Meta-analysis of ACE inhibitor-induced angioedema identifies novel risk locus.

BACKGROUND: Angioedema is a rare but potentially life-threatening adverse drug reaction in patients receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis). Research suggests that susceptibility to ACEi-induced angioedema (ACEi-AE) involves both genetic and nongenetic risk factors. Genome- and exome-wide studies of ACEi-AE have identified the first genetic risk loci. However, understanding of the underlying pathophysiology remains limited. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify further genetic factors of ACEi-AE to eventually gain a deeper understanding of its pathophysiology. METHODS: By combining data from 8 cohorts, a genome-wide association study meta-analysis was performed in more than 1000 European patients with ACEi-AE. Secondary bioinformatic analyses were conducted to fine-map associated loci, identify relevant genes and pathways, and assess the genetic overlap between ACEi-AE and other traits. Finally, an exploratory cross-ancestry analysis was performed to assess shared genetic factors in European and African-American patients with ACEi-AE. RESULTS: Three genome-wide significant risk loci were identified. One of these, located on chromosome 20q11.22, has not been implicated previously in ACEi-AE. Integrative secondary analyses highlighted previously reported genes (BDKRB2 [bradykinin receptor B2] and F5 [coagulation factor 5]) as well as biologically plausible novel candidate genes (PROCR [protein C receptor] and EDEM2 [endoplasmic reticulum degradation enhancing alpha-mannosidase like protein 2]). Lead variants at the risk loci were found with similar effect sizes and directions in an African-American cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The present results contributed to a deeper understanding of the pathophysiology of ACEi-AE by (1) providing further evidence for the involvement of bradykinin signaling and coagulation pathways and (2) suggesting, for the first time, the involvement of the fibrinolysis pathway in this adverse drug reaction. An exploratory cross-ancestry comparison implicated the relevance of the associated risk loci across diverse ancestries.

Severely compromised supply of patch test allergens in Europe hampers adequate diagnosis of occupational and non-occupational contact allergy. A European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD), European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) task forces 'Contact Dermatitis' and 'Occupational Skin Disease' position paper.

Patch testing is the only clinically applicable diagnostic method for Type IV allergy. The availability of Type IV patch test (PT) allergens in Europe, however, is currently scarce. This severely compromises adequate diagnostics of contact allergy, leading to serious consequences for the affected patients. Against this background, the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD) has created a task force (TF) (i) to explore the current availability of PT substances in different member states, (ii) to highlight some of the unique characteristics of Type IV vs. other allergens and (iii) to suggest ways forward to promote and ensure availability of high-quality patch testing substances for the diagnosis of Type IV allergies throughout Europe. The suggestions of the TF on how to improve the availability of PT allergens are supported by the ESCD, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, and the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology and intend to provide potential means to resolve the present medical crisis.

Different phenotypes of drug-induced anaphylaxis-Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry.

BACKGROUND: Drugs are a frequent cause of severe anaphylactic reactions. Here, we analyze a large dataset on drug induced anaphylaxis regarding elicitors, risk factors, symptoms, and treatment. METHODS: Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry (2007-2019) with 1815 reported cases of drug-induced anaphylaxis were studied accordingly. RESULTS: Drugs are the third most frequent cause of anaphylaxis reported in the Anaphylaxis Registry. Among the eliciting groups of drugs analgesics and antibiotics were far most often reported. Female and senior patients were more frequently affected, while the number of children with DIA was low. DIA patients had symptoms affecting the skin and mucous membranes (n = 1525, 84.02%), the respiratory (n = 1300, 71.63%), the cardiovascular (n = 1251, 68.93%) and the gastrointestinal system (n = 549, 30.25%). Drugs caused significant more severe reactions, occurred more often in medical facilities and led to increased hospitalization rates in comparison to food and insect venom induced anaphylaxis. Adrenaline was used more often in patients with DIA than in anaphylaxis due to other causes. Patients with skin symptoms received more antihistamines and corticosteroids in the acute treatment, while gastrointestinal symptoms led to less adrenaline use. CONCLUSION: The study contributes to a better understanding of DIA, with a large number of cases from Europe supporting previous data, e.g., analgesics and antibiotics being the most frequent culprits for DIA. Female gender and higher age are relevant risk factors and despite clear recommendations, the emergency treatment of DIA is not administered according to the guidelines.

Patch testing hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool in consecutive patients-Results of the IVDK 2018-2020.

BACKGROUND: Hydroperoxides of limonene (Lim-OOHs) and linalool (Lin-OOHs) are potent contact sensitizers. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of positive patch test (PT) reactions to Lim-OOHs and Lin-OOHs in consecutive patients, their demographic factors and concomitant reactions. METHODS: Between 7/2018 and 12/2020, Lim-OOHs 0.3% pet. and Lin-OOHs 1% pet. were patch tested in 5511 consecutive patients. We assessed PT reactivity and analysed data from patients with either positive or negative PTs to Lim-OOHs and Lin-OOHs. RESULTS: Positive PT results to Lim-OOHs (n = 170, 3.1%) and Lin-OOHs (n = 483, 8.8%) were frequent. Most of the positive reactions were weak (LimOOHs n = 134/LinOOHs n = 429), and even more frequently, doubtful (n = 252/n = 578) or irritant reactions (n = 81/n = 178) were documented. PT reactivity to Lim-OOHs and Lin-OOHs was increased in patients with irritant reactions to sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS). The proportion of leg dermatitis and concomitant positive reactions to fragrances and essential oils was increased in patients with reactivity to these hydroperoxides. CONCLUSION: The observed reaction pattern suggests that both test preparations display an irritant potential with an increased risk of false positive reactions. Preparations should be chemically monitored in order to reduce irritancy. Mindful interpretation of PT results and aimed patch testing of lower concentrations is recommended.

The European baseline series and recommended additions: 2023.

The European baseline series was last updated in 2019. This article discusses the reasoning behind a further iteration of the series for 2023.

Occupational contact allergy: The European perspective-Analysis of patch test data from ESSCA between 2011 and 2020.

BACKGROUND: Occupational skin diseases have led the occupational disease statistics in Europe for many years. Especially occupational allergic contact dermatitis is associated with a poor prognosis and low healing rates leading to an enormous burden for the affected individual and for society. OBJECTIVES: To present the sensitization frequencies to the most relevant allergens of the European baseline series in patients with occupational contact dermatitis (OCD) and to compare sensitization profiles of different occupations. METHODS: The data of 16 022 patients considered having OCD after patch testing within the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA) network between January 2011 and December 2020 were evaluated. Patients (n = 46 652) in whom an occupational causation was refuted served as comparison group. RESULTS: The highest percentages of OCD were found among patients working in agriculture, fishery and related workers, metal industry, chemical industry, followed by building and construction industry, health care, food and service industry. Sensitizations to rubber chemicals (thiurams, carbamates, benzothiazoles) and epoxy resins were associated with at least a doubled risk of OCD. After a decline from 2014 onwards, the risks to acquire an occupation-related sensitization to methyl(chloro)isothiazolinone (MCI/MI) and especially to methylisothiazolinone (MI) seem to increase again. Sensitization rates to formaldehyde were stable, and to methyldibromo glutaronitrile (MDBGN) slightly decreasing over time. CONCLUSIONS: Among allergens in the European Baseline Series, occupational relevance is most frequently attributed to rubber accelerators, epoxy resins and preservatives.

S2k guideline diagnosis, prevention, and therapy of hand eczema.

The consensus-based guideline "Diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of hand eczema (HE)" provides concrete instructions and recommendations for diagnosis, prevention, and therapy of HE based on an evidence- and consensus-based approach. The guideline was created based on the German guideline "Management von Handekzemen" from 2009 and the current guideline of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD) "Guidelines for diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of hand eczema" from 2022. The general goal of the guideline is to provide dermatologists and allergologists in practice and clinics with an accepted, evidence-based decision-making tool for selecting and conducting suitable and sufficient therapy for patients with hand eczema. The guideline is based on two Cochrane reviews of therapeutic and preventive interventions for HE. The remaining chapters were mainly developed and consented based on non-systematic literature research by the expert group. The expert group consisted of members of allergological and occupational dermatological professional associations and working groups, a patient representative, and methodologists. The proposals for recommendations and key statements were consented by using a nominal group process during a consensus conference on September 15, 2022. The structured consensus-building process was professionally moderated. This guideline is valid until February 22, 2028.

The benefit of late readings in patch testing depends both on allergen and patient characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Patch test (PT) readings are recommended after 48 h and 72 h (D3). An additional day 7 (D7) reading has been suggested by some, although data on efficient patient selection are scarce. We investigated positive D7 reactions regarding (i) allergens in the baseline series and additional PT series of the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG) and (ii) characteristics of the patients tested. METHODS: Retrospective, multicentre analysis of 190 allergens derived from 17 DKG test series in 4687 patients with an additional D7 reading. Patients were patch tested with the baseline series and additional series, if required. Occurrence of novel D7 reactions as well as increasing skin reactions from D3 to D7 was analysed separately. RESULTS: Depending on the allergen tested, waiving D7 readings would have missed 4.4-26.8% of positive PT results. Patch test series with the highest number of novel D7 reactions were baseline series, metal series, and leather/shoe series. New positive reactions on D7 were associated with age over 50 years and with a negative irritant control containing sodium lauryl sulphate. Of note, application of the PT allergens for 48 h instead of 24 h was positively associated with late PT reactions. CONCLUSION: Within the most frequently tested allergens, without late readings, on average 11.7% of sensitizations would have been missed. Novel late reacting allergens were identified. This study comprehensively dissects patient-, allergen- and test-dependent parameters in support for D7 readings. We propose to always consider late readings individually based on effort-benefit considerations.

Management of suspected and confirmed COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Systemic allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare. In this study we assessed the management and outcome of suspected SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hypersensitivity. METHODS: Totally, 334 individuals underwent an allergy work up regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (group A: 115 individuals suspected to be at increased risk for vaccine-related reactions before vaccination and group B: 219 patients with reactions after COVID vaccination). The large majority of the SPT/IDT with the vaccines were negative; however, we identified in 14.1% (n = 47) a possible sensitization to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and/or its ingredients defined as one positive skin test. Of the 219 individuals (group B) who experienced symptoms suspicious for a hypersensitivity reaction after vaccination, 214 were reported after the first vaccination with a mRNA vaccine (157 mRNA (Comirnaty®, 38 Spikevax®) and 18 with a vector vaccine (Vaxzevria®), 5 cases were after the second vaccination. RESULTS: The symptom profile in group B was as follows: skin symptoms occurred in 115 cases (n = 59 angioedema, n = 50 generalized urticaria and n = 23 erythema/flush. Seventy individuals had cardiovascular, 53 respiratory and 17 gastrointestinal symptoms. Of the overall 334 individuals, 78 patients tolerated (re)-vaccination (out of skin test positive/negative 7/19 from group A and 17/35 from group B). CONCLUSION: Proven IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is extremely rare and not increased in comparison with reported hypersensitivity to other vaccines. The value of skin tests is unclear and nonspecific reactions, in particular when intradermal testing is applied, should be considered.

European patch test results with audit allergens as candidates for inclusion in the European Baseline Series, 2019/20: Joint results of the ESSCAA and the EBSB working groups of the ESCD, and the GEIDACC.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, a number of allergens (haptens), henceforth, "the audit allergens," were considered as potential additions to the European Baseline Series (EBS), namely, sodium metabisulfite, 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol, diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, Compositae mix II (2.5% or 5% pet), linalool hydroperoxides (lin-OOH), limonene hydroperoxides (lim-OOH), benzisothiazolinone (BIT), octylisothiazolinone (OIT), decyl glucoside, and lauryl glucoside; Evernia furfuracea (tree moss), was additionally tested by some departments as well. OBJECTIVES: To collect further data on patch test reactivity and clinical relevance of the audit allergens in consecutive patients across Europe. METHODS: Patch test data covering the audit allergens in 2019 and 2020 were collected by those departments of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies testing these, as well as further collaborators from the EBS working group of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD), and the Spanish Grupo Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea. As patch test outcome, reactions between day (D) 3 and D5 were considered. RESULTS: Altogether n = 12 403 patients were tested with any of the audit allergen. Positive reactions were most common to lin-OOH 1% pet. (8.74% [95%CI: 8.14-9.37%]), followed by lin-OOH 0.5% pet., and lim-OOH 0.3% pet (5.41% [95% CI: 4.95-5.89%]). Beyond these terpene hydroperoxides, BIT 0.1% pet. was the second most common allergen with 4.72% (95% CI: 4.2-5.28%), followed by sodium metabisulfite 1% pet. (3.75% [95%CI: 3.32-4.23%]) and Compositae mix 5% pet. (2.31% [95% CI: 1.84-2.87%]). For some allergens, clinical relevance was frequently difficult to ascertain. CONCLUSIONS: Despite many positive patch test reactions, it remains controversial whether lin- and lim-OOH should be tested routinely, while at least the two preservatives BIT and sodium metabisulfite appear suitable. The present results are a basis for further discussion and ultimately decision on their implementation into routine testing among the ESCD members.

Patch test results with the European baseline series, 2019/20-Joint European results of the ESSCA and the EBS working groups of the ESCD, and the GEIDAC.

BACKGROUND: Continual analyses of patch test results with the European baseline series (EBS) serve both contact allergy surveillance and auditing the value of included allergens. OBJECTIVES: To present results of current EBS patch testing, obtained in 53 departments in 13 European countries during 2019 and 2020. METHODS: Anonymised or pseudonymised individual data and partly aggregated data on demographic/clinical characteristics and patch test rest results with the EBS were prospectively collected and centrally pooled and analysed. RESULTS: In 2019 and 2020, 22 581 patients were patch tested with the EBS. Sensitization to nickel remained most common (19.8 [19.2-20.4]% positivity [95% confidence interval]). Fragrance mix I and Myroxylon pereirae yielded very similar results with 6.80 (6.43-7.19)% and 6.62 (6.25-7.00)% positivity, respectively. Formaldehyde at 2% aq. yielded almost one percentage point more positive reactions than 1% concentration (2.49 [2.16-2.85]% vs. 1.59 [1.33-1.88]); methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) and MI alone up to around 5% positives. Among the new additions, propolis was most commonly positive (3.48 [3.16-3.82]%), followed by 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2.32 [2.0-2.68]%). CONCLUSION: Ongoing surveillance on the prevalence of contact sensitization contributes to an up-to-date baseline series containing the most frequent and/or relevant contact sensitizers for routine patch testing in Europe.

German S1 guideline: Contact dermatitis.

Contact dermatitis is an inflammation of the epidermis and dermis at the site of exposure triggered by external agents. The two main forms are irritant and allergic contact dermatitis, which cause significant health and socioeconomic costs in addition to a marked reduction in quality of life. The anamnesis and the clinical picture are decisive for the necessary diagnostic measures. The most accurate possible diagnostic classification of contact dermatitis by means of allergological testing is important for disease management, since not only classical eczema therapy but also avoidance of the exogenous triggering factors are of great importance here. The choice of therapy should be based on the acuity, clinical severity, morphology of the lesions and localization of the contact dermatitis. A combination of basic therapy, topical, physical, and systemic therapy adapted to the patient's needs is required, whereby not all forms of therapy must be carried out simultaneously but can be used in a varying manner. Primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention strategies aim at the recognition of the triggering noxae or allergens with subsequent contact avoidance or minimization. The present S1-guideline on contact dermatitis is primarily intended to provide dermatologists, allergologists and physicians working in allergology and occupational dermatology with a decision-making aid for the selection and implementation of suitable and sufficient diagnostics, therapy, and prevention.

The European baseline series: Criteria for allergen inclusion (with reference to formaldehyde releasers).

Existing criteria for inclusion in the European baseline series are summarized. Additional criteria are developed to aid decision making where the current criteria do not yield an unequivocal result. These include a consideration of whether an allergen (hapten) is better placed in a special series and the frequency with which an allergen cross-reacts with existing markers in the baseline series.

Developing a cosmetic series: Results from the ESSCA network, 2009-2018.

BACKGROUND: There is considerable variability across European patch test centres as to which allergens are included in local and national cosmetics series. OBJECTIVES: To propose a standardized, evidence-based cosmetic series for Europe based on up-to-date analysis of relevant contact allergens. METHODS: We collated data from the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA) from 2009 to 2018 to determine which cosmetic allergens produce a high yield of contact allergy. Contact allergens with a prevalence of >0.3% that were considered relevant were included. Rare contact allergens were excluded if deemed no longer relevant or added to a supplemental cosmetic series for further analysis. RESULTS: Sensitization prevalences of 39 cosmetic contact allergens were tabulated. Thirty of these allergens yielded >0.3% positive reactions and are therefore included in our proposed European cosmetic series. Six were considered no longer relevant and therefore excluded. Three were included in a supplementary European cosmetic series. An additional nine allergens were included in either the core or supplemental European cosmetic series following literature review. CONCLUSION: We have derived a potential European cosmetic series based upon the above methods. This will require ongoing investigation based upon the changing exposure profiles of cosmetic allergens as well as new and evolving substances.

Patch test results with the European baseline series and additions thereof in the ESSCA network, 2015-2018.

BACKGROUND: Clinical surveillance of the prevalence of contact allergy in consecutively patch tested patients is a proven instrument to continually assess the importance of contact allergens (haptens) assembled in a baseline series. OBJECTIVES: To present current results from the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies, including 13 countries represented by 1 to 11 departments. METHODS: Anonymized or pseudonymized patch test and clinical data from various data capture systems used locally or nationally as transferred to the Erlangen data centre were pooled and descriptively analysed after quality control. RESULTS: In the 4 years (2015-2018), data from 51 914 patients patch tested with the European baseline series (EBS) of contact allergens were analysed. Contact allergy to nickel was most frequent (17.6% positive), followed by contact allergy to fragrance mix I (6.9%), methylisothiazolinone (MI; 6.2%), and Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru; 5.8%). CONCLUSIONS: While the prevalence of MI contact allergy decreased substantially following regulatory intervention, the persistently high levels of allergy to metals, fragrances, other preservatives, and rubber chemicals point to problems needing further research and, potentially, preventive efforts. Results with national additions to the baseline series provide important information on substances possibly to be considered for inclusion in the EBS.

Formaldehyde 2% is not a useful means of detecting allergy to formaldehyde releasers- results of the ESSCA network, 2015-2018.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that patch testing with formaldehyde releasers (FRs) gives significant additional information to formaldehyde 1% aq. and should be considered for addition to the European baseline series (EBS). It is not known if this is also true for formaldehyde 2% aq. OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency of sensitization to formaldehyde 2% aq. and co-reactivity with FRs. To establish whether there is justification for including FRs in the EBS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 4-year, multi-center retrospective analysis of patients with positive patch test reactions to formaldehyde 2% aq. and five FRs. RESULTS: A maximum of 15 067 patients were tested to formaldehyde 2% aq. and at least one FR. The percentage of isolated reactions to FR, without co-reactivity to, formaldehyde 2% aq. for each FR were: 46.8% for quarternium-15 1% pet.; 67.4% imidazolidinyl urea 2% pet.; 64% diazolidinyl urea 2% pet.; 83.3% 1,3-dimethylol-5, 5-dimethyl hydantoin (DMDM) hydantoin 2% pet. and 96.3% 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol 0.5% pet. This demonstrates that co-reactivity varies between FRs and formaldehyde, from being virtually non-existent in 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol 0.5% pet. (Cohen's kappa: 0, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.02 to 0.02)], to only weak concordance for quaternium-15 [Cohen's kappa: 0.22, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.28)], where Cohen's kappa value of 1 would indicate full concordance. CONCLUSIONS: Formaldehyde 2% aq. is an inadequate screen for contact allergy to the formaldehyde releasers, which should be considered for inclusion in any series dependant on the frequency of reactions to and relevance of each individual allergen.

European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA): Characteristics of patients patch tested and diagnosed with irritant contact dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) is caused by the acute locally toxic effect of a strong irritant, or the cumulative exposure to various weaker physical and/or chemical irritants. OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics of patients with ICD in the population patch tested in the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA; www.essca-dc.org) database. METHODS: Data collected by the ESSCA in consecutively patch-tested patients from January 2009 to December 2018 were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 68 072 patients, 8702 were diagnosed with ICD (without concomitant allergic contact dermatitis [ACD]). Hand and face were the most reported anatomical sites, and 45.7% of the ICD was occupational ICD (OICD). The highest proportions of OICD were found in metal turners, bakers, pastry cooks, and confectionery makers. Among patients diagnosed with ICD, 45% were found sensitized with no relevance for the current disease. CONCLUSIONS: The hands were mainly involved in OICD also in the subgroup of patients with contact dermatitis, in whom relevant contact sensitization had been ruled out, emphasizing the need for limiting irritant exposures. However, in difficult-to-treat contact dermatitis, unrecognized contact allergy, or unrecognized clinical relevance of identified allergies owing to incomplete or wrong product ingredient information must always be considered.

Contact sensitization in metalworkers: Data from the information network of departments of dermatology (IVDK), 2010-2018.

BACKGROUND: Metalworkers are exposed to a variety of contact allergens by handling tools, metals, metalworking fluids (MWFs), oils and greases, rubber materials, and so on. Most large-scale reports on contact allergy due to MWFs are more than 10-years-old, and there are only few studies on contact allergy in mechanics and other metal workers not exposed to MWFs. OBJECTIVES: To describe a current spectrum of contact sensitization in metalworkers with occupational dermatitis (OD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patch test data collected by the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK; 2010-2018), stratifying for 804 cutting metalworkers, 2197 mechanics, and 355 other metalworkers. RESULTS: Cutting metalworkers were most frequently sensitized to monoethanolamine (12.6%), colophonium/abietic acid (11.4%) and formaldehyde releasers (up to 8.5%) from the MWF series, and formaldehyde (4.6%) and iodopropynyl butylcarbamate (4.6%) from the baseline series. Sensitization among mechanics and other metalworkers indicates possible occupational exposure to MWFs, glues, and resins, although this may not be expected from their job titles. CONCLUSIONS: The spectrum of MWF contact allergens remained largely unchanged during the last years. Taking a comprehensive occupational history is indispensable in order to not miss relevant allergen exposures.

S3 guidelines: Epicutaneous patch testing with contact allergens and drugs - Short version, Part 1.

Epicutaneous patch testing is the diagnostic standard for the detection of allergic contact dermatitis. The present guidelines are aimed at residents and board-certified physicians in the fields of dermatology and allergology as well as other medical specialties involved in establishing the indication for patch testing and its execution in patients with contact dermatitis and other forms of delayed-type hypersensitivity. The target audience also includes other health care providers and insurance funds. Based on a systematic literature search and a formal consensus process (S3), the guidelines were developed by dermatologists in collaboration with pediatricians, occupational medicine physicians, nursing staff as well as patient representatives. The systematic methodological approach and appraisal of evidence upon which the recommendations are based are outlined in a separate method report that also contains evidence tables. The guidelines address general aspects of patch testing as well as medicolegal issues. The recommendations given relate to topics such as the indication for patch testing, informed patient consent, as well as the choice of test substances, test chambers and test site, duration of exposure, reading times and interpretation of test reactions. Furthermore, recommendations are provided with respect to endogenous and exogenous factors, specific patient groups (children, pregnant women, immunosuppressed individuals) as well as possible risks and adverse events associated with patch testing using contact allergens. Note: This publication is part 1 of the short version of the S3 guidelines for "Epicutaneous patch testing using contact allergens and drugs" (registry no. 013 - 018; date: March 20, 2019; valid until December 31, 2021). Part 2 of the short version will be published in the next issue. The long version of these guidelines can be accessed at www.awmf.org. The method report is available as online publication (https://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/013-018.html) and contains the evidence tables in its appendix.

S3 Guidelines: Epicutaneous patch testing with contact allergens and drugs - Short version, Part 2.

Epicutaneous patch testing is the diagnostic standard for the detection of allergic contact dermatitis. The present guidelines are aimed at residents and board-certified physicians in the fields of dermatology and allergology as well as other medical specialties involved in establishing the indication for patch testing and its execution in patients with contact dermatitis and other forms of delayed-type hypersensitivity. The target audience also includes other health care providers and insurance funds. Based on a systematic literature search and a formal consensus process (S3), the guidelines were developed by dermatologists in collaboration with pediatricians, occupational medicine physicians, nursing staff as well as patient representatives. The systematic methodological approach and appraisal of evidence upon which the recommendations are based are outlined in a separate method report that also contains evidence tables. The guidelines address general aspects of patch testing as well as medicolegal issues. The recommendations given relate to topics such as the indication for patch testing, informed patient consent, as well as the choice of test substances, test chambers and test site, duration of exposure, reading times and interpretation of test reactions. Furthermore, recommendations are provided with respect to endogenous and exogenous factors, specific patient groups (children, pregnant women, immunosuppressed individuals) as well as possible risks and adverse events associated with patch testing using contact allergens.