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 in Response to Previous Publication
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
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
2011:77:2;194-196
doi: 10.4103/0378-6323.77465
PMID: 21393954

Patch test results from a contact dermatitis clinic in North India

Sanjeev Handa, Rashmi Jindal
 Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

Correspondence Address:
Sanjeev Handa
Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, Punjab
India
How to cite this article:
Handa S, Jindal R. Patch test results from a contact dermatitis clinic in North India. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2011;77:194-196
Copyright: (C)2011 Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology

Sir,

Contact dermatitis is an increasing problem all over the world and accounts for 4-7% of all dermatological consultations. [1] The allergens which are included in standard series vary from country to country based on the local experience. Here we present the prevalence and pattern of contact allergy in patients attending our contact dermatitis clinic. Clinic records of 560 patients of suspected allergic contact dermatitis attending the contact dermatitis clinic at PGIMER Chandigarh, a tertiary care centre in North India, were analyzed. Details regarding age, sex, duration of illness, occupation, clinical diagnosis, sites affected, and history of atopy were recorded using the predesigned proforma. Initial 247 patients were tested with European Standard Series (ESS) and rest with Indian Standard Series (ISS). Plant antigens (parthenium, xanthium, sunflower, chrysanthemum, and marigold) and vegetables (garlic, onion and tomato) were also routinely tested along with patients own antigens like hair dye and cosmetics as indicated by the history.

Out of a total of 560 patients patch tested over a 6 year period, 303 (54.1%) were males and 257 (45.9%) were females with age ranging from 9 to 85 years (mean 40±0.6 years). The duration of disease ranged from 1 to 420 months with a mean of 41±2.2 months. Air-borne contact dermatitis (ABCD) affecting face, neck, flexures of arms, and legs was the most common pattern seen in 165 patients. Out of these 20 (12%) patients had photo-aggravation. Localized allergic contact dermatitis was the next common diagnosis (133 patients) followed by hand dermatitis (90 patients) and footwear dermatitis (51 patients). Hand and foot dermatitis together was seen in 22 patients. A picture resembling chronic actinic dermatitis (CAD) was seen in 15 patients. Three hundred fifty-three (63%) patients showed positivity to one or more allergens. Nickel sulfate (17.5%) was the most common sensitizing agent in females followed by potassium dichromate (7%), fragrance mix (7%) and mercaptobenzothiazole (6.2%). In males, potassium dichromate (16.8%) was the most common allergen and next in frequency were nickel sulfate (7.26%), fragrance mix (7.26%), and cobalt chloride (6.9%) [Table - 1]. The difference in sensitivity to nickel between males and females was found to be statistically significant (P= 0.00033) as was that to potassium dichromate (P=0.00068). Among the plant allergens tested, maximum positive reactions were due to parthenium (23.5%) and xanthium (15.8%). Personal or family history of atopy was found in 186 (30%) patients. However, there was no statistically significant difference in contact sensitization between atopics and non-atopics.

Table 1: Positivity rate of different allergens

This study was designed to evaluate the rates of sensitivity of Indian patients to various allergens presenting to the contact dermatitis clinic of a tertiary care centre. In this study, 63% patients showed sensitivity to one or more allergens. This figure is comparable to that reported by Davoudi et al, Bajaj et al, and also our previous report but much higher than that reported by a recent study from Turkey (32.3%). [2],[3],[4],[5] This difference could be explained by the fact that our data is of a contact dermatitis clinic at a referral center where patients suspected of having allergic contact dermatitis were subjected to patch testing increasing the probability of a positive result. A comparison of positivity rates to different allergens as reported by recent Indian studies has been shown in [Table - 2].

Table 2: Comparison of sensitivity to allergens over the years at different centers

The overall sensitization rates of males and females did not differ significantly but the differences were significant for nickel and potassium dichromate individually. Females were more sensitive to nickel and males to potassium dichromate. Five most common allergens in our study were: potassium dichromate (12.3%), nickel (11.9%), fragrance mix (7.14%), cobalt chloride (6.07%), and mercaptobenzothiazole (5%). Most common sensitizer in plant series was parthenium hysterophorus (23.5%), followed by xanthium (15.8%) and sunflower (12.3%). Similar high rates of parthenium (14.6%) and xanthium (10%) sensitivity were also reported by Bajaj et al. [3] Traditionally parthenium dermatitis is reported to have male predominance especially in farming countries. However in our study both males and females were equally affected. Rampant overgrowth of this plant in the cities and suburbs could possibly explain the increased contact sensitivity in housewives and people of profession other than agriculture.

In conclusion, in our region rates of sensitivities to specific allergens have not changed much as is evident by comparison with the previous study from our centre. [4] Parthenium remains the most common cause of ABCD with both males and females presenting with equal frequency. Apart from plant antigens potassium dichromate and nickel are very common sensitizers. Testing with standard series is very essential to identify the cause of contact dermatitis but these must be reviewed frequently so that the infrequent allergens can be discarded and other relevant ones can be added.[7]

References
1.
Mendenhall RG, Ramsay DL, Girard RA. A study of the practice of dermatology in the United States. Arch Dermatol 1978;114:1456-62.
[Google Scholar]
2.
Davoudi M, Firoozabadi MR, Gorouhi F, Zarchi AK, Kashani MN, Dowlati Y, et al. Patch testing in Iranian patients: A ten-year experience. Indian J Dermatol 2006;51:250-4.
[Google Scholar]
3.
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]
4.
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]
5.
Akasya-Hillenbrand E, Ozkaya-Bayazit E. Patch test results in 542 patients with suspected contact dermatitis in Turkey. Contact Dermatitis 2002;46:17-23.
[Google Scholar]
6.
Narendra G, Srinivas CR. Patch testing with Indian standard series. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2002;68:281-2.
[Google Scholar]
7.
Shenoi DS, Srinivas CR, Balachandran C. Results of patch testing with a standard series of allergens at Manipal. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 1994;60:133-5.
[Google Scholar]

Fulltext Views
342

PDF downloads
141
Show Sections