Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Patch Testing Tips pp 63–72Cite as

“Doctor, Why Are My Patch Tests Negative?”

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 626 Accesses

Abstract

It is expected that patch testing will be negative in up to 50 % of patients. When competent investigators who use comprehensive series of allergens perform the procedure, a negative result will usually signify a diagnosis other than allergic contact dermatitis and will be deemed a true-negative test. False-negative tests are likely to occur when the allergens responsible for the dermatitis are not tested, when early or late readings are not performed, or when procedures such as photopatch tests and prick tests are omitted. Technical failure may arise from insufficient occlusion, short application times, and insufficient amount, concentration, or inactivity of the allergen. The patient may be in a state of unresponsiveness because of ultraviolet light exposure of medication-induced immunosuppression, again leading to falsely negative patch tests.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Rietschel RL. Is patch testing cost-effective? J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989;21:885–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Nosbaum A, Vocanson M, Rozières A, Hennino A, Nicolas JF. Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis. Eur J Dermatol. 2009;19(4):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Larkin A, Rietschel RL. The utility of patch testing using larger screening series of allergens. Am J Contact Dermat. 1998;9:142–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Patel D, Belsito DV. The detection of clinically relevant contact allergens with a standard screening tray of 28 allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66:154–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rycroft RJG. Problems in occupational allergy. Semin Dermatol. 1982;1:43–7.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gollhausen R, Przybilla B, Ring J. Reproducibility of patch tests. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989;21:1196–202.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Brasch J, Henseler T, Aberer W, Baüerle G, Frosch PJ, Fuchs T, et al. Reproducibility of patch tests. A multicenter study of synchronous left versus right-sided patch tests by the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1994;31:584–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lachapelle JM, Maibach HI. Additional testing procedures and spot tests. In: Lachapelle JM, Maibach HI, editors. Patch testing and prick testing. 3rd ed. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2012. p. 113–28.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Rietschel RL, Fowler Jr JF. Fisher’s contact dermatitis. 6th ed. Hamilton: B.C. Decker Inc; 2008. p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lindberg M, Matura M. Patch testing. In: Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin JP, editors. Contact dermatitis. 5th ed. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. p. 439–64.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Skog E, Forsbeck M. Comparison between 24- and 48-h exposure time in patch testing. Contact Dermatitis. 1978;4:362–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kalimo K, Lammintausta K. 24- and 48-h allergen exposure in patch testing. Comparative study with 11 common contact allergens and NiCl2. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;10:25–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Goh CL, Wong WK, Ng SK. Comparison between 1-day and 2-day occlusion times in patch testing. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;31:48–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Machácková J, Seda O. Reproducibility of patch tests. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1991;25:732–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Brasch J, Geier J, Henseler T. Evaluation of patch test results by use of the reaction index. An analysis of data recorded by the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis. 1995;33:375–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Manuskiatti W, Maibach HI. 1- versus 2- and 3-day diagnostic patch testing. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;35:197–200.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bruze M, Isaksson M, Gruvberger B, Frick-Engfeldt M. Recommendations of appropriate amounts of petrolatum preparations to be applied at patch testing. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;56:281–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rycroft RJG. False reactions to nonstandard patch tests. Semin Dermatol. 1986;5:225–30.

    Google Scholar 

  19. De Groot A. Patch testing. Test concentrations and vehicles for 4350 chemicals. 3rd ed. Amsterdam: AC Degroot Publishing; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Matura M, Sköld M, Börje A, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Frosch P, et al. Selected oxidized fragrance terpenes are common contact allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;52:320–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hausen BM. Evaluation of the main contact allergens in oxidized tea tree oil. Dermatitis. 2004;15:213–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sköld M, Börje A, Harambasic E, Karlberg AT. Contact allergens formed on air exposure of linalool. Identification and quantification of primary and secondary oxidation products and the effect on skin sensitization. Chem Res Toxicol. 2004;17:1697–705.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Frick M, Zimerson E, Karlsson D, Marand A, Skarping G, Isaksson M, et al. Poor correlation between stated an found concentrations of diphenyl methane-4,4’-diisocyanate (4,4”-MDI) in petrolatum patch test preparations. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;51:73–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Mose KF, Andersen KE, Christensen LP. Stability of selected volatile contact allergens in different patch test chambers under different storage conditions. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66:172–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Wilkinson SM, Beck MH. Corticosteroid contact hypersensitivity: what vehicle and concentration? Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34:305–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Serpentier-Daude A, Collet E, Didier AF, Touraud JP, Sgro C, Lambert D. Dermites de contact aux antiherpétiques locaux. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2000;127:191–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Whitmore SE. The importance of proper vehicle selection in the detection of minoxidil sensitivity. Arch Dermatol. 1992;128:653–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kellet JK, King CM, Beck MH. Compound allergy to medicaments. Contact Dermatitis. 1986;14:45–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Le Coz CJ, Sasseville D. Interprétation et pertinence des patch tests: faux positifs et faux négatifs, allergies composées, allergies croisées. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2009;136:610–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sukanto H, Nater JP, Bleumink E. Influence of topically applied corticosteroids on patch test reactions. Contact Dermatitis. 1981;7:180–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Clark R, Rietschel R. The effect of triamcinolone acetonide ointment 0.1% on positive patch tests. Arch Dermatol. 1982;118:163–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Fowler Jr JF, Maibach HI, Taylor JS, DeKoven JG, Sasseville D, Warshaw EM, et al. Effects of immunomodulatory agents on patch testing: expert opinion 2012. Dermatitis. 2012;23:301–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. O’Quinn SE, Isbell KH. Influence of oral prednisone on eczematous patch test reactions. Arch Dermatol. 1969;99:380–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Feuerman E, Levy A. A study of the effect of prednisone and an antihistamine on patch test reactions. Br J Dermatol. 1972;86:68–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Condie MW, Adams RM. Influence of oral prednisone on patch test reactions to Rhus antigen. Arch Dermatol. 1973;107:540–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Olupona T, Scheinman P. Successful patch testing despite concomitant low-dose prednisone use. Dermatitis. 2008;19:117–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Anveden I, Lindberg M, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Isaksson M, Liden C, et al. Oral prednisone suppresses allergic but not irritant patch test reactions in individuals hypersensitive to nickel. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;50:298–303.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Wee JS, White JML, McFadden JP, White IR. Patch testing in patients treated with systemic immunosuppression and cytokine inhibitors. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;62:165–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Rosmarin D, Gottlieb AB, Asarch A, Scheinman PL. Patch-testing while on systemic immunosuppressant’s. Dermatitis. 2009;20:265–70.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Bangsgaard N, Zachariae C, Menné T, Skov L. Lack of effect of ustekinumab in treatment of allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;65:227–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Nosbaum A, Rozières A, Balme B, Goujon C, Nicolas JF, Bérard F. Blocking T helper 1/T helper 17 pathways has no effect on patch testing. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68:58–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Cruz PD. Effects of UV light on the immune system: answer to five basic questions. Am J Contact Dermat. 1996;7:47–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Lachapelle JM, Maibach HI. Patch testing methodology. In: Lachapelle JM, Maibach HI, editors. Patch testing and prick testing. 3rd ed. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2012. p. 35–77.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Schwarz T, Schwarz A, Krone C, Luger TA. Pentoxifylline suppresses allergic patch test reactions in humans. Arch Dermatol. 1993;129:513–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Balato N, Patruno C, Lembo G, Cuccurullo FM, Ayala F. Effect of pentoxifylline on patch test response. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34:153.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Collet E, Didier AF. Ce qu’il ne faut jamais faire en dermato-allergologie. In: Le Coz CJ, Jelen G, Lepoittevin JP, editors. Progrès en dermato-allergologie- Strasbourg 2003. Paris: John Libbey Eurotext; 2003. p. 153–9.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Lammintausta K, Maibach HI. Human cutaneous irritation: induced hyporeactivity. Contact Dermatitis. 1987;17:193–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Koehler AM, Maibach HI. Skin hyporeactivity in relation to patch testing. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;42:1–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Beck MH. The patient with negative patch tests – what now? In: Guin JD, editor. Practical contact dermatitis. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc; 1995. p. 659–72.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, Royal Victoria Hospital, Room A4.17, 687 Pine Avenue West, Montréal, QC, H3A 1A1, Canada

    Denis Sasseville MD, FRCPC

Authors
  1. Denis Sasseville MD, FRCPC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denis Sasseville MD, FRCPC .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Catholic University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium

    Jean-Marie Lachapelle

  2. Dept. of Occup. a. Environmental Dermatology, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden

    Magnus Bruze

  3. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Jena, Jena, Germany

    Peter U. Elsner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sasseville, D. (2014). “Doctor, Why Are My Patch Tests Negative?”. In: Lachapelle, JM., Bruze, M., Elsner, P. (eds) Patch Testing Tips. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45395-3_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45395-3_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-45394-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-45395-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation