Abstract
Commercially available patch test kits (standard series and various supplementary series) are the basis of a diagnostic work-up if an allergic contact dermatitis is to be confirmed. However, various investigators have shown that this way of testing is not sufficient. Menné et al. [20] found in a multicenter study that the European Standard Series detects only 37–73% of the responsible allergens in patients with contact dermatitis. The additional and/or separately tested allergens were positive in 5–23%; the authors emphasize the necessity of testing with the products actually used by the patient. In Italy, an analysis of 230 patients referred to a contact clinic because of suspected occupational contact dermatitis showed that the standard series alone detected 69.9% of all cases considered to be of an allergic nature [22]; 26.3% of all allergic cases were positive only to supplementary series. The agents most commonly responsible for allergic contact dermatitis were metals and para-phenylenediamine.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Balzer C, Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W (2005) Ergebnisse der Epikutantestung mit patienteneigenen Kosmetika und Körperpflegemittel im IVDK, 1998–2002. Dermatol Beruf Umwelt 53: 8–24
Belsito DV, Fransway AF, Fowler JF Jr, Sherertz EF, Maibach HI, Mark JG Jr, Mathias CG, Rietschel RL, Storrs FJ, Nethercott JR (2002) Allergic contact dermatitis to detergents: a multicenter study to assess prevalence. J Am Acad Dermatol 46(2): 200–2006
Bruze M (1984) Use of buffer solutions for patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 10: 267–269
Bruze M, Frick M, Persson L (2003) Patch testing with thin-layer chromatograms. Contact Dermatitis 48: 278–279
Daecke CM (1994) Der Stellenwert patienteneigener Testsubstanzen bei der Epikutantestung. Hautarzt 45: 292–298
Dooms-Goossens A (1995) Patch testing without a kit. In: Guin JD (ed) Practical contact dermatitis. A handbook for the practitioner. McGraw-Hill, Philadelphia, Pa., pp 63–74
Frick M, Zimerson E, Karlsson D et al (2004) Poor correlation between stated and found concentration of diphenylmethane-4,4′-diisocyanate (4,4′-MDI) in petrolatum patch-test preparations. Contact Dermatitis 51: 73–78
Geier J, Lessmann H, Hillen U, Jappe U, Dickel H, Koch P et al (2004) An attemt to improve diagnostics of contact allergy due to epoxy resin systems. First results of the multicentre study EPOX 2002. Contact Dermatitis 51: 263–272
Giménez Arnau E, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, Menné T, Rastogie SE, White IR, Lepoittevin JP (2000) Identification of Lilial chemical fractionation and structure-activity relationships. Contact Dermatitis 43: 351–358
Goossens A, Armingaud P, Avenel-Audran M et al (2002) An epidemic of allergic contact dermatitis due to epilating products. Contact Dermatitis 46: 67–70
Goossens A, Detienne T, Bruze M (2002) Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by isocyanates. Contact Dermatitis 47: 304–308
Hausen BM (1988) Allergiepflanzen, Pflanzengifte. Handbuch und Atlas der allergieinduzierenden Wild-und Kulturpflanzen. 1988 Ecomed Verlag, Landsberg Lech
Henriks-Eckerman M, Suuronen K, Jolanki R, Alanko K (2004) Methacrylates in dental restorative materials. Contact Dermatitis 50: 233–237
Herbst RA, Uter W, Pirker C, Geier J, Frosch PJ (2004) Allergic and nonallergic periorbital dermatitis: patch test results of the Information Network of the Departments of Dermatology during a 5-year period. Contact Dermatitis 51: 13–19
Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Rastogi SC, Menné T (2001) Testing with fine fragrances in eczema patients. Contact Dermatitis 44: 304–307
Jolanki R, Estlander T, Alanko K, Kanerva L (2000) Patch testing with a patient’s own materials handled at work. In: Kanerva L, Elsner P, Wahlberg JE, Maibach HI (eds) Handbook of occupational dermatology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 375–383
Lange-Ionescu S, Bruze M, Gruvberger B, Zimerson E, Frosch PJ (2000) Kontaktallergie durch kohlefreies Durchschlagpapier. Dermat Beruf Umwelt 48: 183–187
Magerl A, Heiss R, Frosch PJ (2001) Allergic contact dermatitis from zinc ricinoleate in a deodorant and glyceryl ricinoleate in a lipstick. Contact Dermatitis 44: 119–121
Magerl A, Pirker C, Frosch PJ (2003) Allergisches Kontaktekzem durch Schellack und 1,3-Butylenglykol in einem Eyliner. Journal Deutsch Dermatolog Gesellsch 1: 300–302
Menné T, Dooms-Goossens A, Wahlberg JE, White IR, Shaw S (1992) How large a proportion of contact sensitivities are diagnosed with the European standard series? Contact Dermatitis 26: 201–202
Mutterer V, Giménez Arnau E, Lepoittevin JP, Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Menné T, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Rastogi SC, White IR (1999) Identification of coumarin as the sensitizer in a patient sensitive to her own perfume but negative to the fragrance mix. Contact Dermatitis 40: 196–199
Nettis E, Marcandrea M, Colonardi MC, Paradiso MT, Ferrannini, Tursi A (2003) Results of standard series patch testing in patients with occupational allergic contact dermatitis. Allergy 58: 1304–1307
Niinimäki A (1987) Scratch-chamber tests in food handler dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 16: 11–20
Sherertz EF, Byers SV (1997) Estimating dilutions for patch testing skin care products: a practical method. Am J Contact Derm 8: 181–182
Sosted H, Basketter DA, Estrada E, Johansen JD, Patlewicz GY (2004) Ranking of hair dye substances according to predicted sensitization potency: quantitative structure-activity relationships. Contact Dermatitis 51: 241–254
Tiedemann KH, Zöllner G, Adam M et al (2002) Empfehlungen für die Epikutantestung bei Verdacht auf Kontaktallergie durch Kühlschmierstoffe. 2. Hinweise zur Arbeitsstofftestung. Dermatol Beruf Umwelt 50: 180–189
Uter W, Geier J, Lessmann H, Schnuch A (1999) Unverträglichkeitsreaktionen gegen Körperpflege-und Haushaltsprodukte: Was ist zu tun? Die Informations-und Dokumentationsstelle für Kontaktallergien (IDOK) des Informationsverbundes Dermatologischer Kliniken (IVDK). Deutsche Dermatologe 47: 211–21
Uter W, Balzer C, Geier J, Schnuch A, Frosch PJ (2005) Ergebnisse der Epikutantestung mit patienteneigenen Parfüms, Deos und Rasierwässern. Ergebnisse des IVDK 1998–2002. Dermatol Beruf Umwelt 53: 25–36
Uter W, Balzer C, Geier J, Frosch PJ, Schnuch A (2005) Patch testing with patients’ own cosmetics and toiletries — results of the IVDK, 1998–2002. Contact Dermatitis 53: 226–233
Vigan M (1997) Les nouveaux allergenes des cosmetiques. La cosmetovigilance. Ann Dermatol Venereol 124: 571–575
Karlberg AT, Lidén C (1992) Colophony (rosin) in newspapers may contribute to hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 126: 161–165
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Frosch, P.J., Geier, J., Uter, W., Goossens, A. (2007). Patch Testing with the Patients’Own Products. In: Dictionary of Contact Allergens. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74165-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74165-7_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-74164-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-74165-7
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)