Importance of Supplemental Patch Testing Beyond a Screening Series for Patients With Dermatitis: The North American Contact Dermatitis Group Experience

Supplemental Patch Testing Identifies Allergens Missed by Standard Screening Series

Background: Supplemental patch testing is an adjunct to standard patch test screening series. Objective: To determine the demographics, characteristics, frequency, relevance, and interpretation of patch test reactions for supplemental patch testing. Methods: Retrospective study of patients tested 2017-2020 with North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) and supplemental screening series (Supplemental Series A [SSA], Supplemental Series B [SSB]). Demographics, characteristics, reaction strengths, relevance, and final interpretation were recorded. Results: Cohort included 791 patients; 73.5% female, 68.6% age >40 years. 74.1% were White, 15.2% Black, 5.7% Asian, and 1.5% Hispanic. The most common dermatitis sites were scattered/generalized (27.2%), face (24.0%), and hands (23.5%). For 2017-2018 and 2019-2020, respectively, 82% (318/388) and 78.4% (316/403) had ≥1 "allergic" reaction. In addition, 13.5% (52/385) and 11.7% (47/403) had SSA reactions, and 38.1% (115/302) and 31.5% (101/321) had SSB reactions. In the 87 (2017-2018) and 99 (2019-2020) patients with negative NACDG testing, 17 (19.5%) and 12 (12.1%) had supplemental reactions. Of the 34 supplemental allergens with reaction frequency ≥1%, 58.8% (20/34) are not part of the American Contact Dermatitis Society 90 (2020) or NACDG 2021-2022 screening series. The highest frequency allergens from this group were dodecyl and octyl gallate, cinnamic alcohol, phenyl salicylate, hexahydro-1,3,5-tris-(2-hydroxyethyl) triazine, and abitol. Conclusions: Supplemental patch testing identifies additional relevant allergens in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis.

Patch Testing Results From the Massachusetts General Hospital Occupational and Contact Dermatitis Clinic, 2017-2022

Background: Patch testing is gold standard for identifying the source of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Objective: To report patch testing results from the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Occupational and Contact Dermatitis Clinic from 2017 to 2022. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients referred to MGH for patch testing, 2017-2022. Results: In total, 1438 patients were included. At least 1 positive patch test (PPT) reaction was observed in 1168 (81.2%) patients and at least 1 relevant PPT reaction was observed in 1087 (75.6%) patients. The most common allergen with a PPT was nickel (21.5%), followed by hydroperoxides of linalool (20.4%) and balsam of Peru (11.5%). Sensitization rates statistically increased over time for propylene glycol and decreased for 12 other allergens (all P values <0.0004). Limitations: Retrospective design, single institution tertiary referral population, and variations in allergens and suppliers across the study period. Conclusion: The field of ACD is constantly evolving. Regular analysis of patch test data is crucial to identify emerging and diminishing contact allergen trends.

Analysis of Adverse Reactions of Cosmetics in Chinese Han Population in Recent Five Years

Background

There are still some gaps in the summary and generalization of cosmetic-related adverse reaction reports.

Objective

The aim of this study is to summarize and analyze the occurrence of cosmetic adverse reactions in Shanghai Han population by using available survey data.

Materials and Methods

Collection, statistics and analysis of patients with cosmetic adverse reactions in Shanghai Huashan Hospital from 2017 to 2021.

Results

Among the 1004 patients, most of them (96.71%) were diagnosed as cosmetic contact dermatitis, which often occurred within 3 days of using cosmetics (51.79%). A total of 260 patients were tested with patch test, but the compliance rate was only 18.08%. Among them, 240 patients underwent additional European standard allergen tests, and positive allergens were detected in 210 cases (87.5%). Univariate analysis revealed that dosage form (emulsion and cream), age (≤25 years) and the allergic ingredients triethanolamine, rose oil, propylene glycol, thiomersal and musk ambrette are associated with the occurrence of cosmetic adverse reactions within seven days. A logit prediction model was also successfully constructed: Logit (P) = 1.710-0.796×1 + 1.185×2 -3.650X3-1.335X4.

Conclusion

This study complements the data reported on cosmetic adverse reactions in the Chinese Han population and suggests that in future clinical diagnosis and data collection, emphasis should be placed on patch testing, combining the patch test with cosmetic protoplast with the European standard allergen test to improve the detection rate.