No recent studies reporting nickel sensitivity prevalence in Canadians exist.
Objectives
The aim of this study was to quantify nickel sensitivity prevalence in patients at a patch test clinic in Vancouver.
Methods
Retrospective chart review of 3263 patients patch tested for nickel sensitivity at our clinic in Vancouver between 2008 and 2020.
Results
In total, 24.3% (n = 792 of 3263) of patients were sensitive to nickel. Nickel sensitivity significantly increased over time from 24.3% to 27.9% from 2008 to 2020. Nickel-sensitive patients were significantly more likely to be women (P < 0.001), between the ages of 19 and 64 years (P = 0.010), and have dermatitis affecting the face (P = 0.001) and hands (P = 0.001). Nickel-sensitive patients were significantly less likely to be 65 years or older (P = 0.001) and have dermatitis affecting the legs (P = 0.002). Approximately half of nickel-sensitive reactions were new positive reactions at the second reading.
Conclusions
Nickel sensitivity occurred in approximately one quarter of patients and significantly increased over time. Nickel-sensitive patients were more likely to be women, aged 19 to 64 years, and have dermatitis affecting the face and hands; and less likely to be 65 years or older and have dermatitis affecting the legs.
SundquistBK, YangB, PashaMA. Experience in patch testing: a 6-year retrospective review from a single academic allergy practice. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol, 2019; 122(5):502–507.
4.
MowadCM, AndersonB, ScheinmanP, PootongkamS, NedorostS, BrodB. Allergic contact dermatitis patient diagnosis and evaluation. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2016; 74(6):1029–1040. .
5.
GittlerJK, KruegerJG, Guttman-YasskyE. Atopic dermatitis results in intrinsic barrier and immune abnormalities: implications for contact dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol, 2013; 131(2):300–313. .
6.
BaeYI, HanJH, YunSJ, et al.Standard patch test results in patients with contact dermatitis. Korean J Dermatology, 2016; 47(11):1227–1235. Available at: http://www.koreamed.org/SearchBasic.php?RID=2247739. Accessed January19, 2021.
7.
HostynekJJ. Sensitization to nickel: etiology, epidemiology, immune reactions, prevention, and therapy. Rev Environ Health, 2006; 21(4):253–280.
8.
MedingB.Epidemiology of nickel allergy. In: Journal of Environmental Monitoring. Vol 5. The Royal Society of Chemistry; 2003:188–189. .
9.
MachovcovaA, DastychovaE, KostalovaD, et al. Common contact sensitizers in the Czech Republic. Patch test results in 12,058 patients with suspected contact dermatitis*. Contact Dermatitis, 53. 2005:162–166. .
10.
RietschelRL, FowlerJF, WarshawEM, et al.Detection of nickel sensitivity has increased in North American patch-test patients. Dermatitis, 2008; 19(1):16–19. .
11.
Freireich-AstmanM, DavidM, TrattnerA. Standard patch test results in patients with contact dermatitis in Israel: age and sex differences. Contact Dermatitis, 2007; 56(2):103–107. .
12.
von ElmE, AltmanDG, EggerM, et al.The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet, 2007; 370(9596):1453–1457.
13.
DeKovenJG, WarshawEM, BelsitoDV, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results 2013–2014. Dermatitis, 2017; 28(1):33–46.
14.
WarshawEM, ZhangAJ, DeKovenJG, et al.Epidemiology of nickel sensitivity: retrospective cross-sectional analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data 1994–2014. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2019; 80(3):701–713.
15.
WetterDA, DavisMD, YianniasJA, et al.Patch test results from the Mayo Clinic Contact Dermatitis Group, 1998–2000. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2005; 53(3):416–421.
16.
DavisMD, WangMZ, YianniasJA, et al.Patch testing with a large series of metal allergens: findings from more than 1,000 patients in one decade at Mayo Clinic. Dermatitis, 2011; 22(5):256–271.
17.
WentworthAB, YianniasJA, KeelingJH, et al.Trends in patch-test results and allergen changes in the standard series: a Mayo Clinic 5-year retrospective review (January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2010). J Am Acad Dermatol, 2014; 70(2):269–275.e4.
18.
RuiF, BovenziM, ProdiA, et al.Nickel, chromium and cobalt sensitization in a patch test population in North-Eastern Italy (1996–2010). Contact Dermatitis, 2013; 68(1):23–31.
19.
García-RabascoAE, Zaragozá-NinetV, García-RuízR, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis due to nickel: descriptive study in a tertiary hospital, 2000–2010. Actas Dermosifiliogr, 2014; 105(6):590–596.
20.
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(2):128–133.
21.
AlmutairiN, AlmutawaF. Allergic contact dermatitis pattern in Kuwait: Nickel leads the pack. In-depth analysis of nickel allergy based on the results from a large prospective patch test series report. Postepy Dermatol Alergol, 2017; 34(3):207–215.
22.
DouX, ZhaoY, NiC, et al.Prevalence of contact allergy at a dermatology clinic in China from 1990–2009. Dermatitis, 2011; 22(6):324–331.
23.
NethercottJR, HolnessDL. Cutaneous nickel sensitivity in Toronto, Canada. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1990; 22(5 Pt 1):756–761.
24.
TamI, SchalockPC, GonzálezE, et al.Patch testing results from the Massachusetts General Hospital Contact Dermatitis Clinic, 2007–2016. Dermatitis, 2020; 31(3):202–208.
25.
DeschesnesM, DemersS, FinèsP. Prevalence and characteristics of body piercing and tattooing among high school students. Can J Public Health, 2006; 97(4):325–329.
26.
SilverbergNB, PelletierJL, JacobSE, et alSection onDermatology, Section on Allergy andImmunology. Nickel allergic contact dermatitis: identification, treatment, and prevention. Pediatrics, 2020; 145(5):e20200628.
27.
GargS, ThyssenJP, UterW, et al.Nickel allergy following European Union regulation in Denmark, Germany, Italy and the U.K. Br J Dermatol, 2013; 169(4):854–858.
28.
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(5):297–304.
29.
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.
30.
WarshawEM, AschenbeckKA, DeKovenJG, et al.Epidemiology of pediatric nickel sensitivity: retrospective review of North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) data 1994–2014. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2018; 79(4):664–671.
31.
UterW, Larese FilonF, RuiF, et al.ESSCA results with nickel, cobalt and chromium, 2009–2012. Contact Dermatitis, 2016; 75(2):117–121.
32.
UterW, PfahlbergA, GefellerO, et al.Risk factors for contact allergy to nickel—results of a multifactorial analysis. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 48(1):33–38.
33.
BoonchaiW, IamtharachaiP. Risk factors for common contact allergens and patch test results using a modified European baseline series in patients tested during between 2000 and 2009 at Siriraj Hospital. Asian Pac J Allergy Immunol, 2014; 32(1):60–65.
34.
WarshawEM, AschenbeckKA, DeKovenJG, et al.Piercing and metal sensitivity: extended analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 2007–2014. Dermatitis, 2017; 28(6):333–341.
35.
AhlströmMG, 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.
36.
ChengTY, TsengYH, SunCC, et al.Contact sensitization to metals in Taiwan. Contact Dermatitis, 2008; 59(6):353–360.
37.
MalajianD, BelsitoDV. Cutaneous delayed-type hypersensitivity in patients with atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2013; 69(2):232–237.
38.
RuffCA, BelsitoDV. The impact of various patient factors on contact allergy to nickel, cobalt, and chromate. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2006; 55(1):32–39.
39.
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.
40.
Gül Ü, ÇakmakSK, OlcayI, et al.Nickel sensitivity in asthma patients. J Asthma, 2007; 44(5):383–384.
41.
van AmerongenCCA, OfenlochR, DittmarD, SchuttelaarMLA. New positive patch test reactions on day 7—the additional value of the day 7 patch test reading. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 81(4):280–287. .
42.
ThomasB, KulichovaD, WolfR, et al.High frequency of contact allergy to implant and bone cement components, in particular gentamicin, in cemented arthroplasty with complications: usefulness of late patch test reading. Contact Dermatitis, 2015; 73(6):343–349.
