J M L White1, J P McFadden, I R White. 1. Department of Cutaneous Allergy, St John's Institute of Dermatology, St Thomas' Hospital, London SE1 7EH, UK. jonathanmlwhite@hotmail.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Active patch test sensitization is an uncommon phenomenon which may have undesirable consequences for those undergoing this gold-standard investigation for contact allergy. OBJECTIVES: To perform a retrospective analysis of the results of 241 subjects who were patch tested twice in a monocentre evaluating approximately 1500 subjects per year. METHODS: Positivity to 11 common allergens in the recommended Baseline Series of contact allergens (European) was analysed: nickel sulphate; Myroxylon pereirae; fragrance mix I; para-phenylenediamine; colophonium; epoxy resin; neomycin; quaternium-15; thiuram mix; sesquiterpene lactone mix; and para-tert-butylphenol resin. RESULTS: Only fragrance mix I gave a statistically significant, increased rate of positivity on the second reading compared with the first (P=0.011). This trend was maintained when separately analysing a subgroup of 42 subjects who had been repeat patch tested within 1 year; this analysis was done to minimize the potential confounding factor of increased usage of fragrances with a wide interval between both tests. To reduce the confounding effect of age on our data, we calculated expected frequencies of positivity to fragrance mix I based on previously published data from our centre. This showed a marked excess of observed cases over predicted ones, particularly in women in the age range 40-60 years. CONCLUSIONS: We suspect that active sensitization to fragrance mix I may occur. Similar published analysis from another large group using standard methodology supports our data.
BACKGROUND: Active patch test sensitization is an uncommon phenomenon which may have undesirable consequences for those undergoing this gold-standard investigation for contact allergy. OBJECTIVES: To perform a retrospective analysis of the results of 241 subjects who were patch tested twice in a monocentre evaluating approximately 1500 subjects per year. METHODS: Positivity to 11 common allergens in the recommended Baseline Series of contact allergens (European) was analysed: nickel sulphate; Myroxylon pereirae; fragrance mix I; para-phenylenediamine; colophonium; epoxy resin; neomycin; quaternium-15; thiuram mix; sesquiterpene lactone mix; and para-tert-butylphenol resin. RESULTS: Only fragrance mix I gave a statistically significant, increased rate of positivity on the second reading compared with the first (P=0.011). This trend was maintained when separately analysing a subgroup of 42 subjects who had been repeat patch tested within 1 year; this analysis was done to minimize the potential confounding factor of increased usage of fragrances with a wide interval between both tests. To reduce the confounding effect of age on our data, we calculated expected frequencies of positivity to fragrance mix I based on previously published data from our centre. This showed a marked excess of observed cases over predicted ones, particularly in women in the age range 40-60 years. CONCLUSIONS: We suspect that active sensitization to fragrance mix I may occur. Similar published analysis from another large group using standard methodology supports our data.