4.5 Article

Temporal changes in chromium allergy in Denmark between 2002 and 2017

Journal

CONTACT DERMATITIS
Volume 80, Issue 3, Pages 156-161

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cod.13181

Keywords

chromium; contact allergy; hexavalent; leather; prevalence; regulation; trend

Funding

  1. Lundbeck Foundation
  2. National Board of Health's pool

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: In 2012, Danish authorities submitted a proposal to the European Chemical Agency restricting the content of hexavalent chromium to a maximum of 3 ppm in leather goods. Following its adoption, this proposal was implemented in 2015 as a directive in the EU. Objectives: To examine the temporal trend of chromium contact allergy in adult dermatitis patients patch tested between 2002 and 2017, and to determine clinical characteristics and causative exposures in these patients. Methods: All adult dermatitis patients patch tested between 2002 and 2017 were included. Patch test data were reviewed retrospectively. Comparisons were performed with the chi(2) test and logistic regression analysis. Results: A total of 13 379 adults aged 18 to 99 years were patch tested between 2002 and 2017. The overall prevalence of chromium allergy was 2.2%. An overall decreasing trend was found for the prevalence of chromium allergy (P-trend = 0.00002). Specifically, a significant difference was found for the study periods 2010 to 2013 (P-trend = 0.002) and 2014 to 2017 (P-trend < 0.0001) as compared with 2002 to 2005. Leather remained the most important single cause of allergic contact dermatitis caused by chromium. The proportion of clinically relevant leather exposures increased from 42.3% during 2002 to 2009 to 54.8% during 2010 to 2017 (P = 0.04). Conclusions: The prevalence of chromium allergy is decreasing. The EU Directive restricting the use of hexavalent chromium in leather goods is thought to be playing a central role in this change.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available