Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug · 2013
North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2009 to 2010.
СтатьяМногоцентровое 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.
Warshaw Erin M, Belsito Donald V, Taylor James S, Sasseville Denis, DeKoven Joel G, Zirwas Matthew J, Fransway Anthony F, Mathias C G Toby, Zug Kathryn A, DeLeo Vincent A, Fowler Joseph F, Marks James G, Pratt Melanie D, Storrs Frances J, Maibach Howard I
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patch testing is an important diagnostic tool for determination of substances responsible for allergic contact dermatitis.
OBJECTIVE: This study reports the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) patch testing results from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2010.
METHODS: At 12 centers in North America, patients were tested in a standardized manner with a screening series of 70 allergens. Data were manually verified and entered into a central database. Descriptive frequencies were calculated, and trends were analyzed using χ2 statistics.
RESULTS: A total of 4308 patients were tested. Of these, 2614 (60.7%) had at least 1 positive reaction, and 2284 (46.3%) were ultimately determined to have a primary diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. Four hundred twenty-seven (9.9%) patients had occupationally related skin disease. There were 6855 positive allergic reactions. As compared with the previous reporting period (2007-2008), the positive reaction rates statistically decreased for 20 allergens (nickel, neomycin, Myroxylon pereirae, cobalt, formaldehyde, quaternium 15, methydibromoglutaronitrile/phenoxyethanol, methylchlorisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, potassium dichromate, diazolidinyl urea, propolis, dimethylol dimethylhydantoin, 2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol, methyl methacrylate, ethyl acrylate, glyceryl thioglycolate, dibucaine, amidoamine, clobetasol, and dimethyloldihydroxyethyleneurea; P < 0.05) and statistically increased for 4 allergens (fragrance mix II, iodopropynyl butylcarbamate, propylene glycol, and benzocaine; P < 0.05). Approximately one quarter of tested patients had at least 1 relevant allergic reaction to a non-NACDG allergen. Hypothetically, approximately one quarter of reactions detected by NACDG allergens would have been missed by TRUE TEST (SmartPractice Denmark, Hillerød, Denmark).
CONCLUSIONS: These results affirm the value of patch testing with many allergens.
OBJECTIVE: This study reports the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) patch testing results from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2010.
METHODS: At 12 centers in North America, patients were tested in a standardized manner with a screening series of 70 allergens. Data were manually verified and entered into a central database. Descriptive frequencies were calculated, and trends were analyzed using χ2 statistics.
RESULTS: A total of 4308 patients were tested. Of these, 2614 (60.7%) had at least 1 positive reaction, and 2284 (46.3%) were ultimately determined to have a primary diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. Four hundred twenty-seven (9.9%) patients had occupationally related skin disease. There were 6855 positive allergic reactions. As compared with the previous reporting period (2007-2008), the positive reaction rates statistically decreased for 20 allergens (nickel, neomycin, Myroxylon pereirae, cobalt, formaldehyde, quaternium 15, methydibromoglutaronitrile/phenoxyethanol, methylchlorisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, potassium dichromate, diazolidinyl urea, propolis, dimethylol dimethylhydantoin, 2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol, methyl methacrylate, ethyl acrylate, glyceryl thioglycolate, dibucaine, amidoamine, clobetasol, and dimethyloldihydroxyethyleneurea; P < 0.05) and statistically increased for 4 allergens (fragrance mix II, iodopropynyl butylcarbamate, propylene glycol, and benzocaine; P < 0.05). Approximately one quarter of tested patients had at least 1 relevant allergic reaction to a non-NACDG allergen. Hypothetically, approximately one quarter of reactions detected by NACDG allergens would have been missed by TRUE TEST (SmartPractice Denmark, Hillerød, Denmark).
CONCLUSIONS: These results affirm the value of patch testing with many allergens.