North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2015–2016

Background Patch testing is an important diagnostic tool for the assessment of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Objective This study documents the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) patch testing results from January 1, 2015, to February 28, 2017. Methods At 13 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 &khgr;2 test. Results A total of 5597 patients were tested. There were 3725 patients (66.6%) who had at least 1 positive reaction, and 2798 patients (50.2%) were ultimately determined to have a primary diagnosis of ACD. A total of 572 patients (10.2%) had occupationally related skin disease. There were 10,983 positive allergic reactions. Nickel remained the most commonly detected allergen (17.5%). Methylisothiazolinone, which was added to the screening series for the 2013–2014 cycle, had the second highest positive reaction rate of allergens tested (13.4%). Compared with the previous reporting periods (2013–2014) and (2005–2014), positive reaction rates for the top 35 screening allergens statistically increased for only 1 allergen: hydroxyethyl methacrylate (3.4%; risk ratios, 1.24 [confidence interval, 1.00–1.54] and 1.46 [confidence interval, 1.23–1.73]). Three newly added allergen preparations—ammonium persulfate (1.7%), chlorhexidine (0.8%), and hydroquinone (0.3%)—all had a reaction rate of less than 2%. Twenty-three percent of the tested patients had at least 1 relevant allergic reaction to an allergen not on the NACDG series; 12% of these were occupationally related. T.R.U.E. Test (SmartPractice Denmark, Hillerød, Denmark) would have hypothetically missed one quarter to almost 40% of reactions detected by the NACDG screening series. Conclusions These results confirm that the epidemic of sensitivity to methylisothiazolinone has continued in North America. Patch testing with allergens beyond a screening tray is necessary for a complete evaluation of occupational and nonoccupational ACD.

[1]  E. Warshaw,et al.  Epidemiology of nickel sensitivity: Retrospective cross‐sectional analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data 1994‐2014 , 2019, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[2]  M. Pastor-Nieto,et al.  Non‐occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by long‐lasting nail polish kits for home use: ‘the tip of the iceberg’ , 2018, Contact dermatitis.

[3]  T. Agner,et al.  Allergic contact dermatitis caused by nail acrylates in Europe. An EECDRG study , 2018, Contact dermatitis.

[4]  W. Uter,et al.  European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA): results with the European baseline series, 2013/14 , 2017, Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV.

[5]  R. Urwin,et al.  Methylisothiazolinone: the epidemic is declining – but not gone , 2017, Contact dermatitis.

[6]  E. Warshaw,et al.  Epidemic of Isothiazolinone Allergy in North America: Prevalence Data From the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2013–2014 , 2017, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[7]  D. Holness,et al.  (Meth)Acrylate Occupational Contact Dermatitis in Nail Salon Workers: A Case Series , 2017, Journal of cutaneous medicine and surgery.

[8]  E. Warshaw,et al.  American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series: 2017 Update. , 2017, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[9]  E. Warshaw,et al.  North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results 2013–2014 , 2000, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[10]  I. White,et al.  The burden of allergic contact dermatitis caused by acrylates , 2016, Contact dermatitis.

[11]  A. Spencer,et al.  Acrylate and methacrylate contact allergy and allergic contact disease: a 13‐year review , 2016, Contact dermatitis.

[12]  B. Berne,et al.  Several cases of undesirable effects caused by methacrylate ultraviolet‐curing nail polish for non‐professional use , 2016, Contact dermatitis.

[13]  S. Stocks,et al.  Contact allergy resulting from the use of acrylate nails is increasing in both users and those who are occupationally exposed , 2016, Contact dermatitis.

[14]  J. Geier,et al.  Contact allergy to acrylates and methacrylates in consumers and nail artists – data of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology, 2004–2013 , 2015, Contact dermatitis.

[15]  E. Warshaw,et al.  North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2011–2012 , 2015, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[16]  M. Bruze,et al.  Swedish Experiences From Patch Testing Methylisothiazolinone Separately. , 2015, Acta dermato-venereologica.

[17]  E. Warshaw,et al.  North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2009 to 2010 , 2013, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[18]  E. Warshaw,et al.  North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results for 2007–2008 , 2013, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[19]  H. Maibach,et al.  Patch testing with 2.0% (0.60 mg/cm2) formaldehyde instead of 1.0% (0.30 mg/cm2) detects significantly more contact allergy , 2013, Contact dermatitis.

[20]  E. Warshaw,et al.  American contact dermatitis society core allergen series. , 2013, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[21]  P. Frosch,et al.  The ‘overall yield’ with the baseline series – a useful addition to the array of MOAHLFA factors describing departmental characteristics of patch tested patients , 2011, Contact dermatitis.

[22]  E. Warshaw,et al.  Positivity Ratio and Reaction Index: Patch‐Test Quality‐Control Metrics Applied to the North American Contact Dermatitis Group Database , 2010, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[23]  E. Warshaw,et al.  Patch‐Test Results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005‐2006 , 2009, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[24]  E. Warshaw,et al.  North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch‐Test Results, 2003‐2004 Study Period , 2008, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[25]  L. Kiemeney,et al.  Relevance of Positive Patch‐Test Reactions to Fragrance Mix , 2008, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[26]  J. Fowler,et al.  Skin Reactions to Pimecrolimus Cream 1% in Patients Allergic to Propylene Glycol: A Double‐Blind Randomized Study , 2007, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[27]  H. Maibach,et al.  North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch‐Test Results, 2001‐2002 Study Period , 2004, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[28]  O. Gefeller,et al.  Guidelines for the descriptive presentation and statistical analysis of contact allergy data , 2004, Contact dermatitis.

[29]  H. Maibach,et al.  North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1998 to 2000 , 2003 .

[30]  J. S. Taylor,et al.  North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1996-1998. , 2000, Archives of dermatology.

[31]  S. Feldman,et al.  Significance-prevalence index number: a reinterpretation and enhancement of data from the North American contact dermatitis group. , 1999, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.