Patch testing with a new fragrance mix detects additional patients sensitive to perfumes and missed by the current fragrance mix
(2005) In Contact Dermatitis 52(4). p.207-215- Abstract
- The currently used 8% fragrance mix (FM I) does not identify all patients with a positive history of adverse reactions to fragrances. A new FM II with 6 frequently used chemicals was evaluated in 1701 consecutive patients patch tested in 6 dermatological centres in Europe. FM II was tested in 3 concentrations - 28% FM II contained 5% hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral((R))), 2% citral, 5% farnesol, 5% coumarin, 1% citronellol and 10%alpha-hexyl-cinnamic aldehyde; in 14% FM II, the single constituents' concentration was lowered to 50% and in 2.8% FM II to 10%. Each patient was classified regarding a history of adverse reactions to fragrances: certain, probable, questionable, none. Positive reactions to FM I occurred in 6.5%... (More)
- The currently used 8% fragrance mix (FM I) does not identify all patients with a positive history of adverse reactions to fragrances. A new FM II with 6 frequently used chemicals was evaluated in 1701 consecutive patients patch tested in 6 dermatological centres in Europe. FM II was tested in 3 concentrations - 28% FM II contained 5% hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral((R))), 2% citral, 5% farnesol, 5% coumarin, 1% citronellol and 10%alpha-hexyl-cinnamic aldehyde; in 14% FM II, the single constituents' concentration was lowered to 50% and in 2.8% FM II to 10%. Each patient was classified regarding a history of adverse reactions to fragrances: certain, probable, questionable, none. Positive reactions to FM I occurred in 6.5% of the patients. Positive reactions to FM II were dose-dependent and increased from 1.3% (2.8% FM II), through 2.9% (14% FM II) to 4.1% (28% FM II). Reactions classified as doubtful or irritant varied considerably between the 6 centres, with a mean value of 7.2% for FM I and means ranging from 1.8% to 10.6% for FM II. 8.7% of the tested patients had a certain fragrance history. Of these, 25.2% were positive to FM I; reactivity to FM II was again dose-dependent and ranged from 8.1% to 17.6% in this subgroup. Comparing 2 groups of history - certain and none - values for sensitivity and specificity were calculated: sensitivity: FM I, 25.2%; 2.8% FM II, 8.1%; 14% FM II, 13.5%; 28% FM II, 17.6%; specificity: FM I, 96.5%; 2.8% FM II, 99.5%; 14% FM II, 98.8%; 28% FM II, 98.1%. 31/70 patients (44.3%) positive to 28% FM II were negative to FM I, with 14% FM II this proportion being 16/50 (32%). In the group of patients with a certain history, a total of 7 patients were found reacting to FM II only. Conversely, in the group of patients without any fragrance history, there were significantly more positive reactions to FM I than to any concentration of FM II. In conclusion, the new FM II detects additional patients sensitive to fragrances missed by FM I; the number of false-positive reactions is lower with FM II than with FM I. Considering sensitivity, specificity and the frequency of doubtful reactions, the medium concentration, 14% FM II, seems to be the most appropriate diagnostic screening tool. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/896765
- author
- organization
- publishing date
- 2005
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- farnesol, fragrance, mix, fragrances, Lyral((R)), patch testing, alpha-hexyl-cinnamic, aldehyde, citral, citronellol, contact allergy, coumarin
- in
- Contact Dermatitis
- volume
- 52
- issue
- 4
- pages
- 207 - 215
- publisher
- Wiley-Blackwell
- external identifiers
-
- pmid:15859993
- wos:000228744700006
- scopus:21044441196
- ISSN
- 0105-1873
- DOI
- 10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00565.x
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- b5608d89-6133-4a5f-b618-b5137af26588 (old id 896765)
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-01 11:55:22
- date last changed
- 2022-08-13 08:46:08
@article{b5608d89-6133-4a5f-b618-b5137af26588, abstract = {{The currently used 8% fragrance mix (FM I) does not identify all patients with a positive history of adverse reactions to fragrances. A new FM II with 6 frequently used chemicals was evaluated in 1701 consecutive patients patch tested in 6 dermatological centres in Europe. FM II was tested in 3 concentrations - 28% FM II contained 5% hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral((R))), 2% citral, 5% farnesol, 5% coumarin, 1% citronellol and 10%alpha-hexyl-cinnamic aldehyde; in 14% FM II, the single constituents' concentration was lowered to 50% and in 2.8% FM II to 10%. Each patient was classified regarding a history of adverse reactions to fragrances: certain, probable, questionable, none. Positive reactions to FM I occurred in 6.5% of the patients. Positive reactions to FM II were dose-dependent and increased from 1.3% (2.8% FM II), through 2.9% (14% FM II) to 4.1% (28% FM II). Reactions classified as doubtful or irritant varied considerably between the 6 centres, with a mean value of 7.2% for FM I and means ranging from 1.8% to 10.6% for FM II. 8.7% of the tested patients had a certain fragrance history. Of these, 25.2% were positive to FM I; reactivity to FM II was again dose-dependent and ranged from 8.1% to 17.6% in this subgroup. Comparing 2 groups of history - certain and none - values for sensitivity and specificity were calculated: sensitivity: FM I, 25.2%; 2.8% FM II, 8.1%; 14% FM II, 13.5%; 28% FM II, 17.6%; specificity: FM I, 96.5%; 2.8% FM II, 99.5%; 14% FM II, 98.8%; 28% FM II, 98.1%. 31/70 patients (44.3%) positive to 28% FM II were negative to FM I, with 14% FM II this proportion being 16/50 (32%). In the group of patients with a certain history, a total of 7 patients were found reacting to FM II only. Conversely, in the group of patients without any fragrance history, there were significantly more positive reactions to FM I than to any concentration of FM II. In conclusion, the new FM II detects additional patients sensitive to fragrances missed by FM I; the number of false-positive reactions is lower with FM II than with FM I. Considering sensitivity, specificity and the frequency of doubtful reactions, the medium concentration, 14% FM II, seems to be the most appropriate diagnostic screening tool.}}, author = {{Frosch, PJ and Pirker, C and Rastogi, SC and Andersen, KE and Bruze, Magnus and Svedman, Cecilia and Goossens, A and White, IR and Uter, W and Arnau, EG and Lepoittevin, JP and Menne, T and Johansen, JD}}, issn = {{0105-1873}}, keywords = {{farnesol; fragrance; mix; fragrances; Lyral((R)); patch testing; alpha-hexyl-cinnamic; aldehyde; citral; citronellol; contact allergy; coumarin}}, language = {{eng}}, number = {{4}}, pages = {{207--215}}, publisher = {{Wiley-Blackwell}}, series = {{Contact Dermatitis}}, title = {{Patch testing with a new fragrance mix detects additional patients sensitive to perfumes and missed by the current fragrance mix}}, url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00565.x}}, doi = {{10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00565.x}}, volume = {{52}}, year = {{2005}}, }