TY - JOUR
T1 - European patch test results with audit allergens as candidates for inclusion in the European Baseline Series, 2019/20
T2 - Joint results of the ESSCAA and the EBSB working groups of the ESCD, and the GEIDACC
AU - Uter, Wolfgang
AU - Wilkinson, S. Mark
AU - Aerts, Olivier
AU - Bauer, Andrea
AU - Borrego, Leopoldo
AU - Buhl, Timo
AU - Cooper, Susan M.
AU - Dickel, Heinrich
AU - Gallo, Rosella
AU - Giménez-Arnau, Ana M.
AU - John, Swen M.
AU - Navarini, Alexander A.
AU - Pesonen, Maria
AU - Pónyai, Györgyi
AU - Rustemeyer, Thomas
AU - Schliemann, Sibylle
AU - Schubert, Steffen
AU - Schuttelaar, Marie-Louise A.
AU - Valiukevičienė, Skaidra
AU - Wagner, Nicola
AU - Weisshaar, Elke
AU - ESSCA and EBS ESCD working groups, and the GEIDAC
AU - Gonçalo, Margarida
N1 - Funding Information: W.U. has accepted travel reimbursement and research funds from the cosmetic industry association International Fragrance Research Association. S.M.W. has received travel reimbursement to attend meetings with the cosmetic industry. O.A. is investigator for Leo Pharma. T.B. has been a speaker/investigator/advisor during the last 5 years for Abbvie, ALK, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bencard, Eli Lilly & Co, Galderma, Janssen, Kiniska Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma, Philips, Novartis, and Sanofi‐Genzyme. A.A.N. declares being a consultant and advisor and/or receiving speaking fees and/or grants and/or served as an investigator in clinical trials for AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biomed, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Glaxo Smith Kline, LEO Pharma, Janssen‐Cilag, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre Pharma, Regeneron, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma. The Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), maintained by the IVDK e.V., of which S. Schubert is an employee, is sponsored by the cosmetic and fragrance industry (associations) as well as by public funds. S.S. declares to have been an advisor and/or speaker and/or investigator for AbbVie, Bayer Pharma, Celgene, LEO Pharma, Lilly Pharma, Novartis Pharma, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi‐Genzyme. M.‐L.A.S. is an advisor, consultant, speaker, and/or investigator for Abbvie, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi‐Genzyme, Eli Lilly, and Galderma, and has received research grants from Regeneron, Sanofi‐Genzyme, Novartis, and Pfizer. N.W. received lecture and advisory board honoraria from Novartis, ALK‐Abellò, Abbvie, Galderma, and Takeda, and a research grant from Novartis, and participated in clinical trials with Novartis, Sanofi, and Blueprint. M. G. has received honoraria for advisory boards and lectures from Novartis, Abbvie, Leo, Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda. The other authors have no pertinent conflict of interests to declare. Funding Information: This study was funded in part by the EADV Grant PPRC‐2018‐8. The EBS working group was funded by EADV Grant PPRC‐2018‐8. The REIDAC project is promoted by the Fundación Piel Sana Academia Española de Dermatología y Venereología, which has received financial support from the Spanish Medicines and Health Products Agency (Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios), and from pharmaceutical companies (Sanofi, GSK, and Novartis). Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
PY - 2022/5
Y1 - 2022/5
N2 - Background: In 2019, a number of allergens (haptens), henceforth, “the audit allergens,” were considered as potential additions to the European Baseline Series (EBS), namely, sodium metabisulfite, 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol, diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, Compositae mix II (2.5% or 5% pet), linalool hydroperoxides (lin-OOH), limonene hydroperoxides (lim-OOH), benzisothiazolinone (BIT), octylisothiazolinone (OIT), decyl glucoside, and lauryl glucoside; Evernia furfuracea (tree moss), was additionally tested by some departments as well. Objectives: To collect further data on patch test reactivity and clinical relevance of the audit allergens in consecutive patients across Europe. Methods: Patch test data covering the audit allergens in 2019 and 2020 were collected by those departments of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies testing these, as well as further collaborators from the EBS working group of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD), and the Spanish Grupo Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea. As patch test outcome, reactions between day (D) 3 and D5 were considered. Results: Altogether n = 12 403 patients were tested with any of the audit allergen. Positive reactions were most common to lin-OOH 1% pet. (8.74% [95%CI: 8.14–9.37%]), followed by lin-OOH 0.5% pet., and lim-OOH 0.3% pet (5.41% [95% CI: 4.95–5.89%]). Beyond these terpene hydroperoxides, BIT 0.1% pet. was the second most common allergen with 4.72% (95% CI: 4.2–5.28%), followed by sodium metabisulfite 1% pet. (3.75% [95%CI: 3.32–4.23%]) and Compositae mix 5% pet. (2.31% [95% CI: 1.84–2.87%]). For some allergens, clinical relevance was frequently difficult to ascertain. Conclusions: Despite many positive patch test reactions, it remains controversial whether lin- and lim-OOH should be tested routinely, while at least the two preservatives BIT and sodium metabisulfite appear suitable. The present results are a basis for further discussion and ultimately decision on their implementation into routine testing among the ESCD members.
AB - Background: In 2019, a number of allergens (haptens), henceforth, “the audit allergens,” were considered as potential additions to the European Baseline Series (EBS), namely, sodium metabisulfite, 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol, diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, Compositae mix II (2.5% or 5% pet), linalool hydroperoxides (lin-OOH), limonene hydroperoxides (lim-OOH), benzisothiazolinone (BIT), octylisothiazolinone (OIT), decyl glucoside, and lauryl glucoside; Evernia furfuracea (tree moss), was additionally tested by some departments as well. Objectives: To collect further data on patch test reactivity and clinical relevance of the audit allergens in consecutive patients across Europe. Methods: Patch test data covering the audit allergens in 2019 and 2020 were collected by those departments of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies testing these, as well as further collaborators from the EBS working group of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD), and the Spanish Grupo Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea. As patch test outcome, reactions between day (D) 3 and D5 were considered. Results: Altogether n = 12 403 patients were tested with any of the audit allergen. Positive reactions were most common to lin-OOH 1% pet. (8.74% [95%CI: 8.14–9.37%]), followed by lin-OOH 0.5% pet., and lim-OOH 0.3% pet (5.41% [95% CI: 4.95–5.89%]). Beyond these terpene hydroperoxides, BIT 0.1% pet. was the second most common allergen with 4.72% (95% CI: 4.2–5.28%), followed by sodium metabisulfite 1% pet. (3.75% [95%CI: 3.32–4.23%]) and Compositae mix 5% pet. (2.31% [95% CI: 1.84–2.87%]). For some allergens, clinical relevance was frequently difficult to ascertain. Conclusions: Despite many positive patch test reactions, it remains controversial whether lin- and lim-OOH should be tested routinely, while at least the two preservatives BIT and sodium metabisulfite appear suitable. The present results are a basis for further discussion and ultimately decision on their implementation into routine testing among the ESCD members.
KW - RRID:SCR_001905
KW - baseline series
KW - benzisothiazolinone
KW - clinical epidemiology
KW - contact allergy
KW - decyl glucoside
KW - patch testing
KW - sodium metabisulfite
KW - surveillance
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85125074513&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14059
DO - https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14059
M3 - Article
C2 - 35099073
SN - 0105-1873
VL - 86
SP - 379
EP - 389
JO - Contact dermatitis
JF - Contact dermatitis
IS - 5
ER -