Abstract: Background: Patch testing is an important diagnostic tool for assessment of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).
Objective:
This study documents the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) patch testing results from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020.
Methods:
At 13 centers in North America, patients were tested in a standardized manner with a screening series of 80 allergens, and, as indicated, supplemental allergens.
Results:
Overall, 4121 patients were tested; 2871 (69.7%) had at least 1 positive/allergic patch test reaction and 2095 patients (51.2%) had a primary diagnosis of ACD. The most commonly positive allergens were nickel (18.2%), methylisothiazolinone (MI) (13.8%), fragrance mix (FM) I (12.8%), hydroperoxides of linalool (HPL) (11.1%), and benzisothiazolinone (BIT) (10.4%). Compared with that of 2017–2018, prevalence of top 20 allergens statistically increased for FM I, HPL, BIT, propolis, and hydroperoxides of limonene (3.5%). For the first time, MI positivity did not increase between reporting periods. Approximately one-fifth of patients (20.3%) had ≥1 clinically relevant reaction(s) to allergens/substances not on the NACDG series.
Conclusions:
The epidemic of MI contact allergy in North America may have reached a plateau. Patch testing using a robust screening series, and supplemental allergens as indicated, is necessary for comprehensive evaluation of ACD.
KadykDL, McCarterK, AchenF, et al. Quality of life in patients with allergic contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2003; 49(6):1037–1048.
3.
UterW, BauerA, Belloni FortinaA, et al. ESSCA Working Group. Patch test results with the European baseline series and additions thereof in the ESSCA network, 2015–2018. Contact Dermatitis 2021;84:109–120.
4.
UterW, GefellerO, MahlerV, et al. Trends and current spectrum of contact allergy in Central Europe: results of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) 2007–2018. Br J Dermatol, 2020; 183(5):857–865.
5.
MarksJG, BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1996–1998. Arch Dermatol, 2000; 136(2):272–273.
6.
MarksJG, BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermat, 2003; 14(2):59–62.
7.
PrattMD, BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 2001–2002 study period. Dermatitis, 2004; 15(4):176–183.
8.
WarshawEM, BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 2003–2004 study period. Dermatitis, 2008; 19(3):129–136.
9.
ZugKA, WarshawEM, FowlerJF, et al. Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005–2006. Dermatitis, 2009; 20(3):149–160.
10.
FranswayAF, ZugKA, BelsitoDV, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for 2007–2008. Dermatitis, 2013; 24(1):10–21.
11.
WarshawEM, BelsitoDV, TaylorJS, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2009 to 2010. Dermatitis, 2013; 24(2):50–59.
12.
WarshawEM, MaibachHI, TaylorJS, et al. North American contact dermatitis group patch test results: 2011–2012. Dermatitis, 2015; 26(1):49–59.
13.
DeKovenJG, WarshawEM, BelsitoDV, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results 2013–2014. Dermatitis, 2017; 28(1):33–46.
14.
DeKovenJG, WarshawEM, ZugKA, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2015–2016. Dermatitis, 2018; 29(6):297–309.
15.
DeKovenJG, SilverbergJI, WarshawEM, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2017–2018. Dermatitis, 2021; 32(2):111–123.
UterW, SchwitullaJ, ThyssenJP, 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. Contact Dermatitis, 2011; 65(6):322–328.
18.
UterW, SchnuchA, GefellerO, AllergiesEwgESSoC. Guidelines for the descriptive presentation and statistical analysis of contact allergy data. Contact Dermatitis, 2004; 51(2):47–56.
19.
MaouadM, FleischerAB, SherertzEF, et al. Significance-prevalence index number: a reinterpretation and enhancement of data from the North American contact dermatitis group. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1999; 41(4):573–576.
20.
Ahlstro€mMG, ThyssenJP, WennervaldtM, et al. Nickel allergy and allergic contact dermatitis: a clinical review of immunology, epidemiology, exposure, and treatment. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 81(4):227–241.
European Commission. Commission Regulation (EU) no 1003/2014 of 18 September 2014 amending annex V to regulation (EC) no 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the council on cosmetic products text with EEA relevance. Accessed June5, 2022.
UrwinR, CraigS, LatheefF, et al. Methylisothiazolinone: the epidemic is declining - but not gone. Contact Dermatitis, 2017; 76(5):301–302.
25.
UterW, Aalto-KorteK, AgnerT, et al. The epidemic of methylisothiazolinone contact allergy in Europe: follow-up on changing exposures. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol, 2020; 34(2):333–339.
26.
ZhangAJ, BoydAH, AschS, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis to slime: the epidemic of isothiazolinone allergy encompasses school glue. Pediatr Dermatol, 2019; 36(1):e37–e38.
27.
SalmanA, DemirG, AptiO. “Slime”: a trending cause of isothiazolinone contact allergy in children. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 80(6):409–411.
SchnuchA, SchubertS, LessmannH, et al. IVDK. The methylisothiazolinone epidemic goes along with changing patients' characteristics—after cosmetics, industrial applications are the focus. Contact Dermatitis, 2020; 82(2):87–93.
30.
GuptaR, KullbergSA, WarshawEM. Relevant contact allergy to benzisothiazolinone in a personal care product. Dermatitis, 2020; 31(2):e13–e14.
GoodierMC, ZangLY, SiegelPD, et al. Isothiazolinone Content of US Consumer Adhesives: ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatographic mass spectrometry analysis. Dermatitis, 2019; 30(2):129–134.
33.
DahlinJ, IsakssonM. Occupational contact dermatitis caused by N-butyl-1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one in a cutting fluid. Contact Dermatitis 2015; 73(1):60–62.
SchwensenJF, Menné BonefeldC, ZachariaeC, et al. Cross-reactivity between methylisothiazolinone, octylisothiazolinone and benzisothiazolinone using a modified local lymph node assay. Br J Dermatol, 2017; 176(1):176–183.
36.
GeierJ, LessmannH, SchnuchA, et al. Concomitant reactivity to methylisothiazolinone, benzisothiazolinone, and octylisothiazolinone. International Network of Departments of Dermatology data, 2009–2013. Contact Dermatitis, 2015; 72(5):337–339.
37.
CraigS, UrwinR, LatheefF, et al. Patch test clinic experience of potential cross-reactivity of isothiazolinones. Contact Dermatitis, 2017; 76(5):299–300.
38.
KingN, LatheefF, WilkinsonM. Trends in preservative allergy: benzisothiazolinone emerges from the pack. Contact Dermatitis, 2021; 85(6):637–642.
39.
RastogiSC, MennéT, JohansenJD. The composition of fine fragrances is changing. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 48(3):130–132.
40.
BuckleyDA. Fragrance ingredient labelling in products on sale in the U.K. Br J Dermatol, 2007; 157(2):295–300.
de GrootA, SchmidtE. Essential Oils: Contact Allergy and Chemical Composition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2016.
43.
SchnuchA, UterW, GeierJ, et al. Sensitization to 26 fragrances to be labelled according to current European regulation. Results of the IVDK and review of the literature. Contact Dermatitis, 2007; 57(1):1–10.
44.
BruzeM, SvedmanC, AndersenKE, et al. Patch test concentrations (doses in mg/cm2) for the 12 non-mix fragrance substances regulated by European legislation. Contact Dermatitis, 2012; 66(3):131–136.
45.
AudrainH, KenwardC, LovellCR, et al. Allergy to oxidized limonene and linalool is frequent in the U.K. Br J Dermatol, 2014; 171(2):292–297.
46.
Bråred ChristenssonJ, AndersenKE, BruzeM, et al. Air-oxidized linalool: a frequent cause of fragrance contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis, 2012; 67(5):247–259.
47.
DezaG, García-BravoB, SilvestreJF, et al. Contact sensitization to limonene and linalool hydroperoxides in Spain: a GEIDAC. Contact Dermatitis, 2017; 76(2):74–80.
48.
UngCY, WhiteJML, WhiteIR, et al. Patch testing with the European baseline series fragrance markers: a 2016 update. Br J Dermatol, 2018; 178(3):776–780.
49.
KrijlRC, IpenburgNA, FrankenSM, et al. What is the added value of patch testing with 30 fragrance allergens in addition to the European Baseline series? Contact Dermatitis, 2022; 86(5):390–397.
50.
UterW, WilkinsonSM, AertsO, et al. ESSCA and EBS ESCD working groups, and the GEIDAC. European patch test results with audit allergens as candidates for inclusion in the European Baseline Series, 2019/20: joint results of the ESSCAA and the EBSB working groups of the ESCD, and the GEIDACC. Contact Dermatitis, 2022; 86(5):379–389.
51.
SukakulT, BruzeM, MowitzM, et al. Contact allergy to oxidized linalool and oxidized limonene: patch testing in consecutive patients with dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis, 2022; 86(1):15–24.
52.
NatschA, MarcoN, LeijsH, et al. Exposure source for skin sensitizing hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool remains elusive: an analytical market surveillance. Food Chem Toxicol 2019;127:156–162.
53.
de GrootAC. Propolis: a review of properties, applications, chemical composition, contact allergy, and other adverse effects. Dermatitis 2013;24:263–282.
54.
NymanG, Oldberg WagnerS, Prystupa-ChalkidisK, et al.Contact allergy in Western Sweden to propolis of four different origins. Acta Derm Venereol, 2020; 100(16):adv00256.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
