PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Patch Tests”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1989

Preliminary studies of the TRUE test patch test system in the United States. TRUE Test Study Group.

Comparison of the TRUE Test patch test system with the chamber system recommended by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group showed concordance of results in 98% of tests with nickel, epoxy resin, and ethylenediamine dihydrochloride. Also, a panel of 12 TRUE Test screening allergens tested on 128 patients showed no irritant reactions but did show 46 positive responses of varying intensity. The TRUE Test is a promising alternative to current methods and offers the advantages of easy application and factory quality control.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1993

[Epicutaneous testing (patch testing)].

At present, patch testing is the only practical way of diagnosing allergic contact dermatitis, manifested as delayed hypersensitivity (type IV reaction). It can serve to confirm relevant allergens, but may also help to exclude suspected contact sensitivity. The test procedure varies somewhat from one clinic to another but has been standardized by the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Choice of test materials and their application may appear simple, but test readings and interpretation of results are most important. Positive reactions can be positive (allergic) or false positive (irritant), and relevant or not relevant to an existing or previous dermatitis. The dermatologist is the person best qualified to diagnose contact dermatitis by this test procedure.

Dermatitis, Allergic Contact↗
PubMed2002

The use of skin prick tests and patch tests to identify causative foods in eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic esophagitis is a disease entity in which patients have (1) elevated eosinophils on esophageal biopsy and (2) symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux. The symptoms do not improve on aggressive acid blockade but do improve on elimination diet or corticosteroid treatment, which tentatively links food allergies to this disorder. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify potential food antigens in eosinophilic esophagitis. METHODS: Patients with eosinophilic esophagitis were identified by biopsy. Potential food antigens were identified prospectively by skin prick testing and patch testing, which were performed through use of standard methods. Atopic tendencies, demographics, and potential food allergies were identified. Repeat esophageal biopsies were reviewed when possible. RESULTS: A total of 26 patients (22 male, 4 female) with a biopsied-confirmed diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis underwent both skin prick testing and patch testing to identify potential causative foods. Milk and egg were the most common positive foods with skin prick testing. Wheat was the most common positive food with patch testing. The patients were advised to avoid positive foods as identified by skin prick testing and patch testing. In all, 18 patients had resolution of their symptoms, 6 patients had partial improvement, and 2 were lost to follow-up. Overall, after intervention, esophageal eosinophil counts improved from 55.8 to 8.4 eosinophils per high-power field. The foods most commonly identified by patients as causing symptoms were milk and egg. CONCLUSION: The combination of skin prick testing and patch testing can identify potential causative foods that might contribute to the pathogenesis of eosinophilic esophagitis.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1991

Evaluation of contact dermatitis using the TRUE patch test.

Patch testing is a dermatological diagnostic procedure for contact dermatitis utilizing selected allergens. It has been suggested that suspected cases of contact dermatitis cannot be definitively diagnosed without a patch test. Physicians have avoided the use of patch testing for a variety of reasons, chief of these being inconvenience and inconsistency. The TRUE patch test (Pharmacia AB, Uppsala, Sweden) offers a test modality that circumvents these problems. Background information on the TRUE test is presented along with two studies demonstrating its efficacy.

Dermatitis, Contact↗
PubMed1999

To patch or not to patch: what is your threshold for patch testing?

Patch testing is as much art as it is science; we all are influenced by our clinical experience as well as by the literature. In an effort to assist those new to this often underutilized technique, we have solicited comments from five experienced clinicians about when to patch test and when not to patch test. Their responses should be a guide for us all.

Dermatitis, Allergic Contact↗
PubMed1991

Chlorhexidine gluconate and acetate in patch testing.

Patch testing to chlorhexidine is usually performed with chlorhexidine gluconate aq. We report the results of 297 patients, almost all with leg ulcers, concomitantly tested with chlorhexidine acetate 1% aq. and chlorhexidine gluconate 1% aq. 39 patients had positive reactions to one of these compounds or to both. 36 positive reactions to the acetate were found, in contrast to 18 reactions to the gluconate. The reactions were considered relevant in 22 of 39 patients, since these patients had developed an eczema in an area where a chlorhexidine compound was used, and discontinuing the chlorhexidine compound resulted in improvement of the condition. In 10 of these 22 patients, the diagnosis would have been missed if the gluconate only had been used for testing, while the acetate failed to diagnose 2 patients. In 109 patients without leg ulcers, inconclusive patch test readings (i.e., irritant reactions or weak positive reactions) were found in 17% with chlorhexidine acetate 1% aq., compared to 5% with chlorhexidine gluconate 1% aq., indicating a high degree of irritant potential of the acetate 1% aq. We consider that some positive reactions are lost if chlorhexidine gluconate 1% aq. only is used for patch testing, but that chlorhexidine acetate 1% aq., on the other hand, is an unacceptably strong irritant. We therefore suggest that further testing with chlorhexidine acetate 1 and 0.5% aq. should be performed, in parallel with chlorhexidine gluconate 1% aq., in order to establish appropriate test concentrations. We find that up to 13% of the leg ulcer patients in this study may be sensitized to chlorhexidine, and we recommend that the indications for the drug in leg ulcer patients should be reconsidered.

Chlorhexidine↗
PubMed1977

Behaviour of contact allergy and new sensitivities on subsequent patch tests.

Patch tests repeated one or more times over periods of up to 3 years in 208 subjects with allergic contact dermatitis produced evidence of persistent specific sensitivities in almost 50% of cases. In about 25% the reactivity disappeared and over 25% developed new sensitivities. No new sensitivities appeared in 253 patients with non-allergic contact dermatitis or with other types of dermatitis in whom the same patch tests were carried out. The history and follow-up of patients with new sensitivities brought into focus the presumed aetiopathogenetic role of further contacts, especially occupational or after topical applications. Patch tests themselves, provided the correct technique is employed especially as regards the concentration of allergens, do not seem to be responsible for new sensitizations to any significant extent.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1989

Reproducibility of patch tests.

Patch tests with a series of 39 substances were performed in 41 patients on one side of the upper aspect of the back. Testing was repeated on the contralateral side of the back 1 week later (sequential testing). In 35 other patients, duplicate patch test series were simultaneously applied on both sides of the back (concomitant testing). If a positive reaction to a test substance was obtained at only one side of the back, the result was regarded as nonreproducible. Of all positive reactions, 40.0% were nonreproducible at sequential testing and 43.8% were nonreproducible at concomitant testing. Weakly positive reactions were far more often nonreproducible than stronger reactions.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

Allergy to phosphorus sesquisulfide: 0.5% pet. is a more appropriate concentration for patch testing.

Patch testing was performed with phosphorus sesquisulfide P4S3 in 2 groups containing equal numbers of patients using different concentrations (0.5% P4S3 in pet. and 1% P4S3 in pet., the usual suggested test concentration as recommended by the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group). We found that there was a statistically significant increase in the number of clinically irrelevant irritant reactions in the group tested with the concentration (chi 2 = 16, p < 0.0004). We recommend that patch testing with phosphorous sesquisulfide should be at a reduced concentration of 0.5% pet.

Allergens↗
PubMed2004

The case of a very late response to a contact allergen in patch testing.

Patch tests (PT) are a significant element of allergological diagnostics. PT are based on the type IV immunological reaction according to Gell and Commbs classification and serve as a diagnostic tool in evaluation of contact skin reactivity. In the Allergic Diseases Diagnostic Centre, Medical University in Poznań, contact allergy is diagnosed by using TROLAB--a standard kit of 23 contact allergens. The allergens are applied on the skin of the interscapular or suprascapular area in Finn Chambers, attached to a hypoallergic plaster. Evaluation of PT results is performed after 48, 72 and even after 96 hrs after application of allergens. The paper describes a case of a very late response to one of contact allergens--paraphenylenediamine (the reaction was observed 15 days after application of patch tests). The precise pathomechanism of this phenomenon, as well as all factors inducing skin reactivity still remain unexplained. Correct instruction of the patient in case of appearance of a very late response to contact allergen will facilitate the diagnostic procedure and will enable correct interpretation of results.

Allergens↗
PubMed2000

Pitfalls in patch testing.

Patch testing is an invaluable diagnostic tool in the evaluation of allergic contact dermatitis. While TrueTest has simplified the technique for many practitioners, there remains potential for error. We asked 4 experts to describe their approach to several dilemmas encountered in patch testing. Their responses will be helpful to both the veteran and tyro.

Bias↗
PubMed2003

Latex hypersensitivity: relationship with positive prick test and patch test responses among hairdressers.

BACKGROUND: Natural rubber latex is a frequent cause of IgE-mediated allergy in hairdressers; but a non-IgE-mediated allergy to latex proteins can also occur. Sixty-one hairdressers, reporting latex glove-related symptoms, were enrolled in the study. METHODS: They were evaluated for latex allergy by assessment of serum specific IgE and skin prick tests. Patients were patch tested to a rubber additive series and to latex. Proportions were compared by one-tailed Fisher's exact test; mean values of continuous variables were compared by Student's t-test. RESULTS: A diagnosis of IgE-mediated latex allergy was made in 11 (18%) hairdressers; patch tests with rubber-related antigens were positive in 24 (39.3%) subjects. The most positive patch tests were those with para-phenylenediamine (33%). Two hairdressers (3.3%) showed delayed reactions to the latex sample. Hairdressers with IgE-mediated latex allergy were older and presented a personal history of atopy and local hives after exposure to latex; they were more likely to have a positive response to other allergens on prick or patch testing. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates a certain number of false-positive and false-negative results when reported symptoms of possible latex sensitivity were compared to prick and CAP tests to latex, indicating the problems of relying solely on self-report.

Adolescent↗