Common contact sensitizers in the Czech Republic. Patch test results in 12,058 patients with suspected contact dermatitis *

The patch test results of 12 058 patients (4416 male and 7642 female) referred to 9 clinics in the Czech Republic between January 1997 and December 2001 were evaluated. Patients were tested with the same series of allergens by using the standardized patch testing method. The current standard tool for diagnosing allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in the Czech Republic is the Trolab® test panel (Hermal, Reinbeck, Germany) which consists of 23 allergens. Only a few data exists on ACD in the Czech Republic. All patients were tested with the 23 allergen European standard series. Of these patients, 7661 (63.5%) had 1 or more positive reactions. On average, there were 2.8 positive reactions per patient. ACD, according to clinical relevance, was diagnosed in 5339 (69.7%) of these patients. The most frequent allergens were metals (22.9%), especially nickel sulfate (13.8%), and followed by Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru) (7.3%), fragrance mix (5.8%), formaldehyde (4.2%) and lanolin alcohol (3.0%). Our results were compared with results from other countries. We conclude that the European standard series is suitable for detection of ACD in the Czech Republic.

[1]  W. Hemmer,et al.  Patch Testing in Children, Adults, and the Elderly: Influence of Age and Sex on Sensitization Patterns , 2003, Pediatric dermatology.

[2]  O. Gefeller,et al.  Risk factors for contact allergy to nickel – results of a multifactorial analysis , 2003, Contact dermatitis.

[3]  F. Storrs Fisher's Contact Dermatitis, 5th ed , 2002 .

[4]  I. Hussain,et al.  Suitability of the European standard series of patch test allergensin Pakistani patients , 2002, Contact dermatitis.

[5]  Esra Akasya-Hillenbrand,et al.  Patch test results in 542 patients with suspected contact dermatitis in Turkey , 2002, Contact dermatitis.

[6]  C. Lidén Legislative and preventive measures related to contact dermatitis * , 2001, Contact dermatitis.

[7]  V. Singhal,et al.  Common Contact Sensitizers in Delhi , 2000, The Journal of dermatology.

[8]  J. Geier,et al.  The MOAHLFA index in 17 centers of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) over 6 years , 1999, Contact dermatitis.

[9]  A. Goossens,et al.  Thoughts on sensitizers in a standard patch test series , 1999, Contact dermatitis.

[10]  Monk Patch testing in a British district general hospital , 1999, Clinical and experimental dermatology.

[11]  A. Bener,et al.  Allergic contact dermatitis in the United Arab Emirates , 1999, International journal of dermatology.

[12]  J. S. Taylor,et al.  North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for the detection of delayed-type hypersensitivity to topical allergens. , 1998, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[13]  V. Sharma,et al.  Common contact sensitizers in Chandigarh, India , 1998, Contact dermatitis.

[14]  Y. Liu,et al.  Patch test reactions to the chinese standard screening allergens in 1,135 patients investigated for allergic contact dermatitis , 1997 .

[15]  T. Y. Lee,et al.  Patch testing of 490 patients in Hong Kong , 1996, Contact dermatitis.

[16]  P. Elsner,et al.  Sensitizations to allergens of the European standard series at the Department of Dermatology in Zurich 1990-1994. , 1996, Dermatology.

[17]  J. Fowler,et al.  Fisher's Contact Dermatitis , 1995 .

[18]  A. Valero,et al.  Contact dermatitis: clinical review of 800 patients tested using the standard European series. , 1995, Allergologia et immunopathologia.

[19]  M. Bigby Contact and Occupational Dermatology , 1993 .

[20]  J. Ring,et al.  [Epicutaneous testing with a standard series. Results in 12,026 patients]. , 1988, Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete.