Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
15th National Conference of the IAOMFP, Chennai, 2006
Abstract
Abstracts from current literature
Acne in India: Guidelines for management - IAA Consensus Document
Addendum
Announcement
Art & Psychiatry
Article
Articles
Association Activities
Association Notes
Award Article
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Analysis
Case Letter
Case Letters
Case Notes
Case Report
Case Reports
Clinical and Laboratory Investigations
Clinical Article
Clinical Studies
Clinical Study
Commentary
Conference Oration
Conference Summary
Continuing Medical Education
Correspondence
Corrigendum
Cosmetic Dermatology
Cosmetology
Current Best Evidence
Current View
Derma Quest
Dermato Surgery
Dermatopathology
Dermatosurgery Specials
Dispensing Pearl
Do you know?
Drug Dialogues
e-IJDVL
Editor Speaks
Editorial
Editorial Remarks
Editorial Report
Editorial Report - 2007
Editorial report for 2004-2005
Errata
Erratum
Focus
Fourth All India Conference Programme
From Our Book Shelf
From the Desk of Chief Editor
General
Get Set for Net
Get set for the net
Guest Article
Guest Editorial
History
How I Manage?
IADVL Announcement
IADVL Announcements
IJDVL Awards
IJDVL AWARDS 2015
IJDVL Awards 2018
IJDVL Awards 2019
IJDVL Awards 2020
IJDVL International Awards 2018
Images in Clinical Practice
In Memorium
Inaugural Address
Index
Knowledge From World Contemporaries
Leprosy Section
Letter in Response to Previous Publication
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor - Case Letter
Letter to the Editor - Letter in Response to Published Article
LETTER TO THE EDITOR - LETTERS IN RESPONSE TO PUBLISHED ARTICLES
Letter to the Editor - Observation Letter
Letter to the Editor - Study Letter
Letter to the Editor - Therapy Letter
Letter to the Editor: Articles in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor - Letter in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters to the Editor: Case Letters
Letters to the Editor: Letters in Response to Previously Published Articles
Medicolegal Window
Messages
Miscellaneous Letter
Musings
Net Case
Net case report
Net Image
Net Letter
Net Quiz
Net Study
New Preparations
News
News & Views
Obervation Letter
Obituary
Observation Letter
Observation Letters
Oration
Original Article
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
Original Contributions
Pattern of Skin Diseases
Pearls
Pediatric Dermatology
Pediatric Rounds
Perspective
Presedential Address
Presidential Address
Presidents Remarks
Quiz
Recommendations
Regret
Report
Report of chief editor
Report of Hon : Treasurer IADVL
Report of Hon. General Secretary IADVL
Research Methdology
Research Methodology
Resident page
Resident's Page
Resident’s Page
Residents' Corner
Residents' Corner
Residents' Page
Retraction
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revision Corner
Self Assessment Programme
SEMINAR
Seminar: Chronic Arsenicosis in India
Seminar: HIV Infection
Short Communication
Short Communications
Short Report
Special Article
Specialty Interface
Studies
Study Letter
Supplement-Photoprotection
Supplement-Psoriasis
Symposium - Contact Dermatitis
Symposium - Lasers
Symposium - Pediatric Dermatoses
Symposium - Psoriasis
Symposium - Vesicobullous Disorders
SYMPOSIUM - VITILIGO
Symposium Aesthetic Surgery
Symposium Dermatopathology
Symposium-Hair Disorders
Symposium-Nails Part I
Symposium-Nails-Part II
Tables
Technology
Therapeutic Guidelines
Therapeutic Guidelines - IADVL
Therapeutics
Therapy
Therapy Letter
View Point
Viewpoint
What’s new in Dermatology
View/Download PDF
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
2014:80:1;62-64
doi: 10.4103/0378-6323.125522

Contact allergens in Kashmiri population: Results from a 6-year patch testing experience in 550 patients

Imran Majid
 Department of Dermatology Government Medical College, CUTIS Skin and Laser Institute, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India

Correspondence Address:
Imran Majid
House G-30, Green Lane, Shah Anwar Colony, Hyderpora, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir
India
How to cite this article:
Majid I. Contact allergens in Kashmiri population: Results from a 6-year patch testing experience in 550 patients. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2014;80:62-64
Copyright: (C)2014 Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology

Sir,

We are hereby reporting the patch test results over a 6-year period in ethnic Kashmiri population. It is important to note that our center provided the sole patch testing facility for the local population over this period.

A total of 550 patients were seen at our contact dermatitis clinic from November 2006 to October 2012 and the patch test results obtained were analyzed retrospectively. The demographic profile and clinical details were filled in a preformed format at the first visit and the clinical evaluation included the morphological type of eczema, the sites involved, the duration, the seasonal and photo-exposure related variation, and any coexistent skin disorders.

All the patients were patch tested using the Indian standard series as recommended by CODFI and marketed by Systopic Labs India Ltd. A standard protocol was employed in each patient and the readings were taken 15-30 min after removing the test patches on day 2 and then again on day 4 as well. The reactions were interpreted according to the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group (ICDRG) criteria and graded accordingly.

The age of our patients ranged from 12 to 56 years with a mean of 36.79 years. There were 236 males and 314 females in the study group.

Of the 550 patients tested, 228 patients (41.45%) showed a positive reaction to one or more test antigens. Out of these, 80 patients had a positive reaction to a single patch test antigen, while 148 others showed reactions to multiple antigens. Thus, a total of 421 positive reactions were recorded in the study group of 550 patients.

Of all the antigens tested, nickel was found to be the commonest, reported in 67 patients, followed by potassium dichromate in 49 patients. Thus, the commonest two allergens found constituted 27.5% (116 out of 421) of the total patch test reactions. Other antigens that were found positive in our series are shown in [Table - 1].

Table 1: Contact allergen positivity in the study group

The commonest type of eczema patch tested in our series was hand eczema, seen in 214 patients and the commonest allergens were again found to be nickel and potassium dichromate in 30 and 21 patients, respectively [Table - 2].

Table 2: Contact allergen positivity in patients with hand eczema

The second commonest type of eczema seen in this series was airborne contact dermatitis (ABCD) and in this group the commonest allergens found were fragrance mix and para-phenylenediamine (PPD) in 24 and 22 patients respectively. It is important to note here that parthenium, one of the commonest agents causing ABCD in Indian population, is not found here in Kashmir valley. This accounts for the very low prevalence of parthenium positivity in our patients.

Interestingly, among the two sexes, females showed a slightly higher rate of patch test positivity than males. Of the 314 females tested, a positive reaction was elicited in 145 patients (46.17%), while only 83 among the 236 males (35.16%) showed a positive reaction to one or more allergens. The commonest allergen found in female patients was nickel (in 49 patients), while in males highest number of positive reactions were seen with potassium dichromate, fragrance mix, and PPD in 19, 16, and 14 patients, respectively.

Analyzing the results, about 41.45% of patients that we patch tested showed one or more positive reactions in this retrospective analysis. This is comparable to the figures that have been quoted in studies from the West. [1],[2] However, the incidence of patch test positivity in many Indian studies has been higher, in the range of 60-70%. [3],[4] This higher rate has been explained on the basis of a higher incidence of parthenium sensitivity in other parts of India especially in males.

We found nickel to be the predominant allergen in females which is expected from the almost universal practice of ear piercing in our female population. Males showed a significantly less incidence of positive reactions to the patch test allergens than females, a phenomenon that has been reported in many Western studies till date. [1],[5] In our cases, hand eczema was the commonest clinical diagnosis and this is more in conformity with studies from outside India than the Indian studies on this subject. [5],[6] In Indian studies, either footwear dermatitis or airborne contact dermatitis predominate in patients in patch test clinics. [3],[4]

Among topical antimicrobials, neomycin and gentamicin were the commonest allergens [Table - 1], clearly demonstrating the hazards of the rampant use of these antimicrobials in topical medications. Another related issue was a high rate of positivity to chlorocresol that was seen in 22 patients (4% of the study population). Chlorocresol, in addition to being a constituent of many cosmetic products, cross reacts with chloroxylenol, an active ingredient of ′Dettol′, the use of which has increased dramatically in recent years.

After testing, the patients were interviewed for the relevance of the patch test results and the same was recorded in their files. In patients with chromate sensitivity, occupational exposure to relevant substances was seen in 21 patients, while 17 others had a nonoccupational exposure. Thus, the overall relevance of this subgroup was 80%. (38 out of 49 patients) Similarly, in patients with metal allergy on patch testing, 37.28% had relevance to the current dermatitis; while 62.72% others had a past relevance in the form of a past exposure to metallic substances especially in females in the form of ear piercing. Most of these metal-allergic patients had hand eczema. Fragrance mix was seen as a common allergen especially in patients with airborne contact dermatitis. Clinical relevance was seen in majority of these cases (37 out of 45) and was related most commonly to the use of cosmetics and traditional perfumes.

References
1.
Young E, Houwing RH. Patch test results with standard allergens over a decade. Contact Dermatitis 1987;17:104-7.
[Google Scholar]
2.
Hammershoy O. Standard patch test results in 3,225 consecutive Danish patients from 1973 to 1977. Contact Dermatitis 1980;6:263-8.
[Google Scholar]
3.
Sharma VK, Chakrabarti A. Common contact sensitizers in Chandigarh, India. A study of 200 patients with the European standard series. Contact Dermatitis 1998;38:127-31.
[Google Scholar]
4.
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.
[Google Scholar]
5.
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.
[Google Scholar]
6.
Albert MR, Gonzalez S, Gonzalez E. Patch testing reactions to a standard series in 608 patients tested from 1990 to 1997 at Massachusetts General Hospital. Am J Contact Dermat 1998;9:207-11.
[Google Scholar]

Fulltext Views
144

PDF downloads
52
Show Sections