covid
Buscar en
Allergologia et Immunopathologia
Toda la web
Inicio Allergologia et Immunopathologia Palladium allergy: a frequent sensitisation
Información de la revista
Vol. 36. Núm. 5.
Páginas 306-307 (agosto 2008)
Compartir
Compartir
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Visitas
6226
Vol. 36. Núm. 5.
Páginas 306-307 (agosto 2008)
RESEARCH LETTERS
Acceso a texto completo
Palladium allergy: a frequent sensitisation
Visitas
6226
M.ªT. Bordel-Gómez, A. Miranda-Romero
Department of Dermatology. Clinical Hospital of Valladolid. Faculty of Medicine of Valladolid. Spain
Este artículo ha recibido
Información del artículo
Texto completo
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Tablas (1)
Table I. Distribution of the prevalence of sensitization to palladium grouped by age
Texto completo
INTRODUCTION

At present, the use of palladium (Pd) is very common in nickel-free jewellery and since its introduction in 1973, the use of this metal has increased significantly1. Pd is also present in dental and electrical appliances, jewellery, chemical catalysts and as an automotive emission-control catalyst2.

The aim of our work is to evaluate the prevalence of sensitisation to Pd over a 5-year period and to study the clinical relevance of this sensitisation in a University Hospital in Spain.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From 1st January 2000 to 31st December 2005, a total of 1092 patients with a suspected diagnosis for contact dermatitis were patch-tested in the Cutaneous Allergy Unit of our Dermatology Department.

Patch tests were performed on all patients using an extended Spanish Research Group in Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (GEIDAC) baseline series that included Pd chloride 1 % in petrolatum (Trolab®Hermal, Reinbek, Germany). The ethical principles for biomedical investigations promulgated by the Helsinki declaration were observed. All patients were tested in an identical manner. The allergens were applied in adhesive strips of epicutaneous test (Curatest®-Lohmann-Rauscher) and fixed with adhesive tape (Omnifix®-Hartmann). Patch tests were applied to a dermatitis-free area of the upper back. Additional patch tests were performed according to the patient's history and personal or occupational exposure. Readings were made after D2 and D4 using the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group (ICDRG) criteria. The results were evaluated according to the standard scoring system recommended by ICDRG. Only allergic reactions were accepted as positive whereas patch test reactions suspicious of an irritant reaction were excluded from analysis. The relevance of positive patch tests was established in relation to the patient's clinical history. Atopic dermatitis was diagnosed according to the criteria of Hanifin and Rajka3.

Statistical analysis was with Pearson's chi-squared test for the table of contingency 2 × 2, with Yates's correction factor and, where necessary, Fisher's exact test. Statistical significance level was taken as P < 0.05, with the odds ratio (OR) and its corresponding confidence interval (CI) at 95 % being calculated where considered necessary. For analysis of age groups, the patients were subdivided into the following age groups: 1–9, 10–19, 20–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69 and ≥ 70years.

RESULTS

During the 5-year period studied, we evaluated a total of 1092 patients, 673 (61.6 %) women and 419 (38.4 %) men, with the mean age of all patients being 41.4 ± 16.5years. A total of 128 patients had a positive patch tests to Pd, being 115 (89.8 %) women and 13 (10.2 %) men, with an average age of 40.8 ± 15.3years (range 7–90years). The overall prevalence of a contact allergy to Pd was 11.7 % (17.1 % in females and 3.1 % in males). Individuals sensitised to Pd were significantly more likely to be female (OR = 6.74; 95 % IC: 3.70-12.28; p < 0.000). The prevalence of sensitisation distributed by age groups is shown in Table I.

Table I.

Distribution of the prevalence of sensitization to palladium grouped by age

Age  Patients sensitized  Prevalence of sensitization  Total patients tested 
0-9years  8.3  12 
10-19years  7.4  68 
20-29years  31  13.2  235 
30-39years  25  12.0  209 
40-49years  25  12.4  202 
50-59years  24  10.9  220 
60-69years  12  13.6  88 
≥ 70years  8.6  58 
TOTAL  128  11.7  1092 

The most frequent localizations of the dermatitis in the patients with a contact allergy to Pd were the hands (30 patients; 23.4 %) and the face (15 patients; 15.7 %). Housewife was the most prevalent occupation (44 patients; 34.4 %) followed by intellectuals (21 patients; 16.4 %) and health care professionals (12 patients; 9.4 %). As an occupational group, the electronics industry workers presented the highest prevalence of sensitisation to Pd (25 %), followed by housewives and health care professionals (22.2 %). 19 (18.8 %) patients and 5 (8.8 %) patients had a personal and a family history respectively for atopy. 96.9 % (124) of patients who were positive to Pd, were also positive to nickel sulphate and 2 (1.6 %) patients showed only a positive reaction to Pd, without a concomitant reaction to a transition metal. Positive tests to Pd were relevant in 96.1 % of the cases.

DISCUSSION

Pd, a well-known sensitizer in humans, is a frequent transition metal. Its use has increased significantly in the past decade. When Pd chloride 1 % in pet. is part of the baseline series, the prevalence of sensitisation to Pd ranges between 8 % in Austria4, 9 % in Turkey5 and 13% in Israel6. Nevertheless, no data on Pd allergy were available previously for Spanish populations due to the fact that Pd is not included in the baseline series of GEIDAC7. The prevalence in our study (11.7 %) is similar to that found by other authors.

Due to the increase in the utilisation of Pd and the consequent exposure to this metal, the rates of sensitisation have risen8. The population may be exposed to Pd mainly through dental alloys and nickel-free jewellery. Pd has proved to be a suitable substitute in nickel-free products with the female population being more at risk. This agrees with the results obtained in the present study, where females were significantly more sensitised to Pd.

The relevance of a positive patch test reaction to Pd is likely to be compromised. This can be explained by the fact that a significant number of patients allergic to Pd also showed a positive patch test to nickel sulphate8,9. The evaluation of these subjects allows us to conclude that cosensitisation to nickel is frequent, as many authors have reported6,8. This justifies the high clinical relevance obtained in our study (96.1 %). The simultaneous positive reactions of nickel and Pd are explained by: a) sensitisation to both metals; b) contamination of the Pd patch test material with small traces of nickel, although several studies have not accepted this theory;2,10 and c) nickel and Pd present a similar chemistry with an equivalent electron arrangement, which might be responsible for a true cross-reactivity at the T-cell level9. All positive results in the electronic industry workers group were considered relevant, reflecting how widely distributed this transitional metal is in the electronics world.

Any baseline patch test series must be re-evaluated regularly in order to consider changes in its composition11. We considered that sensitisation to Pd must be studied in the future. In view of the high rates of Pd sensitisation in our area, we think that Pd should be included in the GEIDAC baseline series9.

REFERENCES
[1.]
W. Aberer, H. Holub, R. Strohal, R. Slavicek.
Palladium in dental alloys – The dermatologists’ responsibility to warn?.
Contact Dermatitis, 28 (1993), pp. 163-165
[2.]
M. Hindsen, A. Spiren, M. Bruze.
Cross-reactivity between nickel and palladium demonstrated by sistemic administration of nickel.
Contact Dermatitis, 53 (2005), pp. 2-8
[3.]
J.M. Hanifin, G. Rajka.
Diagnosis features of atopic dermatitis.
Acta Dermato Venereol, 92 (1980), pp. 44-47
[4.]
B. Kränke, W. Aberer.
Multiple sensitivities to metals.
Contact Dermatitis, 34 (1996), pp. 225
[5.]
E. Akasya-Hillenbrand, E. Özkaya-Bayazit.
Patch test results in 542 patients with suspected contact dermatitis in Turkey.
Contact Dermatitis, 46 (2002), pp. 17-23
[6.]
E. Orion, H. Matz, R. Wolf.
Palladium allergy in an Israeli contact dermatitis clinic.
Contact Dermatitis, 49 (2003), pp. 216-217
[7.]
B. García-Bravo, L. Conde-Salazar, J. De la Cuadra, V. Fernández- Redondo, J.M. Fernández-Vozmediano, D. Guimaraens, et al.
Estudio epidemiológico de la dermatitis alérgica de contacto en España (2001).
Actas Dermosifiliogr, 95 (2004), pp. 14-24
[8.]
F.L. Filon, D. Uderzo, E. Bagnato.
Sensitization to palladium Chloride: A 10-Year evaluation.
Am J Contact Dermat, 14 (2003), pp. 78-81
[9.]
J. Muris, C.J. Kleverlaan, A.J. Feilzer, T. Rustemeyer.
Sodium tetrachloropalladate (Na2[PdCl4]) as an improved test salt for palladium allergy patch testing.
Contact Dermatitis, 58 (2008), pp. 42-46
[10.]
J.E. Wahlberg, S. Boman A.
Cross-reactivity to palladium and nickel studied in the guinea pig.
Acta Derm Venereol, 72 (1992), pp. 95-97
[11.]
M. Bruze, K.E. Andersen, A. Goossens.
Recommendation to include fragrance mix 2 and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral®) in the European baseline patch test series.
Contact Dermat, 58 (2008), pp. 129-133
Copyright © 2008. Sociedad Española de Inmunología Clínica y Alergología Pediátrica y Elsevier España, S.L.
Descargar PDF
Opciones de artículo
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos