| 1. |
- Goon, Anthony, et al.
(author)
-
Correlation between Stated and Measured Concentrations of Acrylate and Methacrylate Allergens in Patch-Test Preparations
- 2011
-
In: Dermatitis. - : Mary Ann Liebert Inc. - 1710-3568. ; 22:1, s. 27-32
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Contact allergy to acrylates and methacrylates is not uncommon. The allergy is confirmed by patch-testing patients with commercial patch-test preparations. Objective: To investigate acrylate and methacrylate allergens used for patch testing in nine different dermatology departments from Europe, America, Asia, and Australia. Methods: The acrylate and methacrylate (methyl methacrylate, 2-hydroxypropyl acrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, and triethylene glycol diacrylate) allergen samples were analyzed with high-performance liquid chromatography to measure the allergen content. Results: Variation in measured versus stated concentrations was seen in these samples. The ratio of measured to stated concentrations ranged from 0.11 to 1.1. Only 22 (63%) of 35 samples were within the arbitrary acceptable limits of 80 to 120% of the stated concentrations. Conclusion: The results may have implications for individual diagnosis and prevention and when test results from various centers are compared.
|
|
| 2. |
- Goon, Anthony, et al.
(author)
-
High frequency of false-positive reactions in attempted patch testing with acrylate/methacrylate mixes.
- 2012
-
In: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873. ; 67:3, s. 157-161
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Although acrylate/methacrylate allergy has been frequently reported, until now patch testing with this group of allergens has been unwieldy, requiring the application of large supplementary series in most centres. Objectives: To formulate and evaluate two mixes of acrylate/methacrylate allergens in three centres (Malmö, Singapore, and Leuven). Patients/materials/methods: All patients tested with the baseline series during the study period were also patch tested with the mixes. Mix 1 consisted of: triethyleneglycol diacrylate (TREGDA) 0.1% wt/wt, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) 1.0% wt/wt and ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate 1.0% wt/wt in petrolatum. Mix 2 consisted of: TREGDA 0.1% wt/wt and 2-HEMA 2.0% wt/wt in pet. The separate components of the two mixes were also tested simultaneously. Results. There were 25 (5 males; 20 females) positive reactions to mix 1 with 16 in Malmö, 8 in Singapore, and 1 in Leuven. Positive reactions to mix 2 were seen only in Malmö, in 8 female patients. Thus, the positive reaction rate for mix 1 was 8.3% overall (Malmö 7.7%, Singapore 18.6%, and Leuven 2.1%), and that for mix 2 was 2.7% overall (Malmö 3.8%, Singapore 0%, and Leuven 0%). Of the 16 positive reactions to mix 1 in Malmö, only 4 were considered to be true allergic reactions, as the component allergen testing gave totally negative results in 12/16. For mix 2, only 3/8 positive reactions were considered to be true allergic reactions, as the component testing was negative in 5/8. Many doubtful (10-20%) and positive but non-allergic reactions were recorded, leading to early termination of the study. Conclusions: Although this was an unsuccessful attempt to formulate an acrylate/methacrylate mix, our experience will be useful for those embarking on future attempts to do this.
|
|
