Contact dermatitis · 2008
Screening for acrylate/methacrylate allergy in the baseline series: our experience in Sweden and Singapore.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Goon Anthony Teik-Jin, Bruze Magnus, Zimerson Erik, Goh Chee-Leok, Soo-Quee Koh David, Isaksson Marléne
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: No studies to specifically determine the prevalence of contact allergy to acrylates/methacrylates in patch tested populations have been published.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of acrylate/methacrylate allergy in all patients tested to the baseline patch test series.
METHODS: Five acrylate/methacrylate allergens (2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, methyl methacrylate, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, triethylene glycol diacrylate, and 2-hydroxypropyl acrylate) were included in the baseline series for at least 2 years in Malmö and Singapore.
RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients in total had reacted to acrylate/methacrylate allergens in the baseline series during the study period in both populations. In Malmö, there were 26 (1.4%) patients with positive patch tests to acrylate/methacrylate allergens, 14 of whom had relevant reactions. In Singapore, there were 12 (1.0%) patients with positive patch tests to acrylate/methacrylate allergens, but only 1 had relevant reactions. If we had not added acrylate/methacrylate allergens to the baseline series, we would not have patch tested 13/26 (50%) of the positive reactors in Malmö and 11/12 (92%) of the positive reactors in Singapore. The overall proportion of missed positive reactors would have been 24/38 (63%).
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of acrylate/methacrylate allergy in our patch tested dermatitis populations is 1.4% in Malmö and 1.0% in Singapore.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of acrylate/methacrylate allergy in all patients tested to the baseline patch test series.
METHODS: Five acrylate/methacrylate allergens (2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, methyl methacrylate, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, triethylene glycol diacrylate, and 2-hydroxypropyl acrylate) were included in the baseline series for at least 2 years in Malmö and Singapore.
RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients in total had reacted to acrylate/methacrylate allergens in the baseline series during the study period in both populations. In Malmö, there were 26 (1.4%) patients with positive patch tests to acrylate/methacrylate allergens, 14 of whom had relevant reactions. In Singapore, there were 12 (1.0%) patients with positive patch tests to acrylate/methacrylate allergens, but only 1 had relevant reactions. If we had not added acrylate/methacrylate allergens to the baseline series, we would not have patch tested 13/26 (50%) of the positive reactors in Malmö and 11/12 (92%) of the positive reactors in Singapore. The overall proportion of missed positive reactors would have been 24/38 (63%).
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of acrylate/methacrylate allergy in our patch tested dermatitis populations is 1.4% in Malmö and 1.0% in Singapore.