Is a specific eyelid patch test series useful? Results of a French prospective study. (8th June 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Assier, Haudrey; Tetart, Florence; Avenel‐Audran, Martine; Barbaud, Annick; Ferrier‐le Bouëdec, Marie‐Christine; Giordano‐Labadie, Françoise; Milpied, Brigitte; Amsler, Emmanuelle; Collet, Evelyne; Girardin, Pascal; Soria, Angèle; Waton, Julie; Truchetet, François; Bourrain, Jean‐Luc; Gener, Gwendeline; Bernier, Claire; Raison‐Peyron, Nadia
• Is Part Of: Contact dermatitis. Volume 79:Number 3(2018)
• Page Start: 157
• Page End: 161
• Publication Date: 2018-06-08
• Subjects: eyelid dermatitis -- eyelid series -- French population -- patch test -- prospective study; Contact dermatitis -- Periodicals; 616.51
• DOI: 10.1111/cod.13040
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0105-1873

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Eyelids are frequent sites of contact dermatitis. No prospective study focused on eyelid allergic contact dermatitis (EACD) has yet been published, and this topic has never been studied in French patients. Objectives: To prospectively evaluate the usefulness of an eyelid series in French patients patch tested because of EACD, and to describe these patients. Methods: We prospectively analysed standardized data for all patients referred to our departments between September 2014 and August 2016 for patch testing for suspected EACD as the main reason. All patients were patch tested with an eyelid series, the European baseline series (EBS), the French additional series, and their personal products. Patch testing with additional series and repeated open application tests (ROATs) or open tests were performed if necessary. A standardized assessment of the relevance was used, and the analysis of the results was focused on patients having positive test results with a current certain relevance. Results: Two‐hundred and sixty‐four patients (238 women and 26 men) were included. Three‐hundred and twenty‐two tests gave positive results in 167 patients, 84 of whom had currently relevant reactions: 56 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the EBS, 16 had currently relevant positive test reactions to their personal products, 8 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the French additional series, and 4 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the eyelid series. Sixty‐seven per cent of all relevant cases were related to cosmetic products. The most frequent allergens with current relevance were methylisothiazolinone (10.2%), fragrance mix I (3%), nickel (2.7%), hydroxyperoxides of linalool (2.7%) and limonene (2.3%), and Myroxylon pereirae (2.3%). Current atopic dermatitis was found in 9.5% of patients. The duration of dermatitis was shorter (23.2 vs 34.2 months; P = .035) in patients with currently relevant test reactions. The percentage of currently relevant tests remained the same when atopic patients or dermatitis localized only on the eyelids were taken into account. Conclusion: In French patients, testing for EACD with the extended baseline series and personal products, also including ROATs and use tests, appears to be adequate, considering the currently relevant positive test reactions. The regular addition of an eyelid series does not seem to be necessary.