TY - JOUR
T1 - Are We Reading Patch Test Reactions in a Uniform Way? An International Contact Dermatitis Research Group Study
AU - Bruze, Magnus
AU - Ale, Iris
AU - Andersen, Klaus E.
AU - Elsner, Peter
AU - Goh, Chee Leok
AU - Goossens, An
AU - Jerajani, Hemangi
AU - Maibach, Howard
AU - Matsunaga, Kayoko
AU - Nixon, Rosemary
AU - Sasseville, Denis
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 American Contact Dermatitis Society. All Rights Reserved.
PY - 2025/7/1
Y1 - 2025/7/1
N2 - Background: Concern was raised within the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group (ICDRG) regarding the scoring of weak allergic versus doubtful patch test reactions. Objective: To investigate the degree of uniformity in patch test reading. Methods: Five series of fictive contact dermatitis cases were written up by the study organizer and presented to expert participants. Each series was sent electronically to participants one by one. All dermatitis cases underwent patch testing, and the test result was a reaction characterized by erythema and infiltration. Within each case series, there were 5 subcases that differed only in the size of the test area showing erythema and infiltration. Three nearly identical case series had 1 crucial difference: the result of a repeated open application test (ROAT), both in the cases and controls. The experts had to determine whether the patch test reaction indicated contact allergy, defined as an immunologically acquired delayed hypersensitivity. All other reactions (negative, doubtful, and irritant) were classified as no contact allergy. Results: There was a big intra- and inter-individual variation in the patch test reading. Nobody read according to any of the 2 existing ICDRG classifications. The ROAT results sometimes influenced the scoring. Conclusion: A new ICDRG classification is needed.
AB - Background: Concern was raised within the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group (ICDRG) regarding the scoring of weak allergic versus doubtful patch test reactions. Objective: To investigate the degree of uniformity in patch test reading. Methods: Five series of fictive contact dermatitis cases were written up by the study organizer and presented to expert participants. Each series was sent electronically to participants one by one. All dermatitis cases underwent patch testing, and the test result was a reaction characterized by erythema and infiltration. Within each case series, there were 5 subcases that differed only in the size of the test area showing erythema and infiltration. Three nearly identical case series had 1 crucial difference: the result of a repeated open application test (ROAT), both in the cases and controls. The experts had to determine whether the patch test reaction indicated contact allergy, defined as an immunologically acquired delayed hypersensitivity. All other reactions (negative, doubtful, and irritant) were classified as no contact allergy. Results: There was a big intra- and inter-individual variation in the patch test reading. Nobody read according to any of the 2 existing ICDRG classifications. The ROAT results sometimes influenced the scoring. Conclusion: A new ICDRG classification is needed.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105010460242
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105010460242#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1089/derm.2024.0364
DO - 10.1089/derm.2024.0364
M3 - Article
C2 - 40631994
AN - SCOPUS:105010460242
SN - 1710-3568
VL - 36
SP - 352
EP - 357
JO - Dermatitis
JF - Dermatitis
IS - 4
ER -