Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment for Metal Allergy: Patch Testing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Metal Allergy

  • 1204 Accesses

Abstract

The method of choice and gold standard in the diagnosis of delayed-type hypersensitivity is patch testing; therefore, patch testing for metal allergy has become routine. Most national and international baseline series for patch testing contain nickel, chromium and cobalt. There are numerous metals of increasing medical importance that are not on routine patch test programmes. With advances of metallurgy and biotechnology, such metals become increasingly widely present in medical devices, e.g. artificial joints, dental implants, vascular stents, clips and pacemakers. These metals are not routinely tested, as some are not yet commercially available as preparations for patch testing, while others may not be well known to many dermatologists and allergists. This chapter outlines current recommendations and common pitfalls when patch testing to metals. Assessing the clinical relevance of a positive patch test reaction is as important as the execution of patch testing. Several illustrative cases will be provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Johansen JD, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, et al. European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing - recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73:195–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Spiewak R. Patch testing for contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis. Open Allergy J. 2008;1:42–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bourke J, Coulson I, English J. Guidelines for care of contact dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2001;145:877–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bruynzeel DP, Ferguson J, Andersen K, et al. Photopatch testing: a consensus methodology for Europe. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2004;18:679–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Jensen CD, Paulsen E, Andersen KE. Retrospective evaluation of the consequence of alleged patch test sensitization. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;55:30–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Fransway AF, Zug KA, Belsito DV, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for 2007-2008. Dermatitis. 2013;24:10–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Fischer T, Rystedt I. False-positive, follicular and irritant patch test reactions to metal salts. Contact Dermatitis. 1985;12:93–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Storrs FJ, White CR Jr. False-positive “poral” cobalt patch test reactions reside in the eccrine acrosyringium. Cutis. 2000;65:49–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Marcussen PV. Primary irritant patch-test reactions in children. Arch Dermatol. 1963;87:378–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Czarnobilska E, Obtulowicz K, Dyga W, Spiewak R. The most important contact sensitizers in Polish children and adolescents with atopy and chronic recurrent eczema as detected with the extended European Baseline Series. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2011;22:252–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mortz CG, Kjaer HF, Eller E, et al. Positive nickel patch tests in infants are of low clinical relevance and rarely reproducible. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2013;24:84–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mortz CG, Lauritsen JM, Bindslev-Jensen C, Andersen KE. Prevalence of atopic dermatitis, asthma, allergic rhinitis, and hand and contact dermatitis in adolescents. The odense adolescence cohort study on atopic diseases and dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2001;144:523–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Brandao MH, Gontijo B, Girundi MA, de Castro MC. Ear piercing as a risk factor for contact allergy to nickel. J Pediatr. 2010;86:149–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. de Groot AC. Patch testing. Test concentrations and vehicles for 4350 chemicals. Wapserveen: Acdegroot Publishing; 2008. p. 1–1257. (update 2008–2015 available as PDF from the publisher)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fowler JF Jr. Gold remains an important allergen. Dermatitis. 2015;26:67–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bruze M, Hedman H, Bjorkner B, Moller H. The development and course of test reactions to gold sodium thiosulfate. Contact Dermatitis. 1995;33:386–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Experimental Dermatology and Cosmetology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Medyczna 9, 30-688, Krakow, Poland

    Radoslaw Spiewak

  2. Dermatology and Allergy Consultancy ‘dermatolog.eu’, Krakow, Poland

    Radoslaw Spiewak

Authors
  1. Radoslaw Spiewak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Radoslaw Spiewak .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Redwood City, CA, USA

    Jennifer K Chen

  2. Department of Dermatology and Allergy Herlev and Gentofte Hospital University of Copenhagen, Hellerup, Denmark

    Jacob P. Thyssen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Spiewak, R. (2018). Assessment for Metal Allergy: Patch Testing. In: Chen, J., Thyssen, J. (eds) Metal Allergy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58503-1_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58503-1_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-58502-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-58503-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation