Contact dermatitis · 2017
Screening allergic reactions to resol resin based on phenol and formaldehyde in a clinic of occupational dermatology.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Aalto-Korte Kristiina, Suuronen Katri
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Allergic reactions to resol-type phenol formaldehyde resin [phenol formaldehyde resin 2 (PFR2)] are relatively common. It has been suggested that PFR2 should be included in baseline series. However, a recent international study found clinical relevance in only 25% of patients.
OBJECTIVES: To report the results of screening with PFR2 over a 5-year period (2012-2016), and to study the clinical relevance of allergic reactions to PFR2 over a 15-year period (2002-2016).
METHODS: At the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, PFR2 was added to the baseline series in 2012. We had previously tested PFR2 in the plastic and glue series. We searched the patch test files for patients with allergic reactions to PFR2, and analysed their patch test results, occupation, exposure, and diagnosis.
RESULTS: During the screening period of 5 years, a total of 10 (1.6%) patients reacted positively to PFR2. Seven of these had occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by phenol formaldehyde resin (PFR). In 3 patients, we found no exposure to PFR. Over the preceding 10 years, the clinical relevance of 10 additional allergic reactions to PFR2 was similarly high.
CONCLUSIONS: In an occupational dermatology clinic, 70% of PFR2 reactions were clinically relevant. Further studies in general dermatology clinics are needed.
OBJECTIVES: To report the results of screening with PFR2 over a 5-year period (2012-2016), and to study the clinical relevance of allergic reactions to PFR2 over a 15-year period (2002-2016).
METHODS: At the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, PFR2 was added to the baseline series in 2012. We had previously tested PFR2 in the plastic and glue series. We searched the patch test files for patients with allergic reactions to PFR2, and analysed their patch test results, occupation, exposure, and diagnosis.
RESULTS: During the screening period of 5 years, a total of 10 (1.6%) patients reacted positively to PFR2. Seven of these had occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by phenol formaldehyde resin (PFR). In 3 patients, we found no exposure to PFR. Over the preceding 10 years, the clinical relevance of 10 additional allergic reactions to PFR2 was similarly high.
CONCLUSIONS: In an occupational dermatology clinic, 70% of PFR2 reactions were clinically relevant. Further studies in general dermatology clinics are needed.