A comparative study between the two patch test systems Finn chambers and Finn chambers AQUA.
Finn chambers
Finn chambers AQUA
patch test system
patch testing
Journal
Contact dermatitis
ISSN: 1600-0536
Titre abrégé: Contact Dermatitis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7604950
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2021
May 2021
Historique:
revised:
17
12
2020
received:
11
09
2020
accepted:
20
12
2020
pubmed:
29
12
2020
medline:
4
11
2021
entrez:
28
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Finn Chambers AQUA (FCA) is a development of the Finn Chambers (FC) test system in which the test chambers are mounted on a moisture-resistant adhesive patch. FCA has pre-fixed filter papers. Because the use of FCA does not require any extra taping or use of separate filter papers, a change from FC to FCA chambers may be beneficial for both patients and patch test technicians. To investigate whether there are any differences regarding detection of contact allergy when simultaneous patch testing is performed with FC and FCA. Results from 434 dermatitis patients simultaneously tested with 10 allergens in both FC and FCA were evaluated. There were no significant differences regarding detection of positive reactions between the two test systems. There were significantly more doubtful reactions to methylisothiazolinone, fragrance mix I and hydroperoxides of linalool when testing with FCA. We only observed significantly more doubtful reactions in FC regarding nickel(II)sulfate. Irritant reactions to formaldehyde were also significantly more common when using FCA. The FC and FCA had good agreement in detection of positive reactions. However, the results including doubtful and irritant reactions justify further research regarding optimization of the dose.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Finn Chambers AQUA (FCA) is a development of the Finn Chambers (FC) test system in which the test chambers are mounted on a moisture-resistant adhesive patch. FCA has pre-fixed filter papers. Because the use of FCA does not require any extra taping or use of separate filter papers, a change from FC to FCA chambers may be beneficial for both patients and patch test technicians.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To investigate whether there are any differences regarding detection of contact allergy when simultaneous patch testing is performed with FC and FCA.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Results from 434 dermatitis patients simultaneously tested with 10 allergens in both FC and FCA were evaluated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There were no significant differences regarding detection of positive reactions between the two test systems. There were significantly more doubtful reactions to methylisothiazolinone, fragrance mix I and hydroperoxides of linalool when testing with FCA. We only observed significantly more doubtful reactions in FC regarding nickel(II)sulfate. Irritant reactions to formaldehyde were also significantly more common when using FCA.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The FC and FCA had good agreement in detection of positive reactions. However, the results including doubtful and irritant reactions justify further research regarding optimization of the dose.
Substances chimiques
Allergens
0
Irritants
0
Formaldehyde
1HG84L3525
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
290-298Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
SmartPractice. 8mm Finn Chambers® on Scanpor® Tape; 2020. https://www.smartpractice.com/shop/wa/style?id=DMAL7000&m=SPA&cid=508224. Accessed August 29, 2020.
SmartPractice. Finn Chambers® AQUA; 2020. https://www.smartpractice.com/dermatologyallergy/pdfs/instructions/aqua.pdf. Accessed August 28, 2020.
Johansen JD, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, et al. European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing - recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73(4):195-221.
Fregert S. Manual of Contact Dermatitis: Copenhagen. Munksgaard; 1974.
Bruze M, Isaksson M, Gruvberger B, Frick-Engfeldt M. Recommendation of appropriate amounts of petrolatum preparation to be applied at patch testing. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;56(5):281-285.
Isaksson M, Gruvberger B, Frick-Engfeldt M, Bruze M. Which test chambers should be used for acetone, ethanol, and water solutions when patch testing? Contact Dermatitis. 2007;57(2):134-136.
Mowitz M, Zimerson E, Svedman C, Bruze M. Stability of fragrance patch test preparations applied in test chambers. Br J Dermatol. 2012;167(4):822-827.
Hamnerius N, Mowitz M. Two cases of contact allergic reactions to Finn chamber AQUA test chambers. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;81(4):320-322.
Doumit J, Pratt M. Comparative study of IQ-ultra and Finn chambers test methodologies in detecting 10 common standard allergens that cause allergic contact dermatitis. J Cutan Med Surg. 2012;16(1):18-22.
Gollhausen R, Przybilla B, Ring J. Reproducibility of patch test results: comparison of TRUE test and Finn chamber test results. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989;21(4 Pt 2):843-846.
Goon AT, Bruze M, Zimerson E, et al. Variation in allergen content over time of acrylates/methacrylates in patch test preparations. Br J Dermatol. 2011;164(1):116-124.
Bruze M. Thoughts on how to improve the quality of multicentre patch test studies. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;74(3):168-174.
Svedman C, Isaksson M, Bjork J, Mowitz M, Bruze M. 'Calibration' of our patch test reading technique is necessary. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66(4):180-187.
Friedmann PS. The relationships between exposure dose and response in induction and elicitation of contact hypersensitivity in humans. Br J Dermatol. 2007;157(6):1093-1102.
Hauksson I, Ponten A, Gruvberger B, Isaksson M, Bruze M. Routine diagnostic patch testing with formaldehyde 2.0% (0.6 mg/cm2) may be an advantage compared to 1.0%. Acta Derm Venereol. 2010;90(5):480-484.
Bruze M, Isaksson M, Gruvberger B, et al. Patch testing with methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone 200 ppm aq. Detects significantly more contact allergy than 100 ppm. A multicentre study within the European environmental and contact dermatitis research group. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;71(1):31-34.