Gutiérrez TT, Ocampo CJ, Gómez FM, Herz RM

Language: Spanish
References: 33
Page: 15-23
PDF size: 184.53 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: The response pattern of contact dermatitis is produced through one of two major pathways: irritant or allergic. Patch testing is useful for its diagnosis, mainly in cases where the cause of chronic eczema has not been elucidated.
Objectives: To identify the most common allergens that cause allergic contact dermatitis at the Department of Dermatology at the University Hospital “Dr. José Eleuterio González”, through patch testing using the European Standard Series as well as the anatomical sites most frequently involved; to classify the positive reactions as crossed related, concomitant or independent; to determine the relevance of the positive reactions according to its relation with the eczema under study and to determine the sensitizing agent in those with current relevance; to correlate the occupation of the patients with the positive allergens and to evaluate the improvement of the patients after one year avoiding the positive allergens.
Material and Methods : An observational, prospective, and longitudinal study through the application of epicutaneous allergens included in the European Standard Series was conducted at the Department of Dermatology at the University Hospital “Dr. José Eleuterio González” in patients in whom allergic contact dermatitis was suspected seen from January 2003 through December 2005.
Results: We studied a total of 82 patients, 57 female (70%) and 25 male (30%). The five most common allergens were nickel (19.8%), followed by chromium (14.6%), fragrance mix (9.4%), parabens (7%), and para-formaldehyde resin (5.1%). Female patients showed a positive reaction to nickel (20%), chromium (11.8%), fragrance mix (9.4%), parabens (8.2%), and para-formaldehyde resin (7.1%). Male patients showed positive reactions to chromium (22.6%), nickel (19.4%), fragrance mix (9.7%), mercaptobenzothiazole (9.7%), and balsam of Peru, neomycin, and thiuram mix each positive in 6.5%.
The majority of the positive allergens (88/116) had a current relevance and the anatomical site most frequently involved were the hands (31.2%). Negative results were obtained for clioquinol, colophony, primin, and tixocortol- 21-pivalate.
Conclusions: Patch testing should be included in the study of patients with chronic eczema that have not responded adequately to conventional therapy to detect the responsible allergens.

REFERENCES

1. Guerrero, M. e I. Cousin, “Dermatitis por contacto (1a parte)”, Alergia e inmunologia pediatr. 1998; 7 (1): 18-23.

2. Guerrero, M. e I. Cousin, “Dermatitis por contacto (2a parte)”, Alergia e inmunologia pediatr. 1997; 6 (3): 108-112.

3. Antezana, M. y F. Parker, “Occupational Contact Dermatitis”, Immunology and Allergy Clinics of North America. 2003; 23 (2): 269-269.

4. Adams, R. M., “Occupational Skin Disease”, en Fitzpatrick’s dermatology in general medicine, 5a ed., Mc Graw-Hill, Nueva York, 1999: 1609-1633.

5. Cohen, David E. y H, Noushin, “Treatment of irritant and allergic contact dermatitis”, Dermatologic Therapy. 2004; 17: 334-340.

6. Guin, J. D., Practical Contact Dermatitis, Mc Graw-Hill, Nueva York, 1995.

7. Kucenic, M. J. y D. V. Belsito, “Occupational allergic contact dermatitis is more prevalent than irritant contact dermatitis: A 5-year study”, J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2002; 46: 698-699.

8. Elston, D., D. Ahmed, K. Watsky y K. Schwarzenberger K., “Hand dermatitis”, J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2002; 47: 291-299.

9. Goon, A. y C. L. Goh, “Epidemiology of occupational skin disease in Singapore 1989-1998”, Contact Dermatitis. 2000; 43: 133-136.

10. Rycroft, R. J. G., “Occupational Dermatoses” en Rook, Wilkinson y Ebling, Textbook of Dermatology, 6a ed., Blackwell Science, Malden, 1998: 861-881.

11. García-Bravo, B. et al., “Estudio epidemiológico de la dermatitis por contacto en España”, Actas Dermsífilogr. 2004; 95 (1): 14-24.

12. Beltrani, V.S., y V.P. Beltrani“Contact Dermatitis”, Ann. Allergy. Asthma. Immunol. 1997; 78 (2): 160-173.

13. Manssur, Nassiri et al., “Allergic contact dermatitis in Iran”, Contact Dermatitis. 2005; 52: 154-158.

14. Pieter, G. M., “Evidence-based diagnosis in patch testing”, Contact Dermatitis. 2003: 48: 121-125.

15. Nethercott, J. R., “Practical problems in the use of patch testing in the evaluation of patients with contact dermatitis”, Curr. Prob. Dermatol. 1990; 2: 4.

16. Belsito, D., “Patch testing with a standard allergen (screening) tray: rewards and risks”, Dermatol. Therapy. 2004; 17: 231-239.

17. Jackson, E. M., “The Bioestatistical Significance of Panel Size in Patch Testing”, Am. J. Contact Dermatitis. 1994; 5: 228-230.

18. Conde-Salazar, L., “Concepto y clasificación de las dermatosis ocupacionales”, en L. Conde-Salazar y A. Ancona Alayón (eds.), Der ma - tosis profesionales, Signament

19. Eidenari, S. S., B. M. Anzini, P. D. Anese y A. M. Otolese, “Patch and prick test study of 593 healthy subjects”, Contact Dermatitis. 1990; 23: 162-167. 20.Conde-Salazar, L., “Pruebas epicutáneas o ‘patch test’”, en L. Conde- Salazar y A. Ancona Alayón (eds.), Dermatosis profesionales, Signament Editions, 2000; 19-26.

20. 20.Conde-Salazar, L., “Pruebas epicutáneas o ‘patch test’”, en L. Conde- Salazar y A. Ancona Alayón (eds.), Dermatosis profesionales, Signament Editions, 2000; 19-26.

21. Chemotechcique Diagnostics, catálogo 2003/2004. 22.Nettis, E., “Occupational irritant and allergic contact dermatitis among health workers”, Contact Dermatitis. 2002; 46 (2): 101-107.

22. Rycroft, R. J. G., “Occupational Dermatoses”, en Rook, Wilkinson y Ebling, Textbook of Dermatology, 6a ed., Blackwell Science, Malden, 1998: 861-881.

23. Saripalli, Y., F. Achen y D. Belsito, “The detection of clinically relevant contact allergens using a standard screening tray of twentythree allergens”, J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2003; 49: 65-69.

24. Lee, A., “Occupational skin disease in hairdressers”, Austalas. J. Dermatol. 2001; 42 (1): 1-6.

25. 26.Avnstorp, C., “Follow-up of workers from the prefabricated concrete industry after the addition of ferrous sulfate to Danish cement”, Contact Dermatitis. 1989; 20: 365-371.

26. Brancaccio, R. y M Álvarez, “Contact allergy to food”, Dermatol. Therapy. 2004; 17 (4): 302-313.

27. Uter, W., J. Hegewald, W. Aberer et al., “The European standard series in 9 European countries, 2002/2003 – first results of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies”, Contact Dermatitis. 2002; 2005: 136-145.

28. 29.Bruynzeel, D. P., T. L. Diepgen, K. E. Andersen et al., “Monitoring the European standard series in 10 centers 1996-2000”, Contact Dermatitis. 2005; 53: 146-149.

29. Britton, J. E., S. M. Wilkinson, J. S. English et al., “The British standard series of contact dermatitis allergens: validation in clinical practice and value for clinical governance”, Br. J. Dermatol. 2003; 148: 259-264.

30. Machovcova, A. E., D. Dastychova, A. Kostalova, Vocilkova et al., “Common contact sensitizers in the Czech Republic. Patch test results in 12,058 patients with suspected contact dermatitis”, Contact Dermatitis. 2005; 53: 162-166.

31. Akyol, A., A. Boyvat, Y. Peksari y E. Gurgey, “Contact sensitivity to standard series allergens in 1038 patients with contact dermatitis in Turkey”, Contact Dermatitis. 2005; 52: 333-337.

32. Li, L. F., J. Guo y J. Wang, “Environmental contact factors in eczema and the results of patch testing Chinese patients with a modified European standard series of allergens”, Contact Dermatitis. 2004; 51: 22-25.

33. Pratt, M. D., D. V. Belsito, V. A. DeLeo et al., “North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results. Study period”, Dermatitis. 2004, 2001-2002; 15: 176-183.