4.5 Article

Pattern of contact sensitization in patients with and without atopic dermatitis in an Asian dermatology center

期刊

CONTACT DERMATITIS
卷 86, 期 5, 页码 398-403

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cod.14068

关键词

allergic contact dermatitis; atopic dermatitis; patch test

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies have shown similar or higher rates of positive patch-test results in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) compared to non-AD patients. This study found that approximately half of the patients who underwent patch testing had a positive reaction, with nickel sulfate being the most frequent sensitizing allergen.
Background Although the traditional understanding is that contact sensitization is less frequent in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), recent studies have shown similar or higher rates of positive patch-test results in AD patients. Objectives We sought to characterise the pattern of contact sensitization in patients with and without AD and evaluate the association between AD and contact sensitization. Method This was a single-center, 10-year retrospective review of patients who underwent patch testing between 2007 and 2017. Results There were 4903 patients (male-to-female ratio = 1:1.4; mean age 40.1 years) included. About half (2499, 51.0%) of all patients developed at least one positive reaction. The top five frequent reactions were to nickel sulfate (45.4%), potassium dichromate (16.0%), p-phenylenediamine (13.4%), Myroxylon pereirae (11.8%), and fragrance mix I (11.2%). The overall prevalence of contact sensitization was not significantly different between patients with or without AD. Patients with AD were less likely to develop contact allergies to budesonide and thiuram mix, and more likely to develop contact allergies to potassium dichromate. Conclusions Contact sensitization was detected in 50% of patients who were patch tested. Nickel sulfate was the most frequently sensitizing allergen. The prevalence of contact allergies in atopic patients is comparable to that in non-atopic patients.

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

4.5
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