The British journal of dermatology · 2008
A review of 241 subjects who were patch tested twice: could fragrance mix I cause active sensitization?
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
White J M L, McFadden J P, White I R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Active patch test sensitization is an uncommon phenomenon which may have undesirable consequences for those undergoing this gold-standard investigation for contact allergy.
OBJECTIVES: To perform a retrospective analysis of the results of 241 subjects who were patch tested twice in a monocentre evaluating approximately 1500 subjects per year.
METHODS: Positivity to 11 common allergens in the recommended Baseline Series of contact allergens (European) was analysed: nickel sulphate; Myroxylon pereirae; fragrance mix I; para-phenylenediamine; colophonium; epoxy resin; neomycin; quaternium-15; thiuram mix; sesquiterpene lactone mix; and para-tert-butylphenol resin.
RESULTS: Only fragrance mix I gave a statistically significant, increased rate of positivity on the second reading compared with the first (P=0.011). This trend was maintained when separately analysing a subgroup of 42 subjects who had been repeat patch tested within 1 year; this analysis was done to minimize the potential confounding factor of increased usage of fragrances with a wide interval between both tests. To reduce the confounding effect of age on our data, we calculated expected frequencies of positivity to fragrance mix I based on previously published data from our centre. This showed a marked excess of observed cases over predicted ones, particularly in women in the age range 40-60 years.
CONCLUSIONS: We suspect that active sensitization to fragrance mix I may occur. Similar published analysis from another large group using standard methodology supports our data.
OBJECTIVES: To perform a retrospective analysis of the results of 241 subjects who were patch tested twice in a monocentre evaluating approximately 1500 subjects per year.
METHODS: Positivity to 11 common allergens in the recommended Baseline Series of contact allergens (European) was analysed: nickel sulphate; Myroxylon pereirae; fragrance mix I; para-phenylenediamine; colophonium; epoxy resin; neomycin; quaternium-15; thiuram mix; sesquiterpene lactone mix; and para-tert-butylphenol resin.
RESULTS: Only fragrance mix I gave a statistically significant, increased rate of positivity on the second reading compared with the first (P=0.011). This trend was maintained when separately analysing a subgroup of 42 subjects who had been repeat patch tested within 1 year; this analysis was done to minimize the potential confounding factor of increased usage of fragrances with a wide interval between both tests. To reduce the confounding effect of age on our data, we calculated expected frequencies of positivity to fragrance mix I based on previously published data from our centre. This showed a marked excess of observed cases over predicted ones, particularly in women in the age range 40-60 years.
CONCLUSIONS: We suspect that active sensitization to fragrance mix I may occur. Similar published analysis from another large group using standard methodology supports our data.