TY - JOUR
T1 - Routine diagnostic patch-testing with formaldehyde 2.0% (0.6 mg/cm2) may be an advantage compared to 1.0%.
AU - Dubnika Hauksson, Inese
AU - Pontén, Ann
AU - Gruvberger, Birgitta
AU - Isaksson, Marléne
AU - Bruze, Magnus
N1 - The information about affiliations in this record was updated in December 2015.
The record was previously connected to the following departments: Occupational and Environmental Dermatology Unit (013241310), Pediatrics/Urology/Gynecology/Endocrinology (013240400)
PY - 2010
Y1 - 2010
N2 - Our clinical experience has suggested that the presently recommended patch-test concentration (1.0%) for formaldehyde in the baseline series might be too low. Therefore, consecutively patch-tested dermatitis patients were tested simultaneously with formaldehyde 1.0% and 2.0% (w/v) in aqua. Formaldehyde 1.0% and 2.0% were applied with a micro-pipette (15 microl) to filter paper discs in Finn Chambers (0.30 mg/cm(2) and 0.60 mg/cm(2), respectively). A total of 1397 patients with dermatitis were patch-tested. In all, 68 (4.9%) patients reacted positively to formaldehyde; 37 reacted only to 2.0%, 29 reacted to both concentrations, and 2 reacted only to 1.0%. Significantly more patients were thus diagnosed with contact allergy to formaldehyde 2.0% compared with 1.0% (p < 0.001). We detected 0.1%, 0.4%, and 29.6% irritant reactions to 1.0%, 2.0%, and 3.0% formaldehyde, respectively. We conclude that, with an optimized patch-test technique, doubling the dose per area detects significantly more contact allergies to formaldehyde, but an even higher test concentration causes too many irritant reactions to be usable.
AB - Our clinical experience has suggested that the presently recommended patch-test concentration (1.0%) for formaldehyde in the baseline series might be too low. Therefore, consecutively patch-tested dermatitis patients were tested simultaneously with formaldehyde 1.0% and 2.0% (w/v) in aqua. Formaldehyde 1.0% and 2.0% were applied with a micro-pipette (15 microl) to filter paper discs in Finn Chambers (0.30 mg/cm(2) and 0.60 mg/cm(2), respectively). A total of 1397 patients with dermatitis were patch-tested. In all, 68 (4.9%) patients reacted positively to formaldehyde; 37 reacted only to 2.0%, 29 reacted to both concentrations, and 2 reacted only to 1.0%. Significantly more patients were thus diagnosed with contact allergy to formaldehyde 2.0% compared with 1.0% (p < 0.001). We detected 0.1%, 0.4%, and 29.6% irritant reactions to 1.0%, 2.0%, and 3.0% formaldehyde, respectively. We conclude that, with an optimized patch-test technique, doubling the dose per area detects significantly more contact allergies to formaldehyde, but an even higher test concentration causes too many irritant reactions to be usable.
U2 - 10.2340/00015555-0925
DO - 10.2340/00015555-0925
M3 - Article
C2 - 20814622
SN - 1651-2057
VL - 90
SP - 480
EP - 484
JO - Acta Dermato-Venereologica
JF - Acta Dermato-Venereologica
IS - 5
ER -