Clinical standardization of the TRUE Test formaldehyde patch

Comparative study of Finn Chambers and T.R.U.E. test methodologies in detecting the relevant allergens inducing contact dermatitis

T.R.U.E. Test is a ready-to-use patch test system, which contains 23 allergens and is the only Food and Drug Administration-approved source of allergens currently commercially available in the United States. Previously, allergens dispersed in either petrolatum or water and designed to be applied utilizing Finn Chambers were also commercially available in the United States. During a 5-year study at the University of Kansas Medical Center, 167 patients were patch tested using both Finn Chamber and T.R.U.E. Test methodologies. Discordant positive reactions were examined for clinical relevance. The Finn Chamber methodology was superior in detecting clinically relevant allergies to fragrance mix, balsam of Peru, and thiuram mix. T.R.U.E. Test performed somewhat better than the Finn Chamber in detecting relevant allergic reactions to nickel, neomycin, and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone. Neither T.R.U.E. Test nor Finn Chamber methodologies performed optimally in detecting relevant allergies to formaldehyde and carbamates. Practitioners limited to only the T.R.U.E. Test methodology need to be aware that relevant reactions to fragrances, rubber accelerators/pesticides (carbamates and thiurams), and formaldehyde may be missed with this system.

Standardization of the TRUE Test imidazolidinyl urea and diazolidinyl urea patches

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.

The true value of the TRUE Test for allergic contact dermatitis

The development of the thin layer rapid use epicutaneous (TRUE) Test is a history of cooperation between scientists from academia and industry covering several disciplines: medicine, pharmaceutical chemistry, pharmacology, and statistics. The TRUE Test is today a patch test system with documented stability and allergen content. Allergens are incorporated in a dried-in-gel vehicle, which is coated onto a polyester backing to form a patch. Applied to the skin, the allergens are released when the gel becomes moisturized by transepidermal water. This may seem to be a simple technique, but its development required laborious research and solutions to stability and dosage problems. The test has been clinically standardized with serial dilution tests on sensitized patients and validated in comparative multicenter tests. The test is a significant step towards higher reliability of patch testing. Fifteen years of experience and critical investigations are discussed in this article, as are possible improvements such as expansion of the test with new allergens.

Formaldehyde concentration in diagnostic patch testing: comparison of 1% with 2%

Exposure to formaldehyde is common from both consumer products and industry. The reliability of the patch test is essential for the diagnosis of formaldehyde allergy as it is difficult to suspect from the patient's history. The recommended formaldehyde patch test concentration has been reduced over the last decades from 4-5% to 2% and is currently 1%. The changes have not been based upon formal studies, but driven by an intention to reduce irritancy and false-positive results. The aim of the present study was prospectively to compare the outcome of simultaneous testing with formaldehyde 1% and 2% in consecutively patch-tested patients, with respect to frequency of positive patch test reactions, strength of patch test reactions to different formaldehyde test concentrations, irritancy and relevance. The study included 3734 consecutively patch tested patients. 121 gave a positive reaction to 1% and/or 2% formaldehyde in water. There was no statistically significant difference between 1 and 2% with respect to allergic reactions, but 2% gave significantly more irritant reactions. Doubtful, positive and follicular reactions at day (D) 2 frequently developed into true positive reactions at D 3 to 4. Reading at D 7 gave few additional positive cases compared to D 3/4. Problems related to relevance are discussed. Based on present knowledge, a 1% patch test concentration for formaldehyde is recommended.

Threshold for occluded formaldehyde patch test in formaldehyde-sensitive patients. Relationship to repeated open application test with a product containing formaldehyde releaser

Our purpose was to investigate the eliciting threshold concentration of formaldehyde in formaldehyde-sensitive individuals in the occluded and non-occluded patch test, and to evaluate the relationship to repeated open application test (ROAT) with a product containing a formaldehyde releaser. 20 formaldehyde-sensitive patients and a control group of 20 healthy volunteers were included in the study. Occluded and non-occluded patch tests with formaldehyde solutions from 25 to 10,000 ppm, and ROAT for 1 week with a leave-on cosmetic product containing on average 300 ppm formaldehyde, were carried out simultaneously on each subject. In the occluded patch test, 1/2 of the 20 patients only reacted to 10,000 ppm formaldehyde, 9 reacted to 5,000 ppm, 3 reacted to 1,000 ppm, 2 reacted to 500 ppm and 1 reacted to 250 ppm. No definite positive reactions were observed in the non-occluded patch test or in the ROAT. No positive reactions were observed in the control group to any of the test procedures. We concluded that the threshold concentration for occluded patch test to formaldehyde in formaldehyde-sensitive patients was 250 ppm. The threshold in occluded patch test corresponded to the degree of sensitivity. Definite positive reactions in the ROAT were not seen, either indicating that they are unlikely to happen with the type of product used or that the exposure time was too short.