This study aimed to examine the association between piercing and patch test sensitivity to metals (nickel, cobalt, and chromium) in North America.
Methods
A retrospective analysis of 9334 patients tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group from 2007 to 2010 was conducted.
Results
Nickel sensitivity was statistically associated with at least 1 piercing (risk ratio [RR], 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.26–2.81; P < 0.0001) and nickel sensitivity rates increased with the number of piercings (16% for 1 piercing to 32% for ≥5 piercings). Prevalence of nickel sensitivity was higher in females (23.2%) than in males (7.1%), but the association with piercing was stronger in males (RR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.72–3.30; P < 0.0001) than in females (RR, 1.30; CI, 1.13–1.49; P = 0.0002). Crude analysis indicated that cobalt sensitivity was statistically associated with piercing (RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.40–1.91; P < 0.0001); however, stratified analysis showed that this relationship was confounded by nickel. After adjusting for nickel sensitivity, the adjusted risk ratio for piercing and cobalt was 0.78 (not significant). Chromium sensitivity was negatively associated with piercing (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.48–0.75; P < 0.0001).
Conclusions
Piercing was statistically associated with sensitivity to nickel. This relationship was dose dependent and stronger in males. Cobalt sensitivity was not associated with piercing when adjusted for nickel. Chromium sensitivity was negatively associated with piercing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrandãoMH, GontijoB. Contact sensitivity to metals (chromium, cobalt and nickel) in childhood. An Bras Dermatol, 2012; 87 (2): 269–276.
ThyssenJP, LinnebergA, MennéT, et al.The epidemiology of contact allergy in the general population—prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis, 2007; 57: 287–299.
4.
FranswayAF, ZugKA, BelsitoDV, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for 2007-2008. Dermatitis, 2013; 24 (1): 10–20.
5.
ZugKA, WarshawEM, FowlerJFJr, et al.Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis, 2009; 20 (3): 149–160.
6.
GarnerLA. Contact dermatitis to metals. Dermatol Ther, 2004; 17: 321–327.
7.
GaulJE. Development of allergic nickel dermatitis from earrings. JAMA, 1967; 200 (2): 176–178.
8.
FischerT, FregertS, GruvbergerB, et al.Nickel release from ear piercing kits and earrings. Contact Dermatitis, 1984; 10: 39–41.
NakadaT, IijimaM, NakayamaH, et al.Role of ear piercing in metal allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis, 1997; 36: 233–236.
11.
Larsson-StymneB, WidströmL. Ear piercing—a cause of nickel allergy in schoolgirls?. Contact Dermatitis, 1985; 13: 289–293.
12.
NielsenNH, MennéT. Nickel sensitization and ear piercing in an unselected Danish population. Glostrup Allergy Study. Contact Dermatitis, 1993; 29: 16–21.
13.
SantucciB, FerrariPV, CristaudoA, et al.Nickel dermatitis from cheap earrings. Contact Dermatitis, 1989; 21: 245–248.
14.
ForsR, StenbergB, StenlundH, et al.Nickel allergy in relation to piercing and orthodontic appliances—a population study. Contact Dermatitis, 2012; 67: 342–350.
15.
PrystowskySD, AllenAM, SmithRW, et al.Allergic contact hypersensitivity to nickel, neomycin, thylenediamine, and benzocaine. Arch Dermatol, 1979; 115: 959–962.
16.
Van HoogstratenIM, AndersenKE, Von BlombergBM, et al.Reduced frequency of nickel allergy upon oral nickel contact at an early age. Clin Exp Immunol, 1991; 85: 441–445.
17.
Smith-SivertsenT, DotterudLK, LundE. Nickel allergy and its relationship with local nickel pollution, ear piercing, and atopic dermatitis: a population-based study from Norway. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1999; 40: 726–735.
18.
MortzCG, LauritsenJM, Bindslev-JensenC, et al.Nickel sensitization in adolescents and association with ear piercing, use of dental braces and hand eczema. The Odense Adolescence Cohort Study on Atopic Diseases and Dermatitis (TOACS). Acta Derm Venereol, 2002; 82: 359–364.
19.
KerosuoH, KullaaA, KerosuoE, et al.Nickel allergy in adolescents in relation to orthodontic treatment and piercing of ears. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1996; 109: 149–154.
20.
McDonaghAJ, WrightAL, CorkMJ, et al.Nickel sensitivity: the influence of ear piercing and atopy. Br J Derm, 1992; 126: 16–18.
21.
MeijerC, BredbergM, FischerT, et al.Ear piercing, and nickel and cobalt sensitization, in 520 young Swedish men doing compulsory military service. Contact Dermatitis, 1995; 32: 147–149.
22.
DotterudLK, FalkES. Metal allergy in north Norwegian schoolchildren and its relationship with ear piercing and atopy. Contact Dermatitis, 1994; 31: 308–313.
23.
MattilaL, KilpeläinenM, TerhoEO, et al.Prevalence of nickel allergy among Finnish university students in 1995. Contact Dermatitis, 2001; 44: 218–223.
24.
EhrlichA, KucenicM, BelsitoDV. Role of body piercing in the induction of metal allergies. Am J Contact Dermat, 2001; 12 (3): 151–155.
25.
ThyssenJP, MennéT. Metal allergy—a review on exposures, penetration, genetics, prevalence, and clinical implications. Chem Res Toxicol, 2010; 23: 309–318.
26.
LaumannAE, DerickAJ. Tattoos and body piercings in the United States: a national data set. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2006; 55: 413–421.
27.
MayersLB, ChiffrillerSH. Body art (body piercing and tattooing) among undergraduate university students: “then and now”. J Adolesc Health, 2008; 42: 201–203.
28.
ForsR, PerssonM, BergströmE, et al.Lifestyle and nickel allergy in a Swedish adolescent population: effects of piercing, tattooing and orthodontic appliances. Acta Derm Venereol, 2012; 92: 664–668.
29.
BoneA, NcubeF, NicholsT, et al.Body piercing in England: a survey of piercing at sites other than earlobe. BMJ, 2008; 336 (7658): 1426–1428.
30.
SchramSE, WarshawEM, LaumannA. Nickel hypersensitivity: a clinical review and call to action. Int J Dermatol, 2010; 49: 115–125.
31.
WarshawEM, BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 2003-2004 study period. Dermatitis, 2008; 19: 129–136.
SchnuchA, GeierJ, UterW, et al.National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Population-adjusted frequencies of sensitization (PAFS) in 40,000 patients from a multicenter study (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis, 1997; 37: 200–209.
34.
OlumideYM. Contact dermatitis in Nigeria. Contact Dermatitis, 1985; 12: 241–246.
35.
WahlbergJE, LidénC. Cross-reactivity patterns of cobalt and nickel studied with repeated open applications (ROATS) to the skin of guinea pigs. Am J Contact Dermat, 2000; 11 (1): 42–48.
36.
MenneT. Relationship between cobalt and nickel sensitization in females. Contact Dermatitis, 1980; 6: 337–340.
37.
RystedtI, FischerT. Relationship between nickel and cobalt sensitization in hard metal workers. Contact Dermatitis, 1983; 9: 195–200.
38.
LammintaustaK, PitkänenOP, KalimoK, et al.Interrelationship of nickel and cobalt contact sensitization. Contact Dermatitis, 1985; 13: 148–152.
39.
HindsénM, SpirénA, BruzeM. Cross-reactivity between nickel and palladium demonstrated by systemic administration of nickel. Contact Dermatitis, 2005; 53: 2–8.
40.
HegewaldJ, UterW, PfahlbergA, et al.A multifactorial analysis of concurrent patch-test reactions to nickel, cobalt, and chromate. Allergy, 2005; 60: 372–378.
41.
ThyssenJP. Cobalt sensitization and dermatitis: considerations for the clinician. Dermatitis, 2012; 23 (5): 203–209.
42.
HindsénM, PerssonL, GruvbergerB. Allergic contact dermatitis from cobalt in jewellery. Contact Dermatitis, 2005; 53: 350–351.
43.
ThyssenJP, MennéT, JohansenJD, et al.A spot test for detection of cobalt release—early experience and findings. Contact Dermatitis, 2010; 63: 63–69.
44.
ThyssenJP, JellesenMS, MennéT, et al.Cobalt release from inexpensive jewellery: has the use of cobalt replaced nickel following regulatory intervention?. Contact Dermatitis, 2010; 63: 70–76.
45.
HamannC, HamannD, HamannKK, et al.Cobalt release from inexpensive earrings from Thailand and China. Contact Dermatitis, 2011; 64: 237–244.
46.
CheongSH, ChoiYW, ChoiHY, et al.Nickel and cobalt release from jewellery and metal clothing items in Korea. Contact Dermatitis, 2014; 70 (1): 11–18.
47.
UterW, SchmidM, SchmidtO, et al.Cobalt release from earrings and piercing jewellery—analytical results of a German survey. Contact Dermatitis, 2014; 70 (6): 369–375.
48.
ThyssenJP. Nickel and cobalt allergy before and after nickel regulation—evaluation of a public health intervention. Contact Dermatitis, 2011; 65 (Suppl 1): 1–68.
49.
SchnuchA, UterW. Decrease in nickel allergy in Germany and regulatory interventions. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 49: 107–108.
50.
LindbergM, EdmanB, FischerT, et al.Time trends in Swedish patch test data from 1992 to 2000. A multi-centre study based on age- and sex-adjusted results of the Swedish standard series. Contact Dermatitis, 2007; 56: 205–210.
51.
RuiF, BovenziM, ProdiA, et al.Nickel, chromium and cobalt sensitization in a patch test population in north-eastern Italy (1996–2010). Contact Dermatitis, 2012; 68: 23–31.
52.
CarøeC, AndersenKE, MortzCG. Fluctuations in the prevalence of nickel and cobalt allergy in eczema patients patch tested after implementation of the nickel regulation in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis, 2011; 64: 126–131.
53.
GargS, ThyssenJP, UterW, et al.Nickel allergy following European Union regulation in Denmark, Germany, Italy and the U.K. Br J Dermatol, 2013; 169: 854–858.
54.
ThyssenJP, JohansenJD, CarlsenBC, et al.Prevalence of nickel and cobalt allergy among female patients with dermatitis before and after Danish government regulation: a 23-year retrospective study. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2009; 61 (5): 799–805.
55.
JensenCS, LisbyS, BaadsgaardO, et al.Decrease in nickel sensitization in a Danish schoolgirl population with ears pierced after implementation of a nickel-exposure regulation. Br J Dermatol, 2002; 146: 636–642.
56.
VeienNK, HattelT, LaurbergG. Reduced nickel sensitivity in young Danish women following regulation of nickel exposure. Contact Dermatitis, 2001; 45: 104–106.
57.
RietschelRL, FowlerJF, WarshawEM, et al.Detection of nickel sensitivity has increased in North American patch-test patients. Dermatitis, 2008; 19 (1): 16–19.
58.
HamannD, HamannC, LiLF, et al.The Sino-American belt study: nickel and cobalt exposure, epidemiology, and clinical considerations. Dermatitis, 2012; 23 (3): 117–123.
59.
ThyssenJP, MaibachHI. Nickel release from earrings purchased in the United States: the San Francisco earring study. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2008; 58 (6): 1000–1005.
