2018

Examination of the frequency of patients with pre-diagnosed allergic contact dermatitis attending dermatology outpatient clinics and evaluation of patch test results

Aim: In this study, it is aimed to investigate the frequency of attending dermatology outpatient clinics and patch test results in the light of demographic characteristics of patients who underwent patch tests with a preliminary diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in 2018-2019.Material and Methods: The files of patients who had a patch test with a preliminary diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis were scanned retrospectively. Demographic characteristics such as age, gender, profession, number of attending to the dermatology outpatient clinic with the same complaint and the reactions determined as a result of the patch tests were examined.Results: A total of 122 patients with 67 (54.9%) male and 55 (45.1%) females were included in this study. The median duration of lesions was 24 (minimum 1, maximum 360) months. Fifty-eight (47.5%) patients had been attending the Dermatology outpatient clinic at least three times with the same complaint. Patients who attended to the dermatology outpatient clinics at least 3 timesand had at least one positive patch test were including cobalt positivity as 29.3%, potassium dichromate as 27.5%, nickel as 24.1%, colophony as 13.8% and thiuram mix as 10.3%. There were 81 (66.4%) patients with at least one positive patch test results, 52 (42.6%) with at least two positives, and 33 (27%) with three positives. The three items that were at least one positive were nickel sulfate (26.2%), cobalt (25.4%), potassium dichromate (20.5%), respectively. Three items with three positivity were nickel (13.9%), potassium dichromate (4.1%), and mercaptobenzothiazole (2.5%), respectively. No positivity was found for benzocaine, 2-Methoxy6-n-pentyl-4-benzoquinone, and clioquinol.Conclusion: In this study, the frequency of patients with ACD attending to the dermatology outpatient clinics at least 3 times was found approximately 50%. These results emphasize the importance of patch test awareness about the preventive medicine approach in our country. Also, the items causing ACD according to the degree of positivity were reported for the first time in this study. It was found that nickel and potassium dichromate, which are used relatively common in industries, are the most common strong allergens.

PDF

___

1. Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, Gefeller O. IVDK study group: Epidemiology of contact allergy: an estimation of morbidity employing the clinical epidemiology and drug-utilization research (CE-DUR) approach. Contact Dermatitis 2002;47:32-9.
2. Marks JG Jr, Elsner P, DeLeo VA. Contact and Occupational Dermatology. 3rd edition, Philadelphia, Mosby 2002;3-15.
3. Nosbaum A, Vocanson M, Rozieres A, Hennino A, Nicolas JF. Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis. Eur J Dermatol 2009;19:325-32.
4. Rosa G, Fernandez AP, Vij A, Sood A, Plesec T, Bergfeld WF, et al. Langerhans cell collections, but not eosinophils, arecluesto a diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis in appropriate skin biopsies. J Cutan Pathol 2016;43:498-504.
5. Belsito DV. The pathophysiology of allergic contact hypersensitivity. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 1989;7:347-79.
6. Kadyk DL, McCarter K, Achen F, Belsito DV. Quality of life in patients with allergic contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2003;49:1037-48.
7. Ancona A, Monroy F, Fernandez-Diez J. Occupational dermatitis from IPPD in tires. Contact Dermatitis 1982;8:91-4.
8. Ada S, Askin U, Gulec AT, et al. Patch test results of 775 patients with allergic contact dermatitis. Turkderm 2010;44:187-192.
9. Demirgüneş FE, Ersoy Evans S, Boztepe G, ve ark. Deri yama testi: daha az madde içeren ön yama testi serisi daha pratik olabilir mi? Turkderm 2007;41:7-10.
10. Ertam I, Turkmen M, Alper S. Patch-test results of an academic department in Izmir, Turkey. Dermatitis 2008;19:213-5.
11. Çalka Ö, Karadağ AS, Akdeniz N, ve ark. Türkiyenin doğusunda kontakta dermatitli hastalarda deri yama testi sonuçları. Turkderm 2011;45:19-23.
12. Tunca M, Çalışkan E, Yürekli A. Türkiye/Ankara ilinde sık görülen kontakt allerjenler: Yama testi sonuçlarını içeren retrospektif bir çalışma. Turkderm 2019;53:49- 52.
13. Türkmen D, Altunışık N. Malatya İlinde 169 Alerjik Kontakt Dermatitli Hastada Yama Testi Sonuçları. Turkiye Klinikleri J Dermatol 2018;28:114-22.
14. Karaman BF, Topal SG, Aksungur VL. El Egzamasında Yama ve İğne Testleri: Altmış Yedi Olguluk Seri Sonuçları. Turk J Dermatol 2017;11:158-61.
15. Erfan G, Yanık ME, Kaya Ş, ve ark. Alerjik kontakt dermatitli olgularda yama testi: Üç yıllık retrospektif Tekirdağ ili sonuçları. Turkderm 2015;49:129-33.
16. Koca R, Altınyazar C, Solak Tekin N, ve ark. Batı Karadeniz Bölgesinde alerjik kontakt dermatitli olgularda yama testi sonuçları: Beş yıllık retrospektif çalışma. Turkderm 2011;45:198-202.
17. Uter W, Hegewald J, Aberer W et al. The European standard series in 9 European countries, 2002/2003 first results of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies. Contact Dermatitis 2005;53:136- 45.
18. Machovcova A, Dastychova E, Kostalova D, et al. Common contact sensitizers in the Czech Republic. Patch test results in 12,058 patients with suspected contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 2005;53:162-6.
19. Akyol A, Bovyat A. Contact sensitizers included in the standart patch test series. T Klin J Allergy-Asthma 2000;2:156-67.
20. Uçar S, Özçelik S, Akyol M. Alerjik kontakt dermatitli olgularda yama testi sonuçlarının değerlendirilmesi. Cumhur Medical J 2011;33:299-306.