Towards a perfect vehicle(s) for diagnostic patch testing: an overview

References

• Cyran C, Maibach HI. Alternate vehicles for diagnostic patch testing: an update. G Ital Dermatol Venereol 2008;143:91–94.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lee EE, Maibach HI. Role of vehicles in diagnosing contact allergy: an update. Exog Dermatol 2002;1:107–111.
   Google Scholar
• Tanglertsampan C, Maibach HI. The role of vehicles in diagnostic patch testing. A reappraisal. Contact Derm 1993;29:169–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kligman AM. The identification of contact allergens by human assay. II. Factors influencing the induction and measurement of allergic contact dermatitis. J Invest Dermatol 1966;47:375–392.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knudsen BB, Menné T. Elicitation thresholds for thiuram mix using petrolatum and ethanol/sweat as vehicles. Contact Derm 1996;34:410–413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Groot AC, Conemans JM. Nystatin allergy. Petrolatum is not the optimal vehicle for patch testing. Dermatol Clin 1990;8:153–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geier J, Lessmann H, Becker D, Bruze M, Frosch PJ, Fuchs T et al. Patch testing with components of water-based metalworking fluids: results of a multicentre study with a second series. Contact Derm 2006;55:322–329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wahlberg JE. Thresholds of sensitivity in metal contact allergy. 1. Isolated and simultaneous allergy to chromium, cobalt, mercury and-or nickel. Berufsdermatosen 1973;21:22–33.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wahlberg JE. Thresholds of sensitivity in metal contact allergy. 2. The value of percutaneous absorption studies for selection of the most suitable vehicle. Berufsdermatosen 1973;21:151–158.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wahlberg JE, Skog E. Nickel allergy and atopy. Threshold of nickel sensitivity and immunoglobulin E determinations. Br J Dermatol 1971;85:97–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Ketel WG. Patch tests: methodology, standardization and significance of positive results. Arch Belg Dermatol Syphiligr 1973;29:73–82.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rietschel RL, Bruze M, Gruvberger B, Zug KA, Warshaw EM, Taylor JS et al. The relationship of vehicle and concentration of imidazolidinylurea, with attention to formaldehyde allergy status. Dermatitis 2006;17:48–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rietschel RL, Warshaw EM, Sasseville D, Fowler JF Jr, DeLeo VA, Belsito DV et al.; North American Contact Dermatitis Group. Sensitivity of petrolatum and aqueous vehicles for detecting allergy to imidazolidinylurea, diazolidinylurea, and DMDM hydantoin: a retrospective analysis from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group. Dermatitis 2007;18:155–162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tosti A, Guerra L, Bardazzi F, Gasparri F. Euxyl K 400: a new sensitizer in cosmetics. Contact Derm 1991;25:89–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agner T. An experimental study of irritant effects of urea in different vehicles. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh) 1992;177:44–46.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dahl MV, Roering MJ. Sodium lauryl sulfate irritant patch tests. III. Evaporation of aqueous vehicle influences inflammatory response. J Am Acad Dermatol 1984;11:477–479.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fowler JF, Warshaw EM, Squires L. Methylphenidate patch-test protocol and irritancy threshold determination in healthy adult subjects. Dermatitis 2009;20:271–274.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aspres N, Freeman S. Predictive testing for irritancy and allergenicity of tea tree oil in normal human subjects. Exog Dermatol 2003;2:258–261.
   Google Scholar
• Frick-Engfeldt M, Isaksson M, Zimerson E, Bruze M. How to optimize patch testing with diphenylmethane diisocyanate. Contact Derm 2007;57:138–151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim HO, Wester RC, McMaster JA, Bucks DA, Maibach HI. Skin absorption from patch test systems. Contact Derm 1987;17:178–180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choy YB, Prausnitz MR. The rule of five for non-oral routes of drug delivery: ophthalmic, inhalation and transdermal. Pharm Res 2011;28:943–948.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gammelgaard B, Fullerton A, Avnstorp C, Menné T. In vitro evaluation of water and petrolatum as vehicles in chromate patch testing. Contact Derm 1992;27:317–318.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benezra C, Sigman CC, Perry LR, Helmes CT, Maibach HI. A systematic search for structure-activity relationships of skin contact sensitizers: methodology. J Invest Dermatol 1985;85:351–356.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer T, Kreilgård B, Maibach HI. The true value of the TRUE Test for allergic contact dermatitis. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2001;1:316–322.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ale SI, Maibach HI. Reproducibility of patch test results: a concurrent right-versus-left study using TRUE Test. Contact Derm 2004;50:304–312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilpin SJ, Hui X, Maibach HI. Volatility of fragrance chemicals: patch testing implications. Dermatitis 2009;20:200–207.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frick-Engfeldt M, Gruvberger B, Isaksson M, Hauksson I, Pontén A, Bruze M. Comparison of three different techniques for application of water solutions to Finn Chambers®. Contact Derm 2010;63:284–288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar