A study on incidence of various allergens involved in allergic contact dermatitis by patch testing among 150 patients in a tertiary care hospital in South India

Authors

  • V. N. S. Ahamed Shariff Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital and Madras Medical College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
  • K. Deepa Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital and Madras Medical College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
  • L. Balamurugan Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital and Madras Medical College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
  • S. Nirmala Department of Occupational Contact Dermatoses, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital and Madras Medical College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2455-4529.IntJResDermatol20181820

Keywords:

Allergic contact dermatitis, Patch test, Occupational, Potassium dichromate, Avoidance of allergen

Abstract

Background: Allergic contact dermatitis is common dermatoses seen among patients attending dermatology clinics. Allergic contact dermatitis is due to delayed type of hypersensitivity reaction. The diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis is made by patch testing. A positive reaction to a patch test commonly proves the cause of dermatitis.

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted to estimate the incidence of various allergens among 150 patch test positive patients with allergic contact dermatitis who had attended the dermatology OPD in Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai, between October 2014 and September 2016. All the details regarding history, examination findings, investigations and patch test results were collected from case records, the data were tabulated and analysed.

Results: Allergic contact dermatitis to cement was the commonest (44.7%), followed by nickel (10%) and plant antigens (9.3%). The commonest allergen to be tested positive was Potassium dichromate (82 cases), followed nickel (15 cases) and formaldehyde (8 cases). Most of the patients were in the age category between 41 and 50 years (47 cases– 31.33%). Male to female ratio was 2.41:1. 14 were atopic individuals (9.33%) by Hanifin and Rajka's criteria. Allergic contact dermatitis in 103 cases of our study were of occupational in origin (67%).

Conclusions: Avoidance of allergen and proper preventive measures in workplace and day to day activities will lead to significant decrease in the morbidity of the disease and improvement in quality of life in patients with allergic contact dermatitis. 

Author Biography

V. N. S. Ahamed Shariff, Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital and Madras Medical College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu

Senior Assistant Professor
Department of Dermatology

References

Adams RM. Diagnostic Patch testing. In: Occupational Skin Disease. New York: Grune and Stratton; 1983: 136.

Bloch B, Steiner-Woerlich A. Arch Dermatol Syphilol. 1926;152:283-303.

Landsteiner K, Jacobs J. Studies on the sensitization of animals with simple chemical compounds. J Exp Med. 1936;64:629-39.

Jadassohn J, Neisser J. Zur kenntnis der medicamentosen Dermatosen. In: Verhandlungen der deutschen dermatologischen Gesellsehaft 5. Kongress Graz; 1895: 103–129.

Bloch B, Experimentelle Studien uber das Wesen der Iodoformidiosynkrasie. Z Exp Pathol Ther. 1911;9:509-38.

Bloch B. The role of idiosyncrasy and allergy in dermatology. Arch Dermatol Syphilis. 1929;19:175-97.

Scheper RJ, Von Blomberg MA. Mechanisms of allergic contact dermatitis to chemicals. Allergic Hypersensitivities induced by chemicals. Recommendations for preventions. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1996.

Frain-Bell W. Photodermatoses. In: Rook A, ed. Recent advances in dermatology. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1973: 101-133.

Osmundsen PE. Contact photo allergy to tribromosalicylanilide. Br J Dermatol. 1968;31:429-34.

Thune P, Eeg-Larsen T. Contact and photocontact allergy in persistent light reactivity. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;11:98-107.

Kishore Nanda B, Belliappa AD, Shetty Narendra J, Sukumar D, Ravi S. Hand eczema – Clinical patterns. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2005;71:207-8

Sharma V, Mahajan VK, Mehta KS, Chauhan PS. Occupational contact dermatitis among construction workers: Results of a pilot study. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2014;80:159-61

Nielsen NH, Menne T. Allergy contact sensitization in an unselected Danish population Acta Derm Venereol. 1992;72:456-60.

Sharma SC, Kaur S. Contact Dermatitis from Compositae plants. IJDVL. 1990;56:27-30.

Chowdhri S, Ghosh S. Epidemio-allergological study of 155 cases of footwear dermatitis. IJDVL. 2007;73:319-22.

Singh P, Singh J, Agarwal US, Bhargava RK. Contact vitiligo – Etiology and treatment. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2003;69:27-9.

Srinivas CR, Narendra G. Patch testing with Indian standard series. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2002;68(5):281-2.

Handa S, Jindal R. Patch test results from a contact dermatitis clinic in North India. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2011;77:194-6

Sharma AD. Allergic contact dermatitis in patients with Atopic dermatitis: A clinical study. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2005;71:96-8.

Downloads

Published

2018-04-25

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles