4.5 Article

Prevalence and trend of allergen sensitization in patients with cheilitis referred for patch testing, North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 2001-2018

期刊

CONTACT DERMATITIS
卷 88, 期 4, 页码 300-314

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cod.14265

关键词

allergic contact; cheilitis; dermatitis; epidemiology; health; itch; lip dermatitis; patch test; pruritus; rash

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study retrospectively analyzed the clinical characteristics and allergen relevance in patients with cheilitis referred for patch testing. The study found that the prevalence of cheilitis has been increasing over the years, and patients with cheilitis had a high rate of positive reactions to allergens.
Background: An updated understanding of allergic contact cheilitis is needed. Objectives: To characterize clinical characteristics and allergen relevance in patients with cheilitis referred for patch testing.Methods: Retrospective analysis of 43 772 patients patch tested with the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) screening series from 2001 to 2018. Results: Overall, 2094 patients (4.8%) had lips as one of three sites of dermatitis, 1583 (3.6%) had lips as the primary site and 1167 (2.7%) had lips as the sole site of dermatitis. Prevalences of cheilitis at any, primary, and sole sites significantly increased throughout the study cycle from 2001-2002 (2.7%, 2.2% and 1.7%) to 2017-2018 (7.8%, 5.2% and 3.7%). Approximately 60% of patients with any, a primary, or a sole site of cheilitis had one or more positive allergic patch-test reactions compared to 65% of those without cheilitis.Conclusion: Patients with cheilitis who were referred for patch testing had high rates of positive and relevant allergens. More than one in four patients with any, primary, or sole cheilitis had a positive reaction to non-NACDG screening allergens (28.0%, 26.8%, 31.1% vs. 21.6%) compared to patients without cheilitis, emphasizing the need for expanded patch test series in cheilitis.

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