Indian Journal of Dermatology
  Publication of IADVL, WB
  Official organ of AADV
Indexed with Science Citation Index (E) , Web of Science and PubMed
 
Users online: 2520  
Home About  Editorial Board  Current Issue Archives Online Early Coming Soon Guidelines Subscriptions  e-Alerts    Login  
    Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Print this page Email this page


 
Table of Contents 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 66  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 329
Allergens in hand, foot, and hand–Foot eczema: An intercomparison by patch testing


From the Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, JSS Medical College, JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research, Mysuru, Karnataka, India

Date of Web Publication13-Jul-2021

Correspondence Address:
G R Kanthraj
Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, JSS Medical College, JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research, Mysuru, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijd.IJD_549_16

Rights and Permissions

   Abstract 


Background: Hand eczema (HE), foot eczema (FE), and hand–foot eczema (HFE) manifest on exposure to various agents in day-to-day life or in occupations or both. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to identify pattern of allergens causing HE, FE, and HFE and to identify multiple and concurrent contact allergies. Materials and Methods: A study was conducted from October 2013 to August 2015 which included 190 patients. Patch test was performed for 78.94% of patients (n = 150). The statistical tests used were descriptive, Cramer's V, and Chi-square tests. Results: The most commonly affected group was HFE (55.8%) followed by HE (22.1%) and FE (22.1%). Allergens showed positivity either singly 56.3% (n = 67) or in combination 43.69% (n = 52). Nickel (41.79%) was the most common allergen in all the three groups followed by potassium dichromate. Late reactions (after day 7) were observed in 17.64% of patients (n = 21). Nickel was observed in 42.85% (n = 9) and paraphenylenediamine was observed in 28.57% of patients (n = 6) with P values of <0.001 and 0.050, respectively. Multiple contact allergies were seen in 44% of patients (n = 52). Concurrent reactions (55.8% [n = 29]), polysensitization (34.6% [n = 18]), and mixed reactions (9.6% [n = 5]) (P value of <0.001) were observed. Conclusion: Significant multiple contact allergies including concurrent reactions with nickel sulfate, potassium dichromate, cobalt chloride, and polysensitization were observed. No significant differences in allergen pattern were observed in HE, FE, and HFE. Recommendation: Day 7 reading is recommended in HFE.


Keywords: Allergic contact dermatitis, hand–foot eczema, patch testing


How to cite this article:
Sahana S, Chethana S G, Kanthraj G R, Betkerur J. Allergens in hand, foot, and hand–Foot eczema: An intercomparison by patch testing. Indian J Dermatol 2021;66:329

How to cite this URL:
Sahana S, Chethana S G, Kanthraj G R, Betkerur J. Allergens in hand, foot, and hand–Foot eczema: An intercomparison by patch testing. Indian J Dermatol [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Oct 24];66:329. Available from: https://www.e-ijd.org/text.asp?2021/66/3/329/321335





   Introduction Top


A delayed type of hypersensitivity response to exogenous agents causes hand–foot eczema (HFE). HFE manifests on exposure to various ingredients in day-to-day life[1],[2] or as occupational contact dermatitis or both.[3] HFE affects social, occupational, and psychological performance of an individual and adds to morbidity. Identification and avoidance of responsible external agents is of paramount importance in the effective management of HFE.[4]

Studies with large sample sizes on hand eczema (HE) and foot eczema (FE) have been documented,[4],[5] in literature. However, there are very limited data on the intercomparison of the three groups – HE, FE, and HFE. HFE is very commonly observed in the outpatient department. The present study was designed to identify the allergens, both common and unique, responsible for HE, FE, and HFE and to compare the data across the three sites – hand, foot, and hand–foot.

Aims and objectives

The aim and objectives of this study were to identify and compare the patterns of allergens responsible for HE, FE, and HFE and to identify multiple and concurrent contact allergies.


   Materials and Methods Top


The present study was a cross-sectional, descriptive, hospital-based study comprising of 190 patients with HFE and was conducted from October 2013 to August 2015. Out of the 190 patients, 106 had HFE and 42 each had HE and FE. Suspected allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) or patients with contact dermatitis were included and subdivided into three groups based on the site affected. Patients who were on immune suppressive therapy, systemic allergies such as bronchial asthma, any variant of endogenous dermatitis, dermatological problems other than ACD that manifested over hands and feet, and patients unwilling to undergo patch testing were excluded from the study. An informed consent was taken from all patients involved in the study, and clinical data of each patient were recorded on a standard pro forma. A detailed history including occupation, hobbies, duration of the disease, previous treatment, and other personal history was taken before clinical examination.

Baseline investigations such as absolute eosinophil count, total count, random blood sugar, and potassium hydroxide (KOH) tests were carried out. Other relevant investigations were performed depending on the case. KOH and skin biopsies were performed for doubtful cases and those proven ACD were included in the study. Patients were treated during an acute stage of disease and advised to undergo patch testing after the acute stage subsided. A semi-structured questionnaire was used to collect the data on demographic profile, clinical features, and patterns of allergen profiles observed in HFE.

Patch testing was done for all the patients using the Indian standard series approved by the Contact and Occupational Dermatoses Forum of India. The details of procurement of allergens were as follows:

  • Manufacturer Chemotechnique Diagnostics, Sweden
  • Supplier Systopic Laboratories, New Delhi, India
  • Dilution 0.5%–100%
  • Vehicle Petrolatum
  • Chambers Aluminum
  • Application period 48 h
  • Days of reading Day 3, Day 5, and Day 7.


Ethical committee clearance was taken for the study.

Statistical analysis

In the present study, Cramer's test was applied to find out the association between rows and columns of tabulated results of the study. Quantitative data were statistically presented using mean and standard deviation. For verifying associations, Chi-square test and Cramer's V were used. All tests were done using the software SPSS Version 16 (IBM corporation, Chicago, USA). P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


   Results Top


Out of 190 patients, 47.9% (n = 91) were male and 52.1% (n = 99) were female. The age range was between 17 and 71 years. The mean age of the study group was 44.58 ± 14 years for males and 40.18 ± 14 years for females. Majority of the patients, i.e., 84.73% (n = 161) who had HFE belonged to the age range of 21–60 years. Regarding the occupation of the patients, we found 35.3% (n = 67) of them to be homemakers, 24.7% (n = 47) to be farmers, and 17.9% (n = 34) to be masons [Table 1]. The most common affected group was HFE followed by HE and FE [Figure 1] and [Figure 2]. Duration of the disease among the patients ranged from 3 days to more than 10 years, where 11.1% (n = 21) of the patients had the disease for >5 years and 83.15% (n = 158) of the patients had taken some form of treatment in the past. History of use of topical steroids was found in 36.3% (n = 69) of the patients and use of unknown topicals was found in 45.3% (n = 86) of the patients, which was statistically significant at P < 0.001 level.
Table 1: Occupation of patients

Click here to view
Figure 1: Site of involvement

Click here to view
Figure 2: (a) Hand eczema. (b) Foot eczema. (c) Hand–foot eczema

Click here to view


Out of the 150 patients who underwent patch test, 93 showed positive reactions on day 3 and 98 on day 5. Five patients who had a negative reaction on day 3 became positive on day 5. Allergens showed positivity, either singly 56.3% (n = 67) or in combination 43.69% (n = 52). Nickel was the most common allergen in all the three groups (41.79%) [Table 2]. A late reaction (after day 7) to the patch test was seen in 17.64% (n = 21) of the patients [Figure 3]. Nickel was the allergen in 42.85% (n = 9), with the significance level of 0.005 and 28.57% (nf = 6) showed positivity to paraphenylenediamine (PPD) with a significance level of 0.050. Other late reactors observed were potassium dichromate, thiuram mix, and fragrance mix [Table 3]. Nickel (42.85%) showed the maximum number of early negative and late positive reactions followed by PPD (28.57%). In HE, 8 patients were positive for single allergen and 6 for combined allergens. In the case of FE, the corresponding numbers were 8 and 7, respectively. In HFE, the corresponding numbers were 12 and 16, respectively. Nearly 44% (n = 52) of the patients showed multiple contact allergies, which was not statistically significant [Table 4]. Further, it was found that 55.8% (n = 29) of the patients had concurrent reactions with nickel [Figure 4], potassium dichromate, and cobalt and 34.6% (n = 18) had polysensitization [Figure 5], which was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Concurrent reactions were associated with polysensitization in 9.6% (n = 5) of multiple contact allergens.
Table 2: Patterns of allergens in hand, foot, and hand-foot eczema

Click here to view
Table 3: Late reactions

Click here to view
Table 4: Multiple contact allergies

Click here to view
Figure 3: Extremely strong reaction to paraphenylene diamine 3+ (International Contact Dermatitis Research Group)

Click here to view
Figure 4: Concurrent reactions

Click here to view
Figure 5: Polysensitization

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


We identified 190 patients with HFE. Among the three groups HFE, HE, and FE, the most common was HFE, followed by HE and FE. A majority of the patients who had HFE and subjected for patch test were in the average age range of 21–60 years. Various authors[6],[7],[8] in the past have observed that this finding may be due to the increased exposure to environmental allergens of the working and earning members.

The point prevalence, 1-year prevalence, and lifetime prevalence of HE investigated by various authors were found to be 4%, 10%, and 15%, respectively.[1] In a study conducted on 1000 patients with ACD, it was found that majority had footwear dermatitis.[9] This was explained to be due to the practice of Indians wearing shoes and sandals on bare feet without socks, making them more susceptible to shoe allergy. Moreover, the quality control of shoe production in India is not satisfactory.[10] Similarly, we found that farmers and masons who had FE had increased exposure to chromates and rubber. Bajaj et al. suggested that wearing thick absorbent socks and using other nonchromate chemicals for tanning and curing leather could minimize this form of exposure.[9]

Most of the patients with HFE (79.3%) who underwent patch test showed at least one or more positive results. This figure is much higher than the rate of positive reactions (32.3%) that was reported recently from Turkey in a very similar study.[11]

Out of the 150 patients who underwent patch test, 93 showed positive reactions on day 3 and 98 on day 5. Five patients who showed a negative reaction on day 3 were positive on day 5. Twenty-one patients showed positive reaction de novo on day 7. A study conducted by Mayo clinic on 36,064 patch test reactions found that the most optimal time to read the test was on day 3 and day 5.[12] Therefore, in our study, the readings were interpreted after 48 h (day 3) and after 96 h (day 5).

Allergens either alone or in combination were studied in the three groups. Among single allergens, nickel was the most common in all the three groups followed by potassium dichromate. Nickel was the most common allergen among females, especially homemakers. Females showed an increased sensitization to nickel due to increased exposure through drinking water, hard water, air, cosmetics, and detergents.[13],[14] In particular, Indian women, due to their traditional customs and religion, have increased usage of jewellery, which poses a risk of nickel allergy. Female gender has been identified as a risk factor for the development of nickel allergy with a relative risk of 3.74.[15] A study on 567 Danish citizens found that nickel sensitization was higher among patients with ear piercing (14.8%) compared to those without ear piercing (1.8%).[16] Nickel allergy can also be occupational and is found among metal workers, retail clerks, hairdressers, domestic cleaners, and caterers. Exposure to new consumer sources with nickel content, such as gadgets, such as mobile phones and computers, could be an added explanation for nickel allergy.[17] A time series study, investigating 180,390 patients with suspected ACD, showed that the prevalence of nickel allergy had decreased significantly, by at least 10%, in young females with dermatitis in four European countries following nickel regulation.[18]

Various studies from India[19] and abroad showed potassium dichromate to be exclusively affecting males, i.e., 9/9 (100%), where chromate had been frequently encountered as the most common cause for HE. Chromates are present in cements, leather, matches, bleaches, yellow paints, varnishes, certain chromate-containing glues, soap, detergents, cloves, and pepper.[19] In our study, masons were the most commonly affected group. One of the patients had no occupational contact with chromates, but on regular follow-up showed significant improvement in HFE after avoidance of pepper and cloves in diet. Western countries have reported sharp decline in chromate sensitivity since the legislation that was passed to add ferrous sulfate to cement. Adding ferrous sulfate to cement converts the easily absorbable hexavalent chromium into the less-sensitizing trivalent form.[20] In France, the removal of chromium from a popular brand of household bleach resulted in a dramatic decline in chromate sensitivity in women.[21]

Patch test reactions becoming positive de novo on day 7 or later have been described as late reactions. In our study, we found majority of late reactions to nickel and PPD to be statistically significant. Other late reactors observed in our series were potassium dichromate, thiuram mix, and fragrance mix. The allergens showing late reactions in previous studies are PPD, epoxy resin,[22] metals such as nickel, and topical antibiotics such as neomycin.[23] A large series from Mayo clinic observed late reactions to metals and neomycin.[24] Other studies have found late reactions to PPD.[24],[25] PPD is known for its ability to cause active sensitization during patch test and late reactions as late as day 7 or day 9.[24] The sensitivity of diagnostic patch testing may be reduced by lowering the concentration of allergens in the patch test.[24],[25] Our series were patch tested with 1% PPD and late reactions were observed. The Mayo clinic study observed that reactions to fragrance mix might dissipate after day 5. However, we found a positive reaction to fragrance mix on day 7, which was negative in readings on day 3 and day 5. Sensitization to repeated patch testing with PPD was noticed by Davis et al.[24] However, the Mayo clinic study and our series have not done repeated patch testing, but have observed late reactions.

In our study, single allergen positivity and combinations were 8, 6; 8, 7, and 12, 16 in the three groups HE, FE, and HFE, respectively. Among single allergens, nickel was the most common in all the three groups. Development of contact allergy is the result of the interplay between environmental exposure and individual susceptibility, as only a fraction of individuals exposed get sensitized. Chemical resemblance occurs between the allergens such as potassium dichromate, cobalt chloride, and nickel sulfate. The nature of the exposure relating to type, potency, dose of allergen,[26],[27] occlusion extent, and duration,[28],[29] simultaneous exposure to more than one allergen[30],[31] or irritants,[32],[33] and inflamed or damaged skin,[28] all influence the risk of and can increase susceptibility toward the development of contact allergy and multiple contact allergies. There is no generally accepted definition for multiple contact allergies. Some authors use two or more, others three or more, contact allergies as cut point.[34] In our series, we considered two or more allergen positivity as the cutoff for multiple contact allergies. A hypothesis has been put forward that patients with multiple contact allergies have an inherent increased susceptibility.[35] Varying numbers of statistically significant associated duplet allergen combinations have been identified ranging from 13 to 166 combinations.[36],[38],[39] In a study by Bruynzeel et al.,[40] nickel sulfate, fragrance mix, and balsam of Peru were the three allergens in the European Standard Series, with most associations to other allergens. They are also the most frequent sensitizers.[40] In the general population, 2.4%–5.5% of people are sensitized to nickel and 0.6%–1.5% to potassium dichromate.[41] Almost 13% and 5% of patients engaging in contact dermatitis investigations have been shown to be sensitized to these two metals, respectively, in a study.[42]


   Conclusion Top


HFE was the most commonly affected group. Late positive reactions were mostly shown by nickel and PPD. Multiple contact allergies including concurrent reactions and polysensitization were observed. The most common allergens were nickel and potassium dichromate. No significant difference in the allergen pattern was observed between the three groups. The study is important on the following counts: first, a significant multiple contact allergies including concurrent reactions with nickel sulfate, potassium dichromate, cobalt chloride, and polysensitization were observed. A dermatologist should be aware of concurrent reactions, and patients allergic to one allergen should be evaluated and advised appropriately regarding the avoidance of allergens. Second, day 7 reading is recommended in HFE, as few reactions are negative during the initial readings which turned positive on day 7 reading. To conclude, concurrent reactions, multiple allergies, polysensitization, and identification of late reactors are important in the interpretation of patch test and management of ACD.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy, JSS Medical College, JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research, Mysuru, India. We thank sincerely JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research, Mysuru, for providing partial assistance as an academic grant vide letter number REG/DIR(R)/URG/54/2011-12/7278/3 dated 05 Nov 2015. We would like to convey our thanks to the patients for their participation in this project. We are also grateful to all the staff members and my colleagues in our department for their concern and support for our work. We also thank Dr. Lancy D'Souza (University of Mysuru) for statistical analysis of the data.

Financial support and sponsorship

Partial financial assistance was provided as academic grant given by JSS Medical College, JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research, Mysuru.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Linneberg A, Menné T. The epidemiology of hand eczema in the general population – Prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis 2010;62:75-87.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Kishore NB, Belliappa AD, Shetty NJ, Sukumar D, Ravi S. Hand eczema – Clinical patterns and role of patch testing. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2005;71:207-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
3.
Skoet R, Olsen J, Mathiesen B, Iversen L, Johansen JD, Agner T, et al. A survey of occupational hand eczema in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51:159-66.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Toledo F, García-Bravo B, Fernández-Redondo V, De la Cuadra J, Giménez-Arnau AM, Borrego L, et al. Patch testing in children with hand eczema. A 5-year multicentre study in Spain. Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:213-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Landeck L, Uter W, John SM. Patch test characteristics of patients referred for suspected contact allergy of the feet – Retrospective 10-year cross-sectional study of the IVDK data. Contact Dermatitis 2012;66:271-8.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Walton S, Nayagam AT, Keczkes K. Age and sex incidence of allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1986;15:136-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Sehgal VN, Rasool F, Srivastava G, Aggarwal A, Verma P. Footwear dermatitis: Historical background, epidemiology, clinical connotation-part II. Skinmed 2014;12:360-4.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Trehan A, Singh K, Kanodia S, Verma AS. Contact hypersensitivity in hand eczema. A study with Indian standard series of allergens. Int Med J 2014;1:304-9.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Bajaj AK, Saraswat A, Mukhija G, Rastogi S, Yadav S. Patch testing experience with 1000 patients. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2007;73:313-8.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
10.
Nakayama H, Niki F, Shono M, Hada S. Mercury exanthem. Contact Dermatitis 1983;9:411-7.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Akyol A, Boyvat A, Peksari Y, Gürgey E. Contact sensitivity to standard series allergens in 1038 patients with contact dermatitis in Turkey. Contact Dermatitis 2005;52:333-7.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Dooms-Goossens A, Degreef H. Contact allergy to petrolatums. (I). Sensitizing capacity of different brands of yellow and white petrolatums. Contact Dermatitis 1983;9:175-85.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Rajappa B, Manjappa S, Puttaiah ET. Monitoring of heavy metal concentration in groundwater of Hakinaka Taluk, India. Contemp Eng Sci 2010;3:183-90.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Borowska S, Brzóska MM. Metals in cosmetics: Implications for human health. J Appl Toxicol 2015;35:551-72.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Uter W, Pfahlberg A, Gefeller O, Geier J, Schnuch A. Risk factors for contact allergy to nickel – Results of a multifactorial analysis. Contact Dermatitis 2003;48:33-8.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Nielsen NH, Kristiansen J, Borg L, Christensen JM, Poulsen LK, Menné T, et al. Repeated exposures to cobalt or chromate on the hands of patients with hand eczema and contact allergy to that metal. Contact Dermatitis 2000;43:212-5.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Garg S, McDonagh AJ, Gawkrodger DJ. Age- and sex-related variations in allergic contact dermatitis to common allergens. Contact Dermatitis 2009;61:46-7.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Jensen P, Johansen JD, Zachariae C, Menné T, Thyssen JP. Excessive nickel release from mobile phones – A persistent cause of nickel allergy and dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:354-8.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Laxmisha C, Kumar S, Nath AK, Thappa DM. Patch testing in hand eczema at a tertiary care center. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2008;74:498-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
20.
Rietschel RL, Fowler JF. Hand dermatitis due to contactants: Special considerations. Fisher's Contact Dermatitis. Illustrated. Hamilton, Ontario PMPH-USA, 2008. p. 319-38.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Jerajani HR, Melkote S. Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test (TRUE test). Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2007;73:292-5.  Back to cited text no. 21
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
22.
Hillen U, Jappe U, Frosch PJ, Becker D, Brasch J, Lilie M, et al. Late reactions to the patch-test preparations para-phenylenediamine and epoxy resin: A prospective multicentre investigation of the German contact dermatitis research group. Br J Dermatol 2006;154:665-70.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Devos SA, Van Der Valk PG. The risk of active sensitization to PPD. Contact Dermatitis 2001;44:273-5.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Davis MD, Bhate K, Rohlinger AL, Farmer SA, Richardson DM, Weaver AL, et al. Delayed patch test reading after 5 days: The Mayo clinic experience. J Am Acad Dermatol 2008;59:225-33.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Hillen U, Dickel H, Löffler H, Pfützner W, Mahler V, Becker D, et al. Late reactions to patch test preparations with reduced concentrations of p-phenylenediamine: A multicentre investigation of the German contact dermatitis research group. Contact Dermatitis 2011;64:196-202.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Friedmann PS. Graded continuity, or all or none – Studies of the human immune response. Clin Exp Dermatol 1991;16:79-84.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Marzulli FN, Maibach HI. The use of graded concentrations in studying skin sensitizers: Experimental contact sensitization in man. Food Cosmet Toxicol 1974;12:219-27.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Kligman AM. The identification of contact allergens by human assay. II. Factors influencing the induction and measurement of allergic contact dermatitis. J Invest Dermatol 1966;47:375-92.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Basketter DA, Jefferies D, Safford BJ, Gilmour NJ, Jowsey IR, McFadden J, et al. The impact of exposure variables on the induction of skin sensitization. Contact Dermatitis 2006;55:178-85.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
McLelland J, Shuster S. Contact dermatitis with negative patch tests: The additive effect of allergens in combination. Br J Dermatol 1990;122:623-30.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Johansen JD, Skov L, Volund A, Andersen K, Menné T. Allergens in combination have a synergistic effect on the elicitation response: A study of fragrance-sensitized individuals. Br J Dermatol 1998;139:264-70.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
McLelland J, Shuster S, Matthews JN. 'Irritants' increase the response to an allergen in allergic contact dermatitis. Arch Dermatol 1991;127:1016-9.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Smith HR, Basketter DA, McFadden JP. Irritant dermatitis, irritancy and its role in allergic contact dermatitis. Clin Exp Dermatol 2002;27:138-46.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Carlsen BC, Andersen KE, Menné T, Johansen JD. Patients with multiple contact allergies: A review. Contact Dermatitis 2008;58:1-8.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Moss C, Friedmann PS, Shuster S, Simpson JM. Susceptibility and amplification of sensitivity in contact dermatitis. Clin Exp Immunol 1985;61:232-41.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Brasch J, Uter W, Geier J, Schnuch A; German Contact Dermatitis Research Group and the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology in Germany. Associated positive patch test reactions to standard contact allergens. Am J Contact Dermat 2001;12:197-202.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Edman B. Computerized analysis of concomitant contact allergens. Contact Dermatitis 1991;24:110-3.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Albert MR, Chang Y, González E. Concomitant positive reactions to allergens in a patch testing standard series from 1988-1997. Am J Contact Dermat 1999;10:219-23.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Holness DL, Nethercott JR, Adams RM, Belsito D, Deleo V, Emmett EA, et al. Concomitant positive patch test results with standard screening tray in North America 1985-1989. Contact Dermatitis 1995;32:289-92.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Bruynzeel DP, Diepgen TL, Andersen KE, Brandão FM, Bruze M, Frosch PJ, et al. Monitoring the European standard series in 10 centres 1996-2000. Contact Dermatitis 2005;53:146-9.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
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.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ, Lehmacher W, Aberer W, et al. National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Population-adjusted frequencies of sensitization (PAFS) in 40,000 patients from a multicenter study (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis 1997;37:200-9.  Back to cited text no. 42
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 
 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Article in PDF (1,119 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed605    
    Printed6    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded29    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal