Tert-butylhydroquinone and tert-butylcatechol positivity as warning lights of skin sensitization to tert-butylphenol derivatives in adhesives and diabetes devices.

INTRODUCTION: Tert-butylphenol (TBP) derivatives, antioxidants in adhesives and diabetes devices, may provoke allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to report sensitization to TBP derivatives in medical devices and to highlight that tert-butylhydroquinone (BHQ) and tert-butylcatechol (TBC) are potential screeners in this regard. METHODS: Fifteen patients with ACD from adhesives and diabetes devices were patch tested to different TBPs: BHQ 1% pet., TBC 0.25% pet., BHA 2% pet., BHT 2% pet., 4-tert-butylphenol (TBP) 1% pet. and 2,4-di-tert-butylphenol (di TBP) 1% pet. The culprit devices (medical adhesives, sanitary pads, diabetes devices) and TBP patch preparations were analysed using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). RESULTS: BHQ (9/13), TBC (7/13), and to a lesser extent BHT (3/15), BHA (2/15) and TBP (2/13) gave positive reactions. Seven patients had developed ACD from adhesives and diabetes devices, respectively, and one patient from sanitary pads. GC-MS analyses of the medical devices and patch test materials confirmed the presence of the patch-test positive TBPs, or chemically related derivatives, or, interestingly, tert-butylbenzoquinones (BBQ) were found, that is, spontaneously formed, highly reactive TBP metabolites, likely (pseudo-) cross reacting with the patch tested TBPs. CONCLUSION: TBPs might be overlooked sensitizers in medical devices, and BHQ and TBC are potential screeners in this regard.

It is not always chlorhexidine: Identification of benzoxonium chloride and lauramine oxide as culprit allergens in a popular antiseptic in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: A popular antiseptic spray in Switzerland (Merfen spray), containing chlorhexidine digluconate, benzoxonium chloride and lauramine oxide, is frequently used to treat skin wounds. However, it is also increasingly reported as a major cause of adverse skin reactions, including allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). OBJECTIVES: To investigate the contact allergens responsible for ACD from this antiseptic. PATIENTS/METHODS: Patch tests were performed on seven patients with a clinical history compatible with contact dermatitis from this antiseptic mixture. RESULTS: All patients presented with acute eczematous reactions following contact with either Merfen spray alone, or with multiple products including this spray. Patients showed positive reactions to this product in both patch tests and repeated open application tests (ROATs). Four patients showed dose-dependent reactions to both benzoxonium chloride and lauramine oxide. One patient showed a dose-dependent reaction to the former and a non-dose-dependent reaction to the latter. Finally, two subjects showed responses only to lauramine oxide. One patient reacted to chlorhexidine digluconate 0.5% aq. in addition to both other allergens. CONCLUSIONS: Two commercially unavailable allergens, that is, benzoxonium chloride and/or lauramine oxide were identified as major causes of ACD from Merfen antiseptic spray, whereas chlorhexidine digluconate was a contributing culprit in only one patient.

Isocyanates may contribute to allergic contact dermatitis from diabetes devices and wound dressings.

BACKGROUND: Isocyanates are well-known occupational allergens, but can also be present in medical devices. OBJECTIVES: To highlight that contact sensitization to isocyanates might contribute to allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from polyurethane (PU)-containing diabetes devices and wound dressings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nineteen patients with suspected ACD from diabetes devices and/or wound dressings were patch tested to an isocyanate series. Four wound dressings, six diabetes devices and four monomeric isocyanate patch test preparations were analysed with gas chromatography - mass spectrometry. RESULTS: Eight patients reacted to isocyanates and corresponding amines: 3 to isophorone diisocyanate (IPDI), 4 to 4,4'-diaminodiphenylmethane (MDA), 4 to 2,4-toluene diisocyanate (TDI) and 1 to polymeric methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (PMDI). Three of four wound dressings contained isocyanates (methylene diphenyl diisocyanate [MDI], TDI and/or IPDI), whereas five of six diabetes devices contained 4,4'-MDI, and one of them also IPDI. None of the medical devices contained 1,6-hexamethylene diisocyanate. Contrary to IPDI, and especially MDI, only the concentration of the TDI patch test preparation corresponded approximately (80%) to its label. CONCLUSION: Patch tests with isocyanates may be worth-while in patients with suspected ACD from PU-containing medical devices. Besides MDA, and PMDI, also TDI might potentially be a marker for MDI-sensitization.