Value of patch testing with indigenous battery of allergens in shoe dermatitis
Keywords:
Shoes dermatitis, patch test, indigenousAbstract
Objective To explore the potential allergens used in our domestic shoe industry and to determine the efficiency of indigenously prepared battery of allergens in shoe dermatitis. Patients and methods A comprehensive list of 49 chemicals used in local processing and manufacturing of footwear was acquired from local sources. Potential irritants were excluded and a finished battery of 20 allergens relevant to our industrial environment was prepared by using standard techniques. Fifty patients and same number of control subjects were  enrolled in the study for patch testing using Finn chambers and polyethylene IQ chambers. Results were read using standard protocol at 1 hour, 48 hours, 4th day, and 7th day. A pre tested, structured questionnaire was filled for each patient. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 12.0 for statistical analysis. Chi square test was applied for comparative analysis between patients and controls. Results Out of 50 patients 33 (66%) were found to be allergic to 14 different chemicals present in indigenous test battery as opposed to 4 (8%) in control group (p<.0001, chi square test). Fifteen (30%) patients were reactive to additives used in processing and manufacturing of rubber. Eight (16%) patients were sensitive to agents used in tanning the leather. Four (8%) patients exhibited sensitivity to both leather and rubber and 6 (12%) patients were allergic to the chemicals present in resins, glues, plastics, dyes and metals. No reaction was observed at the site of application of blank chamber and vehicle. Conclusion The indigenous battery is reliable, cost effective and flexible to adapt to changes in exposure and to introduction of new allergens in market. It would be prudent to recommend exploring the other industries like perfume, garments, and rubber, etc. on similar lines.ÂReferences
Adams RM. Shoe dermatitis. Calif Med 1972; 117: 12-16.
Robert G, Smith DPM. Shoe dermatitis: a review of current concepts. The Foot 2008; 18: 40-47.
Chowdhuri S, Ghosh S. Epidemio-allergological study in 155 cases of footwear dermatitis. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2007; 73: 319-22.
Warshaw EM, Schram SE, Belsito DV et al. Shoe allergens: retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data from the north American contact dermatitis group, 2001-2004. Dermatitis 2007; 18: 191-202.
Srinivas CR, Sundaram VS, Selvaraj K. Reducing the allergenic hexavalent chromium in leather to hypoallergenic trivalent chromium for prevention of leather dermatitis. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2007; 73: 428-9.
Rani Z, Hussain I, Haroon TS. Common allergens in shoe dermatitis: our experience in Lahore, Pakistan. Int J Dermatol 2003; 42: 605-7.
Dotterud LK, Smith-Sivertsen T. Allergic contact sensitization in the general adult population: A population-based study from Northern Norway. Contact Dermatitis 2007; 56: 10-5.
Rietschel RL, Fowler Jr. JF. In: Fisher's Contact Dermatitis, 4 th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: 1995.
Johnson ML, Johnson KG, Engel A. Prevalence, morbidity and cost of dermatological diseases. J Am Acad Dermatol 1984; 11: 930-6.
Bajaj AK. Contact dermatitis. In: Valia RG, editor. IADVL Textbook and Atlas of Dermatology, 2nd edn. Mumbai: Bhalani Publishing House; 2001. p. 453-90.
Niklasson Bo J. Mixing your own antigens. In: Guin Jere D, editor. Practical Contact Dermatitis, Ist edn. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1995. P. 687-95.
Product Catalogue. Patch Test Allergens. Sweden: Chemotechnique Diagnostics; I995.
Drake LA, Grahm GF, Lewis CW et al. Guidelines for care of contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol 1995; 32: 109-13.
Storrs FJ, Rosenthal LE, Adam RM et al. Prevalence and relevance of allergic reactions in patients patch tested in North America, 1984 to 1985. J Am Acad Dermatol 1989; 20: 1038-45.
Shertz EF, Swartz SM. Is screening test tray still worth using? (Comment). J Am Acad Dermatol 1992; 26: 991-4.
James WD, Rosenthal LE, Brancaccio RR, Marks JG. American Academy of Dermatology patch testing survey: use and effectiveness of this procedure. J Am Acad Dermatol 1992; 26: 991-4.
Guin JD. Practical Contact Dermatitis; Standard Patch Test Allergens, Mercaptobenzothiazole, Carba mix, Potassium Dichromate. Ist edn. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1995.
Saha M, Srinvas CR, Shenoy SD et al. Footwear dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1993; 28: 260-4.
Sharma SC, Handa S, Sharma VK, Kaur S. Footwear dermatitis in Northern India. Contact Dermatitis 1991; 25: 57-8.
Bajaj AK, Gupta SC, Chatterjee AK, Singh KG. Shoe dermatitis in India. Contact Dermatitis 1988; 19: 372-5.
Qumeish QY, Rushaidat QM. Contact dermatitis to military boots in Jordan (letter). Contact Dermatitis 1980; 6: 498.
Rahber H, Haroon TS. Shoe dermatitis: A clinicopathological study. Proceeding of the 9th Biennial Conference of Dermatology, Lahore, Pakistan. 1996; Abstract no. 60.
Nadeem M, Haroon TS. Patch testing with European standard series: Our experience in Mayo hospital Lahore. Proceeding of the 9th Biennial Conference of Dermatology Lahore, Pakistan. 1996; Abstract no. 57.
Goosen AD. Patch testing without a kit. In: Guin Jere D, editor. Practical Contact Dermatitis, Ist edn. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1995. P. 63-73.
Rietschel RL. Is patch testing cost effective? J Am Acad Dermatol 1989; 21: 885-7.
Podmore P. Shoes. In: Guin Jere D, editor. Practical Contact Dermatitis, Ist edn. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1995. p. 325-32.

