Literature DB >> 9631997

North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for the detection of delayed-type hypersensitivity to topical allergens.

J G Marks1, D V Belsito, V A DeLeo, J F Fowler, A F Fransway, H I Maibach, C G Mathias, J R Nethercott, R L Rietschel, E F Sherertz, F J Storrs, J S Taylor.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis is a significant cause of cutaneous disease affecting many individuals. Patch testing, when used properly, often provides support for the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis.
OBJECTIVE: This article reports patch testing results from July 1, 1994, to June 30, 1996, by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG).
METHODS: Patients evaluated in our patch test clinics were tested with the same screening series of allergens by the use of a standardized patch testing technique. The data from these patients were recorded on a standard computer entry form and analyzed.
RESULTS: Forty-nine allergens were tested on 3120 patients. Budesonide was added to the series in July 1995 and tested on 1678 patients. Of these patients, 66.5% had positive allergic patch test reactions, and 57% had at least one allergic reaction that was felt to be clinically relevant to the present or past dermatitis. The 20 screening allergens commercially available to United States dermatologists in the Allergen Patch Test Kit, accounted for only 54.1% of the patients with positive allergic reactions. The additional 30 allergens on the NACDG screening series accounted for 47% of patients with positive allergic reactions. Had the Allergen Patch Test Kit alone been used, 12.4% of all patients tested may have had their disease misclassified as a nonallergic disorder, and an additional 34.4% of all tested patients would not have had their allergies fully defined. Among those patients with positive responses to the supplemental allergens, 81% of the responses were of present or past relevance. The 12 most frequent contact allergens were nickel sulfate, fragrance mix, thimerosal, quaternium-15, neomycin sulfate, formaldehyde, bacitracin, thiuram mix, balsam of Peru, cobalt chloride, para-phenylenediamine, and carba mix. The present relevance varied with the specific allergen from 10.7% (thimerosal) to 85.7% (quaternium-15). Among newer allergens, methyldibromoglutaronitrile/phenoxyethanol (cosmetic preservative) caused positive allergic reactions in 2% of the patients; tixocortol-21-pivalate and budesonide (corticosteroids), in 2.0% and 1.1% of the patients, respectively; and ethylene urea/melamine formaldehyde mix (textile resin), in 5% of the patients.
CONCLUSION: The usefulness of patch testing is enhanced with the number of allergens tested, because allergens not found on the commercially available screening series in the United States frequently give relevant allergic reactions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9631997     DOI: 10.1016/s0190-9622(98)70587-0

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


  14 in total

Review 1.  Allergenic components of vaccines and avoidance of vaccination-related adverse events.

Authors:  J W Georgitis; M B Fasano
Journal:  Curr Allergy Rep       Date:  2001-01

2.  Nickel coinage in the United States: the history of a common contact allergen.

Authors:  R T Kuwahara; R B Skinner; R B Skinner
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  2001-08

Review 3.  Patch testing for allergic contact dermatitis in the allergist office.

Authors:  Luz Fonacier; Ernest N Charlesworth
Journal:  Curr Allergy Asthma Rep       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 4.806

Review 4.  The spectrum of cutaneous patch-test reactions in patients with atopic dermatitis.

Authors:  J M Hanifin; P A Klas
Journal:  Clin Rev Allergy Immunol       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 8.667

5.  Stoma care products represent a common and previously underreported source of peristomal contact dermatitis.

Authors:  Brienne D Cressey; Viswanath R Belum; Pamela Scheinman; Dianne Silvestri; Nancy McEntee; Vashti Livingston; Mario E Lacouture; Jonathan H Zippin
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 6.600

6.  The Role of Topical Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Oculofacial Plastic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Study.

Authors:  Davin C Ashraf; Oluwatobi O Idowu; Qinyun Wang; Tak YeEun; Thomas S Copperman; Sombat Tanaboonyawat; Benjamin F Arnold; Catherine E Oldenburg; M Reza Vagefi; Robert C Kersten
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2020-07-19       Impact factor: 12.079

Review 7.  Topical antibiotics for preventing surgical site infection in wounds healing by primary intention.

Authors:  Clare F Heal; Jennifer L Banks; Phoebe D Lepper; Evangelos Kontopantelis; Mieke L van Driel
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-11-07

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.  Effects of formaldehyde on lymphocyte subsets and cytokines in the peripheral blood of exposed workers.

Authors:  Xiaowei Jia; Qiang Jia; Zhihu Zhang; Weimin Gao; Xianan Zhang; Yong Niu; Tao Meng; Bin Feng; Huawei Duan; Meng Ye; Yufei Dai; Zhongwei Jia; Yuxin Zheng
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-26       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Does single application of topical chloramphenicol to high risk sutured wounds reduce incidence of wound infection after minor surgery? Prospective randomised placebo controlled double blind trial.

Authors:  Clare F Heal; Petra G Buettner; Robert Cruickshank; David Graham; Sheldon Browning; Jayne Pendergast; Herwig Drobetz; Robert Gluer; Carl Lisec
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-01-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.