Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
Volume 53, Issue 3 , Pages 416-421, September 2005

Patch test results from the Mayo Clinic Contact Dermatitis Group, 1998-2000

  • David A. Wetter, MD

      Affiliations

    • From the Mayo Clinic Contact Dermatitis Group; the Department of Dermatology
  • ,
  • Mark D.P. Davis, MD

      Affiliations

    • From the Mayo Clinic Contact Dermatitis Group; the Department of Dermatology
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence to: Mark D. P. Davis, MD, Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905.
  • ,
  • James A. Yiannias, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale
  • ,
  • Janet F. Cheng, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville
  • ,
  • Suzanne M. Connolly, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale
  • ,
  • Rokea A. el-Azhary, MD

      Affiliations

    • From the Mayo Clinic Contact Dermatitis Group; the Department of Dermatology
  • ,
  • Sara A. Farmer, BA

      Affiliations

    • Division of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester
  • ,
  • Debra D. Fett, MD

      Affiliations

    • From the Mayo Clinic Contact Dermatitis Group; the Department of Dermatology
  • ,
  • Janis S. Johnson, RN

      Affiliations

    • Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale
  • ,
  • Diane L. Nordberg Linehan, RN

      Affiliations

    • Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville
  • ,
  • Donna M. Richardson, RN

      Affiliations

    • From the Mayo Clinic Contact Dermatitis Group; the Department of Dermatology
  • ,
  • Arnold L. Schroeter, MD

      Affiliations

    • From the Mayo Clinic Contact Dermatitis Group; the Department of Dermatology

Accepted 24 April 2005. published online 08 July 2005.

Rochester, Minnesota; Scottsdale, Arizona; and Jacksonville, Florida

Background

Patch testing is a diagnostic tool for the evaluation of patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis. A standard series of allergens similar to that used by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) is used at Mayo Clinic.

Objective

Our aim was to report the results of patch testing with a standard series at Mayo Clinic from July 1, 1998, to Dec 31, 2000 and to compare our findings with those of the NACDG during the same period.

Methods

The results of patch testing with the standard series at Mayo Clinic were examined. Positive reaction rates were compared between Mayo Clinic and the NACDG.

Results

During the 30-month period, 1324 Mayo Clinic patients were patch tested with a standard series of allergens (mean, 60 allergens), whereas the NACDG standard series during this period included 50 allergens. Overall, 917 patients (69.3%) had at least one positive reaction and 606 patients (45.8%) had two or more positive reactions. The 10 allergens used both by Mayo Clinic and by the NACDG that most frequently caused positive reactions were nickel sulfate hexahydrate, balsam of Peru (Myroxylon pereirae), neomycin sulfate, cobalt chloride, fragrance mix, potassium dichromate (0.25%), thimerosal, bacitracin, formaldehyde, and glutaraldehyde. Statistically significant differences in positive reaction rates (P < .05) were observed for 12 of the 43 allergens common to both Mayo Clinic and the NACDG.

Conclusion

With large standard patch test series, one can identify commonly encountered and potentially relevant contact allergens.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Funding sources: None.Conflicts of interest: None.Reprints not available from the authors.

PII: S0190-9622(05)01416-7

doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2005.04.077

Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
Volume 53, Issue 3 , Pages 416-421, September 2005