Journal Information
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Visits
67
Original Article
Full text access
Available online 11 December 2024
Interference of the positioning of nickel, chromium and cobalt in the results of patch tests
Visits
67
Ida Duartea,
Corresponding author
idaduarte@terra.com.br

Corresponding author.
, Rosana Lazzarinib, Mariana Haffnerb, Julia P. Silvaa
a Department of Medicine, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
b Department of Medicine, Dermatology Clinic, Santa Casa de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
This item has received
Received 08 February 2024. Accepted 15 March 2024
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Tables (8)
Table 1. Distribution of patients submitted to patch testing according to their profession ‒ 86 patients.
Table 2. Main ACD locations – 86 patients.
Table 3. Distribution of the 86 patients according to the results of the metal patch testing in the standard battery and the additional battery.
Table 4. Number of positive metal tests in 53 patients.
Table 5. Results of epicutaneous metal patch testing in test batteries in 53 patients.
Table 6. Test results for Nickel in 53 patients.
Table 7. Test results for Cobalt in 53 patients.
Table 8. Test results for Chromium in 53 patients.
Show moreShow less
Abstract
Background

The positioning of substances, which are co-sensitizers and/or with a tendency to cross-react, is not considered in the technique when applying patch tests (PT).

Objective

To investigate the interference of the positioning of nickel (Ni), chromium (Cr) and cobalt (Co) in patch tests (PT) results, when applied close or distant from each other.

Methods

PT were performed in patients suspected of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), using the standard battery (SB), with substances showing a tendency towards cross-react and co-sensitizers applied far apart, and an additional battery (AB) with the metals placed close to each other. For tabulation purposes, only the 96-h reading was considered.

Results

Of the 86 tested patients, 33 (38%) had negative testing for metals and 53 (62%) had one or more positive (+) tests for Ni, Cr and/or Co. Concordant results in both tests (SB/ AB) occurred in 18/53 (34%) and 35/53 (66%) had discordant results. Regarding the SB, of the 159 tests with metals (53 patients, three metals), 57 tests were (+) and 102 (-). In the AB, 87 tests were (+) and 72 (-), a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). Of the 57 (+) tests in the SB, 35 were for Ni, 18 for Co and four for Cr. In AB the number of (+) tests was 87, with 45 (+) tests for Ni, 35 for Co and seven for Cr. The difference in the number of positive tests between the two batteries was statistically significant for Co and Ni.

Study limitations

The number of cases.

Conclusion

The results showed that the positioning of the metals interferes with the PT results and should be considered as part of the PT application technique.

Keywords:
Allergic contact dermatitis
Dermatitis, contact
Metals, patch tests
Full Text
Introduction

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by metals has as its main agents nickel (Ni), chromium (Cr) and/or cobalt (Co).1–4

The distribution of ACD to metals in each country is heterogeneous since the manifestation on this dermatosis is influenced by atopy, gender, age, ethnicity, environmental exposure, genetic, geographic, socio-environmental and occupational factors.1,2,5

In the USA, approximately 18% of the population is sensitized to Ni, which is the main sensitizer; the frequency of sensitization to Co is 7.3% and 1.5% to Cr.2 In Europe, the prevalence of allergy to Ni occurs in approximately 19% of the population, to Co 3.6% and 9.6% to Cr.1 In Brazil, population studies have shown that approximately 28% of the population is sensitized to Ni, 10.5% to Co and 11% to Cr.3,4 Thus, ACD to metals is common in all populations, whether or not related to occupational activities.5–7

ACD is diagnosed through clinical history, presentation and patch tests (PT), the latter being the main laboratory method for its identification. Obtaining accurate test results depends on their indication, application technique and adequate reading.

There are few studies on the interference of the positioning of the substances in relation to their co-sensitizers or others substances with a tendency towards cross-reaction with each other.8–10 Ni, Cr and Co do not belong to the same chemical group; therefore, there is no induction of cross-reaction between these substances. However, because they are present together in several materials, they can act as co-sensitizers. The concept of co-sensitizer refers to chemicals that act together to increase sensitivity to a specific phenomenon.11 In the case of ACD, Ni, Co and Cr, when present in the same material, can induce sensitization or enhance each others immune reaction.

As previously mentioned, metals are the main sensitizers in the general population. Therefore, accurate PT results are essential for the etiological diagnosis of ACD, as well as the recommendations given to the patient.

Objective

To investigate the interference of the positioning of Ni, Co and Cr in the results of patch tests, when applied close or far from each other.

Method

The research project was approved by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) of Santa Casa de São Paulo, as a prospective study, under Counsel number 4,713,172 on 05/14/2021.

During the 12-month period (November 2021 to October 2022), patients treated in the allergy sector of the Dermatology Clinic of a healthcare service, with a diagnostic hypothesis of ACD and indication for PT, were selected.

The standard battery (SB) of PT, consisting of 30 substances, was applied to the left side of the back region of these patients. This PT battery is standardized with co-sensitizing and cross-reactive substances applied far apart from each other. The SB was applied using FINN Chambers (FDA Allergenic), with 10 substances on each plate, placed one below the other. Potassium bichromate (Cr) corresponded to number 5, Co to number 11 and Ni to number 27. Thus, in the SB used, the metals were applied far apart from each other, in different chambers.

The patients were also concomitantly tested with Ni, Co and Cr close to each other, constituting an additional battery (AB) with three components, applied to the right side of the back region. The metals were applied using FINN Chambers, cut so that they contained only three aluminum plates, where the metals were placed.

Two readings of the tests were performed, the first 48 hours after application and the second after 96 hours. For tabulation purposes, only the 96-h reading was considered and all tests with intensity 1+, 2+ or 3+ were tabulated.

Since in the SB, substances with a tendency towards cross-reaction and/or co-sensitizers are applied far from each other, tests that were positive to the other battery components did not interfere with the metal tests.

The results of the metal tests obtained in the SB and AB were tabulated and compared with each other. Regarding the statistical analysis, the Chi-Square test was used, aiming to compare the proportions of the results.

Results

During the 12-month period (October 2021 to November 2022), 86 patients underwent patch testing, 23 men and 63 women, 58 white and 28 non-white individuals (10 black; 17 brown and 1 Asian). Patients ages ranged from 7 to 85 years, with a mean age of approximately 45.5 years. Patients professions are listed in Table 1 and the locations of the dermatosis are listed in Table 2.

Table 1.

Distribution of patients submitted to patch testing according to their profession ‒ 86 patients.

Profession 
Office worker/student  23  27 
Health workers  18  21 
Homemaker  19  22 
Retired worker  14  16,5 
Mason/painter/maintenance worker  07  08 
Seamstress  02  02,5 
Butcher  01  01 
Hairdresser  01  01 
Cook  01  01 
Total  86  100 
Table 2.

Main ACD locations – 86 patients.

Location 
Hands  28  33 
Lower limbs  28  33 
Upper limbs  26  30 
Cephalic segment  21  25 
Trunk  20  23 
Feet  15  17 
Abdomen 
Totala  145   
a

Some patients had lesion in more than one location.

Of the 86 tested patients, 33 (38%) had negative tests for Ni, Co and Cr. The remaining 53 patients (62%) had one or more positive tests for the metals. Of these, 18/53 (34%) showed concordant results in both tests (SB and AB). The remaining 35/53 (66%) showed discordant results in the two tests (Table 3).

Table 3.

Distribution of the 86 patients according to the results of the metal patch testing in the standard battery and the additional battery.

Results of the metal patch testing   
Patients with negative tests  33  38       
Patients with positive tests5362Concordant results (SB and AB)  18/53  34 
Discordant results (SB and AB)  35/53  66 
Total  86  100       

SB, Standard Battery; AB, Additional Battery.

Table 4 depicts the number of positive tests for Ni, Co and Cr in the two tests.

Table 4.

Number of positive metal tests in 53 patients.

  NickelCobaltChromium
  SB  AB  SB  AB  SB  AB 
Concordant results SB and AB (18) 
Discordant results SB and AB (35)  26  36  12  29 
Total  35a  45b  18a  35b  4a  7b 
a

SB, Standard Battery = 57 positive tests.

b

AB, Additional Battery = 87 positive tests.

Regarding the patients who tested positive for metals (53/86), each one underwent three metal contact tests in the SB and three other tests that comprised the AB of tests. Thus, there were 159 tests related to Ni, Co and Cr (53 × 3) in each battery.

In the SB, of the 159 tests related to metals, 57 were positive and 102 were negative. In the AB, there were 87 positive and 72 negative tests. The differences found in the results between the two batteries were statistically significant (p < 0.05; Table 5).

Table 5.

Results of epicutaneous metal patch testing in test batteries in 53 patients.

Metals  Positive testsNegative testsTotal 
Standard battery  57  36%  102  64%  159 
Additional battery  87  55%  72  45%  159 
Total  144174318 

p = 0.00007.

Regarding the 57 positive results of the standard battery, 35 were positive for Ni, 18 for Co and 4 for Cr. In the additional battery, the number of positive tests was 87, of which 45 were positive for Ni, 35 for Co and seven for Cr (Tables 6, 7 and 8).

Table 6.

Test results for Nickel in 53 patients.

Nickel  Positive testsNegative testsTotal 
Standard battery  35  66%  18  34%  53 
Additional battery  45  85%  15%  53 
Total  8026106 

p = 0.02.

Table 7.

Test results for Cobalt in 53 patients.

Cobalt  Positive testsNegative testsTotal 
Standard battery  18  34%  35  66%  53 
Additional battery  35  66%  18  34%  53 
Total  5353106 

p = 0,0009.

Table 8.

Test results for Chromium in 53 patients.

Chromium  Positive testsNegative testsTotal 
Standard battery  5%  49  95%  53 
Additional battery  13%  46  87%  53 
Total  1195106 

p = 0.33.

After applying the Chi-square test to the test results for each metal and comparing the results in the two batteries, a statistically significant difference was observed related to the number of positive tests. In other words, applying the tests to metals close to each other significantly interfered with the results for Ni and Co.

Discussion

The epidemiological data in this study demonstrated that the group was similar to those in other studies: a predominance of white female individuals, with a mean age of 45 years.1–4

The majority of the patients (62%) tested positive for one or more metals, with Ni being the main sensitizer in both batteries, followed by Co and Cr. These results demonstrate the relevance of metal sensitization, especially Ni and Co, components of several products present in people daily lives.12–17 Ni, Co and Cr are responsible for occupational and non-occupational ACD.

The results obtained in the two batteries showed interference between them, due to the positioning of the Ni, Co and Cr applied in the patch tests. The element Ni showed an additional ten positive tests, in the results of the SB, when it was applied close to Co and Cr (66% of positive tests in the SB and 85% in the AB), with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). The same occurred with Co, with a difference of 17 tests between the SB (34% positive tests) and the AB (66% positive tests), also with statistical significance (p < 0.05). Cr showed four positive tests (5%) in the SB and seven in the AB (13%). The small number of positive tests did not allow a significant analysis.

The differences in positive tests for metals that occurred between the two batteries (SB and AB) probably occurred due to the excited skin syndrome, where co-sensitizing substances or those associated with cross-reaction with each other, induce the excited skin syndrome when placed close to each other.8,9

Ni, Co and Cr are metals known as common allergens, found in several materials present in people daily lives and can act as co-sensitizers, enhancing the immune response to these components. Riedel et al.11 demonstrated that in the immune reaction caused by exposure to Ni, T-cell receptors can be stimulated by Co, justifying co-sensitization. Pistoor et al.18 showed interference in the reaction between Ni, copper and palladium.

The application of patch tests to Ni, Co and Cr, when placed close together, can induce co-sensitization, leading to an increase in positive tests for these metals. In practice, it is common for patients to show positive tests for two or all three metals.19,20

Ni, Co and Cr are common sensitizers in several population groups, as they are common components of products and materials, present in daily routine and in several professional activities. The results of patch tests to these substances has a relevant impact in the routine of patients as well as in their professional activity.

In conclusion, the positioning of the metals (Ni, Co and Cr) during the application of patch tests is an important aspect for their interpretation, aiming to obtain accurate results and provide correct recommendations for the patients.

Financial support

FAP2021/2023 FCMSCSP.

Authors' contributions

Ida Duarte: Study design; Collection of data; drafting and editing of the manuscript.

Rosana Lazzarini: Patch testing; critical review of the manuscript.

Mariana Haffner: Patch testing; critical review of the manuscript.

Julia P Silva: Data tabulation; Literature survey.

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

References
[1]
M. Bizjak, K. Adamic, N. Bajrovic, R. Eržen, M. Jošt, P. Kopač, et al.
Patch Testing with the European baseline series and 10 added allergens: single canter study of 748 patients.
Contact Dermatitis., 87 (2022), pp. 439-446
[2]
J.G. DeKoven, E.M. Warshaw, M.J. Reeder, A.R. Atwater, J.I. Silverberg, D.V. Belsito, et al.
North Amercian contact dermatitis group patch test results: 2019‒2020.
Dermatitis., 34 (2023), pp. 90-104
[3]
I. Duarte, J.R. Amorin, E. Perazzio, R. Schmitz Junior.
Dermatite de contato por metais: prevalência de sensibilização ao níquel, cobalto e cromo.
An Bras Dermatol., 80 (2005), pp. 137-142
[4]
I. Duarte, R.F. Mendonça, K.L. Korkes, R. Lazzarini, M.F.S. Hafner.
Nickel, chromium and cobalt: the relevant allergens in allergic contact dermatitis. Comparative study between two periods: 1995-2002 and 2003-2015.
An Bras Dermatol., 93 (2018), pp. 59-62
[5]
F. Alinaghi, N.H. Bennike, A. Egeberg, J.P. Thyssen, J.D. Johansen.
Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Contact Dermatitis., 80 (2019), pp. 77-85
[6]
T.L. Diepgen, R.F. Ofenloch, M. Bruze, P. Bertuccio, S. Cazzaniga, P.J. Coenraads, et al.
Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population in different European regions.
Br J Dermatol., 174 (2016), pp. 319-329
[7]
A. Ito, K. Suzuki, K. Matsunaga, A. Yagami, T. Ito, R. Tamagawa-Mineoka, et al.
Patch testing with the Japanese baseline series 2015: a 4-year experience.
Contact Dermatitis., 86 (2022), pp. 189-195
[8]
I. Duarte, R. Lazzarini.
A non-randomized, controlled study evaluating the effect of patch tests position on reactivity of the antigens.
Med Cut., 35 (2007), pp. 76-80
[9]
I. Duarte, R. Lazzarini.
Excite skin syndrome associated with patch tests application.
Dermatitis., 17 (2006), pp. 161-162
[10]
M. Isaksson, L. Hagyall, G. Bo, M. Lagrelius, C. Lidén, M. Matura, et al.
Suitable test concentration of cobalt and concomitant reactivity to nickel and chromium: a multicenter study from Swedish Contact Dermatitis research group.
Contact Dermatitis., 84 (2021), pp. 153-158
[11]
F. Riedel, M. Aparicio-Soto, C. Curato, H.J. Thierse, K. Siewert, A. Luch.
Immunological mechanisms of metal allergies and the Nickel specific TCT-MHC interface.
Int J Envirom Res Public Health., 18 (2021), pp. 10867
[12]
T. Pavesi, J.C. Moreira.
A comprehensive study of nickel levels in everyday items in Brazil.
Contact Dermatitis., 83 (2020), pp. 88-93
[13]
M.F.S. Hafner, J.C.S. Chen, R. Lazzarini.
Evaluation of nickel and cobalt release from mobile phone devices used in Brazil.
An Bras Dermatol., 93 (2018), pp. 151-153
[14]
J.I. Silverberg, N. Patel, E.M. Warshaw, J.G. DeKoven, D.V. Belsito, A.R. Atwater, et al.
Patch testing with cobalt in adults: a North Americam contact dermatitis group experience, 2001-1018.
Dermatitis., 34 (2023), pp. 209-217
[15]
M. Al-Gawahiri, T. Rustemeyer, S.M. Franken, E.J. Van Zuuren, N.A. Ipenburg.
Frequency and clinical relevance of allergy in dental patients.
Contact Dermatitis., 90 (2024), pp. 66-73
[16]
C.X. Chan, C.R. Hamann.
Nickel release from hairdressing tools in the United States.
Contact Dermatitis., 89 (2023), pp. 480-483
[17]
W. Xuying, Y.S. Hedberg, I. Odnevall.
Presence of impurities of nickel and cobalt in facial cosmetic pigments and their dissolution into artificial sweat.
Contact Dermatitis., 87 (2022), pp. 550-553
[18]
F.H. Pistoor, M.L. Kapsenberg, J.D. Bos, M.M. Meinardi, M.E. Von Blomberg, R.J. Scheper.
Cross reactivity of human nickel reactive T-limphocyte-clones with copper and palladium.
J Invest Dermatol., 105 (1995), pp. 92-95
[19]
F. Rui, M. Bovenzi, A. Prodi, A.B. Fortina, I. Romano, M.T. Corradin, et al.
Concurrent sensitization to metals and occupation.
Contact Dermatitis., 67 (2012), pp. 359-366
[20]
L. Landeck, E. Gonzalez, L. Baden, K. Neumann, P. Schalock.
Positive concomitant test reactions to allergens in the standard patch test series.
Int J Dermatol., 49 (2010), pp. 5127-5129

Study conducted at the Dermatology Clinic, Santa Casa de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Copyright © 2024. Sociedade Brasileira de Dermatologia
Download PDF
Idiomas
Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia
Article options
Tools
en pt
Cookies policy Política de cookies
To improve our services and products, we use "cookies" (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here. Utilizamos cookies próprios e de terceiros para melhorar nossos serviços e mostrar publicidade relacionada às suas preferências, analisando seus hábitos de navegação. Se continuar a navegar, consideramos que aceita o seu uso. Você pode alterar a configuração ou obter mais informações aqui.