Standardization of the TRUE Test imidazolidinyl urea and diazolidinyl urea patches

Odense University Hospital, Odense, South Denmark, Denmark
Contact Dermatitis (Impact Factor: 3.62). 08/2001; 45(1):21-5. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0536.2001.045001021.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The preservatives imidazolidinyl urea (IMID, Germall 115) and diazolidinyl urea (DU, Germall II) are commonly used in cosmetic products and are well-known sensitizers. The aim of the present study was to establish the optimal patch test concentration in hydrophilic dried-in vehicle (TRUE Test) for IMID and DU. 181 patients were included in the study. Of these, 150 were patients referred for patch testing, 12 were patients with known allergy to IMID and 19 were patients with known allergy to DU. 76 consecutive patients and the 12 IMID-allergic patients were patch tested with a dilution series IMID (0 to 600 microg/cm(2)), formaldehyde (180 microg/cm(2)) and DU (200 microg/cm(2)). 74 consecutive patients and the 19 DU-allergic patients were patch tested with a dilution series of DU (0 to 600 microg/cm(2)), formaldehyde (180 microg/cm) and IMID (200 microg/cm(2)). A positive dose-response relationship was found. The number of doubtful reactions decreased with increasing test concentrations. No late reactions were observed. A patch test concentration in hydrophilic dried-in vehicle (TRUE Test) of 600 microg/cm(2) was found to be adequate and safe for both IMID and DU.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Several contact allergens are tested at concentrations which might cause irritant reactions. In this study we investigated whether the reactivity to a standard irritant is useful in identifying subjects with hyperreactive skin yielding a higher rate of doubtful or irritant reactions. Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) 0.5% (aqua) was tested in addition to the standard series routinely for 5 years in the Department of Dermatology, Dortmund. For data analysis, we compared reactions at D3 to the standard series, the vehicle/emulsifier and preservative series and benzoyl peroxide to the reactions obtained with SLS. Proportions were standardized for age and sex. The association between reactivity to a certain allergen and SLS reactivity as a dichotomous outcome, controlled for age and sex as potential confounders, was assessed with logistic regression analysis. Results showed that of the 1600 tested patients, 668 (41.8%) had an irritant reaction to SLS which exceeded 2 + in only 41 patients. Seasonal variation was statistically significant, showing reduced SLS reactivity in summer vs. winter. Patients with irritant reactions to SLS showed significantly more erythematous reactions to the following 10 allergens of the standard series: fragrance mix, cobalt chloride, balsam of Peru (Myroxylon pereirae), lanolin alcohol, 4-phenylenediamine base (PPD), propolis, formaldehyde, N-isopropyl-N'-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine (IPPD), benzocaine, and 4-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin. No significant differences regarding strong positive allergic reactions were observed. Concerning other allergens, significantly more erythematous reactions were observed in SLS-reactive patients to benzoyl peroxide, octyl gallate, cocamidopropyl betaine, Amerchol L-101, tert-butylhydroquinone, and triethanolamine. In the SLS-reactive group of patients, the reaction index was negative for 10 allergens of the standard series compared to only 5 in the SLS non-responder group. For the first time, this study, based on a large data pool, revealed a significant association between reactivity to the irritant SLS and erythematous reactions to certain allergens. With SLS as a marker for hyperreactive skin at hand, some of these reactions can now be classified as irritant more confidently, particularly if there is no history of exposure to the allergen.
    Contact Dermatitis 03/2003; 48(2):99-107. DOI:10.1034/j.1600-0536.2003.480209.x · 3.62 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Contact dermatitis is a highly frequent disease with a significant impact on the quality of life of the affected patients and a relevant socioeconomic impact. According to the pathophysiological mechanisms involved, two major types of contact dermatitis may be recognized: irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). The two types may, and often do, coexist. Differentiating between ICD and ACD is often difficult in the clinical setting. The basis for a diagnosis of either ICD or ACD is mainly established by a comprehensive clinical history and physical examination, as well as by performing appropriate diagnostic patch testing. The only useful and reliable method for the diagnosis of ACD remains the patch test. Positive patch test results, the current and/or past relevance of which has to be assessed, are confirmative of contact sensitization. Additional tests, such as the repeated open application test or the provocative use test, are sometimes necessary to confirm a causal relationship. This algorithmic diagnostic approach will allow the adoption of rational measures of allergen or irritant avoidance and the implementation of realistic patient information and education.
    Expert Review of Clinical Immunology 03/2010; 6(2):291-310. DOI:10.1586/eci.10.4 · 3.34 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is known that cosmetics and skin care products can cause adverse skin reactions. However, the frequency of adverse reactions reported to the Medical Product Agency (MPA) in Sweden is low. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the occurrence of adverse skin reactions to cosmetics among patients referred for standard patch testing owing to suspected contact dermatitis in general, most frequently hand eczema. Consecutive patients at four patch test clinics in Sweden were invited to participate; 1075 were included. Of these, 47.3% (54.2% women and 30.8% men) reported current or previous adverse skin reactions to cosmetics and skin care products. This group showed significantly more positive patch test reactions, a higher prevalence of atopic dermatitis and the dermatitis was more frequently located in the face and neck region. Our results show that patients referred for standard patch testing have--or have had--a large proportion of self-reported adverse reactions to cosmetics or skin care products. We conclude that among patients with suspected contact dermatitis, adverse reactions to cosmetics can be a more important aetiological and/or complicating factor than is commonly acknowledged and that the reporting of such reactions to the MPA probably can be improved.
    Acta Dermato Venereologica 02/2004; 84(4):291-5. DOI:10.1080/00015550410025921 · 4.24 Impact Factor


Available from
May 16, 2014