Üçüncü basamak alerji merkezindeki yetişkin hastalarda yama testi sonuçlarının değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Yama testi, alerjik kontakt dermatit tanısında standart bir işlemdir. Alerjenle temastan sonra reaksiyonun tekrar ortaya çıkması esasına dayanır. Çalışmamızın amacı, bölgemizdeki alerjen duyarlılığını ve bunu etkileyen faktörleri değerlendirmektir.Yöntemler: Ocak 2024 ile Temmuz 2025 tarihleri ​​arasında kliniğimizde Avrupa Baz Serisi (EBS), Kozmetik Seri veya Diş Serisi yama testlerinden en az birine tabi tutulan hastalar çalışmaya dahil edildi. Hastaların yaşı, cinsiyeti, atopi varlığı, eşlik eden alerjik hastalıkları, dermatit şüphesi olan vücut bölgeleri ve yama testi sonuçları retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi.Sonuçlar: Çalışmaya dahil edilen 115 hastanın %73,9'u kadın olup, ortanca yaş 45'ti (min-maks: 18-80). EBS uygulanan hastalarda (n = 41), nikel (II) sülfat ve kobalt (II) klorür en sık tespit edilen alerjenlerdi. Kozmetik Seri yama testi grubunda (n = 55), gallat karışımı ve timerosal en sık tespit edilirken, Dental Seri yama testi grubunda nikel (II) sülfat ve sodyum tetrakloropaldat (II) hidrat baskındı. Çoklu alerjen duyarlılığı olan hastaların ortanca yaşı, tek alerjen duyarlılığı olan hastaların ortanca yaşından anlamlı derecede düşüktü (p = 0,005).Sonuç: Çalışmamızda, bölgesel alerjen duyarlılığının literatür verileriyle uyumlu olduğu bulundu. Çalışmamız, çoklu alerjen pozitifliğinin genç hastalarda daha yaygın olduğunu göstermekte ve ilgili alerjenlerin belirlenmesinde ve klinik tedavinin yönlendirilmesinde yama testinin önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Keywords

• dermatit
• Avrupa Standart Seri
• dental
• yama testi
• kozmetik

Assessment of patch test outcomes in adult patients at a tertiary allergy center

Abstract

Aims: Patch testing is a standard procedure in the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. It is based on the principle that the reaction reappears after contact with the allergen. The aim of our study is to evaluate allergen sensitivity in our region and the factors affecting it. Methods: Patients who underwent at least one patch test from the European Baseline Series (EBS), cosmetic series or dental series at our clinic between January 2024 and July 2025 were included in the study. The patients' age, gender, presence of atopy, accompanying allergic diseases, body areas suspected of dermatitis, and patch test results were retrospectively evaluated. Results: Of the 115 patients included in the study, 73.9% were female, with a median age of 45 (min-max: 18-80). In patients undergoing EBS (n=41), nickel (II) sulphate and cobalt (II) chloride were the most frequently detected allergens. In the cosmetic series patch test group (n=55), gallate mix and thimerosal were most frequently detected, while in the dental series patch test group, nickel (II) sulphate and sodium tetrachloropalladate (II) hydrate were predominant. The median age of patients with multiple allergen sensitivities was significantly lower than that of patients with single allergen sensitivities (p=0.005). Conclusion: Our study found that regional allergen sensitivity was consistent with data in the literature. Our study shows that multiple allergen positivity is more common in young patients and emphasises the importance of patch testing in identifying relevant allergens and guiding clinical treatment.

Keywords

• Dermatitis
• European Baseline Series
• cosmetic
• dental
• patch test

References

1. Johansen JD, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, et al. European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing-recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73(4):195-221. doi:10.1111/cod. 12432
2. Korkmaz P, Boyvat A. Effect of patch testing on the course of allergic contact dermatitis and prognostic factors that influence outcomes.Dermatitis. 2019;30(2):135-141. doi:10.1097/DER. 0000000000000452
3. Uter W, Amario-Hita JC, Balato A, et al. European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA): results with the European baseline series, 2013/14. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31(9):1516-1525. doi: 10.1111/jdv.14423
4. DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Zug KA, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2015-2016. Dermatitis. 2018;29(6): 297-309. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000417
5. Boyvat A, Kalay Yildizhan I. Patch test results of the European baseline series among 1309 patients in Turkey between 2013 and 2019. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;84(1):15-23. doi:10.1111/cod.13653
6. Erkoç M, Erhan Ç, Çevirme L, Özden G. Analysis of European baseline series patch test results in adult patients in Adana province, Turkey; single center experience. Dermatitis. 2025. doi:10.1089/derm.2024.0468
7. Acer E, Erdogan HK, Batan T, Saracoglu ZN. European standard series patch test results in contact dermatitis patients in a tertiary care hospital. Sisli Etfal Hastan Tip Bul. 2020;54(2):206-210. doi:10.14744/SEMB.2020.02703
8. Slodownik D, Bar J, Daniely D. Trends in contact sensitization, results, and implications from a contact dermatitis clinic in Israel. Contact Dermatitis. 2024;90(6):556-565. doi:10.1111/cod.14524

9. Kasumagic-Halilovic E, Ovcina-Kurtovic N. Analysis of epicutaneous patch test results in patients with contact dermatitis. Med Arch. 2018; 72(4):276-279. doi:10.5455/medarh.2018.72.276-279
10. Akyol A, Boyvat A, Peksari Y, Gürgey E. Contact sensitivity to standard series allergens in 1038 patients with contact dermatitis in Turkey. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;52(6):333-337. doi:10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005. 00608.x
11. Kumar P, Paulose R. Patch testing in suspected allergic contact dermatitis to cosmetics. Dermatol Res Pract. 2014;2014:695387. doi:10. 1155/2014/695387
12. Holcomb ZE, Van Noord MG, Atwater AR. Gallate contact dermatitis: product update and systematic review. Dermatitis. 2017;28(2):115-127. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000263
13. Gamboni SE, Palmer AM, Nixon RL. Allergic contact stomatitis to dodecyl gallate? A review of the relevance of positive patch test results to gallates. Australas J Dermatol. 2013;54(3):213-217. doi:10.1111/j.1440-0960.2012.00941.x
14. Perez A, Basketter DA, White IR, McFadden J. Positive rates to propyl gallate on patch testing: a change in trend. Contact Dermatitis. 2008; 58(1):47-48. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01150.x
15. Jampuram H, Mahendra A, Gupta S. Clinical evaluation, patch testing, and quality of life assessment in patients with cosmetic dermatitis.Cureus. 2024;16(12):e75503. doi:10.7759/cureus.75503
16. Hafner MFS, Rodrigues AC, Lazzarini R. Allergic contact dermatitis to cosmetics: retrospective analysis of a population subjected to patch tests between 2004 and 2017. An Bras Dermatol. 2020;95(6):696-701. doi:10. 1016/j.abd.2020.04.011
17. Kanerva L, Rantanen T, Aalto-Korte K, et al. A multicenter study of patch test reactions with dental screening series. Am J Contact Dermat. 2001;12(2):83-87.
18. Bilgic A, Bozca BC, Subası GY, et al. Standard patch test results and clinical relevance: a cross-sectional study of 10-year retrospective experience. Indian J Dermatol. 2022;67(3):258-264. doi:10.4103/ijd.ijd_ 965_21
19. Mazzetto R, Soldi E, Ventura L, Deotto L, Caroppo Fortina AB. Allergic contact dermatitis: a comparative study of elderly and young over time. JEADV Clinical Practice. 2025. doi:10.1002/jvc2.70126