==== Front Ann Saudi MedAnn Saudi MedAnnals of Saudi Medicine0256-49470975-4466King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre 2270561210.5144/0256-4947.2012.404asm-4-404Original ArticlePattern of patch test reactivity among patients with clinical diagnosis of contact dermatitis: a hospital-based study Almogren Adel aShakoor Zahid aRab Mohammad Osman GadEl aAdam Mustafa Hussein b a Immunology Unit, Department of Pathology, College of Medicine and University Hospital, King Saud University, Riyadh b King Khalid University Hospitals, RiyadhCorrespondence: Prof. Zahid Shakoor, Department of Pathology (32), College of Medicine and University Hospitals, King Saud University, PO Box 2925, Riyadh 11461, Saudi Arabia, T+ 4671299, F: 4671842, shakoor_zahid@yahoo.comJul-Aug 2012 32 4 404 407 Copyright © 2012, Annals of Saudi Medicine2012This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Contact allergy is associated with a significant morbidity all over the world. This study was performed to investigate the pattern of sensitization by contact allergens in the local population. DESIGN AND SETTING Retrospective study to investigate patch test reactivity among patients with clinical diagnosis of contact dermatitis who were referred to the allergy clinic at the King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, between April 2008 and March 2010. PATIENTS AND METHODS Of the 196 patients referred to the allergy clinic over the 2-year period, 91 (46.4%) patients reacted to one or more patch test allergens, and these patients were included in this study. The study group included 82 (91.1%) of Saudi nationality and 9 (8.9%) patients of other nationalities. The patch test was performed using the T.R.U.E TEST, containing 24 allergens/allergen mixes. RESULTS Of the 91 cases who reacted positively to one or more allergens, 67 (73.6%) were females with a mean age of 37 (8.3 years) and 24 (26.4%) were males with a mean age of 34 (11.6 years). Thirty-three (36.2%) patients reacted to nickel sulfate, 14 (15.3%) to p-phenylenediamine, 13 (14.2%) to p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin, 13 (14.2%) to thimerosal, and 9 (9.8%) to colophony. Reactivity against the rest of the allergens was not remarkable. A significantly higher percentage of females reacted to nickel sulfate (84.8% vs 15.2% in males; P=.0001), p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin (92.3% vs 7.7%; P=.0001), and thimerosal (76.9% vs 23.1%; P=.03). CONCLUSIONS Patch test reactivity to nickel sulfate was high. The pattern of contact allergy observed in this study indicates the need for large-scale investigations to identify local allergens responsible for contact allergy and for formulation of policies directed towards avoidance of exposure. ==== Body Contact dermatitis (CD) is a common clinical condition affecting the skin. Most commonly it is caused by irritants and only a relatively small proportion is due to allergy. Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) frequently involves the hands and face.1 During the acute phase the most common symptom is itching, which may be associated with vesicle and bullae formation. Scaling and lichenification are features of chronic ACD.2 As opposed to irritant contact dermatitis (ICD), ACD is believed to be an immunological reaction and requires prior allergen sensitization.3 However, there is evidence indicating that the immune system plays a significant role in the pathogenesis of ICD as well.4 ICD is thought to be a non-antigen-specific inflammatory process mediated by haptens5 and associated with release of cytokines and recruitment of dendritic cells.6,7 Hapten-induced ICD is thought to evolve into ACD by acquisition of antigenic properties by haptens subsequent to their binding and modification of self-proteins. 8 Recently it has been suggested that ICD and ACD are closely associated, and the induction of ICD may be a prerequisite for the development of ACD.9 ACD comprises about 6% to 10% of all dermatology clinic visits and is associated with significant morbidity. 10 Allergen sensitization is believed to be dependent on the degree of exposure to the allergen and exhibits strong individual variation. Genetic predisposition appears to be an important factor, as some individuals are more easily sensitized to common allergens than others. 11 In addition, regional and environmental factors may also influence the exposure patterns and could be responsible for the variations in the patterns of skin reactivity observed in different parts the world.12,13 The patch test is a useful tool for the detection and identification of contact allergens, despite the fact that 10% to 15% of normal healthy individuals may react to one or more allergens.14,15 In patients with ACD, detection of the relevant agent by patch testing is crucial for instituting appropriate prevention and treatment.16 Avoidance of the relevant allergen/s has recently been shown to be associated with significant improvement in over 85% of patients with ACD.17 Over 3000 chemicals are known to cause ACD but, fortunately, only a small number of these chemicals are responsible for symptoms in the majority of cases.18 Thorough knowledge of the common allergens and a comprehensive history of the patient’s exposure to possible allergens will be valuable for selecting the test panels for patch testing. This retrospective study examines patch test reactivity to common allergens in patients with clinical suspicion of CD over a period of 2 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 196 patients with the clinical diagnosis of CD were referred to the allergy clinic at KKU Hospital for patch testing between April 2008 and March 2010. Because of the lack of access to the patient records, clinical data could not be collected. The patch test was performed using T.R.U.E. Test (Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test, Mekos Laboratories AS, Denmark) with a panel of 24 allergens/allergen mixes. The test panel was applied on the upper part of the patient’s back on healthy skin free of acne, scars, dermatitis, or any other skin condition that might interfere with the interpretation of the results. Patients were instructed to wear the patch for 48 hours without removing it and to avoid contact with water. Interpretation of the results was performed first after 48 hours and then again 72 to 96 hours after the application. This protocol allowed sufficient time for the allergic reactions to fully develop and for mild irritant reactions to disappear. Patients were instructed to report back to the clinic in case of delayed reactions. The interpretation of the results was performed in accordance with the recommendations of the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group (ICDRG) and the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG). Statistical analysis of the data was performed using MedCalc software version 11.5.1.0 for comparison of the proportions. P≤.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS Out of 196 patients suspected to have CD, 91 (46.4%) individuals tested positive to either one or more allergens; these included 24 males with a mean age of 34 (11.6) years and 67 females with a mean age of 37 (8.3) years. These 91 patients included 82 (91.1%) of Saudi nationality and 9 (8.9%) patients of other nationalities. Among the 91 patients, 56 (61.5%) reacted positively to a single allergen. A female preponderance was evident among the patients with CD, with 67 (73.6%) females compared to 24 (26.4%) males showing positive reaction to either one or more allergens in the patch test panel. Figure 1 shows the pattern of patch test reactivity among the patients with CD. Nickel sulfate was found to be the most frequently reacting allergen, with 33 (36.2%) patients showing reaction to the allergen. A positive reaction was seen with p-phenylenediamine in 14 patients (15.3%), with p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin in 13 patients (14.2%), with thimerosal in 13 patients (14.2%), and with colophony in 9 patients (9.8%). Reactivity against the rest of the panel was not remarkable. Table 1 shows the gender differences among the patients with CD where notable numbers of patients reacted to patch test allergens. The group of 33 patients reacting positively to nickel sulfate had a significantly higher proportion of females (28/33; 84.8%) than males (5/33; 15.2%) (P=.0001). Although the difference was not as marked as with nickel sulfate, a significantly higher number of females than males reacted to p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin (P=.0001) and thimerosal (P=.03). DISCUSSION Nickel sulfate was found to be the most frequently (36.2%) reacting patch test allergen in this study. Similar findings were noted in an earlier study performed among adolescents between the ages of 10 to 19 years where 56% of patients reacted to one or more patch test allergens and among them 31% were found to be allergic to nickel.19 Patch test reactivity between 13% and 17% has also been reported.20,21 The NACDG has consistently ranked nickel as the most frequently reacting allergen among positive patch test reactions. Because of the presence of nickel in a large variety of products it is very difficult to avoid contact with nickel and this is probably the main reason for the high incidence of nickel allergy.22 An increase in patch test reactivity to nickel among patients with CD has also been observed: two separate studies, one performed from 1994 to 1996 and the other from 1998 to 2000, reported nickel reactivity in 14.3% and 16.2% of patients, respectively.23 Collectively, these data indicate that nickel sulfate is not only a common contact sensitizer but that allergy to nickel is gradually increasing, probably due to the increased exposure to nickel. A significantly higher proportion of females with CD reacted to nickel in the present study. Women have already been reported to be at a higher risk of acquiring allergy to nickel (20.4% vs 5.8% in men).20 Differences in exposure have been postulated to be the cause for this disparity. Early skin contact with nickel in earrings or pins have been implicated in the increased skin reactivity to nickel among females.24 Attempts to decrease exposure to nickel in Denmark by legal restriction on earrings with high nickel content have resulted in 64% reduction in nickel allergy among young girls.25 It has also recently been reported that nickel regulation in Denmark has not only decreased nickel allergy among young females, it has also reduced the occurrence of new cases.26 Since 2001, the European Parliament and European Council have also imposed restrictions on the use of objects containing nickel that may cause skin sensitization.27 Nickel allergy appears to be a major public health problem that requires serious consideration and implementation of policies directed towards reducing skin contact with nickel. p-Phenylenediamine (PPD) is commonly used in hair dyes and in Bandrowski base, a trimer that forms quickly upon storage of PPD and is believed to be the main allergen in patients reacting to PPD.28 A sizeable proportion (15.3%) of patients with CD reacted to PPD in the present study, higher than the proportion (7%) reported in a recent study from Thailand.29 A significant increase in the skin reactivity to PPD has been observed and this alteration in PPD reactivity has been attributed to the changes in exposure patterns.30 The use of hair dyes is increasing31 and, consequently, so is the exposure to PPD, thus accounting for the substantially high prevalence of symptoms such as redness, scaling, itching, or edema following hair dye application. 32 It is therefore imperative to introduce measures to curtail exposure to this sensitizer. p-tert-Butylphenol-formaldehyde resin is an alkyl-phenol resin made from p-tert-butylphenol and formaldehyde. It is included in many adhesive formulations. Glues containing p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin are used in leather products such as shoes, watch-straps, handbags, building materials, motorcars, and electrical products.33 Positive patch test reactions to p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin were detected in 14.2% of the patients with CD in the present study, and reactivity was more frequently seen among females. This appears to be a significantly high percentage when compared to the previous reports that have documented reactivity to p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin of 2.3% in 1984, 1.7% in 1996,34 and 2.2% in 2000.35 Thimerosal patch test reactivity observed in the present study was 14.2%, which was also higher than the recently reported figures of 6.4%36 in adults and 1.7% in children.37 Thimerosal has for long been used as a preservative in medical preparations and vaccines. Its use in vaccines was abandoned in the United States due to public concern.38 Although the present study examined a relatively small number of patients with CD, comprised pre-dominantly of Saudi nationality, it does however reveal a pattern of sensitization by contact allergens that this study population was exposed to. High reactivity to nickel has previously been reported from Saudi Arabia in 1995,39 though the pattern of allergen reactivity was different to what has been found in the present study. Large-scale studies are needed to further investigate the local allergens responsible for CD in Saudi Arabia, which will aid implementation of appropriate measures for avoidance of exposure. Figure 1 Pattern of allergen patch test reactivity among patients with contact dermatitis (n=91). patch test reactivity Table 1 Gender differences among patients with contact dermatitis in cases where notable patch test allergen reactivity was observed. Allergen Number of patients Number of females (%) Number of males (%) P Nickel 33 28 (84.8) 5 (15.2) .0001 p-Phenylenediamine 14 6 (42.8) 8 (57.2) Not significant p-tert-Butylphenol formaldehyde resin 13 12 (92.3) 1 (7.7) .0001 Thimerosal 13 10 (76.9) 3 (23.1) 0.03 Colophony 09 7 (77.7) 2 (22.3) Not significant ==== Refs REFERENCES 1 Zug KA Warshaw EM Fowler JF Maibach HI Belsito DL Pratt MD Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005–2006 Dermatitis 2009 20 149 60 19470301 2 Mowad CM Marks JG Allergic contact dermatitis Bolognia JL Jorizzo JL Rapini RP Dermatology 2nd ed Spain Elsevier 2008 209 22 3 Mark BJ Slavin RG Allergic contact dermatitis Med Clin N Am 2006 90 169 85 16310529 4 Levin CY Maibach HI Irritant contact dermatitis: Is there an immunologic component? Int Immuno-pharmacol 2002 2 183 9 5 Basketter DA Gerberick GF Kimber I Willis C Contact irritation mechanisms Toxicology of contact dermatitis West Sussex P019 1UD, England John Wiley and Sons 1999 11 38 6 Pastore S Mascia F Mariotti F Dattilo C Girolomoni G Chemokine networks in inflammatory skin diseases Eur J Dermatol 2004 14 203 8 15319150 7 Saint-Mezard P Berard F Dubois B Kaiserlian D Nicolas JF The role of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in contact hypersensitivity and allergic contact dermatitis Eur J Dermatol 2004 14 131 8 15246935 8 Lepoittevin J Leblond I Hapten-peptide T cell receptor interactions: Molecular basis for recognition of haptens by T lymphocytes Eur J Dermatol 1997 7 151 4 9 Bonneville M Chavagnac C Vocanson M Rozieres A Benetiere J Pernet I Skin contact irritation conditions the development and severity of allergic contact dermatitis J Invest Dermatol 2007 127 1430 7 17273160 10 Sheretz EF Controversies in contact dermatitis Am J Contact Dermat 1994 4 130 5 11 Rycroft RJ Menne T Frosch PJ Lepoittevin JP Textbook of contact dermatitis Berlin Springer-Verlag 2001 439 68 12 Johansen J Menne T Christophersen J Kaaber K Veien N Changes in the pattern of sensitization to common contact allergens in Denmark between 1985–86 and 1997–98, with a special view to the effect of preventive strategies Br J Dermatol 2000 142 490 5 10735956 13 Schnuch A PAFS: Population-adjusted frequency of sensitization Contact Dermatitis 1996 34 377 82 8879920 14 Seidenari S Manzini BM Danese P Motolese A Patch and prick test study of 593 healthy subjects Contact Dermatitis 1990 23 162 7 2282794 15 Nielsen NH Menne T Allergic contact sensitization in an unselected Danish population. The Glostrup Allergy Study, Denmark Acta Derm Venereol 1992 72 456 60 1362844 16 Rajagopalan R Anderson RT Impact of patch testing on dermatology-specific quality of life in patients with allergic contact dermatitis Am J Contact Dermat 1997 8 215 21 9417366 17 Gallo R Baldari M Fausti V Montinari M Santoro F Christana K Measurement of a possible patch-testing outcome indicator Contact Dermatitis 2010 62 150 6 20565501 18 Allergic Contact Dermatitis: Patch Testing Beyond the TR.U.E. TEST J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2010 3 36 41 19 Duarte I Lazzarini R Kobata CM Contact dermatitis in adolescents Am J Contact Dermat 2003 14 200 4 14738721 20 Schäfer T Böhler E Ruhdorfer S Weigl L Wessner D Filipiak B Epidemiology of contact allergy in adults Allergy 2001 56 1192 6 11736749 21 Uter W Hegewald J Aberer W Ayala F Bircher AJ Brasch J 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 16128752 22 Liden C Nickel in jewelry and associated products Contact Dermatitis 1992 26 73 5 1633708 23 Marks JG Belsito DV DeLeo VA Fowler JF Jr Fransway AF Maibach HI North American contact dermatitis group patch-test results, 1998–2000 Am J Contact Dermat 2003 14 59 62 14749021 24 Modjtahedi BS Modjtahedi SP Maibach HI The sex of the individual as a factor in allergic contact dermatitis Contact Dermatitis 2004 50 53 9 15128314 25 Jensen CS Lisby S Baadsgaard O Vølund A Menné T Decrease in nickel sensitization in a Danish schoolgirl population with ears pierced after implementation of a nickel-exposure regulation Br J Dermatol 2002 146 636 42 11966696 26 Thyssen JP Hald M Avnstorp C Veien NK Lauerberg G Nielsen NH Characteristics of nickel-allergic dermatitis patients seen in private dermatology clinics in Denmark: A questionnaire study Acta Derm Venereol 2009 89 384 8 19688151 27 European Parliament and Council Directive 94/27/EC of 30 June 1994 amending for the 12th time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations Official Journal L 1994 188 1 2 28 Krasteva M Nicolas JF Chabeau G Garrigue JL Bour H Thivolet J Dissociation of allergenic and immunogenic functions in contact sensitivity to paraphenylenediamine Int Arch Allergy Immunol 1993 102 200 4 8400900 29 Disphanurat W Contact allergy in eczema patients in Thammasat University Hospital J Med Assoc Thai 2010 93 Suppl 7 S7 14 30 Chew AL Bashir SJ Hawk JL Palmer R White IR McFadden JP Contact and photocontact sensitization in chronic actinic dermatitis: A changing picture Contact Dermatitis 2010 62 42 6 20136878 31 The European Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association (Colipa) The European cosmetic, toiletry and perfumery Market 2003 2004 1 26 32 Sosted H Hesse U Menne T Andersen KE Johansen JD Contact dermatitis to hair dyes in an adult Danish population – an interview based study Br J Dermatol 2005 153 132 5 16029338 33 Hayakawa R Suzuki M Kaniwa M A case of allergic contact dermatitis due to para-tertiary-butylphenolformaldehyde resin Environ Dermatol 1994 1 171 8 34 Adachi A JSCD Research Group Study Result of Patch test with standard allergen series of the Research Group of the Japanese patients with pigmented contact dermatitis of lichenoid type in 1993 Environ Dermatol 1996 3 140 50 35 Kurikawa Y Group study of the optimum concentrations of ketoprofen, tiaprofenic acid, suprofen and oxybenzone of the Japanese Standard Allergens and gold sodium thiosulfate in 2000 Environ Dermatol 2002 9 39 46 36 Yoo JY Al Naami M Markowitz O Hadi SM Allergic contact dermatitis: Patch testing results at Mount Sinai Medical Center Skinmed 2010 8 257 60 21137633 37 Milingou M Tagka A Armenaka M Kimpouri K Kouimintzis D Katsarou A Patch tests in children: A review of 13 years of experience in comparison with previous data Pediatr Dermatol 2010 27 255 9 20609142 38 Ball LK Ball R Pratt RD An assessment of thimerosal use in childhood vaccines Pediatrics 2001 107 1147 54 11331700 39 el-Rab MO al-Sheikh OA Is the European standard series suitable for patch testing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia? Conytact Dermatitis 1995 33 310 4