Variation in aluminium patch test reactivity over time

Siemund, Ingrid; Mowitz, Martin; Zimerson, Erik; Bruze, Magnus; Hindsén, Monica

doi:10.1111/cod.12836

Cited by 29 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Patch testing with aluminium chloride hexahydrate 10% pet. with a second reading on D7 has been recommended, as has retesting if there is a negative test result and strong suspicion, because of possible false‐negative results . In our study, all cases with persistent itching nodules who were suspected to be allergic to aluminium reacted positively to aluminium chloride hexahydrate 2% pet.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Aluminium sensitization in a French paediatric patch test population

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

K E Y W O R D S : aluminium, children, contact allergy, vaccine Persistent itching subcutaneous nodules at the injection sites of aluminium-adsorbed vaccines are increasingly described in children and are associated with contact allergy to aluminium, in 77% to 100% of cases, according to different studies. 1-3 In general, aluminium is considered to be a rare allergen, given its wide usage and the relative scarcity of contact dermatitis cases. However, the prevalence of contact sensitization to aluminium in children is not well known. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of contact sensitization to aluminium in a paediatric population consulting for patch testing in a French paediatric dermatology department, and to study the association of the sensitization with persistent itching nodules. METHODS Metallic aluminium (empty Finn Chamber; SmartPractice, Phoenix, Arizona) and aluminium chloride hexahydrate 2% pet. (Chemotechnique Diagnostics, Vellinge, Sweden) had been systematically added to the patch test series for children. From July 2014 to December 2017, 97 patients patch tested for suspected contact allergy were thereby tested with aluminium. The test was applied on the backs of the children, removed on day (D) 2, and read by an experienced allergologist/ dermatologist on D2 and D3 according to ICDRG recommendations.Beyond D3, later readings were made daily by the parents, who had been told to look for a late reaction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Aluminium sensitization in a French paediatric patch test population

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recent Danish questionnaire study of 177 Al-allergic children and their parents compared with a reference group concluded that itching vaccination granulomas and Al allergy have a considerable negative impact on these children and their families, causing for instance, reduced adherence to vaccination programs and a lower score on overall life quality as compared to the reference group. 8 Contact allergy to Al is not easily diagnosed, as the elicitation threshold might be higher than the patch test substance used 9 and since there is a considerable individual over-time variation in patchtest results, 10 resulting in a high risk of false-negative results in Alallergic individuals. A recent study on 241 children with previous vaccine-induced itching nodules found that patch testing with 2% Al chloride hexahydrate in pet.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Contact allergy to Al is not easily diagnosed, as the elicitation threshold might be higher than the patch‐test substance used 9 and since there is a considerable individual over‐time variation in patch‐test results, 10 resulting in a high risk of false‐negative results in Al‐allergic individuals. A recent study on 241 children with previous vaccine‐induced itching nodules found that patch testing with 2% Al chloride hexahydrate in pet.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantification of aluminium release from Finn chambers under different in vitro test conditions of relevance for patch testing

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Contact allergy to aluminium (Al) might pose a risk of false-positive readings of patch-test results when testing with Finn chambers. Objectives: To quantify the release of Al from empty Al Finn chambers, covered Finn Aqua chambers, and Al Finn chambers containing different baseline patch-test substances. Methods: Al Finn chambers of different conditions and with different patch-test substances were tested in artificial sweat and their Al release was analyzed by atomic absorption spectroscopy and inductively coupled plasma sector field mass spectrometry. Results: The amount of Al released from empty Finn chambers corresponded to a skin dose of 0.03%-0.5% Al chloride hexahydrate applied in plastic chambers. Although most patch-test substances reduced the release of Al from the Finn chambers due to covering the surface, some substances significantly increased the release of Al from the Finn chambers, most notable for Caine mix II 10% pet., Myroxylon pereirae 25% pet., and sodium tetrachloropalladate hydrate 3.0% pet. Conclusions: The release of Al from Finn chambers corresponds in some cases to clinically relevant concentrations of Al for Al-sensitized individuals.

show abstract

“…Patch test diagnosis can employ either aluminium lactate or aluminium chloride hexahydrate; the most appropriate test preparation is still being discussed. With both salts in various concentrations, Siemund et al noted a high variability over time upon re-testing; therefore, false-negative reactions are possible and repeat testing is recommended in case of strong suspicion of aluminium contact allergy [ 44 ]. A 50-year-old Spanish patient was patch tested to various metals before placement of a metal dental implant.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contact Allergy: A Review of Current Problems from a Clinical Perspective

Uter

Werfel

White

et al. 2018

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contact allergy is common, affecting 27% of the general population in Europe. Original publications, including case reports, published since 2016 (inclusive) were identified with the aim of collating a full review of current problems in the field. To this end, a literature search employing methods of systematic reviewing was performed in the Medline® and Web of Science™ databases on 28 January 2018, using the search terms (“contact sensitization” or “contact allergy”). Of 446 non-duplicate publications identified by above search, 147 were excluded based on scrutiny of title, abstract and key words. Of the remaining 299 examined in full text, 291 were deemed appropriate for inclusion, and main findings were summarised in topic sections. In conclusion, diverse sources of exposures to chemicals of widely-differing types and structures, continue to induce sensitisation in man and may result in allergic contact dermatitis. Many of the chemicals are “evergreen” but others are “newcomers”. Vigilance and proper investigation (patch testing) are required to detect and inform of the presence of these haptens to which our populations remain exposed.

show abstract

Variation in aluminium patch test reactivity over time

Abstract: The patch test reactivity to aluminium varies over time. Aluminium-allergic individuals may have false-negative reactions. Therefore, retesting with aluminium should be considered when there is a strong suspicion of aluminium contact allergy.

Cited by 29 publications

References 36 publications

Aluminium sensitization in a French paediatric patch test population

Aluminium sensitization in a French paediatric patch test population

Quantification of aluminium release from Finn chambers under different in vitro test conditions of relevance for patch testing

Contact Allergy: A Review of Current Problems from a Clinical Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About