Patch test results with the European baseline series, 2019/20-Joint European results of the ESSCA and the EBS working groups of the ESCD, and the GEIDAC.

Autor: Uter W; Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany., Wilkinson SM; Dermatology Department, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK., Aerts O; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Antwerp (UZA) and Research group Immunology, Infla-Med Centre of Excellence, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium., Bauer A; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University, Dresden, Germany., Borrego L; Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Insular Materno Infantil, Universidad de las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain., Brans R; Institute for Interdisciplinary Dermatologic Prevention and Rehabilitation (iDerm) at the University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany., Buhl T; Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany., Dickel H; Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, St. Josef Hospital, University Medical Center, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany., Dugonik A; Department of Dermatology, University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia., Filon FL; Department of Public Health, Occupational Medicine, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy., Garcìa PM; Department of Dermatology, Hospital Morales Meseguer, Murcia, Spain., Giménez-Arnau A; Department of Dermatology, Hospital del Mar, Institut Mar d´Investigacions Mèdiques, Universitat Pompeu Fabra de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain., Patruno C; Department of Health Sciences, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy., Pesonen M; Division Occupational Medicine, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland., Pónyai G; Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Dermato-oncology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary., Rustemeyer T; Department of Dermatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands., Schubert S; Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), Institute at the University Medical Centre Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany., Schuttelaar MA; Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands., Simon D; Department of Dermatology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland., Stingeni L; Dermatology Section, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy., Valiukevičienė S; Department of Skin and Venereal Diseases, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania., Weisshaar E; Occupational Dermatology, Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany., Werfel T; Division of Immunodermatology and Allergy Research, Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany., Gonçalo M; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Contact dermatitis [Contact Dermatitis] 2022 Oct; Vol. 87 (4), pp. 343-355. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Jun 24.
DOI: 10.1111/cod.14170
Abstrakt: Background: Continual analyses of patch test results with the European baseline series (EBS) serve both contact allergy surveillance and auditing the value of included allergens.
Objectives: To present results of current EBS patch testing, obtained in 53 departments in 13 European countries during 2019 and 2020.
Methods: Anonymised or pseudonymised individual data and partly aggregated data on demographic/clinical characteristics and patch test rest results with the EBS were prospectively collected and centrally pooled and analysed.
Results: In 2019 and 2020, 22 581 patients were patch tested with the EBS. Sensitization to nickel remained most common (19.8 [19.2-20.4]% positivity [95% confidence interval]). Fragrance mix I and Myroxylon pereirae yielded very similar results with 6.80 (6.43-7.19)% and 6.62 (6.25-7.00)% positivity, respectively. Formaldehyde at 2% aq. yielded almost one percentage point more positive reactions than 1% concentration (2.49 [2.16-2.85]% vs. 1.59 [1.33-1.88]); methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) and MI alone up to around 5% positives. Among the new additions, propolis was most commonly positive (3.48 [3.16-3.82]%), followed by 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2.32 [2.0-2.68]%).
Conclusion: Ongoing surveillance on the prevalence of contact sensitization contributes to an up-to-date baseline series containing the most frequent and/or relevant contact sensitizers for routine patch testing in Europe.
(© 2022 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje