The positivity ratio (PR) and reaction index (RI) characterize the ability of patch-test preparations to produce strong (++ or +++) reactions as opposed to weak (+), questionable, or irritant reactions.
Objective:
This study evaluates these measures for North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) patch-test preparations.
Methods:
The PR and RI were calculated for 79 NACDG standard allergens tested from 1994 to 2006 (n 5 26,479 patients). The median values were used as cutoff values for “acceptable” versus “problematic” preparations.
Results:
The top 10 “acceptable” patch-test preparations (PR # 55 and RI. 0.46) were mixed dialkyl thioureas 1% in petrolatum (pet), tixocortol-21-pivalate 1% pet, ethylenediamine dihydrochloride 1% pet, sesquiterpene lactone mix 0.1% pet, nickel sulfate 2.5% pet, bacitracin 20% pet, thimerosal 0.1% pet, epoxy resin 1% pet, colophony 20% pet, and mercaptobenzothiazole 1% pet. The most “problematic” patch-test preparations (PR > 55 and RI ≤ 0.46) were cocamidopropyl betaine 1% aqueous (aq), benzalkonium chloride 0.1% aq, jasmine absolute 2% pet, iodopropynyl butyl carbamate 0.1% pet, 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol 0.5% pet, methyldibromoglutaronitrile 0.4% pet, methyldibromoglutaronitrile/phenoxyethanol 2% pet and 2.5% pet, dimethylol dihydroxyethyleneurea 4.5% aq, and clobetasol-17-propionate 1% pet.
Conclusion:
Caution should be used when interpreting reactions to “problematic” patch-test preparations with a high proportion of weak, irritant, and questionable reactions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GeierJ, UterW, LessmannH, SchnuchA. The positivity ratio— another parameter to assess the diagnostic quality of a patch test preparation. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 48:280-2.
2.
BraschJ, HenselerT. The reaction index: a parameter to assess the quality of patch test preparations. Contact Dermatitis, 1992; 37:203-4.
3.
BraschJ, GeierJ, HenselerT. Evaluation of patch test results by use of the reaction index. An analysis of data recorded by the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis, 1995; 33:375-80.
4.
AndersenKE, AndersenF. The reaction index and positivity ratio revisited. Contact Dermatitis, 2008; 58:28-31.
5.
MarksJG, BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group standard tray patch test results (1992-1994). Am J Contact Dermat, 1995; 6:160-5.
6.
MarksJG, BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for the detection of delayed hypersensitivity to topical allergens. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1998; 38: 911-8.
7.
MarksJG, BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 1998-2000 data. Am J Contact Dermat, 2003; 14:59-62.
8.
PrattMD, BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 2001-2002 study period. Dermatitis, 2004; 15:176-83.
9.
WarshawEM, BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results 2003-2004 study period. Dermatitis, 2008; 19:129-36.
10.
ZugKA, WarshawEM, BelsitoDV, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006 patch test results. Dermatitis, 2009; 20: 149-60.
11.
DevosSA, ConstandtL, TupkerRA, et al.Relevance of positive patch-test reactions to fragrance mix. Dermatitis, 2008; 19:43-7.
12.
SchnuchA, LessmannH, GeierJ, et al.Contact allergy to fragrances: frequencies of sensitization from 1996 to 2002. Results of the IVDK. Contact Dermatitis, 2004; 50:65-76.
13.
FroschPJ, PilzB, AndersenKE, et al.Patch testing with fragrances: results of a multicenter study of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group with 48 frequently used constituents of perfumes. Contact Dermatitis, 1995; 33:333-42.
14.
StorrsFJ.Fragrance. Dermatitis, 2007; 18:3-7.
15.
MitchellJC.Day 7 (D7) patch test reading: valuable or not?. Contact Dermatitis, 1978; 4:139-41.
16.
BandmannHJ, AgathosM.New results and some remarks to the “angry back syndrome.”. Contact Dermatitis, 1981; 7:23-6.
17.
ToddDJ, HandleyJ, MetwaliM, et al.Day 4 is better than day 3 for single patch test reading. Contact Dermatitis, 1996; 34:402-4.
18.
SherertzEF, FranswayAF, BelsitoDV, et al.Patch testing discordance alert: false-negative findings with rubber additives and fragrances. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2001; 45:313-4.
19.
BraschJ, GeierJ. How to use the reaction index and positivity ratio. Contact Dermatitis, 2008; 59:63-5.
20.
AndersenKE, AndersenF. Validity of reaction index and positivity ratio. Contact Dermatitis, 2008; 58:320.
21.
MaouadM, FleischerABJr, SherertzEF, FeldmanSR. Significanceprevalence index number: a reinterpretation and enhancement of data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1999; 41:573-6.
22.
WolfR, DavidoviciB, StoneSP, TuzunY. In pursuit of defining clinical relevance of positive patch tests results. Clin Dermatol, 2007; 25:493-4.
