{"title":"植物 \"原样 \"斑贴试验在诊断植物过敏症中的价值","authors":"Evy Paulsen, Charlotte G. Mortz","doi":"10.1111/cod.14680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The number of commercially available plant allergens/extracts is limited and therefore patch testing with fresh/dried plant material may be a necessary supplement in diagnosing plant allergy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate the usefulness of patch testing with plants “as is” compared to patch testing with commercial and in-house produced plant test materials and to report on species eliciting positive patch test reactions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patients/Materials/Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Consecutive eczema patients, who were patch tested between January 2019 and December 2023 and who had at least one positive reaction to a plant allergen and/or extract and/or plant “as is” were included in the study.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total 57 out of 1893 patients tested (3%) were sensitised to plants. Compositae plants were the most frequent sensitizers, followed by tomato, tulipalin A, falcarinol, and <i>Philodendron</i> plants. In 12 patients (21%), the diagnosis was based on patch testing with fresh plants only. Occupational sensitization occurred in 32%. Other sensitizers included <i>Hydrangea</i>, <i>Pelargonium zonale</i>, and <i>Monstera</i>.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>A large minority of plant-sensitised patients would have been undiagnosed without patch testing with plants “as is.” Most of the culprit plants were known sensitizers, but not commercially available, and these and new species taken into cultivation makes patch testing with fresh plants unavoidable and worthwhile.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"91 6","pages":"459-464"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The value of patch testing with plants “as is” in diagnosing plant sensitization\",\"authors\":\"Evy Paulsen, Charlotte G. Mortz\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cod.14680\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>The number of commercially available plant allergens/extracts is limited and therefore patch testing with fresh/dried plant material may be a necessary supplement in diagnosing plant allergy.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>To evaluate the usefulness of patch testing with plants “as is” compared to patch testing with commercial and in-house produced plant test materials and to report on species eliciting positive patch test reactions.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Patients/Materials/Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Consecutive eczema patients, who were patch tested between January 2019 and December 2023 and who had at least one positive reaction to a plant allergen and/or extract and/or plant “as is” were included in the study.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>A total 57 out of 1893 patients tested (3%) were sensitised to plants. Compositae plants were the most frequent sensitizers, followed by tomato, tulipalin A, falcarinol, and <i>Philodendron</i> plants. In 12 patients (21%), the diagnosis was based on patch testing with fresh plants only. Occupational sensitization occurred in 32%. Other sensitizers included <i>Hydrangea</i>, <i>Pelargonium zonale</i>, and <i>Monstera</i>.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>A large minority of plant-sensitised patients would have been undiagnosed without patch testing with plants “as is.” Most of the culprit plants were known sensitizers, but not commercially available, and these and new species taken into cultivation makes patch testing with fresh plants unavoidable and worthwhile.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10527,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contact Dermatitis\",\"volume\":\"91 6\",\"pages\":\"459-464\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contact Dermatitis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cod.14680\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ALLERGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contact Dermatitis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cod.14680","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The value of patch testing with plants “as is” in diagnosing plant sensitization
Background
The number of commercially available plant allergens/extracts is limited and therefore patch testing with fresh/dried plant material may be a necessary supplement in diagnosing plant allergy.
Objectives
To evaluate the usefulness of patch testing with plants “as is” compared to patch testing with commercial and in-house produced plant test materials and to report on species eliciting positive patch test reactions.
Patients/Materials/Methods
Consecutive eczema patients, who were patch tested between January 2019 and December 2023 and who had at least one positive reaction to a plant allergen and/or extract and/or plant “as is” were included in the study.
Results
A total 57 out of 1893 patients tested (3%) were sensitised to plants. Compositae plants were the most frequent sensitizers, followed by tomato, tulipalin A, falcarinol, and Philodendron plants. In 12 patients (21%), the diagnosis was based on patch testing with fresh plants only. Occupational sensitization occurred in 32%. Other sensitizers included Hydrangea, Pelargonium zonale, and Monstera.
Conclusions
A large minority of plant-sensitised patients would have been undiagnosed without patch testing with plants “as is.” Most of the culprit plants were known sensitizers, but not commercially available, and these and new species taken into cultivation makes patch testing with fresh plants unavoidable and worthwhile.
期刊介绍:
Contact Dermatitis is designed primarily as a journal for clinicians who are interested in various aspects of environmental dermatitis. This includes both allergic and irritant (toxic) types of contact dermatitis, occupational (industrial) dermatitis and consumers" dermatitis from such products as cosmetics and toiletries. The journal aims at promoting and maintaining communication among dermatologists, industrial physicians, allergists and clinical immunologists, as well as chemists and research workers involved in industry and the production of consumer goods. Papers are invited on clinical observations, diagnosis and methods of investigation of patients, therapeutic measures, organisation and legislation relating to the control of occupational and consumers".