Identificador persistente para citar o vincular este elemento:
https://accedacris.ulpgc.es/jspui/handle/10553/154581
| Título: | Anogenital Contact Dermatitis in Spain: A REIDAC Study of Patients Undergoing Patch Testing in 2019-2024 | Autores/as: | Grau Pérez, Mercé Mercader-Garcia, Pedro Gimenez-Arnau, Ana Maria Sanz-Sanchez, Tatiana Ninet, Violeta Zaragoza Guijarro, Susana Cordoba Miquel, Francisco Javier Miquel Salvador, Juan Francisco Silvestre Gonzalez-Perez, Ricardo Gonzalez, Inmaculada Ruiz Baldrich, Esther Serra Carrascosa, Jose Manuel de Frutos, Francisco Javier Ortiz Serna, Mercedes Rodriguez Ortega, Maria Elena Gatica Suarez, Carmen Paredes Trivino, Francisco Jose Navarro Chicharro, Pablo Andreu, Marta Gilo, Araceli Sanchez Rodriguez, Jose Juan Pereyra Nieto, Maria Antonia Pastor Mele-Ninot, Gemma Guillen, Paloma Sanchez-pedreno de la Fuente, Enrique Gomez Elosua-Gonzalez, Marta Munera-Campos, Monica Romero, Fatima Tous Descalzo, Miguel Angel Borrego Hernando, Leopoldo |
Clasificación UNESCO: | 32 Ciencias médicas 320106 Dermatología |
Palabras clave: | Sensitization Propolis Hygiene Allergic Contact Dermatitis Allergy, et al. |
Fecha de publicación: | 2025 | Publicación seriada: | Contact Dermatitis | Resumen: | Background: The REIDAC (Spanish Registry for Research in Contact Dermatitis) conducts nationwide epidemiological surveillance of contact dermatitis in Spain. Anogenital involvement within REIDAC has not been previously studied. Objectives: To describe the most common diagnoses and update relevant allergens in patients with anogenital lesions referred for patch testing. Methods: We analysed patients who underwent patch testing within REIDAC from 2019 to 2024. Patients were classified into three groups: (G1) exclusively anogenital lesions, (G2) no anogenital involvement and (G3) both anogenital and non-anogenital lesions. Sensitisation and relevance were assessed. Results: Among 18 291 patients, 116 (0.6%) had exclusively anogenital lesions, 17 576 (96.1%) had no anogenital involvement and 599 (3.3%) had both. G1 patients were more likely to have at least one positive reaction (91.4%), a current relevant reaction (53.4%, diagnosed with allergic contact dermatitis, ACD) and to be polysensitised compared to other groups (p < 0.001). 14.5% of anogenital ACD identified cases were not identified by the Spanish baseline series. Fragrances, preservatives, topical anaesthetics and steroids were the leading relevant allergens. Benzisothiazolinone, sodium metabisulfite and propolis emerged as new sensitisers. Conclusion: ACD was highly prevalent among patients with anogenital lesions referred for patch testing. The threshold for patch testing in these patients may need reconsideration. | URI: | https://accedacris.ulpgc.es/jspui/handle/10553/154581 | ISSN: | 0105-1873 | DOI: | 10.1111/cod.70048 | Fuente: | Contact Dermatitis[ISSN 0105-1873], (2025) |
| Colección: | Artículos |
Los elementos en ULPGC accedaCRIS están protegidos por derechos de autor con todos los derechos reservados, a menos que se indique lo contrario.