster. Contact Dermatitis, 1993; 28:191-2.
18.
ClarkEW. Estimation of the general incidence of specific lanolin allergy. J Soc Cosmet Chem, 1975; 26:323-35.
19.
LordLW. Cutaneous sensitization to wool. Arch Derm Syphilol, 1932; 26:707.
20.
HertsletLE. A case of allergic dermatitis due to wool. S Afr Med J, 1934; 8:182.
21.
MarcusA. Zum Kapital der Hautkrankheiten auf “nervoser” Basis. Munch Med Wochenschr, 1922; 69:1510.
22.
RamirezM, EllerJJ. The patch test in contact dermatitis. Allergy, 1929; I:489-93.
23.
SulzbergerMB, MorseJL. Hypersensitivities to wool fat—report of 2 cases. JAMA, 1931; 96:2099-100.
24.
SezaryA. Intolerance cutanee a la lanoline. Presse Med, 1936; 93: 1880.
25.
BonnevieP. Aetiologie und Pathogenese der Eksemkrankheiten. In: Busck A, editor. Copenhagen: Nyt Nordisk Forlag;. 1939.
26.
SulzbergerMB, WarshawT, HermanF. Studies of hypersensitivity to lanolin. J Invest Dermatol, 1953; 20:33-44.
27.
BaerRL, SerriF, Weissenbach-VialC. Studies on allergic sensitization to certain topical therapeutic agents. Arch Derm Syphlilol, 1955; 71:19-23.
28.
HjorthN, Trolle-LassenC. Skin reactions to ointment bases. Trans St Johns Hosp Dermatol Soc, 1963; 49:127-9.
29.
BandmannH, CalnanCD, CroninE, et al.Dermatitis from applied medicaments. Arch Derm, 1972; 106:335-7.
30.
MortensonT. Allergy to lanolin. Contact Dermatitis, 1979; 5: 137-9.
31.
EiermannHJ, LarsenW, MaibachHI, TaylorJS. North American Contact Dermatitis Group. Prospective study of cosmetic reactions: 1977-1980. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1982; 6:909-17.
32.
MatthieuL, DockxP. Discrepancy in patch test results with wool alcohols and Amerchol® L-101. Contact Dermatitis, 1997; 36:150-1.
33.
HendersonCA, HighetAS, ShamyHK. The frequency of lanolin contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis, 1995; 32:52.
34.
SoberAJ, FitzpatrickTB. Statistics of interest to the dermatologist. In: SoberAJ, FitzpatrickTB, editors. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers; 1988. p. 9-54.
35.
WakelinSH, SmithH, WhiteIR, et al.A retrospective analysis of contact allergy to lanolin. Br J Dermatol, 2001; 145:28-31.
36.
WarshawEM, BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch-Test Results, 2003-2004 Study Period. Dermatitis, 2007. [DOI 10.2310/6620.2007.06060].
37.
CroninE, BandmannCD, FregertS, et al.Contact dermatitis in the atopic. Acta Derm Venereol, 1970; 50:183-7.
38.
WilsonCI, CameronJ, PowellSM, et al.High incidence of contact dermatitis leg ulcer patients—implications for management. Clin Exp Dermatol, 1997; 16:250-61.
39.
MachetL, CouheC, PerrinaudA, et al.A high prevalence of sensitization still persists in leg ulcer patients: a retrospective series of 106 patients tested between 2001 and 2002 and a meta-analysis of 1975-2003 data. Br J Dermatol, 2004; 150:929-35.
40.
GallenkemperG, RabeE, BauerR. Contact sensitization in chronic venous insufficiency: modern wound dressings. Contact Dermatitis, 1998; 38:274-8.
41.
KligmanAM. The myth of lanolin allergy. Contact Dermatitis, 1998; 39:103-7.
42.
EdmanB, MollerH. Testing a purified lanolin preparation by a randomized procedure. Contact Dermatitis, 1989; 20:287-90.
43.
CarmichaelAJ, FouldsIS, BransburyDS. Loss of lanolin patch test sensitivity. Br J Derm, 1991; 125:573-6.
44.
BraschJ, HenselerT, AbererW, et al.Reproducibility of patch tests: a multicenter study of synchronous left-versus right-sided patch tests by the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1994; 31:584-91.
45.
GollhausenR, PrzybillaB, RingJ. Reproducibility of patch tests. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1989; 21:1196-202.
46.
BourkeJF, BattaK, PraisL, et al.The reproducibility of patch tests. Br J Dermatol, 1999; 140:102-5.
47.
LindelofB. A left versus right side comparative study of Finn Chamber patch tests in 220 consecutive patients. Contact Dermatitis, 1990; 22:288-308.
48.
GiorginiS, MelliMC, SertoliA. Comments on the allergenic activity of lanolin. Contact Dermatitis, 1983; 9:425-6.
49.
TakanoS, YamanakaM, OkamotoK. Allergens of lanolin: parts I and II. J Soc Cosmet Chem, 1983; 34:34-125.
50.
SulzbergerMB, LazarMP. A study of the allergenic constituents of lanolin (wool fat). J Invest Dermatol, 1950; 15:453-8.
51.
De BeukelaarL. Allergic reactions to wool fat alcohols. Dermatologica, 1968; 136:434-9.
52.
EllisFA. Allergic contact dermatitis due to wool fat and cholesterol. Arch Derm Syphilol, 1947; 56:801-6.
FregertS, DahlquistI, TrulssonL. An attempt to isolate and identify allergens in lanolin. Contact Dermatitis, 1984; 10:16-9.
55.
BeaselyHL, McAdamDP, LarkinKA, et al.Laboratory and field enzyme-immunoassays for diazinon and their application to residue analysis in lanolin, water and fruit juice. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol, 1997; 59:375-82.
56.
PatonMW, PettersonDS. Absorption by sheep of dieldrin from contaminated soil. Aust Vet J, 1997; 75(6):441-5.
57.
NurseDS. Dangers of the application of lanolin. Med J Aust, 1987; 146:560.
58.
MorseJ. The hazards of lanolin. Am J Matern Child Nurs, 1989; 14: 204.
59.
CadePH. Pesticide in lanolin. JAMA, 1989; 262(5):613.
60.
VollumD. Sensitivity to hydrogenated lanolin. Arch Dermatol, 1969; 100:774-5.
61.
SugaiT, HigashiJ. Hypersensitivity to hydrogenated lanolin. Contact Dermatitis, 1975; 1:146-57.
62.
FisherAA.Contact dermatitis. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger; 1967. p. 173-4.
63.
SchwarzfeldHK. Sensitivity to ointments containing wool fat. US Armed Forces Med J, 1952; 3:1371-5.
64.
WolfR. The lanolin paradox. Dermatology, 1996; 192:198-202.
65.
FisherAA. The paraben paradoxes. Cutis, 1973; 12:177-81.
