Patch test results in a Dutch paediatric population with suspected contact allergy: A retrospective cohort study.
adolescent
allergic contact dermatitis
children
contact allergy
patch tests
prevalence
retrospective studies
Journal
Contact dermatitis
ISSN: 1600-0536
Titre abrégé: Contact Dermatitis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7604950
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2023
Feb 2023
Historique:
revised:
26
09
2022
received:
22
07
2022
accepted:
29
09
2022
pubmed:
3
10
2022
medline:
14
1
2023
entrez:
2
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in paediatric patients is on the rise. Continuous identification of emerging allergens is of great importance to ensure accurate patch testing. To assess the frequency and relevance of contact sensitivity in children and adolescents and evaluate changes in sensitization rates in the last decade. All patients with suspected ACD who underwent patch testing at the Amsterdam University Medical Centers between 2015 and 2021 were included. Of 439 patients tested with the European Baseline Series (EBS) and additional series, 334 (76%) patients had at least 1 positive reaction and 172 patients (39%) had 1 or more relevant positive reactions. If additional series would have been omitted, 20% of patients would have been underdiagnosed. Compared to patients tested between 1996 and 2013, reactions to metal allergens, isothiazolinones, methyldibromo glutaronitrile, carba mix, amerchol L-101, and benzophenone-4 were more frequently observed. This study confirms the need for patch testing in paediatric patients suspected of having ACD. For accurate patch testing, it is advised to include additional series.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in paediatric patients is on the rise. Continuous identification of emerging allergens is of great importance to ensure accurate patch testing.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To assess the frequency and relevance of contact sensitivity in children and adolescents and evaluate changes in sensitization rates in the last decade.
METHODS
METHODS
All patients with suspected ACD who underwent patch testing at the Amsterdam University Medical Centers between 2015 and 2021 were included.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 439 patients tested with the European Baseline Series (EBS) and additional series, 334 (76%) patients had at least 1 positive reaction and 172 patients (39%) had 1 or more relevant positive reactions. If additional series would have been omitted, 20% of patients would have been underdiagnosed. Compared to patients tested between 1996 and 2013, reactions to metal allergens, isothiazolinones, methyldibromo glutaronitrile, carba mix, amerchol L-101, and benzophenone-4 were more frequently observed.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study confirms the need for patch testing in paediatric patients suspected of having ACD. For accurate patch testing, it is advised to include additional series.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36183152
doi: 10.1111/cod.14231
pmc: PMC10091938
doi:
Substances chimiques
Allergens
0
Metals
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
120-128Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2015 Aug;26(5):446-55
pubmed: 25939691
Contact Dermatitis. 2020 Feb;82(2):87-93
pubmed: 31599977
Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2013 Jun;24(4):321-9
pubmed: 23373713
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Feb;34(2):333-339
pubmed: 31419348
Contact Dermatitis. 2022 Sep;87(3):265-272
pubmed: 35451136
Pediatrics. 2008 Feb;121 Suppl 3:S172-91
pubmed: 18245511
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Sep;83(3):946-947
pubmed: 32004642
Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2020 Jun 16;20(9):41
pubmed: 32548648
Pediatr Dermatol. 2016 Jul;33(4):399-404
pubmed: 27241536
Contact Dermatitis. 2021 Dec;85(6):643-649
pubmed: 34387868
Contact Dermatitis. 2017 Mar;76(3):151-159
pubmed: 27861990
J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2007 Feb;5(2):107-9
pubmed: 17274776
Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2014 Jun;14(6):444
pubmed: 24744270
Dermatitis. 2018 Jul/Aug;29(4):206-212
pubmed: 29933256
Contact Dermatitis. 2007 Mar;56(3):153-6
pubmed: 17295691
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021 Feb;84(2):247-255
pubmed: 33217511
Contact Dermatitis. 2022 Jan;86(1):3-8
pubmed: 34537955
Contact Dermatitis. 2016 Jan;74(1):37-43
pubmed: 26563742
Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2015 Nov;26(7):598-606
pubmed: 26287570
Contact Dermatitis. 2013 Nov;69(5):263-70
pubmed: 24117737
Contact Dermatitis. 2021 Mar 23;:
pubmed: 33759232
Br J Dermatol. 2017 Jul;177(1):84-106
pubmed: 27639188
Contact Dermatitis. 2021 Feb;84(2):109-120
pubmed: 32945543
Dermatitis. 2014 Nov-Dec;25(6):345-55
pubmed: 25384228
Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2020 Jun;16(6):579-589
pubmed: 32490693
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2016 Dec;117(6):661-667
pubmed: 27979024
Dermatitis. 2020 Sep/Oct;31(5):e55-e57
pubmed: 32947464
Dermatitis. 2016 Sep-Oct;27(5):293-302
pubmed: 27649353
Contact Dermatitis. 2018 Nov;79(5):295-302
pubmed: 30094861
Contact Dermatitis. 2015 Oct;73(4):195-221
pubmed: 26179009
Contact Dermatitis. 2019 Jan;80(1):1-4
pubmed: 30421432
Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2014 Apr;14(4):421
pubmed: 24504525
Br J Dermatol. 2017 Aug;177(2):395-405
pubmed: 28470762
Contact Dermatitis. 2023 Feb;88(2):120-128
pubmed: 36183152