4.1 Article

The first Australian Baseline Series: Recommendations for patch testing in suspected contact dermatitis

Journal

AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
Volume 56, Issue 2, Pages 107-115

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ajd.12186

Keywords

allergy; basic red 46; bufexamac; chloroacetamide; dermatitis; hand eczema; irritation; occupational; preservative; rubber chemical; tea tree oil; wool alcohol

Categories

Funding

  1. Singaporean government
  2. Skin and Cancer Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and ObjectivesPatch testing is a standard diagnostic tool used in the identification of causative allergens in allergic contact dermatitis. Ongoing surveillance of rates of allergen positivity is vitally important to detect trends and allow comparisons between countries. The objective of this study was to propose the first evidence-based Australian baseline series, based on retrospective review of our patch test data. We aimed to identify the most important and most relevant allergens in our population. MethodsWe conducted a 10-year (2001-2010) retrospective review of data from the contact dermatitis clinic and the occupational dermatitis clinic from our institution. ResultsWe patch tested 5281 patients in all. The top 20 allergens with the highest number of relevant positive patch test reactions were: fragrance mix 1: nickel, potassium dichromate, Myroxylon pereirae, formaldehyde, p-phenylenediamine (PPD), thiuram mix, colophony (rosin), dermatophagoides mix, ammonium persulfate, quaternium-15, cobalt chloride, methylchloroisothiazolinone or methylisothiazolinone, diazolidinylurea, epoxy resin, 1,3-dimethylol-5,5-dimethyl hydantoin, Compositae mix, toluenesulfonamide formaldehyde resin, basic red 46 and imidazolidinyl urea. ConclusionWe have elucidated the most frequent and relevant contact allergens in our patient population and used this information to construct the first Australian baseline series.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available