Indexed with PubMed and Science Citation Index (E) 
Users online: 3973 
     Home | Feedback | Login 
About Current Issue Archive Ahead of print Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe What's New Contact  
  Navigate here 
 Resource links
   Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
   Article in PDF (340 KB)
   Citation Manager
   Access Statistics
   Reader Comments
   Email Alert *
   Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article
   Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded210    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


 Table of Contents    
Year : 2011  |  Volume : 77  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 194-196

Patch test results from a contact dermatitis clinic in North India

Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

Date of Web Publication8-Mar-2011

Correspondence Address:
Sanjeev Handa
Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, Punjab
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0378-6323.77465

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Handa S, Jindal R. Patch test results from a contact dermatitis clinic in North India. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2011;77:194-6

How to cite this URL:
Handa S, Jindal R. Patch test results from a contact dermatitis clinic in North India. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol [serial online] 2011 [cited 2021 Jan 23];77:194-6. Available from:


Contact dermatitis is an increasing problem all over the world and accounts for 4-7% of all dermatological consultations. [1] The allergens which are included in standard series vary from country to country based on the local experience. Here we present the prevalence and pattern of contact allergy in patients attending our contact dermatitis clinic. Clinic records of 560 patients of suspected allergic contact dermatitis attending the contact dermatitis clinic at PGIMER Chandigarh, a tertiary care centre in North India, were analyzed. Details regarding age, sex, duration of illness, occupation, clinical diagnosis, sites affected, and history of atopy were recorded using the predesigned proforma. Initial 247 patients were tested with European Standard Series (ESS) and rest with Indian Standard Series (ISS). Plant antigens (parthenium, xanthium, sunflower, chrysanthemum, and marigold) and vegetables (garlic, onion and tomato) were also routinely tested along with patients own antigens like hair dye and cosmetics as indicated by the history.

Out of a total of 560 patients patch tested over a 6 year period, 303 (54.1%) were males and 257 (45.9%) were females with age ranging from 9 to 85 years (mean 40±0.6 years). The duration of disease ranged from 1 to 420 months with a mean of 41±2.2 months. Air-borne contact dermatitis (ABCD) affecting face, neck, flexures of arms, and legs was the most common pattern seen in 165 patients. Out of these 20 (12%) patients had photo-aggravation. Localized allergic contact dermatitis was the next common diagnosis (133 patients) followed by hand dermatitis (90 patients) and footwear dermatitis (51 patients). Hand and foot dermatitis together was seen in 22 patients. A picture resembling chronic actinic dermatitis (CAD) was seen in 15 patients. Three hundred fifty-three (63%) patients showed positivity to one or more allergens. Nickel sulfate (17.5%) was the most common sensitizing agent in females followed by potassium dichromate (7%), fragrance mix (7%) and mercaptobenzothiazole (6.2%). In males, potassium dichromate (16.8%) was the most common allergen and next in frequency were nickel sulfate (7.26%), fragrance mix (7.26%), and cobalt chloride (6.9%) [Table 1]. The difference in sensitivity to nickel between males and females was found to be statistically significant (P= 0.00033) as was that to potassium dichromate (P=0.00068). Among the plant allergens tested, maximum positive reactions were due to parthenium (23.5%) and xanthium (15.8%). Personal or family history of atopy was found in 186 (30%) patients. However, there was no statistically significant difference in contact sensitization between atopics and non-atopics.
Table 1: Positivity rate of different allergens

Click here to view

This study was designed to evaluate the rates of sensitivity of Indian patients to various allergens presenting to the contact dermatitis clinic of a tertiary care centre. In this study, 63% patients showed sensitivity to one or more allergens. This figure is comparable to that reported by Davoudi et al, Bajaj et al, and also our previous report but much higher than that reported by a recent study from Turkey (32.3%). [2],[3],[4],[5] This difference could be explained by the fact that our data is of a contact dermatitis clinic at a referral center where patients suspected of having allergic contact dermatitis were subjected to patch testing increasing the probability of a positive result. A comparison of positivity rates to different allergens as reported by recent Indian studies has been shown in [Table 2].
Table 2: Comparison of sensitivity to allergens over the years at different centers

Click here to view

The overall sensitization rates of males and females did not differ significantly but the differences were significant for nickel and potassium dichromate individually. Females were more sensitive to nickel and males to potassium dichromate. Five most common allergens in our study were: potassium dichromate (12.3%), nickel (11.9%), fragrance mix (7.14%), cobalt chloride (6.07%), and mercaptobenzothiazole (5%). Most common sensitizer in plant series was parthenium hysterophorus (23.5%), followed by xanthium (15.8%) and sunflower (12.3%). Similar high rates of parthenium (14.6%) and xanthium (10%) sensitivity were also reported by Bajaj et al. [3] Traditionally parthenium dermatitis is reported to have male predominance especially in farming countries. However in our study both males and females were equally affected. Rampant overgrowth of this plant in the cities and suburbs could possibly explain the increased contact sensitivity in housewives and people of profession other than agriculture.

In conclusion, in our region rates of sensitivities to specific allergens have not changed much as is evident by comparison with the previous study from our centre. [4] Parthenium remains the most common cause of ABCD with both males and females presenting with equal frequency. Apart from plant antigens potassium dichromate and nickel are very common sensitizers. Testing with standard series is very essential to identify the cause of contact dermatitis but these must be reviewed frequently so that the infrequent allergens can be discarded and other relevant ones can be added.[7]

  References Top

1.Mendenhall RG, Ramsay DL, Girard RA. A study of the practice of dermatology in the United States. Arch Dermatol 1978;114:1456-62.  Back to cited text no. 1
2.Davoudi M, Firoozabadi MR, Gorouhi F, Zarchi AK, Kashani MN, Dowlati Y, et al. Patch testing in Iranian patients: A ten-year experience. Indian J Dermatol 2006;51:250-4.  Back to cited text no. 2
  Medknow Journal  
3.Bajaj AK, Saraswat A, Mukhija G, Rastogi S, Yadav S. Patch testing experience with 1000 patients. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2007;73:313-8.   Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
4.Sharma VK, Chakrabarti A. Common contact sensitizers in Chandigarh, India. A study of 200 patients with the European standard series. Contact Dermatitis 1998;38:127-31.  Back to cited text no. 4
5.Akasya-Hillenbrand E, Ozkaya-Bayazit E. Patch test results in 542 patients with suspected contact dermatitis in Turkey. Contact Dermatitis 2002;46:17-23.  Back to cited text no. 5
6.Narendra G, Srinivas CR. Patch testing with Indian standard series. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2002;68:281-2.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
7.Shenoi DS, Srinivas CR, Balachandran C. Results of patch testing with a standard series of allergens at Manipal. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 1994;60:133-5.  Back to cited text no. 7
  Medknow Journal  


  [Table 1], [Table 2]


Print this article  Email this article


Online since 15th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow