North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2017–2018

Supplemental digital content is available in the text. Background Patch testing is an important diagnostic tool for assessment of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Objective This study documented the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) patch testing results from March 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018. Methods At 14 centers in North America, patients with dermatitis were tested in a standardized manner with a screening series of 70 allergens and supplemental allergens as clinically indicated. Data were manually verified and entered into a central database. Descriptive statistics were estimated, and trends were analyzed using χ2 test. Results Overall, 4947 patients were tested. There were 3235 patients (65.4%) who had at least 1 positive reaction and 2495 patients (50.4%) had a primary diagnosis of ACD. Five hundred eighty-one patients (11.7%) had occupationally related dermatitis. There were 10,122 positive patch test reactions. Nickel remained the most commonly detected allergen (16.2%), followed by methylisothiazolinone 0.2% aqueous (15.3%) and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone 0.02% aqueous (200 ppm, 11.0%). Compared with the previous reporting periods (2015–2016 and 2007–2016), the proportion of positive reactions for the top 20 screening allergens statistically increased for only 1 allergen, propolis (3.4%; risk ratios = 2.05 [confidence interval = 1.66–2.54] and 1.82 [confidence interval = 1.57–2.11]). Four newly added allergen preparations, hydroperoxides of linalool (8.9%), benzisothiazolinone (7.3%), sodium metabisulfite (2.7%), and hydroperoxides of limonene (2.6%), all had a prevalence of greater than 2%. Approximately 1 (19.7%) in 5 tested patients had 1 or more clinically relevant reactions to an allergen not on the NACDG screening series; 13.2% of these were occupationally related. T.R.U.E. TEST (SmartPractice Denmark, Hillerød, Denmark) would have hypothetically missed 30% to 40% of reactions detected by the NACDG screening series. Conclusions These results demonstrate the importance of a regularly updated screening allergen series. Methylisothiazolinone continues to be a significant allergen in North America. Patch testing with allergens beyond a screening tray is necessary for complete evaluation of occupational and non-occupational ACD.

[1]  E. Warshaw,et al.  American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series: 2020 Update. , 2020, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[2]  E. Warshaw,et al.  Contact Dermatitis Associated With Nail Care Products: Retrospective Analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 2001-2016. , 2020, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[3]  E. Warshaw,et al.  Relevant Contact Allergy to Benzisothiazolinone in a Personal Care Product. , 2020, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[4]  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.

[5]  M. Reeder,et al.  Methylisothiazolinone and isothiazolinone allergy. , 2019, Cutis.

[6]  E. Warshaw,et al.  North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2015–2016 , 2018, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[7]  A. Palmer,et al.  The methylisothiazolinone contact allergy epidemic in Australia , 2018, Contact dermatitis.

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

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

[10]  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.

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

[12]  P. Elsner,et al.  Multicenter Patch Testing With Methylisothiazolinone and Methylchloroisothiazolinone/Methylisothiazolinone Within the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group , 2017, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

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

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

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

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

[17]  D. Naik Essential Oils, Contact Allergy and Chemical Composition , 2016 .

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

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

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

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

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

[23]  A. Goossens,et al.  Recommendation to increase the test concentration of methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone in the European baseline patch test series – on behalf of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis and the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group , 2014, Contact dermatitis.

[24]  J. Silvestre,et al.  Methylchloroisothiazolinone/Methylisothiazolinone and Methylisothiazolinone Allergies Can Be Detected by 200 ppm of Methylchloroisothiazolinone/Methylisothiazolinone Patch Test Concentration , 2014, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

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

[28]  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.

[29]  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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[39]  H. Maibach,et al.  North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1998 to 2000. , 2003, American journal of contact dermatitis : official journal of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.

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

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

[42]  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.

[43]  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.