4.6 Article

Prevalence of nickel and cobalt allergy among female patients with dermatitis before and after Danish government regulation: A 23-year retrospective study

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2009.03.030

关键词

allergy; cobalt; dermatitis; epidemiology; nickel; patch testing; prevalence

资金

  1. Copenhagen County Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. An increased prevalence of nickel allergy prompted the Danish government to prohibit excessive nickel release (ie, >0.5 mu g nickel/cm(2)/wk) from consumer products in 1990. Concomitant allergy to nickel and cobalt is often observed among patients with dermatitis, probably as it result of cosensitization. Objectives. The study investigated the development of nickel and cobalt allergy among Danish female patients with dermatitis tested between 1985 and 2007. This was done to examine whether Danish nickel regulation has reduced the prevalence of nickel allergy and to examine whether the prevalence of cobalt allergy has increased as a result of the nickel regulation. Methods: A retrospective analysis of all patch test data from our database was performed (n = 10,335). Comparisons were made using a chi-square test for trend. Logistic regression analyses were used to test for associations. Results: The prevalence of nickel allergy decreased significantly among those aged 5 to 30 years from 27.6% in 1985 to 16.8% in 2007 (P-trend < .002) but increased among those aged 31 to 49 years from 21.3% to 33.8% in the same period (P-trend < .001). The median age was significantly higher among patients with isolated cobalt allergy than among patients with nickel allergy (P < .001). Limitations: No information on causative exposures was available. Conclusions: Nickel allergy decreased among Young female patients with dermatitis between 1985 and 2007 whereas it increased among older patients, probably as a result Of a cohort effect. The prevalence of cobalt allergy remained relatively unchanged. (J Am Acad Dermatol 2009;61:799-805.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据