The additive value of patch testing non-commercial test substances and patients' own products in a clinic of occupational dermatology.
1,3-benzenedimethanamine
N-(2-phenylethyl) derivatives (BDMA-D)
PVC gloves
allergic contact dermatitis
coco-amphopropionate
hydrogenated formaldehydebenzenamine polymer (FBAP)
in-house test substances
laboratory technicians
pharmaceutical industry
plants
synthetic resin systems
Journal
Contact dermatitis
ISSN: 1600-0536
Titre abrégé: Contact Dermatitis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7604950
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2023
Jan 2023
Historique:
revised:
12
07
2022
received:
12
05
2022
accepted:
13
07
2022
pubmed:
23
7
2022
medline:
21
12
2022
entrez:
22
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Commercial patch test substances do not cover all occupational contact allergens. Workplace materials and in-house test substances are tested to complement the investigation of occupational skin disease (OSD). To quantify the additional value of testing workplace materials and non-commercial in-house test substances in the diagnosis of OSD. Patients files of 544 patients patch tested at the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health in 2015-2019 were reviewed for occupation, diagnoses and patch test results. OSD was diagnosed in 353 (64.9%) of the patients. A total of 206 (37.9%) patients had occupational allergic contact dermatitis (OACD). In 19 (3.5%) patients, the only clues to the diagnoses of OACD were positive reactions to workplace materials, and in 20 (3.7%) patients, the diagnosis of OACD was based on commercially unavailable test substances. In 167 OACD cases diagnosed by commercial test substances, additional causes were found in 17 by testing patients' own and non-commercial test substances. In 43 (7.9%) cases, positive reactions to workplace materials reinforced diagnoses based on commercial test substances. The overall additive value of testing own products was 16.7% (91 cases). We would have missed 39 (18.9%) of our 206 OACD cases if we had solely used commercial test substances.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Commercial patch test substances do not cover all occupational contact allergens. Workplace materials and in-house test substances are tested to complement the investigation of occupational skin disease (OSD).
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To quantify the additional value of testing workplace materials and non-commercial in-house test substances in the diagnosis of OSD.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Patients files of 544 patients patch tested at the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health in 2015-2019 were reviewed for occupation, diagnoses and patch test results.
RESULTS
RESULTS
OSD was diagnosed in 353 (64.9%) of the patients. A total of 206 (37.9%) patients had occupational allergic contact dermatitis (OACD). In 19 (3.5%) patients, the only clues to the diagnoses of OACD were positive reactions to workplace materials, and in 20 (3.7%) patients, the diagnosis of OACD was based on commercially unavailable test substances. In 167 OACD cases diagnosed by commercial test substances, additional causes were found in 17 by testing patients' own and non-commercial test substances. In 43 (7.9%) cases, positive reactions to workplace materials reinforced diagnoses based on commercial test substances. The overall additive value of testing own products was 16.7% (91 cases).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
We would have missed 39 (18.9%) of our 206 OACD cases if we had solely used commercial test substances.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35864599
doi: 10.1111/cod.14191
pmc: PMC10087703
doi:
Substances chimiques
Allergens
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
27-34Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Contact Dermatitis. 2015 Dec;73(6):372-3
pubmed: 26269007
Contact Dermatitis. 2010 Dec;63(6):357-63
pubmed: 21070224
Contact Dermatitis. 2003 Oct;49(4):202-5
pubmed: 14996069
Contact Dermatitis. 2013 Jan;68(1):42-9
pubmed: 22994308
Contact Dermatitis. 2014 Sep;71(3):145-53
pubmed: 24990536
Contact Dermatitis. 2016 Apr;74(4):246-8
pubmed: 26948415
Contact Dermatitis. 2020 Dec;83(6):475-486
pubmed: 32829502
Contact Dermatitis. 2023 Jan;88(1):27-34
pubmed: 35864599
Contact Dermatitis. 2020 Jul;83(1):55-57
pubmed: 32173872
Contact Dermatitis. 2015 Feb;72(2):120-1
pubmed: 25491244
Contact Dermatitis. 2020 Dec;83(6):515-518
pubmed: 32588436
Contact Dermatitis. 2009 Oct;61(4):231-5
pubmed: 19825095
Contact Dermatitis. 2016 Dec;75(6):358-362
pubmed: 27555300
Arch Dermatol. 2006 Oct;142(10):1326-30
pubmed: 17043188
Contact Dermatitis. 2015 Oct;73(4):195-221
pubmed: 26179009
Contact Dermatitis. 2017 Nov;77(5):341-343
pubmed: 29063695