Formaldehyde 2% is not a useful means of detecting allergy to formaldehyde releasers- results of the ESSCA network, 2015-2018.


Journal

Contact dermatitis
ISSN: 1600-0536
Titre abrégé: Contact Dermatitis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7604950

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Feb 2021
Historique:
received: 16 05 2020
revised: 13 08 2020
accepted: 26 08 2020
pubmed: 3 9 2020
medline: 14 9 2021
entrez: 3 9 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Studies suggest that patch testing with formaldehyde releasers (FRs) gives significant additional information to formaldehyde 1% aq. and should be considered for addition to the European baseline series (EBS). It is not known if this is also true for formaldehyde 2% aq. To determine the frequency of sensitization to formaldehyde 2% aq. and co-reactivity with FRs. To establish whether there is justification for including FRs in the EBS. A 4-year, multi-center retrospective analysis of patients with positive patch test reactions to formaldehyde 2% aq. and five FRs. A maximum of 15 067 patients were tested to formaldehyde 2% aq. and at least one FR. The percentage of isolated reactions to FR, without co-reactivity to, formaldehyde 2% aq. for each FR were: 46.8% for quarternium-15 1% pet.; 67.4% imidazolidinyl urea 2% pet.; 64% diazolidinyl urea 2% pet.; 83.3% 1,3-dimethylol-5, 5-dimethyl hydantoin (DMDM) hydantoin 2% pet. and 96.3% 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol 0.5% pet. This demonstrates that co-reactivity varies between FRs and formaldehyde, from being virtually non-existent in 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol 0.5% pet. (Cohen's kappa: 0, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.02 to 0.02)], to only weak concordance for quaternium-15 [Cohen's kappa: 0.22, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.28)], where Cohen's kappa value of 1 would indicate full concordance. Formaldehyde 2% aq. is an inadequate screen for contact allergy to the formaldehyde releasers, which should be considered for inclusion in any series dependant on the frequency of reactions to and relevance of each individual allergen.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Studies suggest that patch testing with formaldehyde releasers (FRs) gives significant additional information to formaldehyde 1% aq. and should be considered for addition to the European baseline series (EBS). It is not known if this is also true for formaldehyde 2% aq.
OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE
To determine the frequency of sensitization to formaldehyde 2% aq. and co-reactivity with FRs. To establish whether there is justification for including FRs in the EBS.
MATERIALS AND METHODS METHODS
A 4-year, multi-center retrospective analysis of patients with positive patch test reactions to formaldehyde 2% aq. and five FRs.
RESULTS RESULTS
A maximum of 15 067 patients were tested to formaldehyde 2% aq. and at least one FR. The percentage of isolated reactions to FR, without co-reactivity to, formaldehyde 2% aq. for each FR were: 46.8% for quarternium-15 1% pet.; 67.4% imidazolidinyl urea 2% pet.; 64% diazolidinyl urea 2% pet.; 83.3% 1,3-dimethylol-5, 5-dimethyl hydantoin (DMDM) hydantoin 2% pet. and 96.3% 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol 0.5% pet. This demonstrates that co-reactivity varies between FRs and formaldehyde, from being virtually non-existent in 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol 0.5% pet. (Cohen's kappa: 0, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.02 to 0.02)], to only weak concordance for quaternium-15 [Cohen's kappa: 0.22, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.28)], where Cohen's kappa value of 1 would indicate full concordance.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Formaldehyde 2% aq. is an inadequate screen for contact allergy to the formaldehyde releasers, which should be considered for inclusion in any series dependant on the frequency of reactions to and relevance of each individual allergen.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32876992
doi: 10.1111/cod.13691
doi:

Substances chimiques

Allergens 0
Nitroparaffins 0
Formaldehyde 1HG84L3525
Urea 8W8T17847W
2-nitropropane GKV234L2QH
diazolidinylurea H5RIZ3MPW4
imidazolidinyl urea M629807ATL
Propane T75W9911L6

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

95-102

Subventions

Organisme : EADV
ID : PPRC-2018-8

Informations de copyright

© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S . Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Références

de Groot AC, Flyvholm M, Lensen G, et al. Formaldehyde-releasers: relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy. Contact allergy to formaldehyde and inventory of formaldehyde-releasers. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;61(2):63-85.
de Groot AC, White IR, Flyvholm M, G, Coenraads PJ. Formaldehyde-releasers in cosmetics: relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy. Part 2. Patch test relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy, experimental provocations tests, amount of formaldehyde released, and assessment of risk to consumers allergic to formaldehyde. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;62(1):18-31.
Latorre N, Borrego L, Fernández-Redondo V, et al. Patch testing with formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasers: multicentre study in Spain (2005-2009). Contact Dermatitis. 2011;65(5):286-292.
Uter W, Schnuch A, Wilkinson M, Dugonik A, Dugonik B, Ganslandt T. Registries in clinical epidemiology: the European surveillance system on contact allergies (ESSCA). Methods Inf Med. 2016;55(2):193-199.
Uter W, Arnold R, Wilkinson J, et al. A multilingual European patch test software concept: WinAlldat/ESSCA. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;49(5):270-271.
Gefeller O, Pfahlberg AB, Uter W. What can be learnt from nothing? - A statistical perspective. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69(6):350-354.
Hauksson I, Pontén A, Gruvberger B, et al. Clinically relevant contact allergy to formaldehyde may be missed by testing with formaldehyde 1·0%. Br J Dermatol. 2011;164(3):568-572.
Dickel H, Künzlberger B, Becker D, et al. Begründung für die Beurteilung der Auswirkung einer Allergie gegenüber Formaldehyd im Rahmen der MdE-Bewertung. Dermatol Beruf Umwelt. 2009;57(1):81-85.
Weisshaar E, Becker D, Dickel H, et al. Begründung für die Beurteilung der Auswirkung einer Allergie gegenüber Formaldehyd im Rahmen der MdE-Bewertung. Dermatol Beruf Umwelt Jahrgang. 2008;56(3):117-119.
Umweltbundesamt. Formaldehyde. 2015. Accessed 13 March 2020.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1602506651245&uri=PI_COM:C(2019)3717. Accessed 12 October 2020.
Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR). Formaldehyd in Haarglättungsmitteln Stellungnahme Nr. 045/2010 des BfR vom 17. 2010. https://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/343/formaldehyd_in_haarglaettungsmitteln.pdf
Kreft B, Geier J. Dauerbrenner Konservierungsmittelallergie. Was geht, was kommt, was bleibt? Hautarzt. 2020;71(1):190-196.
Filon FL, Miani A, Corradin MT, et al. Quaternium-15 sensitization in the north east of Italy, trend from 1996 to 2016 and occupational role. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(7):317-319.
Schnuch A, Mildau G, Kratz E-M, Uter W. Risk of sensitization to preservatives estimated on the basis of patch test data and exposure, according to a sample of 3541 leave-on products. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;65(3):167-174.
DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Zug KA, et al. North American contact dermatitis group patch test results: 2015-2016. Dermatitis. 2018;29(6):297-309.
Fisher AA. Fifty years experience with contact dermatitis. Cutis. 1977;19(1):18.
Ford GP, Beck MH. Reactions to Quaternium 15, Bronopol and Germall 115 in a standard series. Contact Dermatitis. 1986;14(5):271-274.
Fransway AF. The problem of preservatives in the 1990s: III. Agents with preservative function independent of formaldehyde release. Am J Contact Dermat. 1991;2(3):145-174.
Geier J, Lessmann H, Becker D, et al. Formaldehydabspalter. Dermatol Beruf Umwelt. 2008;56(1):34-36.
Geier J, Lessmann H, Schnuch A, et al. Kontaktallergie auf formaldehydabspaltende Biozide-Eine Analyse der Daten des IVDK aus den Jahren 1992 bis 1995 (contact allergy to biocides releasing formadehyde-analysis of data from the IVDK between 1992 and 1995) (German). Allergologie. 1997;20(1):215-224.
Herbert C, Rietschel R. Formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers: how much avoidance of cross-reacting agents is required? Contact Dermatitis. 2004;50(6):371-373.
Fasth I, Ulrich N, Johansen J. Ten-year trends in contact allergy to formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasers. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;79(5):263-269.
Pratt MD, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, et al. North America contact dermatitis group patch-test results, 2001-2002 study period. Dermatitis. 2004;15(4):176-183.
Zug KA, Warshaw EM, Fowler JF, et al. Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis. 2009;20(3):149-160.
Warshaw EM, Maibach HI, Taylor JS, et al. North American contact dermatitis group patch test results: 2011-2012. Dermatitis. 2015;26(1):49-59.
Aalto-Korte K, Kuuliala O, Suuronen K, Alanko K. Occupational contact allergy to formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;59(5):280-189.
Sasseville D. Hypersensitivity to preservatives. Dermatol Ther. 2004;17(3):251-263.
Engelhardt H, Klinkner R. Determination of free formaldehyde in the presence of donators in cosmetics by HPLC and post-column derivation. Chromatographia. 1985;20(1):559-565.
Uter W, Aberer W, Armario-Hita J, et al. Current patch test results with the European baseline series and extensions to it from the ‘European surveillance system on contact allergy’ network, 2007-2008. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67(1):9-19.
Jordan WP. Human studies that determine the sensitizing potential of haptens. Experimental allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin. 1984;2(4):533-538.
Perrett CM, Happle R. Contact sensitivity to diazolidinyl urea (Germall II). Arch Dermatol Res. 1989;281(1):57-59.
Kireche M, Giménez-Arnau E, Lepoittevin I-P. Preservatives in cosmetics: reactivity of allergenic formaldehyde-releasers toward amino acids through breakdown products other than formaldehyde. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;63(4):192-202.
Takeda A, Asada A, Kajimura K, et al. Characterization of the decomposition of compounds derived from imidazolidinyl urea in cosmetics and patch test materials. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67(5):284-292.
Kajimura K, Taguchi S. The different decomposition properties of diazolidinyl urea in cosmetics and patch test materials. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;65(2):81-91.

Auteurs

Heather Whitehouse (H)

Department of Dermatology, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, UK.

Wolfgang Uter (W)

Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Erlangen/Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Johannes Geier (J)

Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), Institute at the University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.

Barbara Ballmer-Weber (B)

Clinic for Dermatology and Allergology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Allergy Unit, Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.

Andrea Bauer (A)

Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany.

Susan Cooper (S)

Dermatology Department, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK.

Magdalena Czarnecka-Operacz (M)

Dermatology Department, University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland.

Simon Dagmar (S)

Department of Dermatology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Heinrich Dickel (H)

Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, St. Josef Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.

Anna Belloni Fortina (AB)

Pediatric Dermatology Unit, Department of Medicine DIMED, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.

Rosella Gallo (R)

Clinica Dermatologica, Department of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy.

Ana M Giménez-Arnau (AM)

Department of Dermatology, Hospital del Mar, Universitat Autónoma, Barcelona, Spain.

Graham A Johnston (GA)

Department of Dermatology, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK.

Francesca Laresse Filon (FL)

Unit of Occupational Medicine, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.

Vera Mahler (V)

Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Erlangen, Medical Faculty Friedrich-Alexander University, Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany.
Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, Langen, Germany.

Maria Pesonen (M)

Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland.

Thomas Rustemeyer (T)

Department of Dermatology, Free University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Marie L A Schuttelaar (MLA)

Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Skaidra Valiukevičienė (S)

Department of Skin and Venereal Diseases, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania.

Elke Weisshaar (E)

Department of Dermatology, Occupational Dermatology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.

Thomas Werfel (T)

Department of Immunodermatology and Experimental Allergy, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany.

Mark Wilkinson (M)

Department of Dermatology, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH