OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to identify associations between ALDH2 and ADH1B genotypes and ethanol-induced cutaneous erythema and assess the accuracy of an ethanol patch test in young Japanese women. METHODS: The subjects were 942 female Japanese university students. They were given an ethanol patch test and examined for ethanol-induced cutaneous erythema both immediately after removing the patch and 10 minutes after removing the patch. A saliva sample was used to determine the ALDH2 and ADH1B genotype of each subject by realtime PCR. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of erythema immediately after removing the patch as the marker for the presence of inactive ALDH2 were 69.6% and 87.7%, respectively, and the sensitivity and specificity of erythema 10 minutes after removing the patch were 85.2% and 85.1%, respectively. The sensitivity of erythema after 10 minutes was markedly lower in the ADH1B*1/*1 carriers than in the ADH1B*2 carriers (8.3% vs. 89.7%, p<0.0001), and the specificity was significantly higher in the ADH1B*1/*1 carriers than in the ADH1B*2 carriers (96.9% vs. 84.3%, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, both sensitivity and specificity were satisfactorily high, but having the ADH1B*1/*1 genotype prevented a positive reaction for inactive ALDH2 and caused false-negative results. The data also suggested that having the ADH1B*2/*2 genotype caused a positive reaction in subjects with the ALDH2*1/*1 genotype. Despite these exceptions, the ethanol patch test has enough accuracy and can be used easily to subjects who don't drink alcohol. This is a valuable tool for improving the health literacy of younger generation subjects.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to identify associations between ALDH2 and ADH1B genotypes and ethanol-induced cutaneous erythema and assess the accuracy of an ethanol patch test in young Japanese women. METHODS: The subjects were 942 female Japanese university students. They were given an ethanol patch test and examined for ethanol-induced cutaneous erythema both immediately after removing the patch and 10 minutes after removing the patch. A saliva sample was used to determine the ALDH2 and ADH1B genotype of each subject by realtime PCR. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of erythema immediately after removing the patch as the marker for the presence of inactive ALDH2 were 69.6% and 87.7%, respectively, and the sensitivity and specificity of erythema 10 minutes after removing the patch were 85.2% and 85.1%, respectively. The sensitivity of erythema after 10 minutes was markedly lower in the ADH1B*1/*1 carriers than in the ADH1B*2 carriers (8.3% vs. 89.7%, p<0.0001), and the specificity was significantly higher in the ADH1B*1/*1 carriers than in the ADH1B*2 carriers (96.9% vs. 84.3%, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, both sensitivity and specificity were satisfactorily high, but having the ADH1B*1/*1 genotype prevented a positive reaction for inactive ALDH2 and caused false-negative results. The data also suggested that having the ADH1B*2/*2 genotype caused a positive reaction in subjects with the ALDH2*1/*1 genotype. Despite these exceptions, the ethanol patch test has enough accuracy and can be used easily to subjects who don't drink alcohol. This is a valuable tool for improving the health literacy of younger generation subjects.