Premium
Fragrance mix I patch test reactions in 5006 consecutive dermatitis patients tested simultaneously with TRUE Test ® and Trolab ® test material
Author(s) -
Mortz Charlotte Gotthard,
Andersen Klaus Ejner
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
contact dermatitis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.524
H-Index - 96
eISSN - 1600-0536
pISSN - 0105-1873
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2010.01776.x
Subject(s) - patch test , test (biology) , patch testing , medicine , dermatology , contact dermatitis , test preparation , contact allergy , allergy , allergic contact dermatitis , clinical significance , population , surgery , immunology , paleontology , environmental health , engineering , biology , manufacturing engineering
Background: The prevalence of contact allergy to fragrance mix (FM) I varies from study to study, depending on factors such as test population, patch test material, and technique. Objectives: To compare the outcome of routine patch testing with FM I TRUE Test and FM I Trolab. Materials and Methods: A total of 5006 consecutive eczema patients were patch tested with both patch test materials according to the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Results: A total of 9.9% patients tested had a positive reaction to one of the FM I mixes; 4.4% to FM I TRUE Test, 9.3% to FM I Trolab, and 3.7% to both ( P < 0.0001). Patients with a stronger reaction to FM I TRUE Test almost all reacted to FM I Trolab, whereas the reverse situation showed a lower association. Clinical relevance of a positive patch test reaction to FM I TRUE Test was found in 73.0%, and clinical relevance of a positive patch test reaction to FM I Trolab was found in 64.3%; 68.4% of the patients with a positive reaction to FM I TRUE Test and 54.3% with a positive reaction to FM I Trolab were positive to one or more of the eight constituents of the mix. Limitations: The study is retrospective, and supplementary testing with FM components in patients with a positive reaction to the mixes was performed in a selected group of patients. Determination of clinical relevance may be biased. Conclusions: From this study, we cannot conclude which of the two FM I test preparations is the best for diagnostic purposes. Inclusion of both FM I tests in the baseline series to obtain a graded degree of FM I allergy for the individual patient is one option. Prospective controlled patch test studies with FM I patch test material are recommended.