Advanced

Clinically relevant contact allergy to formaldehyde may be missed by testing with formaldehyde 1.0%.

Dubnika Hauksson, Inese LU ; Pontén, Ann LU ; Gruvberger, Birgitta LU ; Isaksson, Marléne LU and Bruze, Magnus LU (2011) In British Journal of Dermatology 164(3). p.568-572
Abstract
Background: It has been found that patch testing with 15μl formaldehyde 2.0% aq detects twice more allergies than testing with 1.0%. The clinical relevance of positive patch test reactions is often difficult to determine. Use tests are simple to do and help to evaluate the significance of patch test results. Objectives: To study the clinical relevance of contact allergy to formaldehyde detected by 2.0% (0.60 mg/cm²) but not by 1.0%. Patients/Methods: 18 patients positive to formaldehyde 2.0% but negative to 1.0% and a control group of 19 dermatitis patients without allergy to parabens, formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers were included in the study. Formaldehyde 2000 ppm, the maximum concentration permitted in leave-on cosmetics... (More)
Background: It has been found that patch testing with 15μl formaldehyde 2.0% aq detects twice more allergies than testing with 1.0%. The clinical relevance of positive patch test reactions is often difficult to determine. Use tests are simple to do and help to evaluate the significance of patch test results. Objectives: To study the clinical relevance of contact allergy to formaldehyde detected by 2.0% (0.60 mg/cm²) but not by 1.0%. Patients/Methods: 18 patients positive to formaldehyde 2.0% but negative to 1.0% and a control group of 19 dermatitis patients without allergy to parabens, formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers were included in the study. Formaldehyde 2000 ppm, the maximum concentration permitted in leave-on cosmetics according to the EU Cosmetics Directive, was added to a batch of a moisturiser preserved with parabens. The same batch without formaldehyde served as control. The study was double-blinded and randomised. The patients were provided with both moisturisers and instructed to apply one of them twice a day on a marked-out 5×5 cm area on the inside of one upper arm and the other moisturiser on the other arm. Reading of the test sites was done once a week for a maximum of 4 weeks. Results: In the control group there were no allergic reactions to any of the moisturisers. 9 of the 17 formaldehyde-allergic patients reacted with an allergic reaction to the moisturiser which contained formaldehyde (p<0.001). No positive reactions were observed to the moisturiser without formaldehyde. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that contact allergy to formaldehyde 2.0% may be clinically relevant. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
British Journal of Dermatology
volume
164
issue
3
pages
568 - 572
publisher
Wiley-Blackwell
external identifiers
  • wos:000288076200018
  • pmid:21114477
  • scopus:79952396944
ISSN
1365-2133
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.10151.x
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
00684d9e-86ac-470e-a243-ca57c23f74c3 (old id 1757038)
alternative location
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21114477?dopt=Abstract
date added to LUP
2011-01-03 09:24:34
date last changed
2017-10-01 03:12:50
@article{00684d9e-86ac-470e-a243-ca57c23f74c3,
  abstract     = {Background: It has been found that patch testing with 15μl formaldehyde 2.0% aq detects twice more allergies than testing with 1.0%. The clinical relevance of positive patch test reactions is often difficult to determine. Use tests are simple to do and help to evaluate the significance of patch test results. Objectives: To study the clinical relevance of contact allergy to formaldehyde detected by 2.0% (0.60 mg/cm²) but not by 1.0%. Patients/Methods: 18 patients positive to formaldehyde 2.0% but negative to 1.0% and a control group of 19 dermatitis patients without allergy to parabens, formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers were included in the study. Formaldehyde 2000 ppm, the maximum concentration permitted in leave-on cosmetics according to the EU Cosmetics Directive, was added to a batch of a moisturiser preserved with parabens. The same batch without formaldehyde served as control. The study was double-blinded and randomised. The patients were provided with both moisturisers and instructed to apply one of them twice a day on a marked-out 5×5 cm area on the inside of one upper arm and the other moisturiser on the other arm. Reading of the test sites was done once a week for a maximum of 4 weeks. Results: In the control group there were no allergic reactions to any of the moisturisers. 9 of the 17 formaldehyde-allergic patients reacted with an allergic reaction to the moisturiser which contained formaldehyde (p&lt;0.001). No positive reactions were observed to the moisturiser without formaldehyde. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that contact allergy to formaldehyde 2.0% may be clinically relevant.},
  author       = {Dubnika Hauksson, Inese and Pontén, Ann and Gruvberger, Birgitta and Isaksson, Marléne and Bruze, Magnus},
  issn         = {1365-2133},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {3},
  pages        = {568--572},
  publisher    = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  series       = {British Journal of Dermatology},
  title        = {Clinically relevant contact allergy to formaldehyde may be missed by testing with formaldehyde 1.0%.},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.10151.x},
  volume       = {164},
  year         = {2011},
}