Patch Testing during Immunosuppressive Therapy: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Patch testing, used in the assessment of allergic contact dermatitis, is ideally avoided in patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy because of concerns with reductions in accuracy; however, this is not well characterized in the literature. This systematic review summarizes patch testing results in patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy. We identified 16 studies, comprising 195 patients with dermatitis or psoriasis, who were patch tested while receiving immunosuppressants. Of these, 7 studies, comprising 85 patients with dermatitis, patch tests were performed before and during immunosuppression. Overall, 67.9% (n = 19) of the dermatitis patients receiving dupilumab maintained positive reactions to an allergen that previously graded as a 2+/3+ reaction. Several immunosuppressants were also associated with positive patch test results for various allergens. These include dupilumab, cyclosporine, and low-dose prednisone (≤10 mg/d) for dermatitis, and tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, ustekinumab, and methotrexate for psoriasis. Ideally, it is preferable to patch test when patients are not receiving oral immunosuppressants or immunomodulators. However, clinicians may choose to assess the risks and benefits of patch testing for each patient given the impact of allergic contact dermatitis on patient quality of life.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".