4.6 Article

Age-related differences in patch testing results among children: Analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 2001-2018

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.07.030

关键词

adolescent; allergic contact dermatitis; children; dermatitis; epidemiology; health; itch; patch test; pruritus; rash

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to compare positive and clinically relevant reactions in children versus adults referred for patch testing. The results showed that the final diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis and the prevalence of relevant reactions to NACDG screening allergens were similar between children and adults. Nickel sulfate, cobalt chloride, and hydroperoxides of linalool were the most common relevant allergens in children.
Background: An updated understanding of allergic contact dermatitis is needed, particularly in children. Objectives: To compare positive and clinically relevant reactions in children versus adults referred for patch testing. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 1871 children and 41,699 adults from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) from 2001-2018. Results: Both final diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis (55.2% versus 57.3%; chi square, P = .0716) and prevalence of >= 1 currently relevant reaction to a NACDG screening allergen (49.2% vs 52.2%; P = .1178) were similar between children and adults. Currently in children, the most common relevant allergens were nickel sulfate (17.3%), hydroperoxides of linalool (7.8%), methylisothiazolinone (7.7%), cobalt chloride (7.0%), and fragrance mix I (4.9%). Approximately a fifth of children had a positive reaction to a non-NACDG allergen. Conclusion: Over half of children referred for patch testing were diagnosed with allergic contact dermatitis. The most common relevant allergens in children were nickel sulfate, cobalt chloride, and hydroperoxides of linalool. Twenty percent of children had at least 1 positive reaction to allergens/substances not on the NACDG screening series, underscoring the need for comprehensive testing.

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