W Uter1, J C Amario-Hita2, A Balato3, B Ballmer-Weber4,5, A Bauer6, A Belloni Fortina7, A Bircher8, M M U Chowdhury9, S M Cooper10, M Czarnecka-Operacz11, A Dugonik12, R Gallo13, A Giménez-Arnau14, J D Johansen15, S M John16, M Kieć-Świerczyńska17, T Kmecl18, B Kręcisz17,19, F Larese Filon20, V Mahler21, M Pesonen22, T Rustemeyer23, A Sadowska-Przytocka11, J Sánchez-Pérez24, S Schliemann25, M L Schuttelaar26, D Simon27, R Spiewak28, S Valiukevičienė29, E Weisshaar30, I R White31, S M Wilkinson32. 1. Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen/Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. 2. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital of Puerto Real, Cádiz, Spain. 3. Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Napoli, Italy. 4. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. 5. Centre for Dermatology and Allergology, Kantonsspital Luzern, Luzern, Switzerland. 6. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 7. Pediatric Dermatology Unit, Department of Medicine DIMED, University of Padova, Padova, Italy. 8. Allergology Unit, Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 9. The Welsh Institute of Dermatology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK. 10. Churchill Hospital, Oxford, UK. 11. Department of Dermatology, University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland. 12. Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia. 13. Clinica Dermatologica, IRCCS - AOU San Martino - IST and Department of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy. 14. Department of Dermatology, Hospital del Mar, Universitat Autónoma, Barcelona, Spain. 15. National Allergy Centre/Department of Dermatology, Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Hellerup, Denmark. 16. Department of Dermatology, Institute for Interdisciplinary Dermatologic Prevention and Rehabilitation (iDerm), University of Osnabrück, Lower Saxony Institute for Occupational Dermatology (NIB), Osnabrück, Germany. 17. Department of Dermatology, Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Łodz, Poland. 18. Department of Dermatology, General Hospital Celje, Celje, Slovenia. 19. Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, Institute of Medical Science, Jan Kochanowski University, Kielce, Poland. 20. Department of Public Health, Occupational Medicine, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy. 21. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. 22. Occupational Medicine, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH), Helsinki, Finland. 23. Department of Dermatology, Free University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 24. Department of Dermatology, Hospital Universitario la Princesa, Madrid, Spain. 25. Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Hospital Jena, Jena, Germany. 26. Department of Dermatology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 27. Department of Dermatology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 28. Department of Experimental Dermatology and Cosmetology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland. 29. Department of Skin and Venereal Diseases, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania. 30. Department of Clinical Social Medicine, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 31. St. John's Institute of Dermatology, Guy's Hospital, London, UK. 32. Dermatology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contact allergy is a common condition and can severely interfere with daily life or professional activities. Due to changes in exposures, such as introduction of new substances, new products or formulations and regulatory intervention, the spectrum of contact sensitization changes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the current spectrum of contact allergy to allergens present in the European baseline series (EBS) across Europe. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data collected by the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA, www.essca-dc.org) in consecutively patch-tested patients, 2013/14, in 46 departments in 12 European countries. RESULTS: Altogether, 31 689 patients were included in the analysis. Compared to a similar analysis in 2004, the prevalence of contact allergy to methylisothiazolinone went up to around 20% in several departments. In comparison, contact allergy to the metals nickel, cobalt and chromium remained largely stable, at 18.1%, 5.9% and 3.2%, respectively, similar to mostly unchanged prevalence with fragrance mix I, II and Myroxylon pereirae (balsam of Peru) at 7.3%, 3.8% and 5.3%, respectively. In the subgroup of departments diagnosing (mainly) patients with occupational contact dermatitis, the prevalence of work-related contact allergies such as epoxy resin or rubber additives was found to be increased, compared to general dermatology departments. CONCLUSION: Continuous surveillance of contact allergy based on network data offers the identification of time trends or persisting problems, and thus enables focussing in-depth research (subgroup analyses, exposure analysis) on areas where it is needed.
BACKGROUND: Contact allergy is a common condition and can severely interfere with daily life or professional activities. Due to changes in exposures, such as introduction of new substances, new products or formulations and regulatory intervention, the spectrum of contact sensitization changes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the current spectrum of contact allergy to allergens present in the European baseline series (EBS) across Europe. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data collected by the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA, www.essca-dc.org) in consecutively patch-tested patients, 2013/14, in 46 departments in 12 European countries. RESULTS: Altogether, 31 689 patients were included in the analysis. Compared to a similar analysis in 2004, the prevalence of contact allergy to methylisothiazolinone went up to around 20% in several departments. In comparison, contact allergy to the metals nickel, cobalt and chromium remained largely stable, at 18.1%, 5.9% and 3.2%, respectively, similar to mostly unchanged prevalence with fragrance mix I, II and Myroxylon pereirae (balsam of Peru) at 7.3%, 3.8% and 5.3%, respectively. In the subgroup of departments diagnosing (mainly) patients with occupational contact dermatitis, the prevalence of work-related contact allergies such as epoxy resin or rubber additives was found to be increased, compared to general dermatology departments. CONCLUSION: Continuous surveillance of contact allergy based on network data offers the identification of time trends or persisting problems, and thus enables focussing in-depth research (subgroup analyses, exposure analysis) on areas where it is needed.
Authors: Gunnar S A Nyman; Ana Maria Giménez-Arnau; Jurate Grigaitiene; Laura Malinauskiene; Evy Paulsen; Lina Hagvall Journal: Acta Derm Venereol Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 3.875
Authors: Wolfgang Uter; Thomas Werfel; Jean-Pierre Lepoittevin; Ian R White Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Anna Tagka; George I Lambrou; George K Matsopoulos; Despoina Fytili; Daphne Mirkopoulou; Alexandra Katsarou; Argyro Chatziioannou; Alexandros Stratigos Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Pamela L Scheinman; Marc Vocanson; Jacob P Thyssen; Jeanne Duus Johansen; Rosemary L Nixon; Kate Dear; Nina C Botto; Johanna Morot; Ari M Goldminz Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 52.329