4.5 Article

The benefit of scratch patch testing to demonstrate ocular contact allergy to brimonidine tartrate

期刊

CONTACT DERMATITIS
卷 87, 期 4, 页码 336-342

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cod.14168

关键词

allergic contact dermatitis; brimonidine; conjunctivitis; ocular allergy; ocular pruritus; patch test; scratch patch test; strip patch test

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to identify the best method of cutaneous testing and brimonidine concentration for patch testing, with scratch PT proving to be an essential tool and 5% brimonidine concentration demonstrating the highest sensitivity for scratch PT.
Introduction Ocular allergies to brimonidine are frequent in patients treated for glaucoma. There is variability in reporting due to the lack of diagnostic criteria and the absence of cutaneous testing. Many false-negative patch tests (PT) have been described. Alternative methods, such as strip and scratch PT, have been used without a standardized method. Objectives The primary objective is to identify the best method of cutaneous testing and brimonidine concentration for patch testing. The secondary objective is to identify clinical signs and symptoms suggestive of ocular allergy. Patients and Methods A retrospective review of patient files suspected of brimonidine ocular allergy was performed. Patch testing method, brimonidine concentration and clinical symptoms were reviewed. Results Of the 36 patients identified, half tested positive for brimonidine for at least one of the testing methods. The scratch PT demonstrated 17 positive reactions (94% detection rate). Three patients reacted with strip PT. No positive results were found with standard PT. The 5% brimonidine concentration demonstrated the highest sensitivity. The absence of eyelid pruritus was associated with negative testing. Conclusion In the investigation of ocular allergy to brimonidine, scratch PT proved to be an essential tool. Brimonidine 5% pet. appeared as the most sensitive concentration for scratch PT.

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