Background: The European baseline series (EBS) of contact allergens is subject to change. An allergen is considered for inclusion when routine patch testing of patients with suspected contact dermatitis results in ≥0.5% prevalence rate.Objectives: We aimed to determine the frequency of sensitizations to 30 EBS allergens and 10 locally added allergens. Additionally, we assessed the strength and evolution of reactions to all tested allergens and co‐reactivity of additional allergens.Methods: Patch testing with our baseline series of 40 allergens was done in 748 consecutive adults. Tests were applied to the upper back and removed by patients after 48 h. Readings were done on Day 3 (D3) and D6 or D7 (D6/7). Positive reactions fulfilled the criteria of at least one plus (+) reaction. A retrospective analysis was done.Results: Eight allergens not listed in the EBS had ≥0.5% prevalence rate (i.e., cocamidopropyl betaine, thiomersal, disperse blue mix 106/124, 2‐bromo‐2‐nitropropane‐1,3‐diol, diazolidinyl urea, propylene glycol, Compositae mix II and dexamethasone‐21‐phosphate), and 16.6% of positive reactions would have been missed without D6/7 readings.Conclusion: We propose further studies to evaluate whether cocamidopropyl betaine, disperse blue mix 106/124, 2‐bromo‐2‐nitropropane‐1,3‐diol, diazolidinyl urea and Compositae mix II need to be added to the EBS.

Upon first exposure to cetuximab, hypersensitivity reactions can occur. We aimed to assess the utility of the basophil activation test (BAT) to alpha-gal and cetuximab for predicting severe reactions. We prospectively recruited 38 patients and evaluated sIgE to alpha-gal in all patients before the first application of cetuximab. In all alpha-gal-sensitized patients, we evaluated skin tests to meat extracts, gelatine, and cetuximab and performed BAT with alpha-gal and cetuximab. In 24% (9/38) of patients, sIgE to alpha-gal was >0.10 kUA/L, and 8/9 reacted to the cetuximab. Basophil activation tests with alpha-gal were positive in all sensitized patients and were higher in those with severe reactions (18.3% in grade 4 [n = 4] vs. 1.8% in grade 2 [n = 3] or no reaction [n = 1] at 3.3 ng/mL of alpha-gal; p = 0.03). All patients with severe grade 4 reactions had a positive CD63 BAT response to cetuximab compared to patients with moderate or no reaction, who all had negative BAT (57.7% vs. 0.9% at 500 µg/mL, 63.2% vs. 4.1% at 100 µg/mL, 58.2% vs. 2.7% at 10 µg/mL, and 32.1% vs. 3.3% at 1 µg/mL of cetuximab, respectively; p ≤ 0.001). In summary, before initiating cetuximab treatment, sIgE to alpha-gal should be assessed in all patients. To predict the severity of the reaction and to assess the risk of cetuximab-induced anaphylaxis, we should perform BATs with alpha-gal or more discriminative BATs with cetuximab.