Search

Background: There is currently no standardized protocol for photopatch testing and phototesting in the United States. Certain testing paramaters (such as chemicals tested, time between test application and irradiation, and time of final interpretation) vary from provider to provider. These variations may impact comparability and consistency of test results., Objective: The goal of our survey-based study was to outline the photopatch test and phototest protocols used by US contact dermatologists. The information obtained will aid in the development of a national consensus on testing methodologies., Methods: Based on a literature search conducted on differences in testing methodologies, we constructed a questionnaire. The survey was distributed at the American Contact Dermatitis Society annual meeting and via the American Contact Dermatitis Society Web site. Standard descriptive analysis was performed on data obtained., Results: Of the 800 dermatologists contacted, 117 agreed to participate in the survey. Among these respondents, 64 (54.8%) conduct photopatch testing. Results of the survey are presented, and they confirm that a variety of techniques and testing materials are used., Conclusions: It would be beneficial to enlist a panel of expert contact dermatologists to create by formal consensus, using these research findings, a standard photopatch test protocol for use in this country.

The American Contact Dermatitis Society recognizes the interest in the evaluation and management of metal hypersensitivity reactions. Given the paucity of robust evidence with which to guide our practices, we provide reasonable evidence and expert opinion-based guidelines for clinicians with regard to metal hypersensitivity reaction testing and patient management. Routine preoperative evaluation in individuals with no history of adverse cutaneous reactions to metals or history of previous implant-related adverse events is not necessary. Patients with a clear self-reported history of metal reactions should be evaluated by patch testing before device implant. Patch testing is only 1 element in the assessment of causation in those with postimplantation morbidity. Metal exposure from the implanted device can cause sensitization, but a positive metal test does not prove symptom causality. The decision to replace an implanted device must include an assessment of all clinical factors and a thorough risk-benefit analysis by the treating physician(s) and patient.

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the use of skin patch testing to evaluate patients for orthopedic, implant-related adverse effects. This may be done preoperatively to avoid implanting a material to which an individual may be allergic or postoperatively to implicate sensitivity as a cause for implant failure. There is emerging evidence that patch testing might have utility in the workup of implant-related adverse events; however, the level of evidence at the present time is weak and based only on a collection of case reports, series, and retrospective cohort studies (level IV evidence as per United States Department of Health and Human Services guidelines); there are no randomized controlled trials (level I evidence) with which to guide medical decision making. Recent reports have advocated that patch testing be broadly used in the preoperative evaluation of all patients self-reporting a history of metal sensitivity. In addition, several authors have advocated that patch test results should guide preoperative implant selection and postoperative implant removal. It is the opinion of this author that these recommendations are premature, lacking robust clinical evidence, and unfeasible given the broad-reaching logistical impact and societal costs involved. More robust clinical data are needed, and thorough cost-benefit analyses must be performed before such far-reaching and costly systematic practices should be broadly implemented.

A 45-year-old woman presented in October 2005 with a history of an eruption involving her scalp and face, including her eyelids and behind her ears. The eruption began at the end of August. It flared after she used a calming moisturizer containing feverfew (Tanacetum parthenium). A second patient, a 25-year-old woman, presented complaining of a 1-month history of an eruption around the eyes that started after she began using a moisturizer containing feverfew. Both patients were patch-tested with the North American Contact Dermatitis Group series, cosmetic and plant series, and their own skin care products. Patient 1 had a + reaction to sesquiterpene lactone mix, a + reaction to Compositae mix, a + reaction to parthenolide, a + reaction to Tanacetum vulgare, and a + reaction to the calming moisturizer. Patient 2 had + reactions to sesquiterpene lactone, Compositae mix, and the same calming moisturizer. It is thought that both of these eruptions are a result of contact dermatitis from the Compositae plant family.

Considering the widespread use of colophony-containing epilating products and the frequency of sensitization to colophony, it is somewhat surprising that reports of allergic contact dermatitis from these products are so infrequent. Reactions to colophony can be severe, and they may present even after initial exposure (primary sensitization). Consequently, health care practitioners should be aware of potential colophony-induced allergic contact dermatitis in patients exposed to epilating products. Patch testing with commercially available colophony unmodified rosins often fails to detect reactions to the modified-rosin derivatives found in the actual epilating products. Therefore, the evaluation of colophony allergy may require testing with the patient's own products as well as additional modified colophony rosins. We describe a case of allergic contact dermatitis caused by colophony found in an epilating product.

The use of botanical extracts for their perceived therapeutic benefits has gained increased popularity in this country and abroad. In particular, tea tree oil (the extracted oil of Melaleuca alternifolia) has gained widespread use for its purported antimicrobial and therapeutic effects. In parallel with this increased use is an expanding series of reported adverse effects, including allergic contact dermatitis, systemic contact dermatitis, linear immunoglobulin A disease, erythema multiforme-like id reactions, and systemic hypersensitivity reactions. We present a review of tea tree oil with regard to its history, chemistry, purported medicinal uses, and possible adverse cutaneous effects.