Patch testing with the European Baseline Series (EBS) is an essential diagnostic tool for the assessment of allergic contact dermatitis.
Objective
The aims of the study were to describe the most common contact allergens identified with patch testing in Turkey and to establish the distribution of contact allergens among different regions in Turkey.
Patients and Methods
Twelve centers consisting of tertiary health care institutions were included in the study. A total of 1169 patients were patch tested with the EBS from 2015 to 2017.
Results
A total of 596 patients (51.0%) had 1 or more positive patch test reactions to the EBS. A total of 30.2% (n = 353) of those tested had clinical relevance. Contact sensitivity was more common in young patients. The most common 10 allergens were nickel sulfate (20.4%), followed by textile dye mix (8.6%), cobalt chloride (8.3%), potassium dichromate (8.0%), p-phenylenediamine base (4.5%), balsam of Peru (4.3%), methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (3.8%), thiuram mix (3.6%), fragrance mix I (3.0%), and methylisothiazolinone (2.9%).
Conclusions
This study provides a comprehensive profile of patch test results with the EBS in Turkey. An ongoing decrease in contact allergy to methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone was observed. Textile dye mix and p-phenylenediamine are beginning to pose a new risk in Turkey.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
JohansenJD, Aalto-KorteK, AgnerT, et al.European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing—recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis, 2015; 73:195–221.
2.
AdaSU, GulecAT, SeckinD. Patch test results of 775 patients with allergic contact dermatitis. Turk Arch Dermatol Venereol, 2010; 44:187–192.
3.
Akasya-HillenbrandE, Ozkaya-BayazitE. Patch test results in 542 patients with suspected contact dermatitis in Turkey. Contact Dermatitis, 2002; 46:17–23.
4.
AkyolA, BoyvatA, PeksariY, et al.Contact sensitivity to standard series allergens in 1038 patients with contact dermatitis in Turkey. Contact Dermatitis, 2005; 52:333–337.
5.
CalkaOK, AkdenizN, BilgiliSG. The results of patch testing in patients with contact dermatitis in eastern Turkey. Turk Arch Dermatol Venereol, 2011; 45:19–23.
6.
ErfanGY, KayaS, KalayciS, et al.Patch testing for allergic contact dermatitis: three years retrospective results in Tekirdağ. Turk Arch Dermatol Venereol, 2015; 49:129–133.
7.
ErtamI, TurkmenM, AlperS. Patch-test results of an academic department in Izmir. Turkey Dermatitis, 2008; 19:213–215.
8.
KocaR, AltinyazarC, Solak TekinN, et al.Patch test results in patients with allergic contact dermatitis in the Western Black Sea Region: a five-year retrospective study. Turk Arch Dermatol Venereol, 2011; 45:198–202.
9.
DiepgenTL, OfenlochRF, BruzeM, et al.Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population in different European regions. Br J Dermatol, 2016; 174:319–329.
10.
FallS, BruzeM, IsakssonM, et al.Contact allergy trends in Sweden—a retrospective comparison of patch test data from 1992, 2000, and 2009. Contact Dermatitis, 2015; 72:297–304.
11.
LamWS, ChanLY, HoSC, et al.A retrospective study of 2585 patients patch tested with the European standard series in Hong Kong (1995–99). Int J Dermatol, 2008; 47:128–133.
12.
MahlerV, GeierJ, SchnuchA. Current trends in patch testing—new data from the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG) and the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK). J Dtsch Dermatol Ges, 2014; 12:583–592.
13.
OchiH, ChengSW, LeowYH, et al.Contact allergy trends in Singapore—a retrospective study of patch test data from 2009 to 2013. Contact Dermatitis, 2017; 76:49–50.
14.
WarshawEM, ZhangAJ, DeKovenJG, et al.Epidemiology of nickel sensitivity: retrospective cross-sectional analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) data 1994–2014. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2018; 79(4):664–671.
15.
UterW, Amario-HitaJC, BalatoA, et al.European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA): results with the European Baseline Series, 2013/14. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol, 2017; 31:1516–1525.
16.
SchuttelaarMLA, OfenlochRF, BruzeM, et al.Prevalence of contact allergy to metals in the European general population with a focus on nickel and piercings: the EDEN Fragrance Study. Contact Dermatitis, 2018; 79:1–9.
17.
AhlstromMG, MenneT, ThyssenJP, et al.Nickel allergy in a Danish population 25 years after the first nickel regulation. Contact Dermatitis, 2017; 76:325–332.
18.
WarshawEM, AschenbeckKA, DeKovenJG, et al.Piercing and metal sensitivity: extended analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 2007–2014. Dermatitis, 2017; 28:333–341.
19.
DeKovenJG, WarshawEM, ZugKA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2015–2016. Dermatitis, 2018; 29:297–309.
20.
SchnuchA, SchwitullaJ. Decrease in nickel allergy in women after the second EU nickel directive. Contact Dermatitis, 2013; 69:253–256.
21.
UterW, Larese FilonF, RuiF, et al.ESSCA results with nickel, cobalt and chromium, 2009–2012. Contact Dermatitis, 2016; 75:117–121.
22.
FowlerJF Jr. Cobalt. Dermatitis, 2016; 27:3–8.
23.
HamannD, HamannCR, KishiP, et al.Leather contains cobalt and poses a risk of allergic contact dermatitis: cobalt indicator solution and x-ray florescence spectrometry as screening tests. Dermatitis, 2016; 27:202–207.
24.
BregnbakD, JohansenJD, JellesenMS, et al.Chromium allergy and dermatitis: prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis, 2015; 73:261–280.
25.
KridinK, BergmanR, KhamaisiM, et al.Chromate allergy in northern Israel in relation to exposure to cement and detergents. Dermatitis, 2016; 27:131–136.
26.
IsakssonM, RybergK, GoossensA, et al.Recommendation to include a textile dye mix in the European Baseline Series. Contact Dermatitis, 2015; 73:15–20.
27.
RybergK, AgnerT, AndersenKE, et al.Patch testing with a textile dye mix—a multicentre study. Contact Dermatitis, 2014; 71:215–223.
28.
RybergK, Brared-ChristenssonJ, EngfeldtM, et al.Patch testing with a textile dye mix in two concentrations—a multicentre study by the Swedish Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Acta Derm Venereol, 2015; 95:427–431.
29.
HeratizadehA, GeierJ, MolinS, et al.Contact sensitization in patients with suspected textile allergy. Data of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) 2007–2014. Contact Dermatitis, 2017; 77:143–150.
30.
MalinauskieneL, BruzeM, RybergK, et al.Contact allergy from disperse dyes in textiles: a review. Contact Dermatitis, 2013; 68:65–75.
31.
Mobolaji-LawalM, NedorostS. The role of textiles in dermatitis: an update. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep, 2015; 15:17.
32.
DiepgenTL, NaldiL, BruzeM, et al.Prevalence of contact allergy to P-phenylenediamine in the European general population. J Invest Dermatol, 2016; 136:409–415.
33.
IsakssonM, AleI, AndersenKE, et al.Patch testing to a textile dye mix by the international contact dermatitis research group. Dermatitis, 2015; 26:170–176.
Çölgeçen ÖzelE, ÖzyurtK. Patch test results in patients with allergic contact dermatitis in Yozgat. Turk Arch Dermatol Venereol, 2013; 47:161–165.
36.
Gimenez-ArnauAM, DezaG, BauerA, et al.Contact allergy to preservatives: ESSCA* results with the baseline series, 2009–2012. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol, 2017; 31:664–671.
37.
SchwensenJF, UterW, BruzeM, et al.The epidemic of methylisothiazolinone: a European prospective study. Contact Dermatitis, 2017; 76:272–279.
38.
SalmanA. Methylchloroisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone contact allergy: a retrospective cohort study from a tertiary dermatology clinic in Turkey. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 80:193–194.
BoyvatA, AkyolA, GurgeyE. Contact sensitivity to preservatives in Turkey. Contact Dermatitis, 2005; 52:329–332.
41.
OzkayaE, Polat EkinciA. Low sensitization rate but good clinical relevance of preservatives in Turkey: evaluation of 1256 patients over 10 years (1996–2006). J Dermatol, 2011; 38:194–196.
42.
DiepgenTL, OfenlochR, BruzeM, et al.Prevalence of fragrance contact allergy in the general population of five European countries: a cross-sectional study. Br J Dermatol, 2015; 173:1411–1419.
43.
UngCY, WhiteJML, WhiteIR, et al.Patch testing with the European Baseline Series fragrance markers: a 2016 update. Br J Dermatol, 2018; 178:776–780.
44.
UterW, WarburtonK, WeisshaarE, et al.Patch test results with rubber series in the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA), 2013/14. Contact Dermatitis, 2016; 75:345–352.
45.
ClemmensenKK, ThomsenSF, JemecGB, et al.Pattern of contact sensitization in patients with and without atopic dermatitis in a hospital-based clinical database. Contact Dermatitis, 2014; 71:75–81.
46.
NapolitanoM, FabbrociniG, PatrunoC. Allergic contact dermatitis in patients with atopic dermatitis: a retrospective study. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract, 2019; 7:2459–2461.
47.
NedorostST, BabineauD. Patch testing in atopic dermatitis. Dermatitis, 2010; 21:251–254.
48.
Belloni FortinaA, FontanaE, PesericoA. Contact sensitization in children: a retrospective study of 2,614 children from a single center. Pediatr Dermatol, 2016; 33:399–404.
49.
HerroE, MatizC, SullivanK, et al.Frequency of contact allergens in pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol, 2011; 4:39–41.
50.
MalajianD, BelsitoDV. Cutaneous delayed-type hypersensitivity in patients with atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2013; 69:232–237.
51.
TeoY, McFaddenJP, WhiteIR, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis in atopic individuals: results of a 30-year retrospective study. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 81:409–416.
52.
BoonstraM, RustemeyerT, Middelkamp-HupMA. Both children and adult patients with difficult-to-treat atopic dermatitis have high prevalences of concomitant allergic contact dermatitis and are frequently polysensitized. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol, 2018; 32:1554–1561.
53.
HamannCR, HamannD, EgebergA, et al.Association between atopic dermatitis and contact sensitization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2017; 77:70–78.
