| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Carstensen, Ole, et al.
(författare)
-
The validity of a questionnaire-based epidemiological study of occupational dermatosis
- 2006
-
Ingår i: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873 .- 1600-0536. ; 55:5, s. 295-300
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of a questionnaire and medical anamnesis to identify persons with dermatitis in an occupational setting. The design was a clinical epidemiological cross-sectional study. The study was performed between the second and fourth week of January 2001. A questionnaire was followed a week later by a medical occupational interview and a clinical dermatological examination, including a comprehensive patch test with potential workplace chemicals. The anamnesis and the clinical examination were made independently by occupational and dermatological physicians, and the skin examination was performed blinded to anamnestic data. The setting was the mother plants of a Danish-based international company producing wind turbine systems. The study population was a workplace cohort, highly exposed to epoxy resin systems and other chemicals, and totalled 724 production workers at 4 facilities. The rate of participation was 84.7%. Using enquete questions of current skin rash against the clinical presence of dermatitis, we found a sensitivity of 22% and a specificity of 89%, compared to 45% and 87%, respectively, when the anamnestic work history, taken by an occupational physician, was the screening parameter. Using 'workplace periodic prevalence' of dermatitis, we found sensitivities in the range of 63-76% by a questionnaire and 70-83% by medical anamnesis. Questionnaire screening by skin symptoms gave the highest values for redness, a sensitivity of 33% and a specificity of 76%, and decreasing validity parameters as more symptoms were added to the list of screening questions. We found that the use of a questionnaire and medical anamnesis were problematic, when the purpose was screening for contact dermatitis and allergy, in this industrial cohort manufacturing reinforced plastic products. But these instruments might be useful for epidemiological surveillance, when the questionnaire has been validated in the given occupational setting.
|
|
| 3. |
- Dubnika Hauksson, Inese, et al.
(författare)
-
Clinically relevant contact allergy to formaldehyde may be missed by testing with formaldehyde 1.0%.
- 2011
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Dermatology. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1365-2133 .- 0007-0963. ; 164:3, s. 568-572
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: It has been found that patch testing with 15μl formaldehyde 2.0% aq detects twice more allergies than testing with 1.0%. The clinical relevance of positive patch test reactions is often difficult to determine. Use tests are simple to do and help to evaluate the significance of patch test results. Objectives: To study the clinical relevance of contact allergy to formaldehyde detected by 2.0% (0.60 mg/cm²) but not by 1.0%. Patients/Methods: 18 patients positive to formaldehyde 2.0% but negative to 1.0% and a control group of 19 dermatitis patients without allergy to parabens, formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers were included in the study. Formaldehyde 2000 ppm, the maximum concentration permitted in leave-on cosmetics according to the EU Cosmetics Directive, was added to a batch of a moisturiser preserved with parabens. The same batch without formaldehyde served as control. The study was double-blinded and randomised. The patients were provided with both moisturisers and instructed to apply one of them twice a day on a marked-out 5×5 cm area on the inside of one upper arm and the other moisturiser on the other arm. Reading of the test sites was done once a week for a maximum of 4 weeks. Results: In the control group there were no allergic reactions to any of the moisturisers. 9 of the 17 formaldehyde-allergic patients reacted with an allergic reaction to the moisturiser which contained formaldehyde (p<0.001). No positive reactions were observed to the moisturiser without formaldehyde. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that contact allergy to formaldehyde 2.0% may be clinically relevant.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Dubnika Hauksson, Inese, et al.
(författare)
-
Routine diagnostic patch-testing with formaldehyde 2.0% (0.6 mg/cm2) may be an advantage compared to 1.0%.
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Acta Dermato-Venereologica. - : Medical Journals Sweden AB. - 1651-2057 .- 0001-5555. ; 90:5, s. 480-484
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Our clinical experience has suggested that the presently recommended patch-test concentration (1.0%) for formaldehyde in the baseline series might be too low. Therefore, consecutively patch-tested dermatitis patients were tested simultaneously with formaldehyde 1.0% and 2.0% (w/v) in aqua. Formaldehyde 1.0% and 2.0% were applied with a micro-pipette (15 microl) to filter paper discs in Finn Chambers (0.30 mg/cm(2) and 0.60 mg/cm(2), respectively). A total of 1397 patients with dermatitis were patch-tested. In all, 68 (4.9%) patients reacted positively to formaldehyde; 37 reacted only to 2.0%, 29 reacted to both concentrations, and 2 reacted only to 1.0%. Significantly more patients were thus diagnosed with contact allergy to formaldehyde 2.0% compared with 1.0% (p < 0.001). We detected 0.1%, 0.4%, and 29.6% irritant reactions to 1.0%, 2.0%, and 3.0% formaldehyde, respectively. We conclude that, with an optimized patch-test technique, doubling the dose per area detects significantly more contact allergies to formaldehyde, but an even higher test concentration causes too many irritant reactions to be usable.
|
|
| 6. |
- Dubnika Hauksson, Inese, et al.
(författare)
-
Skin care products containing low concentrations of formaldehyde detected by the chromotropic acid method can not be safely used in formaldehyde-allergic patients.
- 2015
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Dermatology. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1365-2133 .- 0007-0963.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Preservatives are widely used to prevent microbial growth both for skin care products and in the industry. Many of them have allergic potential. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by preservatives can often be chronic, probably because it is difficult to suspect contact allergy to these chemicals based on the patient's history only. Formaldehyde is a common cause of contact allergy and has been included in the baseline series since the 1930s (1) . The prevalence of formaldehyde allergy has been reported to be 2-3% in European countries and 8-9% in the US (2) . The use of free formaldehyde as a preservative has decreased and formaldehyde-releasing agents are used instead. Individuals who are allergic to formaldehyde are recommended not only to avoid products preserved with formaldehyde but also products containing formaldehyde-releasers. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 7. |
- Engfeldt, Malin, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of three different techniques for application of water solutions to Finn Chambers®.
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873. ; 63:5, s. 284-288
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: With regard to contact allergy, the dose of a sensitizer per unit skin area is an important factor for both sensitization and elicitation, and therefore a known amount/volume of test preparation should be applied at patch testing. OBJECTIVES: To compare three different techniques for the application of aqueous solutions to Finn Chambers, in order to determine the precision and accuracy of each technique when the recommended 15 µl volume is applied. METHODS: Four technicians applied formaldehyde 1.0% aq. (wt/vol) and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone 200 ppm (wt/vol) in sets of 10 onto Finn Chambers, with three different techniques: (i) micro-pipetting; (ii) dripping the solutions; and (iii) dripping the solutions followed by removal of excess solution with a soft tissue. Assessment of the variations was performed with the use of descriptive data. The ability to apply the exact amount was assessed by Fisher's exact test by categorizing each application as in or out of the range 12-18 µl. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: The micro-pipette technique had the best accuracy and precision, as well as the lowest inter-individual variation. The technique in which excess solution was removed had good precision, but failed in the application of the defined amount, i.e. 15 µl.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Isaksson, Marléne, et al.
(författare)
-
Active sensitization to dimethylthiocarbamylbenzothiazol sulphide : An unexpectedly strong rubber contact allergen
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873 .- 1600-0536. ; 88:6, s. 472-479
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The two dialkylthiocarbamyl benzothiazole sulphides, dimethyl-thiocarbamylbenzothiazole sulphide (DMTBS) and diethylthio-carbamylbenzothiazole sulphide (DETBS) were shown to be good markers of both thiuram and mercaptobenzothiazole sensitivity. Objectives: To investigate if DMTBS and/or DETBS could be better markers of contact allergy to common rubber additives than the ones currently used. Methods: Sixty-eight dermatitis patients were patch tested with DMTBS and DETBS, both at 1% in petrolatum (pet). Because of late reactions in 10 patients, these were retested to DMTBS and DETBS in serial dilutions. Tetramethylthiuram monosulphide (TMTM) 1.0% pet was also tested. Results: At the initial reading Days 3 and 7, no reactions were noted to DMTBS or DETBS. At retesting, 10 of the 68 (15%) patients reacted positively to lower concentrations of DMTBS than the initial test concentration. Seven of 8 also reacted to TMTM. Three of them had positive reactions to DEBTS. All 10 patients had reactions to more diluted solutions to DMBTS than to DEBTS (p = 0.0077; Mc-Nemar test, two-sided). Conclusions: Results speak for patch test sensitization to DMTBS with cross-reactivity to TMTM and also DEBTS. DMTBS and DEBTS could be new markers of rubber allergy but a safe test concentration must be found.
|
|
