Patch testing with 2.0% (0.60 mg/cm2) formaldehyde instead of 1.0% (0.30 mg/cm2) detects significantly more contact allergy

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 68, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 50-53

  Pontén, Ann ^a   Aalto Korte, Kristiina ^b   Agner, Tove ^c   Andersen, Klaus E ^d   Giménez Arnau, Ana M ^e   Gonçalo, Margarida ^f   Goossens, An ^g   Johansen, Jeanne D ^h   Le Coz, Christophe J ⁱ   Maibach, Howard I ^j   Rustemeyer, Thomas ^k   White, Ian R ^l   Bruze, Magnus ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b FINNISH INSTITUTE OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^d ODENSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^e HOSPITAL DEL MAR   (Spain)

^f CENTRO HOSPITALAR E UNIVERSITÁRIO DE COIMBRA   (Portugal)

^g UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^h GENTOFTE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

ⁱ Cabinet de Dermatologie and Laboratoire de Dermatochimie   (France)

^j UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^k VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^l ST THOMAS HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

contact allergy; dose; false negative; formaldehyde; micropipette; patch test

Indexed keywords

FORMALDEHYDE; QUATERNIUM 15;

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTACT ALLERGY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LIMIT OF DETECTION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MICROPIPETTE; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATCH TEST; SEX DIFFERENCE;

ALLERGENS; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; FEMALE; FORMALDEHYDE; HUMANS; MALE; METHENAMINE; PATCH TESTS; SOLUTIONS; WATER;

EID: 84870949200     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: 16000536     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2012.02169.x     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Epstein E, Maibach H I., Formaldehyde allergy. Incidence and patch test problems. Arch Dermatol 1966: 94: 186-190.
2. Trattner A, Johansen J D, Menné T., Formaldehyde concentration in diagnostic patch testing: comparison of 1% with 2%. Contact Dermatitis 1998: 38: 9-13.
3. Frick-Engfeldt M, Gruvberger B, Isaksson M, Hauksson I, Pontén A, Bruze M., Comparison of three different techniques for application of water solutions to Finn Chambers®. Contact Dermatitis 2010: 63: 284-288.
4. 2) may be an advantage compared to 1.0%. Acta Derm Venereol 2010: 90: 480-484.
5. Hauksson I, Pontén A, Gruvberger B, Isaksson M, Bruze M., Clinically relevant contact allergy to formaldehyde may be missed by testing with formaldehyde 1.0%. Br J Dermatol 2011: 164: 568-572.
6. Bruze M, Andersen K E, Goossens A, ESCD, EECDRG. Recommendation to include fragrance mix 2 and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral) in the European baseline patch test series. Contact Dermatitis 2008: 58: 129-133.
7. Bruze M, Isaksson M, Gruvberger B, Frick-Engfeldt M., Recommendation of appropriate amounts of petrolatum preparation to be applied at patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 56: 281-285.
8. Wilkinson D S, Fregert S, Magnusson B et al., Terminology of contact dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol 1970: 50: 287-292.
9. Benassi C A, Semenzato A, Bettero A., High-performance liquid chromatographic determination of free formaldehyde in cosmetics. J Chromatogr 1989: 464: 387-393.
10. Bruze M, Hedman H, Björkner B, Möller H., The development and course of test reactions to gold sodium thiosulfate. Contact Dermatitis 1995: 33: 386-391.
11. Isaksson M, Bruze M., Late patch-test reactions to budesonide need not be a sign of sensitization induced by the test procedure. Am J Contact Dermat 2003: 14: 154-156.
12. Isaksson M, Lindberg M, Sundberg K et al., The development and course of patch-test reactions to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate and ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 53: 292-297.
13. Frick-Engfeldt M, Isaksson M, Zimerson E, Bruze M., How to optimize patch testing with diphenylmethane diisocyanate. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 57: 138-151.