Literature DB >> 24268786

Trends in patch-test results and allergen changes in the standard series: a Mayo Clinic 5-year retrospective review (January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2010).

Ashley B Wentworth1, James A Yiannias2, James H Keeling3, Matthew R Hall3, Michael J Camilleri4, Lisa A Drage5, Rochelle R Torgerson5, Debra D Fett6, Amy V Prakash7, Leigh Ann Scalf8, Eve M Allen5, Janis S Johnson2, Nidhi Singh2, Diane L Nordberg Linehan3, Jill M Killian9, Mark D P Davis10.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patch testing is essential for identification of culprits causing allergic contact dermatitis.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify trends and allergen changes in our standard series during 2006 to 2010, compared with our previous report (2001-2005).
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patch-test results.
RESULTS: A total of 3115 patients were tested with a mean of 73.0 allergens. Since our prior report, 8 allergens were added to the standard series; 14 were deleted. Significantly higher rates of allergic positive reaction were documented for carba mix, 3%, and Disperse Orange 3, 1%. Rates were lower for 10 allergens: neomycin sulfate, 20%; gold sodium thiosulfate, 0.5%; hexahydro-1,3,5-tris(2-hydroxyethyl)triazine, 1%; disperse blue 124, 1%; disperse blue 106, 1%; diazolidinyl urea, 1%; hexylresorcinol, 0.25%; diazolidinyl urea, 1% aqueous; 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol, 0.25%; and lidocaine, 5%. Many final patch-test readings for many allergens were categorized as mild reactions (erythema only). Overall allergenicity and irritancy rates declined significantly since our prior report. Results were generally comparable with those in a North American Contact Dermatitis Group report from 2005 to 2006. LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective study; there is a lack of long-term follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Since our previous report, our standard series composition has changed, and overall rates of allergenicity and irritancy have decreased. Notably, many final patch-test readings showed mild reactions.
Copyright © 2013 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ACD; MCCDG; Mayo Clinic Contact Dermatitis Group; NACDG; North American Contact Dermatitis Group; allergens/diagnostic use; allergic contact dermatitis; allergic contact/diagnosis; allergic contact/etiology; dermatitis; patch tests/methods; retrospective studies

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24268786     DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2013.09.047

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Dermatol        ISSN: 0190-9622            Impact factor:   11.527


  5 in total

Review 1.  Allergic contact dermatitis in children: review of the past decade.

Authors:  Shehla Admani; Sharon E Jacob
Journal:  Curr Allergy Asthma Rep       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.806

Review 2.  Allergic Contact Dermatitis Evaluation: Strategies for the Preschooler.

Authors:  Calvin T Sung; Maria A McGowan; Sharon E Jacob
Journal:  Curr Allergy Asthma Rep       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 4.806

3.  A perspective on the safety of parabens as preservatives in wound care products.

Authors:  Eveline Torfs; Gilles Brackman
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2020-11-25       Impact factor: 3.315

4.  Allergic profiles of mothers and fathers in the Japan Environment and Children's Study (JECS): a nationwide birth cohort study.

Authors:  Kiwako Yamamoto-Hanada; Limin Yang; Kazue Ishitsuka; Tadayuki Ayabe; Hidetoshi Mezawa; Mizuho Konishi; Testsuo Shoda; Kenji Matsumoto; Hirohisa Saito; Yukihiro Ohya
Journal:  World Allergy Organ J       Date:  2017-08-07       Impact factor: 4.084

Review 5.  Safety of local anesthetics.

Authors:  Ana Carolina Figueiredo Pereira Cherobin; Glaysson Tassara Tavares
Journal:  An Bras Dermatol       Date:  2019-12-18       Impact factor: 1.896

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.