International journal of dermatology · 2015
Contact allergy in cheilitis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
O'Gorman Susan M, Torgerson Rochelle R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Recalcitrant non-actinic cheilitis may indicate contact allergy.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of allergic contact cheilitis (ACC) in patients with non-actinic cheilitis and to identify the most relevant allergens.
METHODS: We used an institutional database to identify patients with non-actinic cheilitis who underwent patch testing between January 1, 2001, and August 31, 2011, and conducted a retrospective review of patch test results in these patients. Additional data were obtained from institutional electronic medical records.
RESULTS: Ninety-one patients (70 [77%] female; mean age: 51 years) were included in the study. Almost half (41 [45%]) had a final diagnosis of ACC. Patch testing was performed in line with universally accepted methods, with application on day 1, allergen removal and an initial reading on day 3, and the final reading on day 5. The allergens of most significance were fragrance mix, Myroxylon pereirae resin, dodecyl gallate, octyl gallate, and benzoic acid. Nickel was the most relevant metal allergen.
CONCLUSIONS: Contact allergy is an important consideration in recalcitrant cheilitis. Fragrances, antioxidants, and preservatives dominated the list of relevant allergens in our patients. Nickel and gold were among the top 10 allergens. Almost half (45%) of these patients had a final diagnosis of ACC. Patch testing beyond the oral complete series should be undertaken in any investigation of non-actinic cheilitis.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of allergic contact cheilitis (ACC) in patients with non-actinic cheilitis and to identify the most relevant allergens.
METHODS: We used an institutional database to identify patients with non-actinic cheilitis who underwent patch testing between January 1, 2001, and August 31, 2011, and conducted a retrospective review of patch test results in these patients. Additional data were obtained from institutional electronic medical records.
RESULTS: Ninety-one patients (70 [77%] female; mean age: 51 years) were included in the study. Almost half (41 [45%]) had a final diagnosis of ACC. Patch testing was performed in line with universally accepted methods, with application on day 1, allergen removal and an initial reading on day 3, and the final reading on day 5. The allergens of most significance were fragrance mix, Myroxylon pereirae resin, dodecyl gallate, octyl gallate, and benzoic acid. Nickel was the most relevant metal allergen.
CONCLUSIONS: Contact allergy is an important consideration in recalcitrant cheilitis. Fragrances, antioxidants, and preservatives dominated the list of relevant allergens in our patients. Nickel and gold were among the top 10 allergens. Almost half (45%) of these patients had a final diagnosis of ACC. Patch testing beyond the oral complete series should be undertaken in any investigation of non-actinic cheilitis.