Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Registry Inaugural Case Data

BackgroundLittle is known about the epidemiology of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in US children. More widespread diagnostic confirmation through epicutaneous patch testing is needed. ObjectiveThe aim was to quantify patch test results from providers evaluating US children. MethodsThe study is a retrospective analysis of deidentified patch test results of children aged 18 years or younger, entered by participating providers in the Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Registry, during the first year of data collection (2015–2016). ResultsOne thousand one hundred forty-two cases from 34 US states, entered by 84 providers, were analyzed. Sixty-five percent of cases had one or more positive patch test (PPT), with 48% of cases having 1 or more relevant positive patch test (RPPT). The most common PPT allergens were nickel (22%), fragrance mix I (11%), cobalt (9.1%), balsam of Peru (8.4%), neomycin (7.2%), propylene glycol (6.8%), cocamidopropyl betaine (6.4%), bacitracin (6.2%), formaldehyde (5.7%), and gold (5.7%). ConclusionsThis US database provides multidisciplinary information on pediatric ACD, rates of PPT, and relevant RPPT reactions, validating the high rates of pediatric ACD previously reported in the literature. The registry database is the largest comprehensive collection of US-only pediatric patch test cases on which future research can be built. Continued collaboration between patients, health care providers, manufacturers, and policy makers is needed to decrease the most common allergens in pediatric consumer products.

[1]  S. Jacob,et al.  Pre-Emptive Avoidance Strategy (P.E.A.S.) – addressing allergic contact dermatitis in pediatric populations , 2016, Expert review of clinical immunology.

[2]  J. Treat,et al.  Allergic contact dermatitis: Kids are not just little people. , 2015, Clinics in dermatology.

[3]  Jad Adkins Airborne , 2015 .

[4]  J. Silverberg,et al.  Pediatric Allergic Contact Dermatitis: Lessons for Better Care. , 2015, The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice.

[5]  S. Jacob,et al.  Demographics of US Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Registry Providers , 2015, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[6]  J. Thyssen,et al.  Flexural Eczema Versus Atopic Dermatitis , 2015, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[7]  E. Warshaw,et al.  Patch Testing in Children From 2005 to 2012: Results From the North American Contact Dermatitis Group , 2014, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[8]  S. Admani,et al.  Allergic Contact Dermatitis in Children: Review of the Past Decade , 2014, Current Allergy and Asthma Reports.

[9]  C. Bindslev‐Jensen,et al.  Nickel allergy from adolescence to adulthood in the TOACS cohort , 2013, Contact dermatitis.

[10]  J. Lambert,et al.  Airborne and systemic dermatitis, mimicking atopic dermatitis, caused by methylisothiazolinone in a young child , 2013, Contact dermatitis.

[11]  L. Eichenfield,et al.  Safety and Efficacy Evaluation of TRUE TEST Panels 1.1, 2.1, and 3.1 in Children and Adolescents , 2011, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[12]  M. Hazinski,et al.  Pediatric Basic and Advanced Life Support: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations , 2010, Pediatrics.

[13]  E. Warshaw,et al.  Positive Patch‐Test Reactions to Propylene Glycol: A Retrospective Cross‐Sectional Analysis from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 1996 to 2006 , 2009, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[14]  E. Warshaw,et al.  Contact allergy in children referred for patch testing: North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 2001-2004. , 2008, Archives of dermatology.

[15]  F. Storrs Patch Testing Children—What Should We Change? , 2008, Pediatric dermatology.

[16]  S. Jacob,et al.  Dispelling the Myths Behind Pediatric Patch Testing—Experience from Our Tertiary Care Patch Testing Centers , 2008, Pediatric dermatology.

[17]  D. Becker,et al.  Patch testing in children – recommendations of the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG) , 2007, Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG.

[18]  V. Harde,et al.  Airborne contact dermatitis to methylchloroisothia‐zolinone/methylisothiazolinone in a boy , 2006, Contact Dermatitis.

[19]  S. Seidenari,et al.  Contact Sensitization to Disperse Dyes in Children , 2003, Pediatric dermatology.

[20]  S. Fregert,et al.  Nickel release from ear piercing kits and earrings , 1984, Contact dermatitis.

[21]  E. Epstein Contact dermatitis in children. , 1971, Pediatric clinics of North America.

[22]  W. Epstein CONTACT-TYPE DELAYED HYPERSENSITIVITY IN INFANTS AND CHILDREN: INDUCTION OF RHUS SENSITIVITY , 1961, Pediatrics.

[23]  H. W. Straus Artificial sensitization of infants to poison ivy , 1931 .