Patch test results with the European baseline series, 2019/20-Joint European results of the ESSCA and the EBS working groups of the ESCD, and the GEIDAC.
RRID:SCR_001905
baseline series
clinical epidemiology
contact allergy
patch testing
surveillance
Journal
Contact dermatitis
ISSN: 1600-0536
Titre abrégé: Contact Dermatitis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7604950
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2022
Oct 2022
Historique:
revised:
06
05
2022
received:
13
02
2022
accepted:
06
06
2022
pubmed:
10
6
2022
medline:
9
9
2022
entrez:
9
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Continual analyses of patch test results with the European baseline series (EBS) serve both contact allergy surveillance and auditing the value of included allergens. To present results of current EBS patch testing, obtained in 53 departments in 13 European countries during 2019 and 2020. Anonymised or pseudonymised individual data and partly aggregated data on demographic/clinical characteristics and patch test rest results with the EBS were prospectively collected and centrally pooled and analysed. In 2019 and 2020, 22 581 patients were patch tested with the EBS. Sensitization to nickel remained most common (19.8 [19.2-20.4]% positivity [95% confidence interval]). Fragrance mix I and Myroxylon pereirae yielded very similar results with 6.80 (6.43-7.19)% and 6.62 (6.25-7.00)% positivity, respectively. Formaldehyde at 2% aq. yielded almost one percentage point more positive reactions than 1% concentration (2.49 [2.16-2.85]% vs. 1.59 [1.33-1.88]); methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) and MI alone up to around 5% positives. Among the new additions, propolis was most commonly positive (3.48 [3.16-3.82]%), followed by 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2.32 [2.0-2.68]%). Ongoing surveillance on the prevalence of contact sensitization contributes to an up-to-date baseline series containing the most frequent and/or relevant contact sensitizers for routine patch testing in Europe.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Continual analyses of patch test results with the European baseline series (EBS) serve both contact allergy surveillance and auditing the value of included allergens.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To present results of current EBS patch testing, obtained in 53 departments in 13 European countries during 2019 and 2020.
METHODS
METHODS
Anonymised or pseudonymised individual data and partly aggregated data on demographic/clinical characteristics and patch test rest results with the EBS were prospectively collected and centrally pooled and analysed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In 2019 and 2020, 22 581 patients were patch tested with the EBS. Sensitization to nickel remained most common (19.8 [19.2-20.4]% positivity [95% confidence interval]). Fragrance mix I and Myroxylon pereirae yielded very similar results with 6.80 (6.43-7.19)% and 6.62 (6.25-7.00)% positivity, respectively. Formaldehyde at 2% aq. yielded almost one percentage point more positive reactions than 1% concentration (2.49 [2.16-2.85]% vs. 1.59 [1.33-1.88]); methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) and MI alone up to around 5% positives. Among the new additions, propolis was most commonly positive (3.48 [3.16-3.82]%), followed by 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2.32 [2.0-2.68]%).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Ongoing surveillance on the prevalence of contact sensitization contributes to an up-to-date baseline series containing the most frequent and/or relevant contact sensitizers for routine patch testing in Europe.
Substances chimiques
Allergens
0
Nickel
7OV03QG267
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
343-355Subventions
Organisme : Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios
Organisme : EADV
Organisme : Fundación Piel Sana Academia Española de Dermatología y Venereología
Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Bruze M, Condé-Salazar L, Goossens A, Kanerva L, White IR. Thoughts on sensitizers in a standard patch test series. The European Society of Contact Dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;41(5):241-250.
Wilkinson SM, Badulici S, Giménez-Arnau A, et al. The European baseline series: criteria for allergen inclusion (with reference to formaldehyde releasers). Contact Dermatitis. 2021;85:125-128. doi:10.1111/cod.13836
Wilkinson M, Gonçalo M, Aerts O, et al. The European baseline series and recommended additions: 2019. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80(1):1-4. doi:10.1111/cod.13155
Hernández-Fernández CP, Mercader-García P, Silvestre Salvador JF, et al. Candidate allergens for inclusion in the Spanish standard series based on data from the Spanish contact dermatitis registry. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2021;112(9):798-805. doi:10.1016/j.adengl.2021.07.013
Uter W, Wilkinson SM, Aerts O, et al. European patch test results with audit allergens as candidates for inclusion in the European baseline series, 2019/20: joint results of the ESSCAA and the EBSB working groups of the ESCD, and the GEIDACC. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;86(5):379-389. doi:10.1111/cod.14059
Uter W, Bauer A, Belloni Fortina A, et al. Patch test results with the European baseline series and additions thereof in the ESSCA network, 2015-2018. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;84(2):109-120. doi:10.1111/cod.13704
Uter W, Amario-Hita JC, Balato A, et al. European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA): results with the European baseline series, 2013/14. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31(9):1516-1525. doi:10.1111/jdv.14423
Uter W. Contact dermatitis research groups. In: Johansen JD, Mahler V, Lepoittevin JP, Frosch PJ, eds. Contact Dermatitis. 6th ed. Springer; 2020:1-4.
Johansen JD, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, et al. European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73(4):195-221.
Uter W, Schnuch A, Giménez-Arnau A, Orton D, Statham B. Databases and networks: the benefit for research and quality assurance in patch testing. In: Johansen JD, Mahler V, Lepoittevin JP, Frosch PJ, eds. Contact Dermatitis. 6th ed. Springer; 2020:1-16.
Uter W, Schnuch A, Wilkinson M, Dugonik A, Dugonik B, Ganslandt T. Registries in clinical epidemiology: the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA). Methods Inf Med. 2016;55(2):193-199.
Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, et al. National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Population-adjusted frequencies of sensitization (PAFS) in 40,000 patients from a multicenter study (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis. 1997;37(5):200-209.
Uter W, Arnold R, Wilkinson J, et al. A multilingual European patch test software concept: WinAlldat/ESSCA. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;49(5):270-271.
Gefeller O, Pfahlberg AB, Uter W. What can be learnt from nothing? A statistical perspective. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69(6):350-354.
Uter W, Schwitulla J, Thyssen JP, Frosch PJ, Statham B, Schnuch A. The ‘overall yield’ with the baseline series-a useful addition to the array of MOAHLFA factors describing departmental characteristics of patch tested patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;65(6):322-328.
García-Gavín J, Armario-Hita JC, Fernández-Redondo V, et al. Nickel allergy in Spain needs active intervention. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64(5):289-291. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2010.01865.x
Basso P, Mauro M, Miani A, Belloni Fortina A, Corradin MT, Filon FL. Sensitization to nickel in the Triveneto region: temporal trend after European Union regulations. Contact Dermatitis. 2020;82(4):247-250. doi:10.1111/cod.13450
Carrascosa JM, Pastor-Nieto MA, Ruiz-González I, et al. Patch testing during the COVID-19 pandemic: recommendations of the AEDV's Spanish contact dermatitis and skin allergy research group (GEIDAC). Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2020;111(8):650-654. doi:10.1016/j.ad.2020.06.003
van Amerongen CCA, Ofenloch R, Dittmar D, Schuttelaar MLA. New positive patch test reactions on day 7-the additional value of the day 7 patch test reading. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;81(4):280-287. doi:10.1111/cod.13322
Forkel S, Schubert S, Dickel H, et al. The benefit of late readings in patch testing depends both on allergen and patient characteristics. Allergy. 2022;77(5):1477-1485. doi:10.1111/all.15149
Uter W. Fragrance mix I: TRUE Test® versus pet.-based patch test. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72(4):256-258. doi:10.1111/cod.12352
Dittmar D, Schuttelaar ML. Comparing patch test results of methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone tested with both TRUE test and 100 ppm using investigator-loaded chambers. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78(2):159-161. doi:10.1111/cod.12871
Uter W, Gefeller O, Mahler V, Geier J. Trends and current spectrum of contact allergy in Central Europe: results of the information network of departments of dermatology (IVDK) 2007-2018. Br J Dermatol. 2020;183(5):857-865. doi:10.1111/bjd.18946
Anonymous. Commission regulation (EU) no 301/2014 of march 25, 2014 amending annex XVII to regulation (EC) no 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the council on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH) as regards chromium VI compounds. Official J Eur Union. 2014;90:1-3.
Alinaghi F, Zachariae C, Thyssen JP, Johansen JD. Temporal changes in chromium allergy in Denmark between 2002 and 2017. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80(3):156-161. doi:10.1111/cod.13181
Alinaghi F, Zachariae C, Thyssen JP, Johansen JD. Causative exposures and temporal development of cobalt allergy in Denmark between 2002 and 2017. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;81(4):242-248. doi:10.1111/cod.13326
Uter W, Wolter J. Nickel and cobalt release from earrings and piercing jewellery-analytical results of a German survey in 2014. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78(5):321-328. doi:10.1111/cod.12941
Wennervaldt M, Ahlström MG, Menné T, et al. Chromium and cobalt release from metallic earrings from the Danish market. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;85(5):523-530. doi:10.1111/cod.13917
Ahlström MG, Uter W, Ahlström MG, Johansen JD. Decrease of contact allergy to hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde in Europe prior to its ban and diagnostic value. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;84(6):419-422. doi:10.1111/cod.13786
Bennike NH, Zachariae C, Johansen JD. Non-mix fragrances are top sensitizers in consecutive dermatitis patients-a cross-sectional study of the 26 EU-labelled fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;77(5):270-279. doi:10.1111/cod.12822
Hausen BM, Evers P, Stüwe HT, König WA, Wollenweber E. Propolis allergy (IV). Studies with further sensitizers from propolis and constituents common to propolis, poplar buds and balsam of Peru. Contact Dermatitis. 1992;26(1):34-44. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1992.tb00865.x
Schubert S, Geier J, Dickel H, et al. Contact sensitization to propolis in the information network of departments of dermatology (IVDK) 2013 to 2019 and market survey of propolis commerce in Germany. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;85(6):722-724. doi:10.1111/cod.13960
Nyman GSA, Giménez-Arnau AM, Grigaitiene J, Malinauskiene L, Paulsen E, Hagvall L. Patch testing with propolis of different geographical origins in a baseline series. Acta Derm Venereol. 2021;101(11):adv00591. doi:10.2340/actadv.v101.423
Herman A, Aerts O, Jacobs MC, et al. Evolution of methylisothiazolinone sensitization: a Belgian multicentric study from 2014 to 2019. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;85(6):643-649. doi:10.1111/cod.13956
Havmose M, Thyssen JP, Zachariae C, Menné T, Johansen JD. The epidemic of contact allergy to methylisothiazolinone-an analysis of Danish consecutive patients patch tested between 2005 and 2019. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;84(4):254-262. doi:10.1111/cod.13717
Amsler E, Aerts O, Raison-Peyron N, et al. Airborne allergic contact dermatitis caused by isothiazolinones in water-based paints: a retrospective study of 44 cases. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;77(3):163-170. doi:10.1111/cod.12795
Bruze M, Goossens A, Isaksson M. Recommendation to increase the test concentration of methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone in the European baseline patch test series - on behalf of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis and the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;71(1):35-40. doi:10.1111/cod.12240
Schnuch A, Schubert S, Geier J, IVDK. Clinicians vs. epidemiologists: patch testing with methyldibromo glutaronitrile as a controversial issue. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019;33(6):e242-e244. doi:10.1111/jdv.15505
Schnuch A, Kelterer D, Bauer A, et al. Quantitative patch and repeated open application testing in methyldibromo glutaronitrile-sensitive patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;52(4):197-206. doi:10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00529.x
Mercader-García P, Pastor-Nieto MA, Gonzalez-Perez R, et al. Arguments in favour of excluding MDBGN from the European baseline series. In response to "comment on MDBGN/DBDCB, the European baseline series, and EU legislation". Contact Dermatitis. 2021;85(5):611-613. doi:10.1111/cod.13941
Commission implementing regulation (EU) 2016/1086 of July 5, 2016 approving 2-bromo-2-(bromomethyl)pentanedinitrile (DBDCB) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 6 (text with EEA relevance). Official J Eur Union. 2016;180:15-17.
Deza G, Giménez-Arnau AM. Allergic contact dermatitis in preservatives: current standing and future options. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;17(4):263-268. doi:10.1097/ACI.0000000000000373
Whitehouse H, Uter W, Geier J, et al. Formaldehyde 2% is not a useful means of detecting allergy to formaldehyde releasers- results of the ESSCA network, 2015-2018. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;84(2):95-102. doi:10.1111/cod.13691
Giácaman-von der Weth MM, Ferrer-Guillén B, María Ortiz-Salvador J, et al. Is time to remove parabens from standard patch test batteries? Retrospective study of 10 461 patients. Allergy. 2020;75(11):2997-2999. doi:10.1111/all.14460
Warburton KL, Uter W, Geier J, et al. Patch testing with rubber series in Europe: a critical review and recommendation. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;76(4):195-203. doi:10.1111/cod.12736
Uter W, Warburton K, Weisshaar E, et al. Patch test results with rubber series in the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA), 2013/14. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;75(6):345-352. doi:10.1111/cod.12651
Uter W, Schmidt E, Lessmann H, Schnuch A. Contact sensitization to tree moss (Evernia furfuracea extract, INCI) is heterogeneous. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67(1):36-41.
Hamann CR, Zimerson E, Hamann D, et al. Concentration variability of potent allergens of p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin (PTBP-FR) in patch test preparations and commercially available PTBP-FR. Br J Dermatol. 2012;166(4):761-770. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10781.x
Özkaya E. Linear eczema on the amputation stump as a clinical clue to the diagnosis. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;77(5):328-330. doi:10.1111/cod.12824
Herro EM, Jacob SE. Allergic contact dermatitis to p-tert butylphenol formaldehyde resin in a continuous positive airway pressure strap. Dermatitis. 2012;23(3):125-126. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e31824a63c6
Herro EM, Friedlander SF, Jacob SE. Bra-associated allergic contact dermatitis: p-tert-butylphenol formaldehyde resin as the culprit. Pediatr Dermatol. 2012;29(4):540-541. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1470.2011.01533.x
Avenel-Audran M, Goossens A, Zimerson E, Bruze M. Contact dermatitis from electrocardiograph-monitoring electrodes: role of p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48(2):108-111. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0536.2003.480210.x
Isaksson M, Ale I, Andersen K, et al. Multicenter patch testing with a resol resin based on phenol and formaldehyde within the international contact dermatitis research group. Dermatitis. 2015;26(5):230-234. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000137
Uter W, Werfel T, Lepoittevin JP, White IR. Contact allergy-emerging allergens and public health impact. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(7):E2404. doi:10.3390/ijerph17072404
COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2020/1682 of November 12, 2020 amending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products. Official J Eur Union. 2020;379:31-33.
Uter W, Worm M, Brans R, Wagner N, Bauer A, Geier J; Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK). Patch test results with caine mix III and its three constituents in consecutive patients of the IVDK. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;84(6):481-483. doi:10.1111/cod.13778.
Isaksson M, Andersen KE, Brandão FM, et al. Patch testing with budesonide in serial dilutions. A multicentre study of the EECDRG. Contact Dermatitis. 2000 Jun;42(6):352-354.
Mercader-García P, Pastor-Nieto MA, García-Doval I, et al. Are the Spanish baseline series markers sufficient to detect contact allergy to corticosteroids in Spain? A GEIDAC prospective study. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78(1):76-82. doi:10.1111/cod.12874
Uter W, Spiewak R, Cooper SM, et al. Contact allergy to ingredients of topical medications: results of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA), 2009-2012. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25(11):1305-1312. doi:10.1002/pds.4064
Isaksson M, Ryberg K, Goossens A, Bruze M. Recommendation to include a textile dye mix in the European baseline series. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73(1):15-20. doi:10.1111/cod.12400
Stenton J, Dahlin J, Antelmi A, et al. Patch testing with a textile dye mix with and without Disperse Orange 3. Contact Dermatitis. 2020;83(5):387-390. doi:10.1111/cod.13660
Thyssen JP, Andersen KE, Bruze M, et al. p-Phenylenediamine sensitization is more prevalent in central and southern European patch test centres than in Scandinavian: results from a multicentre study. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60(6):314-319. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2009.01547.x
Kirchlechner S, Hübner A, Uter W. Survey of sensitizing components of oxidative hair dyes (retail and professional products) in Germany. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2016;14(7):707-715. doi:10.1111/ddg.13099