The value of patch testing patients with a scattered generalized distribution of dermatitis: Retrospective cross-sectional analyses of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 2001 to 2004 - 24/04/13
, Robert L. Rietschel, MD b, Erin M. Warshaw, MD, MS c, Donald V. Belsito, MD d, James S. Taylor, MD e, Howard I. Maibach, MD f, C.G. Toby Mathias, MD g, Joseph F. Fowler, MD h, James G. Marks, MD i, Vincent A. DeLeo, MD j, Melanie D. Pratt, MD k, Denis Sasseville, MD l, Frances J. Storrs, MD mAbstract |
Background |
A scattered generalized distribution (SGD) of dermatitis is a challenging problem; patch testing is a strategy for evaluating allergic contact dermatitis as a relevant factor.
Objective |
We sought to analyze patient characteristics and most frequently relevant positive allergens in patients presenting for patch testing with SGD.
Methods |
We conducted retrospective cross-sectional analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2001 to 2004 data. Patients with SGD were compared with patients without SGD.
Results |
Of 10,061 patients, 14.9% (n = 1497) had only a SGD. Men and patients with a history of atopic eczema were more likely to have dermatitis in a SGD (P < .001). Preservatives, fragrances, propylene glycol, cocamidopropyl betaine, ethyleneurea melamine formaldehyde, tixocortol pivalate, and budesonide were among the more frequently relevant positive allergens. Top allergen sources included cosmetics/beauty preparations/skin and health care products, clothing, and topical corticoids.
Limitations |
This was a retrospective analysis of patch-tested patients with SGD suspected to have allergy.
Conclusions |
A total of 49% of patients with SGD had at least one relevant positive allergen, thus demonstrating the benefit of patch testing these patients.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Abbreviations used : NACDG, RPPT, SGD
Plan
| Supported by the general research fund, Section of Dermatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. |
|
| Conflicts of interest: None declared. |
|
| Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, Washington, DC, on February 1, 2007. |
|
| Reprints not available from the authors. |
Vol 59 - N° 3
P. 426-431 - septembre 2008 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
