|
|
| [PMID]: | 25581671 |
| [Au] Autor: | Warshaw EM; Maibach HI; Taylor JS; Sasseville D; DeKoven JG; Zirwas MJ; Fransway AF; Mathias CG; Zug KA; DeLeo VA; Fowler JF; Marks JG; Pratt MD; Storrs FJ; Belsito DV |
| [Ad] Endereço: | From the University of Minnesota and the Minneapolis VAMC; University of California, San Francisco; Cleveland Clinic, Ohio; McGill University Health Centre, Montreal; University of Toronto, Canada; Ohio State University, Columbus; Associates in Dermatology, Fort Myers, Fla; Group Health Associates, Cincinnati, Ohio; Dartmouth Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center, New York, NY; Dermatology Specialists, Louisville, KY; Pennsylvania State University Hershey; University of Ottawa, Canada; Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland; and Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY. |
| [Ti] Título: | North American contact dermatitis group patch test results: 2011-2012. |
| [So] Source: | Dermatitis;26(1):49-59, 2015 Jan-Feb. | | [Is] ISSN: | 2162-5220 |
| [Cp] País de publicação: | United States |
| [La] Idioma: | eng |
| [Ab] Resumo: | BACKGROUND: Patch testing is an important diagnostic tool for assessment of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). OBJECTIVE: This study documents the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) patch-testing results from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2012. METHODS: At 12 centers in North America, patients were tested in a standardized manner with a series of 70 allergens. Data were manually verified and entered into a central database. Descriptive frequencies were calculated, and trends analyzed using χ statistics. RESULTS: Four thousand two hundred thirty-eight patients were tested; of these, 2705 patients (63.8%) had at least 1 positive reaction, and 2029 (48.0%) were ultimately determined to have a primary diagnosis of ACD. Four hundred eight patients (9.6%) had occupationally related skin disease. There were 7532 positive allergic reactions. As compared with previous reporting periods (2009-2010 and 2000-2010), positive reaction rates statistically increased for 6 allergens: methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (5.0%; risk ratios [RRs]: 2.01 [1.60-2.52], 1.87 [1.61-2.18]), lanolin alcohol (4.6%; RRs 1.83 [1.45-2.30], 2.10 [1.79-2.47]), cinnamic aldehyde (3.9%; 1.69 [1.32-2.15], 1.53 [1.28-1.82]), glutaral (1.5%; 1.67 [1.13-2.48], 1.31 [1.00-1.71]), paraben mix (1.4%; 1.77 [1.16-2.69], 1.44 [1.09-1.92]), and fragrance mix I (12.1%; RRs 1.42 [1.25-1.61], 1.24 [1.14-1.36]). Compared with the previous decade, positivity rates for all formaldehyde-releasing preservatives significantly decreased (formaldehyde 6.6%; RR, 0.82 [0.73, 0.93]; quaternium-15 6.4% RR 0.75 [0.66, 0.85]; diazolidinyl urea 2.1%; RR, 0.67 [0.54, 0.84]; imidazolidinyl urea 1.6%, 0.60 [0.47, 0.77]; bronopol 1.6%; RR, 0.60 [0.46, 0.77]; DMDM hydantoin 1.6%; RR, 0.59 [0.54, 0.84]). Approximately a quarter of patients had at least 1 relevant allergic reaction to a non-NACDG allergen. In addition, approximately one-fourth to one-third of reactions detected by NACDG allergens would have been hypothetically missed by T.R.U.E. TEST (SmartPractice Denmark, Hillerød, Denmark). CONCLUSIONS: These data document the beginning of the epidemic of sensitivity to methylisothiazolinones in North America, which has been well documented in Europe. Patch testing with allergens beyond a standard screening tray is necessary for complete evaluation of occupational and nonoccupational ACD. |
| [Mh] Termos MeSH primário: |
Alérgenos/efeitos adversos
Dermatite Alérgica de Contato/diagnóstico
Dermatite Alérgica de Contato/epidemiologia
Dermatite Ocupacional/epidemiologia
Testes do Emplastro
|
| [Mh] Termos MeSH secundário: |
Acroleína/efeitos adversos
Acroleína/análogos & derivados
Adolescente
Adulto
Idoso
Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais
Criança
Pré-Escolar
Dermatite Alérgica de Contato/etiologia
Dermatite Ocupacional/etiologia
Feminino
Formaldeído/efeitos adversos
Glutaral/efeitos adversos
Seres Humanos
Hidantoínas/efeitos adversos
Lanolina/efeitos adversos
Lanolina/análogos & derivados
Masculino
Metenamina/efeitos adversos
Metenamina/análogos & derivados
Meia-Idade
América do Norte/epidemiologia
Parabenos/efeitos adversos
Perfumes/efeitos adversos
Prevalência
Propilenoglicóis/efeitos adversos
Tiazóis/efeitos adversos
Ureia/efeitos adversos
Ureia/análogos & derivados
Adulto Jovem
|
| [Pt] Tipo de publicação: | JOURNAL ARTICLE; MULTICENTER STUDY; RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T |
[Nm] Nome de substância:
| 0 (Allergens); 0 (Hydantoins); 0 (Parabens); 0 (Perfume); 0 (Propylene Glycols); 0 (Thiazoles); 1HG84L3525 (Formaldehyde); 63393-93-1 (isopropyl lanolin); 6PU1E16C9W (bronopol); 7864XYD3JJ (Acrolein); 8006-54-0 (Lanolin); 8W8T17847W (Urea); BYR0546TOW (1,3-dimethylol-5,5-dimethylhydantoin); DEL7T5QRPN (5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one); E40U03LEM0 (quaternium-15); H5RIZ3MPW4 (diazolidinylurea); J50OIX95QV (Methenamine); M629807ATL (imidazolidinyl urea); SR60A3XG0F (cinnamic aldehyde); T3C89M417N (Glutaral) |
| [Em] Mês de entrada: | 1509 |
| [Cu] Atualização por classe: | 161125 |
[Lr] Data última revisão:
| 161125 |
| [Sb] Subgrupo de revista: | IM |
| [Da] Data de entrada para processamento: | 150113 |
| [St] Status: | MEDLINE |
| [do] DOI: | 10.1097/DER.0000000000000097 |
| |
|
|
