Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology · 2011
A multi-center, retrospective review of patch testing for contact dermatitis in allergy practices.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Camacho-Halili Marie, Axelrod Sara, Michelis Mary Ann, Lighvani Sebastian, Khan Farah, Leon Scherly, Aquino Marcella R, Davis-Lorton Mark, Fonacier Luz S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Studies assessing patch testing (PT) in allergy practices are limited.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether PT results using a limited panel of allergens such as in the Thin-Layer Rapid-Use Epicutaneous Test (TT) as compared with an expanded panel, such as the addition of supplemental allergens (North American Contact Dermatitis [NACD] Panel, Dormer Cosmetics, hairdressing series, corticosteroid series, and personal products) will miss a significant number of positive PTs. To compare our PT results with published data from dermatology practices.
METHODS: This is a 5-year multicenter retrospective chart review of PT at 3 separate allergy practices.
RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-seven patients (mean age, 49.8 years) were patch tested. Eighty-two percent were female; 54% reported an atopic history. Of the standardized allergens, the 5 most common positives were nickel sulfate, fragrance mix I, p-phenylenediamine (PPD), thimerosal, and cobalt chloride. Two hundred eighteen (56.9%; 95% CI = 51.9-61.8%) patients were positive to at least 1 TT allergen. Ninety-eight (25.6%; 95% CI = 21.5-30.2%) patients were positive to both a TT and a supplemental allergen. Forty-eight (12.5%; 95% CI = 9.6-16.2%) patients were negative to a TT allergen but positive to a supplemental allergen.
CONCLUSION: Positive allergens would have been missed in 12.5% of patients when evaluating with TT allergens alone, whereas 25.6% would be partially evaluated. Patch test performance characteristics for these allergy practices appear to parallel that seen for dermatology. The TT remains an adequate screening tool in an allergy practice, but a more comprehensive panel may be needed to fully evaluate contact dermatitis.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether PT results using a limited panel of allergens such as in the Thin-Layer Rapid-Use Epicutaneous Test (TT) as compared with an expanded panel, such as the addition of supplemental allergens (North American Contact Dermatitis [NACD] Panel, Dormer Cosmetics, hairdressing series, corticosteroid series, and personal products) will miss a significant number of positive PTs. To compare our PT results with published data from dermatology practices.
METHODS: This is a 5-year multicenter retrospective chart review of PT at 3 separate allergy practices.
RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-seven patients (mean age, 49.8 years) were patch tested. Eighty-two percent were female; 54% reported an atopic history. Of the standardized allergens, the 5 most common positives were nickel sulfate, fragrance mix I, p-phenylenediamine (PPD), thimerosal, and cobalt chloride. Two hundred eighteen (56.9%; 95% CI = 51.9-61.8%) patients were positive to at least 1 TT allergen. Ninety-eight (25.6%; 95% CI = 21.5-30.2%) patients were positive to both a TT and a supplemental allergen. Forty-eight (12.5%; 95% CI = 9.6-16.2%) patients were negative to a TT allergen but positive to a supplemental allergen.
CONCLUSION: Positive allergens would have been missed in 12.5% of patients when evaluating with TT allergens alone, whereas 25.6% would be partially evaluated. Patch test performance characteristics for these allergy practices appear to parallel that seen for dermatology. The TT remains an adequate screening tool in an allergy practice, but a more comprehensive panel may be needed to fully evaluate contact dermatitis.