Contact dermatitis · 2016
Patch testing with hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC) - a multicentre study of the Swedish Contact Dermatitis Research Group.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Engfeldt Malin, Hagvall Lina, Isaksson Marléne, Matura Mihály, Mowitz Martin, Ryberg Kristina, Stenberg Berndt, Svedman Cecilia, Bruze Magnus
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In 2014, the fragrance hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC) was excluded from the Swedish baseline series.
OBJECTIVES: To study (i) whether fragrance mix (FM) II with 5% HICC detects more positive reactions than usual FM II with 2.5% HICC, and (ii) the reproducibility of patch testing with HICC.
METHODS: Two thousand one hundred and eighteen dermatitis patients at five Swedish dermatology departments were consecutively tested with FM II 14% pet., FM II 16.5% pet., and duplicate preparations of HICC 5% pet.
RESULTS: Of the patients, 3.2% reacted to FM II 14%, and 1.5% reacted to HICC. Separate testing with HICC detected 0.3% reactions without concomitant reactivity to FM II. FM II with 5% HICC did not give rise to more irritant reactions or signs of active sensitization than FM II with 2.5% HICC. Patch testing with duplicate applications of HICC increased the overall prevalence of HICC contact allergy to 1.9%.
CONCLUSION: FM II with 5% HICC does not detect more positive reactions than FM II with 2.5% HICC. Separate testing with HICC does not detect a sufficient proportion of patients who react only to HICC, without concomitant reactions to FM II, to warrant its inclusion in a baseline series.
OBJECTIVES: To study (i) whether fragrance mix (FM) II with 5% HICC detects more positive reactions than usual FM II with 2.5% HICC, and (ii) the reproducibility of patch testing with HICC.
METHODS: Two thousand one hundred and eighteen dermatitis patients at five Swedish dermatology departments were consecutively tested with FM II 14% pet., FM II 16.5% pet., and duplicate preparations of HICC 5% pet.
RESULTS: Of the patients, 3.2% reacted to FM II 14%, and 1.5% reacted to HICC. Separate testing with HICC detected 0.3% reactions without concomitant reactivity to FM II. FM II with 5% HICC did not give rise to more irritant reactions or signs of active sensitization than FM II with 2.5% HICC. Patch testing with duplicate applications of HICC increased the overall prevalence of HICC contact allergy to 1.9%.
CONCLUSION: FM II with 5% HICC does not detect more positive reactions than FM II with 2.5% HICC. Separate testing with HICC does not detect a sufficient proportion of patients who react only to HICC, without concomitant reactions to FM II, to warrant its inclusion in a baseline series.