| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Morgardt-Ryberg, Kristina, et al.
(författare)
-
Patch testing with a textile dye mix - a multicentre study.
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873. ; 71:4, s. 215-223
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Disperse dyes are well-known contact sensitizers. However, they are not included in the majority of commercially available baseline patch test series.
|
|
| 5. |
- Pontén, Ann, et al.
(författare)
-
Patch testing with 2.0% (0.60 mg/cm(2) ) formaldehyde instead of 1.0% (0.30 mg/cm(2) ) detects significantly more contact allergy.
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873. ; 68:1, s. 50-53
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background.The currently used patch test concentration for formaldehyde is 1.0% (wt/vol) in water. However, clinical experience and previous studies suggest that 1.0% might be insufficient for detecting an optimized number of clinically relevant cases of contact allergy to formaldehyde. Objectives.To validate earlier patch test results for comparison of 1% (wt/vol) and 2% (wt/vol) formaldehyde in water, and to investigate co-reactivity with quaternium-15. Materials and methods.In 12 dermatology clinics, 3591 patients were routinely patch tested simultaneously with 2.0% (wt/vol) (0.60 mg/cm(2) ) and 1.0% (wt/vol) (0.30 mg/cm(2) ) formaldehyde. Micropipettes were used for delivering the exact dosage of the allergen. Results.Significantly more patients reacted to 2.0% formaldehyde than to 1.0% (3.4% versus 1.8%, p < 0.001). Overall, there were no sex differences between those reacting positively to 2.0% and 1.0%. Of 25 quaternium-15-positive patients, 4 (0.1%) reacted positively without reacting to formaldehyde. Conclusion.On the basis of the results of this multicentre study, as well as of previous studies, it can be suggested that 2.0% (wt/vol) in water formaldehyde should be used in routine patch testing in the baseline series.
|
|
| 6. |
- Schalock, Peter C, et al.
(författare)
-
Hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implants-diagnostic algorithm and suggested patch test series for clinical use.
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873 .- 1600-0536. ; 66:1, s. 4-19
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Cutaneous and systemic hypersensitivity reactions to implanted metals are challenging to evaluate and treat. Although they are uncommon, they do exist, and require appropriate and complete evaluation. This review summarizes the evidence regarding evaluation tools, especially patch and lymphocyte transformation tests, for hypersensitivity reactions to implanted metal devices. Patch test evaluation is the gold standard for metal hypersensitivity, although the results may be subjective. Regarding pre-implant testing, those patients with a reported history of metal dermatitis should be evaluated by patch testing. Those without a history of dermatitis should not be tested unless considerable concern exists. Regarding post-implant testing, a subset of patients with metal hypersensitivity may develop cutaneous or systemic reactions to implanted metals following implant. For symptomatic patients, a diagnostic algorithm to guide the selection of screening allergen series for patch testing is provided. At a minimum, an extended baseline screening series and metal screening is necessary. Static and dynamic orthopaedic implants, intravascular stent devices, implanted defibrillators and dental and gynaecological devices are considered. Basic management suggestions are provided. Our goal is to provide a comprehensive reference for use by those evaluating suspected cutaneous and systemic metal hypersensitivity reactions.
|
|
| 7. |
- Sosted, Heidi, et al.
(författare)
-
Contact allergy to common ingredients in hair dyes
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873. ; 69:1, s. 32-39
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background p-Phenylenediamine (PPD) is the primary patch test screening agent for hair dye contact allergy, and approximately 100 different hair dye chemicals are allowed. Objectives To examine whether PPD is an optimal screening agent for diagnosing hair dye allergy or whether other clinically important sensitizers exist. Methods Two thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine consecutive patients in 12 dermatology clinics were patch tested with five hair dyes available from patch test suppliers. Furthermore, 22 frequently used hair dye ingredients not available from patch test suppliers were tested in subgroups of approximate to 500 patients each. Results A positive reaction to PPD was found in 4.5% of patients, and 2.8% reacted to toluene-2,5-diamine (PTD), 1.8% to p-aminophenol, 1% to m-aminophenol, and 0.1% to resorcinol; all together, 5.3% (n=156). Dying hair was the most frequently reported cause of the allergy (55.4%); so-called temporary henna' tattoos were the cause in 8.5% of the cases. p-Methylaminophenol gave a reaction in 20 patients (2.2%), 3 of them with clinical relevance, and no co-reaction with the above five well-known hair dyes. Conclusions Hair dyes are the prime cause of PPD allergy. PPD identifies the majority of positive reactions to PTD, p-aminophenol and m-aminophenol, but not all, which justifies additional testing with hair dye ingredients from the used product.
|
|
| 8. |
- Thyssen, Jacob P., et al.
(författare)
-
Sensitivity and specificity of the nickel spot (dimethylglyoxime) test
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Contact Dermatitis. - 0105-1873 .- 1600-0536. ; 62:5, s. 279-288
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the DMG test. Methods: DMG spot testing, chemical analysis according to the EN 1811 reference method, and X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (XRF) were performed concomitantly on 96 metallic components from earrings recently purchased in San Francisco. Results: The sensitivity of the DMG test was 59.3% and the specificity was 97.5% based on DMG-test results and nickel release concentrations determined by the EN 1811 reference method. Conclusions: The DMG test has a high specificity but a modest sensitivity. It may serve well for screening purposes. Past exposure studies may have underestimated nickel release from consumer items.
|
|
