Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Patch testing with hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC) - a multicentre study of the Swedish Contact Dermatitis Research Group

Engfeldt, Malin LU ; Hagvall, Lina ; Isaksson, Marléne LU ; Matura, Mihály ; Mowitz, Martin LU ; Ryberg, Kristina ; Stenberg, Berndt ; Svedman, Cecilia LU and Bruze, Magnus LU (2017) In Contact Dermatitis 76(1). p.34-39
Abstract

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 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)

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 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.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; ; ; ; and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Allergic contact dermatitis, Contact allergy, Delayed hypersensitivity, Dose/area, Fragrance, Fragrance mix II, High-performance liquid chromatography, Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde
in
Contact Dermatitis
volume
76
issue
1
pages
34 - 39
publisher
Wiley-Blackwell
external identifiers
  • scopus:84995380272
  • pmid:27767215
  • wos:000390785500005
ISSN
0105-1873
DOI
10.1111/cod.12699
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
24bcfea8-8847-474c-bfaf-5c20bbfef83b
date added to LUP
2016-12-05 10:34:04
date last changed
2024-10-05 07:17:12
@article{24bcfea8-8847-474c-bfaf-5c20bbfef83b,
  abstract     = {{<p>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 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.</p>}},
  author       = {{Engfeldt, Malin and Hagvall, Lina and Isaksson, Marléne and Matura, Mihály and Mowitz, Martin and Ryberg, Kristina and Stenberg, Berndt and Svedman, Cecilia and Bruze, Magnus}},
  issn         = {{0105-1873}},
  keywords     = {{Allergic contact dermatitis; Contact allergy; Delayed hypersensitivity; Dose/area; Fragrance; Fragrance mix II; High-performance liquid chromatography; Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{1}},
  pages        = {{34--39}},
  publisher    = {{Wiley-Blackwell}},
  series       = {{Contact Dermatitis}},
  title        = {{Patch testing with hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC) - a multicentre study of the Swedish Contact Dermatitis Research Group}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cod.12699}},
  doi          = {{10.1111/cod.12699}},
  volume       = {{76}},
  year         = {{2017}},
}