Wolfgang Uter1, Andrea Bauer2, Anna Belloni Fortina3, Andreas J Bircher4,5, Richard Brans6, Timo Buhl7, Susan M Cooper8, Magdalena Czarnecka-Operacz9, Heinrich Dickel10, Aleksandra Dugonik11, Johannes Geier12, Ana M Giménez-Arnau13, Margarida Gonçalo14, Jeanne D Johansen15, Graham A Johnston16, Vera Mahler17, Thomas Rustemeyer18, Javier Sanchez-Perez19, Marie L A Schuttelaar20, Dagmar Simon21, Radoslaw Spiewak22, Skaidra Valiukevičienė23, Elke Weisshaar24, Ian R White25, Mark Wilkinson26. 1. Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Erlangen/Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. 2. Department of Dermatology, University Allergy Centre, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 3. Dermatology Unit, Department of Paediatrics, University of Padova, Padova, Italy. 4. Allergy Unit, Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 5. Faculty of Biomedicine, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland. 6. Department of Dermatology, Environmental Medicine and Health Theory, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany. 7. Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany. 8. Department of Dermatology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK. 9. Department of Dermatology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland. 10. Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, St. Josef Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany. 11. Department of Dermatology, University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia. 12. Information Network of Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center, Göttingen, Germany. 13. Department of Dermatology, Hospital del Mar. Universitat Autònoma and Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain. 14. Department of Dermatology, Coimbra University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal. 15. National Allergy Research Centre, Department of Skin and Allergy, Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark. 16. Department of Dermatology, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK. 17. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany, Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, Langen, Germany. 18. Department of Dermatology, Free University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 19. Dermatology Department, Hospital Universitario de la Princesa, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria la Princesa (IIS-IP), Madrid, Spain. 20. Department of Dermatology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 21. Department of Dermatology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 22. Department of Experimental Dermatology and Cosmetology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland. 23. Department of Skin and Venereal Diseases, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania. 24. Department of Clinical Social Medicine, Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 25. Cutaneous Allergy Team, St. John's Institute of Dermatology, Guy's Hospital, London, UK. 26. Dermatology Department, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical surveillance of the prevalence of contact allergy in consecutively patch tested patients is a proven instrument to continually assess the importance of contact allergens (haptens) assembled in a baseline series. OBJECTIVES: To present current results from the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies, including 13 countries represented by 1 to 11 departments. METHODS: Anonymized or pseudonymized patch test and clinical data from various data capture systems used locally or nationally as transferred to the Erlangen data centre were pooled and descriptively analysed after quality control. RESULTS: In the 4 years (2015-2018), data from 51 914 patients patch tested with the European baseline series (EBS) of contact allergens were analysed. Contact allergy to nickel was most frequent (17.6% positive), followed by contact allergy to fragrance mix I (6.9%), methylisothiazolinone (MI; 6.2%), and Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru; 5.8%). CONCLUSIONS: While the prevalence of MI contact allergy decreased substantially following regulatory intervention, the persistently high levels of allergy to metals, fragrances, other preservatives, and rubber chemicals point to problems needing further research and, potentially, preventive efforts. Results with national additions to the baseline series provide important information on substances possibly to be considered for inclusion in the EBS.
BACKGROUND: Clinical surveillance of the prevalence of contact allergy in consecutively patch tested patients is a proven instrument to continually assess the importance of contact allergens (haptens) assembled in a baseline series. OBJECTIVES: To present current results from the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies, including 13 countries represented by 1 to 11 departments. METHODS: Anonymized or pseudonymized patch test and clinical data from various data capture systems used locally or nationally as transferred to the Erlangen data centre were pooled and descriptively analysed after quality control. RESULTS: In the 4 years (2015-2018), data from 51 914 patients patch tested with the European baseline series (EBS) of contact allergens were analysed. Contact allergy to nickel was most frequent (17.6% positive), followed by contact allergy to fragrance mix I (6.9%), methylisothiazolinone (MI; 6.2%), and Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru; 5.8%). CONCLUSIONS: While the prevalence of MI contact allergy decreased substantially following regulatory intervention, the persistently high levels of allergy to metals, fragrances, other preservatives, and rubber chemicals point to problems needing further research and, potentially, preventive efforts. Results with national additions to the baseline series provide important information on substances possibly to be considered for inclusion in the EBS.