Advertisement

Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology

, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 110–118 | Cite as

Patch Testing Pearls

  • Betty A. Uyesugi
  • Michael P. SheehanEmail author
Article
First Online:
  • 213 Downloads

Abstract

Dermatitis is one of the most common illnesses encountered by healthcare providers and the causes are numerous. Contact dermatitis is the form of dermatitis resulting from contact with the environment, and it may be either irritant or allergic in nature. Patch testing has been the gold standard for diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis since its formal description over 100 years ago by Jadassohn. While this diagnostic tool may seem simple to us today, there are numerous potential points for error that the practitioner must keep in mind. Patient selection, technique of patch test placement, allergen selection, patch test reading and interpretation, and patient management all must be considered. To simply apply a given set of test allergens indiscriminately and not be prepared to interpret the results accurately with patient education and management in mind would be a great failure. Conversely, with experience and the proper knowledge base some of the most complex dermatitis questions can be answered.

Keywords

Contact dermatitis Allergic contact dermatitis Patch testing International contact dermatitis research group reading criteria Patch test relevance Patch test pearls Regional clues to patch testing Patch test placement Patch test reading 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Disclosure

The authors have no relevant disclosures.

Human and Animal Rights

No research involving human participants and/or animals was used.

Informed Consent

No identifying patient information was used requiring informed consent.

References

  1. 1.
    Kadyk DL, McCarter K, Achen F, Belsito DV (2003) Quality of life in patients with allergic contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 49(6):1037–1048Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thomson KF, Wilkinson SM, Sommer S, Pollock B (2002) Eczema: quality of life by body site and the effect of patch testing. Br J Dermatol. 146(4):627–630Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson RT, Rajagopalan R (2001) Effects of allergic dermatosis on health-related quality of life. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 1(4):309–315Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hutchings CV, Shum KW, Gawkroder DJ (2001) Occupational contact dermatitis has an appreciable impact on quality of life. Contact Dermatitis. 45(1):17–20Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rietschel RL (1995) Human and economic impact of allergic contact dermatitis and the role of patch testing. J Am Acad Dermatol. 33(5):812–815Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sulzberger MB, Wise F (1931) The contact or patch test in dermatology. Arch Dermatology Syphilol 23:519–531Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith SM, Nedorost ST (2010) Dermatitis defined. Dermatitis 21(5):248–250Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johansen JD, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, Andersen KE, Bircher A, Bruze M, Cannavó A, Giménez-Arnau A, Gonçalo M, Goossens A, John SM, Lidén C, Lindberg M, Mahler V, Matura M, Rustemeyer T, Serup J, Spiewak R, Thyssen JP, Vigan M, White IR, Wilkinson M, Uter W (2015) European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing – recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis 73:195–221Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meding B, Jarvholm B (2002) Hand eczema in Swedish adults –changes in prevalence between 1983 and 1996. J Invest Dermatol 118:719–723Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coenraads PJ, van Coevorden AM, Diepgen TL (2003) Hand eczema. In: Williams HC, Bigby M, Diepgen TL, Herxheimer A, Naldi L, Rzany B (eds) Evidence-based Dermatology. BMJ Books, London, pp 132–143Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Diepgen TL (2003) Occupational skin-disease data in Europe. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 76:331–338Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Diepgen TL, Agner T, Aberer W, Berth-Jones J, Cambazard F, Elsner P, McFadden J, Coenraads PJ (2007) Management of chronic hand eczema. Contact Dermatitis. 57(4):203–2010Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Handa S, Kaur I, Gupta T, Jindal R (2012) Hand eczema: correlation of morphologic patterns, atopy, contact sensitization and disease severity. Indian. J Dermatol, Venereol Leprol 78(2):153–158Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rietschel RL (1999) Atlas of contact dermatitis. Martin Dunitz, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huynh M, Sheehan M, Chung M, Zirwas M, Feldman S (2013) Regional Atlas of Contact Dermatitis: Extremities. Dermatol. 21(6):1–2Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sheehan M, Huynh M, Chung M, Zirwas M, Feldman S (2013) Regional Atlas of Contact Dermatitis: Mouth, Lips, and Perioral Region. Dermatol. 21(5):1–3Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huynh M, Sheehan M, Chung M, Zirwas M, Feldman S (2013) Regional Atlas of Contact Dermatitis: Anogenital. Dermatol. 21(4):1–3Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huynh M, Sheehan M, Chung M, Zirwas M, Feldman S (2013) Regional Atlas of Contact Dermatitis: Feet. Dermatol 21(2):1–2Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sheehan M, Huynh M, Chung M, Zirwas M, Feldman S (2013) Regional Atlas of Contact Dermatitis: Hands. Dermatol 21(1):1–3Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huynh M, Sheehan M, Chung M, Zirwas M, Feldman S (2012) Regional Atlas of Contact Dermatitis: Neck. Dermatol. 20(11):1–2Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huynh M, Sheehan M, Chung M, Zirwas M, Feldman S (2012) Regional Atlas of Contact Dermatitis: Eyelids. Dermatol. 20(10):1–2Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Breit R (1977) Allergen change in stasis dermatitis. Contact Dermat 3:309Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Coenradds PJ, Bleumink E, Nater JP (1975) Susceptibility to primary irritants: age dependence and relation to contact allergic reactions. Contact Dermat 1:377Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Warshaw EM, Raju SI, Fowler JF, Maibach HI, Belsito DV, Zug KA, Rietschel RL, Taylor JS, Mathias T, Fransway AF, DeLeo VA, Marks JG, Storrs FJ, Pratt MD, Sasseville D (2012) Positive patch test reactions in older individuals: Retrospective analysis from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 1994–2008. J Am Acad Dermatol. 66(2):229–240Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rudikoff, Donald, et al. (2014)“Chapter 1: The History of Eczema and Atopic Dermatitis.”. Atopic Dermatitis and Eczematous Disorders, CRC Press, pp. 11–24.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Clemmensen KKB, Thomsen SF, Jemec GBE, Agner T (2014) Pattern of contact sensitization in patients with and without atopic dermatitis in a hospital-based clinical database. Contact Dermat. 71:75–81Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jacob SE, McGowan M, Silverberg NB, Pelletier JL, Fonacier L, Mousdicas N, Powell D, Scheman A, Goldenberg A (2017) Pediatric contact dermatitis registry data on contact allergy in children with atopic dermatitis. JAMA Dermatol 153(8):765–770Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Magembe AJ, Davis MP, Richardson D (2007) The angry back associated with patch testing: are there any predictors? Dermatitis. 18(2):115–116Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mitchell JC (1975) The angry back syndrome. Eczema creates eczema. Contact Dermat 1:193–194Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Durate I, Lazzarini R (2006) Excited skin syndrome associated with patch-test application technique. Dermatitis 17(3):161–162Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Duarte I, Lazzarini R, Buense R (2002) Interference of the position of the substances present in an epicutaneous patch test series with occurrence of false-positive results. Am J Contact Dermat 13:125–132Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Joy NM, Rice KR, Atwater AR (2013) Stability of patch test allergens. Dermatitis 24(5):227–236Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hoeck UL. (2005) More T.R.U.E Test allergens are needed. J Am Acad Dermatol 52.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Belsito DV et al (2004) Patch testing with a standard allergen ("screening") tray: rewards and risks. Dermatol Ther. 17(3):231–239Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nettis E et al (2003) Results of standard series patch testing in patients with occupational allergic contact dermatitis. Allergy. 58(12):1304–1307Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Saripalli YV et al (2003) The detection of clinically relevant contact allergens using a standard screening tray of twenty-three allergens. J Am Acad Dermatol. 49(1):65–69Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Suneja T et al (2001) Comparative study of Finn Chambers and T.R.U.E test methodologies in detecting the relevant allergens inducing contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol 45(6 pt 1):836–839Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Katsarma G et al (1999) Suspected fragrance allergy requires extended patch testing to individual fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 41(4):193–197Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Larkin A et al (1998) The utility of patch tests using larger screening series of allergens. Am J Contact Dermat. 9(3):142–145Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cohen DE et al (1997) Utility of standard allergen series alone in the evaluation of allergic contact dermatitis: a retrospective study of 732 patients. J Am Acad Dermatol. 36(6 pt 1):914–918Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cronin E (1972) Clinical prediction of patch test results. Trans St Johns Hosp Dermatol Soc. 58:153–162Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Podmore P, Burrows D, Bingham EA (1984) Prediction of patch test results. Contact Dermat. 11:283–284Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bruynzeel DP, Andersen KE, CamarasaJ G, Lachapelle JM, Menné T, White IR (1995) The European standard series. European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG). Contact Dermat 33:145–148Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bruze M, Condé-Salazar L, Goossens A, Kanerva L, White IR (1999) Thoughts on sensitizers in a standard patch test series. The European Society of Contact Dermatitis. Contact Dermat 41:241–250Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Warshaw EM, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA et al (2008) North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 2003–2004 study period. Dermatitis. 19(3):129–136Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zug KA, Warshaw EM, Fowler JF Jr et al (2009) Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005–2006. Dermatitis 20:149–160Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Anveden I, Lindberg M, Andersen KE et al (2004) Oral prednisone suppresses allergic but not irritant patch test reactions in individuals hypersensitive to nickel. Contact Dermat 50:298Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Fischer AA et al (2008) Fishers contact dermatitis. BC Decker Inc, HamiltonGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sukanto H et al (1981) Influence of topically applied corticosteroids on patch test reactions. Contact Dermat 7:180Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Clark RA, Rietschel RL (1982) 0.1% triamcinolone acetonide ointment and patch test responses. Arch Dermatol 118:163Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Macfarlane AW, Curley RK, Graham RM, Lewis-Jones M, King CM (1989) Delayed patch test reactions at days 7 and 9. Contact Dermat 20:127–132Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Jonker MJ, Bruynzeel DP (2000) The outcome of an additional patch-test reading on days 6 or 7. Contact Dermat 42:330–335Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Isaksson M, Andersen KE, Brandão FM et al (2000) Patch testing with corticosteroid mixes in Europe. A multicentre study of the EECDRG. Contact Dermat 42:27–35Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chaudhry HM, Drage LA, El-Azhary RA, Hall MR, Killian JM, Prakash AV, Yiannias JA, Davis MD (2017) Delayed patch-test reading after 5 days: An update from the Mayo Clinic Contact Dermatitis Group. Dermatitis 28(4):253–260Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Nosbaum A, Vocanson M, Rozieres A, Hennino A, Nicolas JF (2009) Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis. Eur J Dermatol 19:325–332Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Isaksson M, Bruze M (2005) Corticosteroids. Dermatitis 16(1):3–5Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bruze M (1990) What is a relevant contact allergy? Contact Dermat 23:224–225Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Jacob SE, Brod B, Crawford GH (2008) Clinically relevant patch test reactions in children--a United States based study. Pediatr Dermatol. 25(5):520Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Gipson KA, Carlson SW, Nedorost ST (2010) Physician-patient agreement in the assessment of allergen relevance. Dermatitis 21(5):275–279Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Carlson S, Gipson K, Nedorost S (2010) Relevance of doubtful (“equivocal”) late patch-test readings. Dermatitis 21(2):102–108Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Tamaka K, Seike M, Hagiwara T, Sato A, Ohtsu H (2015) Histamine suppresses regulatory T cells mediated by TGF-beta in murine chronic allergic contact dermatitis. Exp Dermatol 24(4):280–284Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ashida Y, Denda M, Hirao T (2001) Histamine H1 and H2 receptor antagonists accelerate skin barrier repair and prevent epidermal hyperplasia induced by barrier disruption in a dry environment. J Investig Dermatol 116(2):261–265Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wollenberg A, Sidhu MK, Odeyemi I et al (2008) Economic evaluation of maintenance treatment with tacrolimus 0.1% ointment in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 159(6):1322–1330Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wollenberg A, Reitamo S, Atzori F et al (2008) Proactive treatment of atopic dermatitis in adults with 0.1% tacrolimus ointment. Allergy. 63(6):742–750Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lauerma AI, Stein BD, Homey B et al (1994) Topical FK 506: suppression of allergic and irritant contact dermatitis in the guine pig. Arch Dermatol Res 286:337Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Pereira U, Boulais N, Lebonvallet N, Pennec JP, Dorange G, Misery L (2010) Mechanisms of the sensory effects of tacrolimus on the skin. Br J Dermatol. 163(1):70–77Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Schram ME, Roekevisch E, Leeflang MM et al (2011) A randomized trial of methotrexate versus azathioprine for severe atopic eczema. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 128:353–359Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Egan CA, Rallis TM, Meadows KP et al (1999) Low-dose oral methotrexate treatment for recalcitrant palmoplantar pompholyx. J Am Acad Dermatol. 40:612–614Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Denby KS, Beck LA (2012) Update on systemic therapies for atopic dermatitis. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 12(4):421–426Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Roekevisch E, Spuls PI, Kuester D, Limpens J, Schmitt J (2014) Efficacy and safety of systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a systematic review. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 133(2):429–438Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Granlund H, Erkko P, Reitamo S (1998) Long-term follow-up of eczema patients treated with cyclosporine. Acta Derm Venereol 78:40Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Lakshmi C, Srinivas CR, Jayaraman A (2008) Ciclosporin in parthenium dermatitits-a report of 2 cases. Contact Dermatitis. 59(4):245–248Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Munro CS, Levell NJ, Shuster S, Friedmann PS (1994) Maintenance treatment with cyclosporin in atopic eczema. Br J Dermatol 130:376–380Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Sowden JM, Berth-Jones J, Ross JS, Motley RJ, Marks R, Finlay AY et al (1991) Double-blind, controlled, crossover study of cyclosporin in adults with severe refractory atopic dermatitis. Lancet 338:137–140Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Griffiths CEM, Dubertret L (2004) Ellis CN, et al. cyclosporine in psoriasis clinical practice: an international consensus statement. Br J Dermatol 150:11–23Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Wakelin, Sarah H.., et al. (2015) Handbook of systemic drug treatment in dermatology. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, .Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Waxweiler WT, Agans R, Morrell DS (2011) Systemic treatment of pediatric atopic dermatitis with azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil. Pediatr Dermatol 28(6):689–694Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Prussick L, Plotnikova N, Gottlieb A (2016) Mycophenolate mofetil in severe atopic dermatitis. J Drugs Dermatol 15(6):715–718Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Samrao A, Berry TM, Goreshi R, Simpson EL (2012) A pilot study of an oral phosphodiesterase inhibitor (apremilast) for atopic dermatitis in adults. Arch Dermatol 148(8):890–897Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Abrouk M et al (2017) Apremilast treatment of atopic dermatitis and other chronic eczematous dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol 77(1):177–180Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Simpson EL et al (2016) Dupilumab therapy provides clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs): A phase IIb, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial in adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. J Am AcadDermatol 75(3):506–515Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dermatology Physicians, Inc.ColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Indianapolis College of Osteopathic MedicineMarian UniversityIndianapolisUSA
  3. 3.School of Medicine Department of DermatologyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options