Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
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 Issue
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
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis
Tables
Technology
Therapeutic Guidelines
Therapeutic Guidelines - IADVL
Therapeutics
Therapy
Therapy Letter
View Point
Viewpoint
What’s new in Dermatology

Translate this page into:

Original Article
2002:68:5;281-282
PMID: 17656969

Patch testing with Indian standard series

G Narendra, CR Srinivas
 Department of Dermatology and Venereology, PSG Institute of Medical Science & Research, Peelamedu Coimbatore-641 004, India

Correspondence Address:
C R Srinivas
Department of Dermatology and Venereology, PSG Institute of Medical Science & Research, Peelamedu Coimbatore-641 004
India
How to cite this article:
Narendra G, Srinivas C R. Patch testing with Indian standard series. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2002;68:281-282
Copyright: (C)2002 Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology

Abstract

Hundred patients (61 males, 39 females) suspected to have allergic contact dermatitis were patch tested with Indian standard series (ISS). Forty four showed one or more positive reactions. The frequent sensitizers observed were nickel sulphate-12 (15%), potassium dichromate-11 (13.75%), cobalt chloride and colophony-7 (8.75%) each, fragrance mix and thiuram mix-6 (7.5%) each. The ISS differs from the European Standard Series by inclusion of propylene glycol, nitrofurazone, gentamicin, chlorocresol, PEG-400 and ethylenediamine chloride where assesquiterpene lactone mix and primin allergens are excluded.
Keywords: Indian standard series, patch test allergens

Introduction

Until recently there was no standard patch test series for the Indian subcontinent. The Contact and Occupational Contact Dermatoses Forum of India has recommended the Indian Standard Series (ISS). The purpose of this study wss to find the frequency of sensitivity to its allergens and to recommend alterations if required.

Materials and Methods

Hundred patients (61 males, 39 females), between 1½ to 70 years with suspected allergic contact dermatitis were patch tested with ISS [Table - 1]. The allergens were obtained from Systopic Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., New Delhi. The standard patch testing technique using aluminium chambers was done and reactions were interpreted as recommended by ICDRG.

Results

Details of the 28 allergens and the number of patients with positive reactions are shown in [Table - 1]. The most frequent sensitizers observed were nickel sulphate-12 (15%), potassium dichromate-11(13.75%), neomycin sulphate-10 (12.5%), cobalt chloride and colophony-7(8.75%) each while benzocaine, formaldehyde, PEG-400, wool alcohol, ethylenediamine chloride, black rubber mix, 4TBPF resin and quarternium 15 showed reactions.

Discussion

Nickel was the most frequent sensitizer as reported by others.[1],[2],[3] Potassium dichromate was the next commonest sensitizer-11 (13.75%). Though its prevalence is decreasing, in developed countries,[4] it is still common in India as the construction industry is flourishing. Fragrance mix allergy formed a significant cause of contact dermatitis 6 (7.5%) in our study and may increase in the near future as more people are using perfumes and cosmetics.

Topical antibiotics and preservatives together accounted for 22 cases of contact dermatitis (27.5%) and is a major cause of iatrogenically induced dermatitis. In India many combination preparations such as a steroid with antibiotic, steroid with antifungal and even the combination of all the above three are available. These preparations are used for prolonged periods. A combination of antibiotic and steroid is used well after the infection has subsided or even on many an occasion when there is no bacterial infection to start with. This prolonged needless usage is possibly responsible for numerous cases of antibiotic sensitivity.[5],[6] Chlorocresol is included in ISS. This is the most commonest preservative used and we feel that it should be a part of any standard series.

Although parthenium sensitivity is quite rampant in India sesquiterpene lactone has not been included since

i) the diagnosis can most often be clinically made

ii) the reaction in the presence of sensitivity is at times severe enough to cause irritable back syndrome

iii) it must possible that the testing may precipitate the dermatitis in a person with subclinical sensitivity. ISS however can be extended with a plant series which is used whenever contact dermatitis to plants or parthenium is suspected.

References
1.
Mohammed Osman Gad EI-Rod, OmarAbdulazizAl-Sheikh. Is the European stantard series suitable for patch testing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia? Contact Dermatitis 1995;33: 310-314.
[Google Scholar]
2.
Castiglioni G, Carosso A, Manzon S, et al. Result of routine patch testing of 834 patients in Turin. Contact Dermatitis 1999;27: 182-185.
[Google Scholar]
3.
Hogan DJ, Hill M, Lane PR. Result of routine patch testing of 542 patients in Saskatoon, Canada. Contact Dermatitis 1988;19: 120-124.
[Google Scholar]
4.
J TE Lim, CL Goh SK. NG, et al. Changing trends in the epidermiology of contact dermatitis in Singapore. Contact Dermatitis 1992;26: 321-326.
[Google Scholar]
5.
George ND, Srinivas CR, Balachandran C, et al. Short communications. Sensitivity to various ingredients of topical preparations following prolonged use. Contact Dermatitis 1990;23:367-368.
[Google Scholar]
6.
Pasricha JS, Bharati Guru. Contact hypersensitivity to local antibacterial agents. Indian J Dermatol Venereal Lepr 1981;47: 27-30.
[Google Scholar]
Show Sections