4.5 Article

Patch testing with the Japanese baseline series 2015: A 4-year experience

Journal

CONTACT DERMATITIS
Volume 86, Issue 3, Pages 189-195

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cod.14027

Keywords

gold sodium thiosulfate; Japanese baseline series; multicentre study; nickel sulfate; patch test; patch test panel (S); positivity rate; TRUE test; web resister

Funding

  1. Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development [jRCTs041180105]
  2. Japanese Society for Cutaneous Immunology and Allergy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study determines the prevalence of sensitizations to JBS 2015 allergens from 2015 to 2018 by investigating patch test results. The highest positivity rates were found for nickel sulfate and gold sodium thiosulfate.
Background The Japanese baseline series (JBS), established in 1994, was updated in 2008 and 2015. The JBS 2015 is a modification of the thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous (TRUE) test (SmartPractice Denmark, Hillerod, Denmark). No nationwide studies concerning the TRUE test have previously been reported. Objectives To determine the prevalence of sensitizations to JBS 2015 allergens from 2015 to 2018. Methods We investigated JBS 2015 patch test results using the web-registered Skin Safety Care Information Network (SSCI-Net) from April 2015 to March 2019. Results Patch test results of 5865 patients were registered from 63 facilities. The five allergens with the highest positivity rates were gold sodium thiosulfate (GST; 25.7%), nickel sulfate (24.5%), urushiol (9.1%), p-phenylenediamine (PPD; 8.9%), and cobalt chloride (8.4%). The five allergens with the lowest positivity rates were mercaptobenzothiazole (0.8%), formaldehyde (0.9%), paraben mix (1.1%), mercapto mix (1.1%), and PPD black rubber mix (1.4%). Conclusions Nickel sulfate and GST had the highest positivity rates. The JBS 2015, including a modified TRUE test, is suitable for baseline series patch testing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available