Advertisement

Practical Advice to Correctly Perform Patch Test

  • Camila Cortés PintoEmail author
  • Verónica Sanmartín Novell
  • Ana María Giménez-Arnau
Contact Dermatitis (A Giménez-Arnau, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Contact Dermatitis

Abstract

Purpose of review

Allergic contact dermatitis corresponds to an inflammatory reaction caused by contact with an external agent. It is a reaction mediated by a type IV hypersensitivity mechanism or delayed, and requires prior sensitization of the individual. Patch testing is the gold standard method for the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. It is the in vivo proof of the effect caused by contact with the allergen, and evokes on a small scale the elicitation phase of a delayed hypersensitivity reaction. The patch test is not a complex procedure; however, its success depends on different factors that include an appropriate assessment of the patient considering the different sources of exposure to possible allergens, the correct technique of placement of the patches, and the necessary knowledge to properly interpret the results and determine their relevance. The objective of this review is to provide a series of general recommendations to adequately perform this test, and so the results are reliable and allow proper management of the patient.

Recent findings

Although used for more than 120 years, the patch test procedure is performed with variability around the world. Although the procedure is broadly similar to the original method, it is not uncommon to observe differences in the results reported by the different observers. This may be influenced, among other factors, for differences in the methodology used by the physician who perform it.

Summary

There are numerous potential points for error that the physician must keep in mind. Although during the last decades great efforts have been devoted to the optimization and standardization of the materials and the methodology, physicians’ knowledge and experience are fundamental for the reliability of the results and the benefits from this test.

Keywords

Contact dermatitis Allergic contact dermatitis Patch testing Patch test reading Patch test relevance Advice for patch testing 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Camila Cortés Pinto, Verónica Sanmartín Novell, and Ana María Giménez-Arnau declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Cronin E. Clinical prediction of patch test results. Trans St Johns Hosp Dermatol Soc. 1972;58(2):153–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Podmore P, Burrows D, Bingham EA. Prediction of patch test results. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;11(5):283–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brasch J, Becker D, Aberer W, Bircher A, Kränke B, Jung K, et al. Guideline contact dermatitis. S1-guideline of the German Contact Allergy Group (DKG) of the German Dermatology Society (DDG), the Information Network of Dermatological Clinics (IVDK), the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the Working Group for Occupational and Environmental Dermatology (ABD) of the DDG, the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the Professional Association of German Dermatologists (BVDD) and the DDG. Allergo J Int. 2014;23(4):126–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mortz CG, Lauritsen JM, Brindsley-Jensen C, Andersen KE. 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(5):359–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Raap U, Stiech M, Reh H, Kapp A, Werfel T. Investigation of contact allergy to dental metals in 206 patient. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60(6):339–43.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2009.01524.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lachapelle JM. Allergic contact dermatitis. Clinical aspects. Rev Environ Health. 2014;29(3):185–94.  https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2014-0055.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Knackstedt TJ, Zug KA. T cell lymphomatoid contact dermatitis: a challenging case and review of the literature. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72(2):65–74.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12294.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fleming C, Burden D, Fallowfield M, Lever R. Lymphomatoid contact reaction to gold earrings. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;37(6):298–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Park YM, Kang H, Kim HO, Cho BK. Lymphomatoid eosinophilic reaction to gold earrings. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;40(4):216–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Komatsu H, Aiba S, Mori S, Suzuki K, Tagami H. Lymphocytoma cutis involving the lower lip. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;36(3):167–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paley K, Geskin LJ, Zirwas MJ. Cutaneous B-cell pseudolymphoma due to paraphenylenediamine. Am J Dermatopathol. 2006;28(5):438–41.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.dad.0000211500.91499.e3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Verma A, Tancharoen C, Tam MM, Nixon R. Pustular allergic contact dermatitis caused by fragrances. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72(4):245–8.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12341.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    González-Pérez R, Ruiz-Carrillo G, Soloeta R. Sarcoid-type allergic contact granuloma caused by earrings in a boy. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2012;103(1):73–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adengl.2010.12.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Veysey EC, Burge S, Cooper S. Consort contact dermatitis to paraphenylenediamine, with an unusual clinical presentation of tumid plaques. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;56(6):366–7.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.01065.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Veien NK. Systemic contact dermatitis. Int J Dermatol. 2011;50(12):1445–56.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-4632.2011.05104.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cressey BD, Scheinman PL. Systemic allergic dermatitis of the lips resulting from allergy to an antimicrobial agent in a contact lens disinfecting solution. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67(4):239–40.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2012.02088.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    • Fonacier L. A practical guide to patch testing. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2015;3(5):669–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2015.05.001. This article summarizes the most important practical aspects of the patch test.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    De Groot A. Patch testing. test concentrations and vehicles for 4350 chemicals. 3° ed. (Wapserveen): Acdegroot Publishing; 2008.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    •• Johansen JD, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, Andersen KE, Bircher A, Bruze M, et al. European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing-recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73(4):198–221.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12432. Excellent guide that explains in detail all the aspects related to the patch test.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Joy NM, Rice KR, Atwater AR. Stability of patch test allergens. Dermatitis. 2013;24(5):227–36.  https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0b013e3182a0a19d.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Macfarlane AW, Curley RK, Graham RM, Lewis-Jones M, King CM. Delayed patch test reactions at days 7 and 9. Contact Dermat. 1986;20(2):127–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jonker MJ, Bruynzeel DP. The outcome of an additional patch-test reading on days 6 or 7. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;42(6):330–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chaudhry HM, Drage LA, El-Azhary RA, Hall MR, Killian JM, Prakash AV, et al. Delayed patch-test reading after 5 days: an update from the Mayo Clinic Contact Dermatitis Group. Dermatitis. 2017;28(4):253–60.  https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000297.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fregert S. Manual of contact dermatitis on behalf of the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group and the North American Contact Dermatitis Group. 2nd ed. Copenhagen: Munksgaard Publishers; 1981.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    • Mowad CM, Anderson B, Scheinman P, Pootongkam S, Nedorost S, Brod B. Allergic contact dermatitis: Patient management and education. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74(6):1043–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2015.02.1144. This guide provides considerations related to the education and management of the patient subjected to a patch test.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Paul MA, Fleischer AB, Sherertz EF. Patients’ benefit from contact dermatitis evaluation: results of a follow-up study. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 1995;6(2):63–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0190-9622(95)91820-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lewis FM, Cork MJ, McDonagh AJG, Gawkrodger DDJ. An audit of the value of patch testing: the patients’ perspective. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;30(4):214–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Edman B. The usefulness of detailed information to patients with contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 1988;19(1):43–7.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.1988.tb02866.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mowad CM. Patch testing: pitfalls and performance. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;6(5):340–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Johansen JD, Bruze M, Andersen KE, Frosch PJ, Dreier B, White IR, et al. The repeated open application test: suggestions for a scale of evaluation. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;39(2):95–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Andersen KE, Hjorth N, Menné T. The baboon syndrome: systemically-induced allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;10(2):97–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Andersen KE, White IR, Goossens A. Allergens from the European baseline series. In: Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin JP, editors. Contact dermatitis. 5th ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2011.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rietschel RL, Flowler JF editors. Fisher’s contact dermatitis, 6th ed. Hamilton: BC Decker, 2008.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Conde-Salazar L. Dermatosis profesionales por metales. In: Conde-Salazar L, Ancona-Alayon A. Dermatología profesional. Madrid: Grupo Aula Médica; 2004.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lidén C, bruze M, Pontoppidan Thyssen J, Menné T. Metals. In: Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin JP, editors. Contact dermatitis, 5th ed. Berlin: Springer; 2011.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Goossens A, Arminguad M, Avenel-Audran M, Begon-Bagdassarian I, Constandt L, Giordano-Labadie F, et al. An epidemic of allergic contact dermatitis due to epilating products. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;47(2):67–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Valois A, Waton J, Avelen-Audran M, Truchetet F, Collet E, Raison-Peyron N, et al. Contact sensitization to modern dressings: a multicentre study on 354 patients with chronic leg ulcers. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72(2):90–6.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12307.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pereira TM, Flour M, Goossens A. Allergic contact dermatitis from modified colophonium in wound dressings. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;56(1):5–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01026.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Christoffers WA, Coenraads JP, Schuttelaar ML. Bullous allergic reaction caused by colophonium in medical adhesives. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70(4):256–7.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12170.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Giménez-Arnau AM, Deza G, Bauer A, Johnston GA, Mahler V, Schuttelaar ML, et al. Contact allergy to preservatives: ESSCA results with the baseline series, 2009-2012. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31:664–71.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.14063.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schwensen JF, Uter W, Bruze M, Svedman A, Goossen A, Wilkinson M, et al. The epidemic of methylisothiazolinone: a European prospective study. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;76(5):272–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12733.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Foussereau J, Cavelier C, Protois JC, Sanchez M, Heid E. A case of erythema multiforme with allergy to isopropyl-p-phenylenediamine of rubber. Contact Dermatitis. 1998, 18(3):183.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fisher AA. Allergic petechial and purpuric rubber dermatitis: the PPPP syndrome. Cutis. 1974;14:25–7.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Romaguera C, Grimalt F, Vilaplana J. Eccematous and purpuric allergic contact dermatitis from boots. Contact Dermatitis. 1989;21(4):269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lynde CW, Mitchell JC. Patch test results in 66 hairdressers 1973-1981. Contact Dermatitis 1982: 8(5): 302–7.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.1982.tb04235.x
  46. 46.
    Gunasti S, Aksungur VL. Severe inflammatory and keloidal, allergic reaction due to para-phenylenediamine in temporary tattoos. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2010;76(2):165–7.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0378-6323.60569.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lepoittevin JP, Drieghe J, Dooms-Goossens A. Studies in patients with corticosteroid contact allergy: understanding cross-reactivity among different steroids. Arch Dermatol. 1995;131(1):31–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Baeck M, Goossens A. Patients with airbone sensitization/contact dermatitis from budesonide-containing aerosols ´by proxy`. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;61(1):1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j1600-0536.2009.01575.x.
  49. 49.
    Spornraft-Ragaller P, Schnuch A, Uter W. Extreme patch test reactivity to p-phenylenediamine but not to other allergens in children. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;65(4):220–6.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2011.01930.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Castanedo-Tardan MP, Matiz C, Jacob SE. Contact dermatitis in children - a review of current opinions. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2011;102(1):8–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ad.2009.12.028.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hamann D, Zirwas M. Successful patch testing of a patient receiving anti-interleukin-17 therapy with secukinumab: a case report. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;76(6):378–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12765.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Jensen CD, Paulsen E, Andersen KE. Retrospective evaluation of the consequence of alleged patch test sensitization. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;55(1):30–5.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2006.00863.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    White JM, McFadden JP, White IR. A review of 241 subjects who were patch tested twice: could fragrance mix I cause active sensitization? Br J Dermatol. 2008;158(3):518–21.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2007.08391.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sperber BR, Allee J, Elenitsas R, James WD. Papular dermatitis and a persistent patch test reaction to gold sodium thiosulfate. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48(4):204–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Anderson KE, Jensen CD. Long lasting patch reactions to gold sodium thiosulfate occurs frequently in healthy volunteers. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;56(4):214–7.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01049.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Memon AA, Friedmann PS. ‘Angry back syndrome’: a non-reproducible phenomenon. Br J Dermatol. 1996;135(6):924–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mitchell J, Maibach HI. Managing the excited skin syndrome: patch testing hyperirritable skin. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;37(5):193–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Blair JE, Fredrikson LJ, Pockaj BA, Lucaire CS. Locally invasive cutaneous Apophysomyces elegans infection acquired from snapdragon patch test. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77(7):717–20.  https://doi.org/10.4065/77.7.717.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lesueur BW, Warschaw K, Fredrikson L. Necrotizing cellulitis caused by Apophysomyces elegans at a patch test site. Am J Contact Dermat. 2002;13(3):140–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hoekstra M, van der Heide S, Coenraads PJ, Schuttelaar ML. Anaphylaxis and severe systemic reactions caused by skin contact with persulfates in hair-bleaching products. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66(6):317–22.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2012.02047.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Perfetti L, Galdi E, Biale C, Garbelli N, Moscato G. Anaphylactoid reaction to patch testing with ammonium persulfate. Allergy. 2000;55(1):94–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Orlandini A, Viotti G, Magno L. Anaphylactoid reaction induced by patch testing with formaldehyde in an asthmatic. Contact Dermatitis. 1988;19(5):383–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Haustein UF. Anaphylactic shock and contact urticaria after the patch test with professional allergens. Allerg Immunol. 1976;22(4):349–52.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Camila Cortés Pinto
    • 1
    Email author
  • Verónica Sanmartín Novell
    • 1
  • Ana María Giménez-Arnau
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of DermatologyHospital Universitari Arnau de VilanovaLleidaSpain
  2. 2.Department of DermatologyHospital del MarBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations