Sofia Gómez-Martínez, Magí Brufau-Cochs, Javier de la Iglesia-Martín, Victoria Amat-Samaranch, Paula Aguilera-Peiró
{"title":"欧洲光贴片测试基线系列（EPTBS）在实际临床实践中的长期观察：西班牙队列11年的结果和EPTBS更新的建议","authors":"Sofia Gómez-Martínez, Magí Brufau-Cochs, Javier de la Iglesia-Martín, Victoria Amat-Samaranch, Paula Aguilera-Peiró","doi":"10.1111/cod.14743","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The European Photopatch Testing Baseline Series (EPTBS) was published in 2013. However, limited data exist regarding the real-world clinical application of the EPTBS.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>This study aims to describe the photopatch test experience with the EPTBS over 11 years at a tertiary hospital in Spain.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A retrospective chart review spanning from February 2012 to October 2023 was conducted on patients who underwent photopatch testing (PPT) with the EPTBS. Additionally, patch testing was performed on all patients according to the European recommendations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Data from 148 patients were collected, and showed a PPT positivity rate of 7.4% (<i>n</i> = 11). Specifically, we found a photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD) in 11/148 patients (15 positive reactions to 8 different allergens, including one patient own's product). Of them, 87% had current relevance and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) were the main culprits of PACD (60%). Alternatively, we found a contact allergy to the EPTBS allergens in 14/148 (9.3%) patients, (21 positive reactions both in the irradiated and non-irradiated set to 17 different allergens, including many patients' products). Of them, UV solar filters represented the main cause of ACD. Regarding the patch testing results, we observed a positivity rate of 39.9% (116 positives in 59 different patients). The most frequent were methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, fragrance mix I and II and \n <i>Myroxylon pereirae</i>\n resin (balsam of Peru).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>EPTBS implementation has permitted a more accurate study of PACD. Our positivity rate for PPT is slightly lower than previous reports, however the main culprits for PACD remain to be NSAIDS. The inclusion of contact allergens applied in photoexposed areas in the EPTBS could contribute to discriminating between PACD, photoaggravated ACD and ACD.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"92 4","pages":"277-282"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cod.14743","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Long-Term Observations on the European Photopatch Test Baseline Series (EPTBS) in Real Clinical Practice: 11 Years of Results in a Spanish Cohort and Suggestions for an EPTBS Update\",\"authors\":\"Sofia Gómez-Martínez, Magí Brufau-Cochs, Javier de la Iglesia-Martín, Victoria Amat-Samaranch, Paula Aguilera-Peiró\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cod.14743\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>The European Photopatch Testing Baseline Series (EPTBS) was published in 2013. However, limited data exist regarding the real-world clinical application of the EPTBS.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study aims to describe the photopatch test experience with the EPTBS over 11 years at a tertiary hospital in Spain.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A retrospective chart review spanning from February 2012 to October 2023 was conducted on patients who underwent photopatch testing (PPT) with the EPTBS. Additionally, patch testing was performed on all patients according to the European recommendations.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Data from 148 patients were collected, and showed a PPT positivity rate of 7.4% (<i>n</i> = 11). Specifically, we found a photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD) in 11/148 patients (15 positive reactions to 8 different allergens, including one patient own's product). Of them, 87% had current relevance and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) were the main culprits of PACD (60%). Alternatively, we found a contact allergy to the EPTBS allergens in 14/148 (9.3%) patients, (21 positive reactions both in the irradiated and non-irradiated set to 17 different allergens, including many patients' products). Of them, UV solar filters represented the main cause of ACD. Regarding the patch testing results, we observed a positivity rate of 39.9% (116 positives in 59 different patients). The most frequent were methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, fragrance mix I and II and \\n <i>Myroxylon pereirae</i>\\n resin (balsam of Peru).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>EPTBS implementation has permitted a more accurate study of PACD. Our positivity rate for PPT is slightly lower than previous reports, however the main culprits for PACD remain to be NSAIDS. The inclusion of contact allergens applied in photoexposed areas in the EPTBS could contribute to discriminating between PACD, photoaggravated ACD and ACD.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10527,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contact Dermatitis\",\"volume\":\"92 4\",\"pages\":\"277-282\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cod.14743\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contact Dermatitis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cod.14743\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ALLERGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contact Dermatitis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cod.14743","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Long-Term Observations on the European Photopatch Test Baseline Series (EPTBS) in Real Clinical Practice: 11 Years of Results in a Spanish Cohort and Suggestions for an EPTBS Update
Background
The European Photopatch Testing Baseline Series (EPTBS) was published in 2013. However, limited data exist regarding the real-world clinical application of the EPTBS.
Objectives
This study aims to describe the photopatch test experience with the EPTBS over 11 years at a tertiary hospital in Spain.
Methods
A retrospective chart review spanning from February 2012 to October 2023 was conducted on patients who underwent photopatch testing (PPT) with the EPTBS. Additionally, patch testing was performed on all patients according to the European recommendations.
Results
Data from 148 patients were collected, and showed a PPT positivity rate of 7.4% (n = 11). Specifically, we found a photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD) in 11/148 patients (15 positive reactions to 8 different allergens, including one patient own's product). Of them, 87% had current relevance and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) were the main culprits of PACD (60%). Alternatively, we found a contact allergy to the EPTBS allergens in 14/148 (9.3%) patients, (21 positive reactions both in the irradiated and non-irradiated set to 17 different allergens, including many patients' products). Of them, UV solar filters represented the main cause of ACD. Regarding the patch testing results, we observed a positivity rate of 39.9% (116 positives in 59 different patients). The most frequent were methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, fragrance mix I and II and
Myroxylon pereirae
resin (balsam of Peru).
Conclusion
EPTBS implementation has permitted a more accurate study of PACD. Our positivity rate for PPT is slightly lower than previous reports, however the main culprits for PACD remain to be NSAIDS. The inclusion of contact allergens applied in photoexposed areas in the EPTBS could contribute to discriminating between PACD, photoaggravated ACD and ACD.
期刊介绍：
Contact Dermatitis is designed primarily as a journal for clinicians who are interested in various aspects of environmental dermatitis. This includes both allergic and irritant (toxic) types of contact dermatitis, occupational (industrial) dermatitis and consumers" dermatitis from such products as cosmetics and toiletries. The journal aims at promoting and maintaining communication among dermatologists, industrial physicians, allergists and clinical immunologists, as well as chemists and research workers involved in industry and the production of consumer goods. Papers are invited on clinical observations, diagnosis and methods of investigation of patients, therapeutic measures, organisation and legislation relating to the control of occupational and consumers".
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
