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 - Study Letter
2020:86:6;733-736
doi: 10.4103/ijdvl.IJDVL_691_19
PMID: 33159029

Correlation of patch test with repeated open application test in patients with suspected hair-dye dermatitis

Ankita Khambra, V Ramesh, Sushruta Kathuria
 Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Safdarjung Hospital and Vardhaman Mahavir Medical College, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Sushruta Kathuria
Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Safdarjung Hospital and Vardhaman Mahavir Medical College, New Delhi
India
Published: 12-Oct-2020
How to cite this article:
Khambra A, Ramesh V, Kathuria S. Correlation of patch test with repeated open application test in patients with suspected hair-dye dermatitis. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2020;86:733-736
Copyright: (C)2020 Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology

Sir,

Repeated open application test (ROAT) is an alternative method to patch test for detection of allergic contact dermatitis. It simulates the exposure pattern to allergen as in daily life, is cheaper, easier to perform and products can be tested as a whole. Hence, we proposed to compare ROAT with patch test as a tool to detect allergic contact dermatitis to hair dye in the Department of Dermatology and STD, Safdarjung Hospital and Vardhaman Mahavir Medical College, New Delhi. The study was approved by the ethical committee of the hospital. After informed consent, 50 patients (>12 years) having dermatitis over head and neck, trunk or upper limbs and temporal correlation with hair dye use were included in the study. Patients on oral corticosteroids or immunosuppressants and pregnant/lactating women were excluded. All patients were subjected to patch test and ROAT.

Patch test was done following standard guidelines as per International Contact Dermatitis Research Group (ICDRG) using Indian standard series (Systopic Laboratories, New Delhi). Reading taken on day 4 was considered as final.[1]

To perform ROAT, patients were asked to apply a one-fourth fingertip unit of all brands of hair dye used by them and vaseline (negative control) on a marked area of 3 × 3 cm on the volar aspect of the forearm for one week, as standardized by Hannuksela and Salo.[2] Readings were recorded as per Johansen's modified scale.[1] Ten healthy controls with no history of contact dermatitis or atopy were also asked to perform ROAT with two different commonly used brands of hair dye (Garnier and Godrej) and vaseline as control. The data was analyzed with Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21.0.

Sixty-two patients presented with suspected hair-dye dermatitis, of which 50 completed the study. The clinical characteristics and hair dye used by the patients are given in [Table - 1]. On patch test, 36/50 (72%) showed positive reaction to paraphenylenediamine (PPD) [Figure - 1] along with other allergens [Table - 2]. In those who had positive reaction to PPD and other allergens such as parthenium, nickel sulphate, nitrofurazone, thiuram mix, fragrance mix, colophony and mercaptobenzothiazole, only PPD was found clinically relevant [Table - 2]. The diagnosis in 14 patients who tested negative on patch test and ROAT as well was revised based on repeat history and patch test results [Table - 2] to parthenium in 5, nickel dermatitis in 3, nitrofurazone in 3, colophony in 1 and fragrance mix in 1 and endogenous dermatitis in 1.

Table 1: Clinical features
Figure 1: Patch test showing bullous reaction to paraphenylenediamine on day 4
Table 2: Number of patients positive on patch test and repeated open application test

Thirty (60%) patients showed positive reaction on ROAT [Table - 2] and [Figure - 2] and all were patch test positive too. In the 30 ROAT-positive patients, there were 60 positive reactions to different dyes of which 49 occurred on day 2, and the remaining 11 occurred on day 4. No new positive reaction appeared on day 7. On comparing ROAT with patch test, correlation coefficient was 0.846 and P value was < 0.0001. Taking patch test as the standard, sensitivity of ROAT was 83.33% (95% CI: 67.19- 93.63%), specificity was 100% (95% CI: 76.84-100.00%), positive predictive value was 100% and negative predictive value was 70%. ROAT was negative in all controls. On comparison with 50 cases, P value was highly significant (<0.001). No adverse effects to patch test or ROAT were noted.

Figure 2: Repeated open application test showing positive reaction and kissing lesions on day 2

PPD is the most common contact sensitizer in hair-dye dermatitis, others being resorcinol, henna, lead acetate, m-aminophenol, o-aminophenol, p-aminophenol and toluene-2,5-diamine sulfate. The permissible limit of PPD in hair dyes is 6% and estimated PPD sensitivity in general population is around 1%.[3] Even in low concentration, PPD is a potent contact sensitizer as seen on EC3 value (effective concentration of the test substance required to produce a three-fold increase in the stimulation index) for PPD on local lymph node assay.[4] The reported prevalence of positive patch test reactions to PPD among dermatitis patients is 4.4% in Asia, 4.1% in Europe, 6.0% in North America, and 11.5% in India.[5],[6]

In India, patch test positivity in hair-dye dermatitis is 67.5% similar to our study (72%)[7] while in Korea and Japan, it is lower (25% and 35.1%, respectively), which could be because of other allergens such as toluene-2,5-diamine, p-aminophenol, m-aminophenol, cysteamine HCl and o-aminophenol, causing hair dye dermatitis in their population.[8],[9]

ROAT is used to determine the relevance of doubtful positive patch test reactions to preparations in which the suspected allergen is present in a low concentration. ROAT is as good as patch test in determining allergy to oxidized limonene[10] in high concentration, methyldibromoglutaronitrile[11] and nickel,[3] but is inferior to patch test for hydroxycitronellal, formaldehyde and chromium.[12]

The correlation coefficient between patch test and ROAT in our study was 0.84, suggesting significant correlation. Even though ROAT is inferior to patch testing in confirming contact dermatitis to hair dye, it can be considered as an alternative tool in situ ations where patch test cannot be conducted due to reasons such as remote area, non-availability of patch test kit, expertise to read the test, unavailability of PPD antigen or non-compliance by patient.

ROAT has a theoretical risk of sensitization to PPD in patients who are not allergic to it as the concentration of PPD in dyes is high but there are no guidelines for not performing or discouraging ROAT in already sensitized patients. Since ROAT is not performed under occlusion, the risk of sensitization maybe not as high as suspected. The disadvantage of using hair dye 'as is' for ROAT is that it does not give information on which antigen/constituent caused the allergy. Unavailability of hair dye allergens other than PPD and the small number of patients were the limitations of this study.

ROAT is less sensitive than patch test, but highly specific with a positive predictive value of 100% and negative predictive value of 70%. ROAT correlates well with patch test and can be used as an alternative tool for diagnosis only in situ ations where patch test cannot be performed.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form, the patients have given their consent for their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References
1.
Johansen JD, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, Andersen KE, Bircher A, Bruze M, et al. European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing – Recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis 2015;73:195-221.
[Google Scholar]
2.
Hannuksela M, Salo H. The repeated open application test (ROAT). Contact Dermatitis 1986;14:221-7.
[Google Scholar]
3.
de Groot AC. Contact allergy to cosmetics: Causative ingredients. Contact Dermatitis 1987;17:26-34.
[Google Scholar]
4.
Thyssen JP, Søsted H, Uter W, Schnuch A, Giménez-Arnau AM, Vigan M, et al. Self-testing for contact sensitization to hair dyes – Scientific considerations and clinical concerns of an industry-led screening programme. Contact Dermatitis 2012;66:300-11.
[Google Scholar]
5.
Thyssen JP, White JM; European Society of Contact Dermatitis. Epidemiological data on consumer allergy to p-phenylenediamine. Contact Dermatitis 2008;59:327-43.
[Google Scholar]
6.
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]
7.
Gupta M, Mahajan VK, Mehta KS, Chauhan PS. Hair dye dermatitis and p-phenylenediamine contact sensitivity: A preliminary report. Indian Dermatol Online J 2015;6:241-6.
[Google Scholar]
8.
Lee JY, Kim CW, Kim SS. Analysis of the results from the patch test to para-phenylenediamine in the TRUE test in patients with a hair dye contact allergy. Ann Dermatol 2015;27:171-7.
[Google Scholar]
9.
Ito A, Nishioka K, Kanto H, Yagami A, Yamada S, Sugiura M, et al. A multi-institutional joint study of contact dermatitis related to hair colouring and perming agents in Japan. Contact Dermatitis 2017;77:42-8.
[Google Scholar]
10.
Bennike NH, Palangi L, Christensson JB, Nilsson U, Zachariae C, Johansen JD, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by hydroperoxides of limonene and dose-response relationship-A repeated open application test (ROAT) study. Contact Dermatitis 2019;80:208-16.
[Google Scholar]
11.
Fischer LA, Johansen JD, Menné T. Methyldibromoglutaronitrile allergy: Relationship between patch test and repeated open application test thresholds. Br J Dermatol 2008;159:1138-43.
[Google Scholar]
12.
Villarama CD, Maibach HI. Correlations of patch test reactivity and the repeated open application test (ROAT)/provocative use test (PUT). Food Chem Toxicol 2004;42:1719-25.
[Google Scholar]

Fulltext Views
455

PDF downloads
201
Show Sections