Twenty‐eight‐day follow‐up of patch test reactions to p‐phenylenediamine and p‐phenylenediamine dihydrochloride: A multicentre study on behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group
Ewa Young Klaus E. Andersen Magnus Bruze Ana Giménez‐Arnau Katrine Ross‐Hansen Jeanne D. Johansen Jakob Torp Madsen Erik Zimerson Cecilia Svedman
First published: 26 January 2019 https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.13235
This work corresponds to parts of the PhD thesis “Oxidized p‐Phenylenediamine in Contact Allergy—Clinical and Experimental Studies”, Ewa Young, Lund University, 2018. The thesis is available at http://portal.research.lu.se/ws/files/49558204/Thesis_Oxidized_PPD_Young_2018.pdf?
Read the full text
ePDFPDFTOOLS SHARE
Abstract
Background
There is an ongoing discussion on whether routinely patch testing with p‐phenylenediamine (PPD) 1.0% pet. is safe, owing to the risk of patch test sensitization. Late‐appearing patch test reactions may reflect patch test sensitization, but may also be attributable to a low degree of pre‐existing sensitization.
Objectives
To follow the positive patch test reactions to PPD and its salt PPD dihydrochloride (PPD‐DHC) in order to characterize reaction patterns concerning time and dose in PPD‐sensitized individuals.
Methods
Volunteers with previous reactions to PPD 1.0% were included and patch tested with PPD and PPD‐DHC in equimolar dilution series. There were then seven follow‐up visits over a period of 28 days.
Results
Twenty‐six volunteers completed the study, of whom 23 of 26 (88%) reacted to PPD 1.0%, and 69% reacted to PPD 0.32%. Altogether, 42% and 27% reacted to the corresponding equimolar concentrations of PPD‐DHC. After day 7, no new reactions were observed to any concentration tested, either of PPD or of PPD‐DHC.
Conclusion
No late‐appearing reactions to PPD or PPD‐DHC were observed at any dose. There is a risk of missing contact allergy when the dose is decreased.
Ewa Young Klaus E. Andersen Magnus Bruze Ana Giménez‐Arnau Katrine Ross‐Hansen Jeanne D. Johansen Jakob Torp Madsen Erik Zimerson Cecilia Svedman
First published: 26 January 2019 https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.13235
This work corresponds to parts of the PhD thesis “Oxidized p‐Phenylenediamine in Contact Allergy—Clinical and Experimental Studies”, Ewa Young, Lund University, 2018. The thesis is available at http://portal.research.lu.se/ws/files/49558204/Thesis_Oxidized_PPD_Young_2018.pdf?
Read the full text
ePDFPDFTOOLS SHARE
Abstract
Background
There is an ongoing discussion on whether routinely patch testing with p‐phenylenediamine (PPD) 1.0% pet. is safe, owing to the risk of patch test sensitization. Late‐appearing patch test reactions may reflect patch test sensitization, but may also be attributable to a low degree of pre‐existing sensitization.
Objectives
To follow the positive patch test reactions to PPD and its salt PPD dihydrochloride (PPD‐DHC) in order to characterize reaction patterns concerning time and dose in PPD‐sensitized individuals.
Methods
Volunteers with previous reactions to PPD 1.0% were included and patch tested with PPD and PPD‐DHC in equimolar dilution series. There were then seven follow‐up visits over a period of 28 days.
Results
Twenty‐six volunteers completed the study, of whom 23 of 26 (88%) reacted to PPD 1.0%, and 69% reacted to PPD 0.32%. Altogether, 42% and 27% reacted to the corresponding equimolar concentrations of PPD‐DHC. After day 7, no new reactions were observed to any concentration tested, either of PPD or of PPD‐DHC.
Conclusion
No late‐appearing reactions to PPD or PPD‐DHC were observed at any dose. There is a risk of missing contact allergy when the dose is decreased.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου