Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2014 Feb;46(1):31-7.
doi: 10.3109/07853890.2013.861158. Epub 2013 Nov 21.

Nickel oral hyposensitization in patients with systemic nickel allergy syndrome

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Nickel oral hyposensitization in patients with systemic nickel allergy syndrome

Mario Di Gioacchino et al. Ann Med. 2014 Feb.

Abstract

Background: This is the first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (EUDRACT No. 2009-013923-43) evaluating nickel oral hyposensitizing treatment (NiOHT) in patients with "systemic nickel allergy syndrome" (SNAS), characterized by Ni-allergic contact dermatitis and systemic reactions after eating Ni-rich food.

Methods: Adults with positive Ni-patch test, who reported symptoms suggesting SNAS, which improved after Ni-poor diet, and were positive to Ni-oral challenge were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to three treatments (1.5 μg, 0.3 μg, or 30 ng Ni/week) or placebo for a year, with progressive reintroduction of Ni-rich foods form the 5(th) month. Out of 141 patients randomized, 113 completed the trial. Endpoints were efficacy and tolerability of treatment.

Results: During Ni-rich food re-introduction, the 1.5 μg Ni/week group had a mean VAS score significantly higher than placebo (p = 0.044), with significant improvement of gastrointestinal symptoms (p = 0.016;) and significantly fewer rescue medications. Cutaneous manifestations also improved but without reaching statistical significance. After the treatment, oral challenge with higher Ni doses than at baseline were needed to cause symptoms to flare-up in significantly more patients given 1.5 μg Ni/week than placebo (p = 0.05). Patients reported no side-effects.

Conclusions: NiOHT is effective in SNAS, in particular on gastrointestinal manifestations, with trend toward improvement of cutaneous symptoms.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Enrolment, randomization and follow-up of the study.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Percent changes of VAS from baseline during the study. (A) No significant differences were found at T1, T2 and T3 visits, whereas at T4, when Ni-rich foods were re-introduced, the mean VAS score of group 1 (receiving the highest Ni dose) was significantly higher than the placebo group *p < 0.048, t-test. (B) Combining group 3 and group 4 raised this significance (groups 3 and 4 had similar results and group 3 dose can be considered a placebo).*p < 0.038, t-test.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Percent of patients (respect to those included in the intention to treat analysis) with higher or lower/equal NOC doses at the end of the study respect to T1. The nickel oral challenge (NOC) was compared on the basis of the nickel dose required to induce flare-up of SNAS symptoms. After the treatment, oral challenge with higher Ni doses than at baseline were needed to cause symptoms to flare-up in significantly more patients given 1.5 μg Ni/week than placebo: Risk difference (95% CI): 27.6 (0.8 to 49.3); p = 0.05. Comparing Group 1 to Group 3 + 4 the significance increased: Risk difference (95% CI):38.1 (14.5 to 55.7); p = 0.002.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Positive and negative patch tests in the four groups at the end of the study; as per inclusion criteria, all patients were patch test-positive at baseline. Values are expressed as percentage of patients evaluated in the intention to treat analysis. There were significantly more patch test-negatives in group 1 (Risk difference (95% CI): 32.9 (9.0 to 54.8); p = 0.008). Pos: positive patch test; Neg: negative patch tests; ND: not done.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Thyssen JP, Linneberg A, Menné T, Johansen JD. The epidemiology of contact allergy in the general population – prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;57:287–99. - PubMed
    1. Jacob SE, Moennich JN, McKean BA. Nickel allergy in the United States: A public health issue in need of a “nickel directive”. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009;60:1067–9. - PubMed
    1. Schafer T, Bohler E, Ruhdorfer S, Weigl L, Wessner D, Ilipiak B. Epidemiology of contact allergy in adults. Allergy. 2001;56:1192–6. - PubMed
    1. Jensen CS, Menné T, Johansen JD. Systemic contact dermatitis after oral exposure to nickel: a review with a modified meta-analysis. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;54:79–86. - PubMed
    1. Braga M, Quecchia C, Perotta C, Timpini A, Maccarinelli K, Di Tommaso L. Systemic nickel allergy syndrome: nosologic framework and diet regimen. Int J Immunopthol Pharmacol. 2013;26:707–16. - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data