Literature DB >> 30422882

North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2015-2016.

Joel G DeKoven, Erin M Warshaw, Kathryn A Zug1, Howard I Maibach2, Donald V Belsito3, Denis Sasseville4, James S Taylor5, Joseph F Fowler6, C G Toby Mathias7, James G Marks8, Melanie D Pratt9, Matthew J Zirwas10, Vincent A DeLeo11.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patch testing is an important diagnostic tool for the assessment of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).
OBJECTIVE: This study documents the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) patch testing results from January 1, 2015, to February 28, 2017.
METHODS: At 13 centers in North America, patients were tested in a standardized manner with a screening series of 70 allergens. Data were manually verified and entered into a central database. Descriptive frequencies were calculated, and trends were analyzed using χ test.
RESULTS: A total of 5597 patients were tested. There were 3725 patients (66.6%) who had at least 1 positive reaction, and 2798 patients (50.2%) were ultimately determined to have a primary diagnosis of ACD. A total of 572 patients (10.2%) had occupationally related skin disease. There were 10,983 positive allergic reactions. Nickel remained the most commonly detected allergen (17.5%). Methylisothiazolinone, which was added to the screening series for the 2013-2014 cycle, had the second highest positive reaction rate of allergens tested (13.4%). Compared with the previous reporting periods (2013-2014) and (2005-2014), positive reaction rates for the top 35 screening allergens statistically increased for only 1 allergen: hydroxyethyl methacrylate (3.4%; risk ratios, 1.24 [confidence interval, 1.00-1.54] and 1.46 [confidence interval, 1.23-1.73]). Three newly added allergen preparations-ammonium persulfate (1.7%), chlorhexidine (0.8%), and hydroquinone (0.3%)-all had a reaction rate of less than 2%. Twenty-three percent of the tested patients had at least 1 relevant allergic reaction to an allergen not on the NACDG series; 12% of these were occupationally related. T.R.U.E. Test (SmartPractice Denmark, Hillerød, Denmark) would have hypothetically missed one quarter to almost 40% of reactions detected by the NACDG screening series.
CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm that the epidemic of sensitivity to methylisothiazolinone has continued in North America. Patch testing with allergens beyond a screening tray is necessary for a complete evaluation of occupational and nonoccupational ACD.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30422882     DOI: 10.1097/DER.0000000000000417

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dermatitis        ISSN: 1710-3568            Impact factor:   4.845


  24 in total

Review 1.  Occupational Dermatosis.

Authors:  Dorothy Linn Holness
Journal:  Curr Allergy Asthma Rep       Date:  2019-07-27       Impact factor: 4.806

2. 

Authors:  Charles Choi; Saba Vafaei-Nodeh; Jamie Phillips; Gillian de Gannes
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2021-06       Impact factor: 3.275

3.  Systemic contact dermatitis following oral neomycin therapy.

Authors:  Jocelyn M Carnicle; Timothy V Tran; Sterling S McKissack
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2020-08-24

4.  Isothiazolinone Content of US Consumer Adhesives: Ultrahigh-Performance Liquid Chromatographic Mass Spectrometry Analysis.

Authors:  Molly C Goodier; Lun-Yi Zang; Paul D Siegel; Erin M Warshaw
Journal:  Dermatitis       Date:  2019 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 4.845

5.  Durable Polymer Drug Eluting Stent-Induced Kounis Syndrome and Eosinophilia Requiring Long-term Immunosuppression.

Authors:  Thomas Boucher; Aman M Shah; Hayder Hashim; Elina Jerschow; Anna E Bortnick
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2021-12-10       Impact factor: 5.223

Review 6.  Skin Toxicity of Selected Hair Cosmetic Ingredients: A Review Focusing on Hairdressers.

Authors:  Cara Symanzik; Patricia Weinert; Željka Babić; Sarah Hallmann; Martin Stibius Havmose; Jeanne Duus Johansen; Sanja Kezic; Marija Macan; Jelena Macan; Julia Strahwald; Rajka Turk; Henk F van der Molen; Swen Malte John; Wolfgang Uter
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 4.614

7.  Approach to allergic contact dermatitis caused by topical medicaments.

Authors:  Charles Choi; Saba Vafaei-Nodeh; Jamie Phillips; Gillian de Gannes
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2021-06       Impact factor: 3.275

8.  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

9.  Contact dermatitis associated with preservatives: Retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1994 through 2016.

Authors:  Amber Reck Atwater; Amy J Petty; Beiyu Liu; Cynthia L Green; Jonathan I Silverberg; Joel G DeKoven; Donald V Belsito; Margo J Reeder; Denis Sasseville; James S Taylor; Howard I Maibach; Matthew J Zirwas; James G Marks; Kathryn A Zug; Joseph F Fowler; Melanie D Pratt; Vincent A DeLeo; Erin M Warshaw
Journal:  J Am Acad Dermatol       Date:  2021-02-09       Impact factor: 15.487

Review 10.  Contact dermatitis.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.