Patch test informed consent form: position statement by European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Force on Contact Dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, an international consensus is lacking regarding the development of an adequate informed consent form for a patch test (PT) and the information that should be included in such document. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to reach a consensus on the specific points that need to be addressed in a PT consent form. METHODS: A Delphi survey, comprising 2 rounds and 1 final discussion, was used to gather and analyse data, which was conducted over the Internet. Each statement that reached a consensus with the respondents (9 expert dermatologists from Europe) was defined as a median consensus score (MED) of ≥7 and agreement among panelists as an interquartile range (IQR) of ≤3. All study participants were members of the EADV task force on contact dermatitis. RESULTS: The expert panel addressed several topics that should be included in an informed consent form for a PT: introduction, preparation for PT, testing procedure, allowed activities, adverse events and additional authorizations. CONCLUSIONS: Our results assess recommendations regarding points to be contained in an informed consent form for a PR. Future actions towards standardization and harmonization of this specific consent form are needed.

Position statement: The need for EU legislation to require disclosure and labelling of the composition of medical devices.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, skin reactions secondary to the use of medical devices (MD), such as allergic contact dermatitis have increasingly been observed (e.g. to continuous blood sugar monitoring systems, insulin pumps, wound dressings, medical gloves, etc.): this is regarded as a developing epidemic. Lack of labelling of the composition of MD, as well as frequent lack of cooperation of manufacturers to disclose this relevant information, even when contacted by the clinician for the individual case of an established adverse reaction, significantly impede patient care. OBJECTIVES: To advocate for full ingredient labelling in the implementation of EU regulation for MD. METHODS: This position paper reviews the scientific literature, the current regulatory framework adopted for MD to date, and the likely impact, including some costs data in case of the absence of such labelling. RESULTS: Efforts made by several scientific teams, who are trying to identify the culprit of such adverse effects, either via asking for cooperation from companies, or using costly chemical analyses of MD, can only partly, and with considerable delay, compensate for the absence of meaningful information on the composition of MD; hence, patient management is compromised. Indeed, without knowing the chemical substances present, physicians are unable to inform patients about which substances they should avoid, and which alternative MD may be suitable/tolerated. CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need for full and accurate labelling of the chemical composition of MD in contact with the human body.

Exposure of eyes to perfume: a double-blind, placebo-controlled experiment.

Environmental perfume exposure can elicit bothersome respiratory symptoms. Symptoms are induced at exposure levels which most people find tolerable, and the mechanisms are unclear. The aim of the study was to investigate patients with eye and respiratory symptoms related to environmental perfume, by exposing the eyes to perfume in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.Twenty-one eczema patients with respiratory symptoms elicited by perfume were compared with 21 healthy volunteers in a sex- and age-matched case-control study. The participants completed a symptom questionnaire, and underwent a double-blind, placebo-controlled exposure to perfume. Of the 42 individuals tested, 10 had more eye symptoms (irritation, itching, and tears) during perfume exposure than during placebo exposures, and eight of these individuals (P = 0.07, Fisher's exact test) belonged to the patient group. A true positive eye reaction to perfume was significantly associated with identification of perfume as an active exposure (P < 0.05). In this study, vapor of perfume elicited irritation in the eyes independently of olfaction, but the relative importance of ocular chemoperception in relation to elicitation of respiratory symptoms from common environmental exposures to perfume remains unclear. We investigated the hypothesis of an association between respiratory symptoms related to perfume and ocular perfume sensitivity by exposing the eyes to perfume in a double blind, placebo-controlled experiment. Vapors of perfume provoked symptoms in the relevant eye in some patients and healthy control persons, but under our exposure conditions, ocular chemesthesis failed to elicit respiratory symptoms.