North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results 2013–2014

Background Patch testing is the most important diagnostic tool for the assessment of allergic contact dermatitis. Objective This study documents the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) patch testing results from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2014. 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 4871 patients were tested. There were 3255 patients (66.8%) who had at least 1 positive reaction and 2412 patients (49.5%) who were ultimately determined to have a primary diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. A total of 434 patients (8.9%) had occupationally related skin disease. There were 9726 positive allergic reactions. Compared with the previous reporting periods (2011–2012 and 2001–2012, including at least three 2-year cycles), positive reaction rates for the top 25 screening allergens statistically increased for 2 allergens: methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (6.4%; risk ratios, 1.26 [1.07–1.50] and 2.08 [1.84–2.37]) and hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2.6%; risk ratios, 1.34 [1.02–1.76] and 1.23 [1.00–1.51]). Methylisothiazolinone, which was added to the screening series for this 2013–2014 cycle, had the third highest positive reaction rate of allergens tested (10.9%). Four other newly added allergen preparations—formaldehyde 2% (7%), diphenylguanidine (3.8%), propylene glycol 100% (2.8%), and benzophenone-4 (2.1%)—all had reaction rates greater than 2%. Twenty-one percent of tested patients had at least 1 relevant allergic reaction to an allergen not on the NACDG series; 14.6% of these were occupationally related. The T.R.U.E. TEST (SmartPractice Denmark, Hillerød, Denmark) would have hypothetically missed one quarter to one third of reactions detected by the NACDG screening series. Conclusions These results confirm that the epidemic of sensitivity to methylisothiazolinone previously documented in Europe is also occurring in North America. Patch testing with allergens beyond a standard screening tray is necessary for the complete evaluation of occupational and nonoccupational allergic contact dermatitis.

[1]  J. Geier,et al.  The methylisothiazolinone epidemic goes along with changing patients' characteristics – After cosmetics, industrial applications are the focus , 2020, Contact dermatitis.

[2]  T. Agner,et al.  The epidemic of methylisothiazolinone contact allergy in Europe: follow‐up on changing exposures , 2020, Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV.

[3]  J. Thyssen,et al.  Nickel allergy and allergic contact dermatitis: A clinical review of immunology, epidemiology, exposure, and treatment , 2019, Contact dermatitis.

[4]  D. Holness.  Occupational Dermatosis , 2019, Current Allergy and Asthma Reports.

[5]  A. Salman,et al.  “Slime”: A trending cause of isothiazolinone contact allergy in children , 2019, Contact dermatitis.

[6]  A. Natsch,et al.  Exposure source for skin sensitizing hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool remains elusive: An analytical market surveillance. , 2019, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[7]  E. Warshaw,et al.  Allergic contact dermatitis to slime: The epidemic of isothiazolinone allergy encompasses school glue , 2018, Pediatric dermatology.

[8]  R. Suresh,et al.  The role of expanded series patch testing in identifying causality of residual facial dermatitis following initiation of dupilumab therapy , 2018, JAAD case reports.

[9]  I. White,et al.  Patch testing with the European baseline series fragrance markers: a 2016 update , 2018, The British journal of dermatology.

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

[11]  R. Urwin,et al.  Patch test clinic experience of potential cross‐reactivity of isothiazolinones , 2017, Contact dermatitis.

[12]  J. Silvestre,et al.  Contact sensitization to limonene and linalool hydroperoxides in Spain: a GEIDAC* prospective study , 2017, Contact dermatitis.

[13]  C. Geisler,et al.  Cross‐reactivity between methylisothiazolinone, octylisothiazolinone and benzisothiazolinone using a modified local lymph node assay , 2017, The British journal of dermatology.

[14]  Sherry H Yu,et al.  Patch Testing for Methylisothiazolinone and Methylchloroisothiazolinone-Methylisothiazolinone Contact Allergy. , 2016, JAMA dermatology.

[15]  J. Geier,et al.  Concomitant reactivity to methylisothiazolinone, benzisothiazolinone, and octylisothiazolinone. International Network of Departments of Dermatology data, 2009–2013 , 2015, Contact dermatitis.

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

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

[18]  D. Buckley,et al.  Allergy to oxidized limonene and linalool is frequent in the U.K. , 2014, The British journal of dermatology.

[19]  H. Lapeere,et al.  The dramatic increase in the rate of methylisothiazolinone contact allergy in Belgium: a multicentre study , 2014, Contact dermatitis.

[20]  N. Meyer,et al.  Outbreak of contact sensitization to methylisothiazolinone: an analysis of French data from the REVIDAL‐GERDA network , 2014, Contact dermatitis.

[21]  K. Andersen,et al.  Further evidence of the methylisothiazolinone epidemic , 2014, Contact dermatitis.

[22]  G. Johnston.  The rise in prevalence of contact allergy to methylisothiazolinone in the British Isles , 2014, Contact dermatitis.

[23]  M. Gonçalo,et al.  Methylisothiazolinone: second ‘epidemic’ of isothiazolinone sensitization , 2014, Contact dermatitis.

[24]  K. Alanko,et al.  An epidemic of contact allergy to methylisothiazolinone in Finland , 2014, Contact dermatitis.

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

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

[27]  K. Zug,et al.  Methylisothiazolinone , 2013, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[28]  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.

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

[30]  M. Bruze,et al.  Air‐oxidized linalool–a frequent cause of fragrance contact allergy , 2012, Contact dermatitis.

[31]  A. Goossens,et al.  Patch test concentrations (doses in mg/cm2) for the 12 non‐mix fragrance substances regulated by European legislation , 2012, Contact dermatitis.

[32]  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.

[33]  B. Gruvberger,et al.  Routine diagnostic patch-testing with formaldehyde 2.0% (0.6 mg/cm2) may be an advantage compared to 1.0%. , 2010, Acta dermato-venereologica.

[34]  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.

[35]  J. Marks.  Patch-test results of the North American contact dermatitis group 2005-2006 (Dermatitis (2009) 20, 3 (149-160)) , 2009 .

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

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

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

[39]  J. Johansen,et al.  Patients with multiple contact allergies: a review , 2007, Contact dermatitis.

[40]  D. Buckley.  Fragrance ingredient labelling in products on sale in the U.K. , 2007, The British journal of dermatology.

[41]  J. Geier,et al.  Sensitization to 26 fragrances to be labelled according to current European regulation , 2007, Contact dermatitis.

[42]  E. Warshaw,et al.  Allergenicity and Cross‐Reactivity of Coconut Oil Derivatives: A Double‐Blind Randomized Controlled Pilot Study , 2006, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

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

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

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

[46]  S. Rastogi,et al.  The composition of fine fragrances is changing , 2003, Contact dermatitis.

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

[48]  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.

[49]  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.

[50]  J. Marks.  North American Contact Dermatitis Group standard tray patch test results (1992 to 1994) , 1996 .

[51]  L. E. Rosenthal,et al.  Patch Testing With a Routine Screening Tray in North America, 1985 Through 1989: I. Frequency of Response , 1991 .

[52]  L. E. Rosenthal,et al.  Prevalence and relevance of allergic reactions in patients patch tested in North America--1984 to 1985. , 1989, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[53]  H. Maibach,et al.  The frequency of contact sensitivity in North America 1972–74 North American Contact Dermatitis Group , 1975, Contact dermatitis.

[54]  Epidemiology of contact dermatitis in North America: 1972. , 1973, Archives of dermatology.