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

IF 4.8 1区 医学 Q2 ALLERGY Contact Dermatitis Pub Date : 2024-12-23 DOI:10.1111/cod.14743
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,&nbsp;Magí Brufau-Cochs,&nbsp;Javier de la Iglesia-Martín,&nbsp;Victoria Amat-Samaranch,&nbsp;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,&nbsp;Magí Brufau-Cochs,&nbsp;Javier de la Iglesia-Martín,&nbsp;Victoria Amat-Samaranch,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:欧洲光贴片测试基线系列(EPTBS)于2013年发布。然而,关于EPTBS的实际临床应用的数据有限。目的:本研究旨在描述西班牙一家三级医院11年来EPTBS的光补片测试经验。方法:回顾性分析2012年2月至2023年10月采用EPTBS进行光斑测试(PPT)的患者。此外,根据欧洲的建议,对所有患者进行了补丁测试。结果:148例患者,PPT阳性率为7.4% (n = 11)。具体来说,我们在11/148例患者中发现了光过敏性接触性皮炎(PACD)(15例对8种不同的过敏原有阳性反应,其中包括一名患者自己的产品)。其中87%具有当前相关性,非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDS)是导致PACD的主要原因(60%)。另外,我们发现148名患者中有14人(9.3%)对EPTBS过敏原有接触性过敏,(在辐照组和未辐照组中,有21人对17种不同的过敏原有阳性反应,包括许多患者的产品)。其中,紫外线太阳滤光器是ACD的主要原因。对于斑贴试验结果,我们观察到阳性率为39.9%(59例患者116例阳性)。最常见的是甲基氯异噻唑啉酮/甲基异噻唑啉酮、香料混合物I和II和秘鲁香脂。结论:EPTBS的实施使得对PACD的研究更加准确。我们的PPT阳性率略低于之前的报道,但PACD的主要罪魁祸首仍然是非甾体抗炎药。在EPTBS中纳入光暴露区接触过敏原有助于区分PACD、光加重ACD和ACD。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis 医学-过敏
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
30.90%
发文量
227
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
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".
期刊最新文献
The Usefulness of Scratch-Patch Testing in Imatinib-Induced DRESS Syndrome. A New Case of Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Topical Simvastatin Used for Treatment of Porokeratosis. Multiple Allergens Causing Sofa Dermatitis: A Case Report of Polysensitisation. Shiitake Dermatitis: First Report From Turkey. Two Cases of Facial Allergic Contact Dermatitis From Hexyl Resorcinol, a 'New' Resorcinol Derivative in Depigmenting Products.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1