Comparison of patch test positivity after 24 and 48 hours of occlusion time in patients of allergic contact dermatitis: A prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Patch test is the gold standard for diagnosing allergic contact dermatitis. Conventionally, the patches are applied for 48 h, which in tropical weather conditions causes excessive sweating, leading to irritation, and sometimes the patches come off, making the test inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: To compare the patch test positivity after 24 and 48 h of occlusion time in patients of allergic contact dermatitis, using standard allergen concentration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinically suspected patients of allergic contact dermatitis were enrolled and patch tested using the Indian Standard Series, parthenium acetone extracts (1:50, 1:100 and 1:200 dilutions) and patient material. Patches were applied in duplicate on either side of the back, using a random number table. One set of patches was removed after 24-h of occlusion, while the other set after 48-h. Readings were performed at 48- and 96-h by two independent dermatologists, blinded to the duration of occlusion. RESULTS: The study had 97 adult patients (58 males and 39 females; mean age: 48.12 ± 13.07 years). A total of 133 and 142 positive reactions were observed after 48 h occlusion at 48 and 96 h reading, respectively. Of these 117 (87.9%) and 132 (92.9%) patches were positive and concordant and noted at 24 h occlusion time. The Cohen's kappa coefficient were 0.94 for 48 h and 0.97 for 96 h reading, hence showing an almost complete agreement (ⱪ > 0.81) between patches occluded for 24 and 48 h. CONCLUSION: Though there is no significant difference in patch test positivity among ISS allergens after either occlusion time, 48 h occlusion performs significantly better compared with 24 h, when reactions of all allergens (ISS, patient material and parthenium acetone extract) are analysed together.

The shadow pandemic: rising syphilis rates in the wake of coronavirus (COVID-19).

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) aftermath left an alarming surge in syphilis cases, contradicting the previously stable trajectory of the infection. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also reported a 38% increase in primary and secondary syphilis in 2021 compared to 2019 in the United States, prompting a retrospective analysis at our tertiary care centre in New Delhi, India. There was a persistent linear rise, surpassing pre-COVID levels. Male clinic attendees, exhibit a pronounced increase, likely due to the influence of MSM. Online sexual activity during lockdowns and redirected healthcare resources have possibly contributed to this trend. Urgent measures include strengthened surveillance data collection and public health response, awareness promotion, and early, free treatment. The syphilis surge may signify a broader, undiagnosed STI pandemic, necessitating comprehensive intervention and surveillance.

Is weekly azathioprine pulse effective and safe in dermatological conditions?

Azathioprine, a purine synthesis inhibitor is widely used as an effective immunosuppressant in several immune mediated diseases, usually in a dose of 2 to 2.5 mg/kg per day. The pulse dose of azathioprine is an unique once weekly dosing regimen, which has been used as an alternative to daily dose regimen in some immune mediated dermatologic disorders. In this review, we looked at a specific dosing regimen, "weekly azathioprine pulse" with respect to its efficacy and safety in the treatment of dermatologic diseases. We performed a literature search for studies on azathioprine weekly pulse in dermatology in various scientific databases using keywords "azathioprine-pulse", "dermatology", "weekly azathioprine", and so on. Dosing regimens, indications, efficacy, monitoring, and side effect profile as described in these studies were recorded. Evidence level of the regimens used in various indications was also calculated. We could find six published studies using azathioprine weekly pulse, of which three were randomized comparative clinical trials. Azathioprine pulse was administered in a dose of 300 mg (6 tablets of 50 mg each) every week in all the studies. It has been found to be effective in management of contact dermatitis due to parthenium (IB), chronic plaque psoriasis (IIB), and alopecia areata (IB). Adverse effect profile was found to be almost similar to daily azathioprine. Weekly azathioprine pulse, therefore, appears to be an effective and safe alternative to daily azathioprine in the management of immune mediated disorders in dermatology. Although studies are limited, this regimen seems promising and further studies are warranted.

Increase in concentration of patch test allergen reduces patch test occlusion time to 12 hours without affecting patch test reactivity in patients with parthenium dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Patch testing is the standard method to diagnose contact allergy. Patches are applied for 48 hours, which is inconvenient to patients in tropical weather. Therefore, we evaluated different patch test occlusion times with increased concentrations of an allergen to determine if occlusion time can be reduced without compromising patch test reactivity. METHODS: Patch test positive patients with parthenium dermatitis were enrolled and patch tested using five different concentrations (10%, 4%, 2%, 1%, and 0.5%) of parthenium extract. The patches were applied in triplicate. The first set was removed after 12 hours, whereas the second and third sets were removed after 24 and 48 hours, respectively. Readings were performed at 24, 48, and 96 hours. RESULTS: Fifty patients with parthenium dermatitis were included. The positive patch test reaction rates were comparable in all three sets at 24- and 48-hour readings irrespective of the occlusion time. All were positive, with 10%, 4%, and 2% concentrations at 96-hour reading with an occlusion time of 12 hours. CONCLUSION: An occlusion time of 12 hours seems adequate to elicit positive patch test reaction at a 96-hour reading if the concentration of patch test allergen can be increased, that is, from 1% to 2% in these patients.

Skin application of glutathione and iron sulfate can inhibit elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis from hexavalent chromium.

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by hexavalent chromium, Cr(VI), is often severe and difficult to treat. The most common source of exposure to Cr(VI) in Sweden used to be cement, and more recently leather. The contact allergy can be diminished or inhibited if the exposure is decreased or ceases. Barrier creams against different kinds of allergens have been investigated for their protective properties which may offer protection against Cr(VI) exposure. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the capacity of formulas containing glutathione (GSH) and iron sulfate to inhibit elicitation of ACD in Cr(VI)-allergic individuals when exposed to Cr(VI). METHODS: In 18 Cr(VI)-allergic volunteers the back was divided into eight patch test areas which were treated with preparations of possible barrier creams, prior to patch testing with a dilution series of potassium dichromate and a buffered extract of cement. RESULTS: A significant reduction in reactivity to Cr(VI) and cement extract on skin treated with formulas containing GSH or iron sulfate was noticed, compared with untreated skin. CONCLUSION: Formulas containing GSH or iron sulfate in barrier creams inhibit ACD in individuals allergic to Cr(VI) when applied before exposure to Cr(VI) and cement extract.

Evaluation of adjuvant role of topical cyclosporine 1% in acute Stevens-Johnson syndrome: a randomised control trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the role of topical cyclosporine A 1% (CsA) as an adjuvant therapy in patients with acute Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS). METHODS: This is a randomised controlled trial in which 44 patients (88 eyes) with acute SJS, presenting within 3 months from the onset of the disease, were enrolled and randomised. Group A (n=44 eyes) patients received treatment with topical CsA 1% along with standard therapy consisting of topical corticosteroids, antibiotics and lubricants. Group B (n=44 eyes) patients received topical saline drops in combination with standard therapy. Various ocular surface parameters were assessed at baseline and the 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: The mean age of patients (years) was 23.9±15.1 in the CsA group and 26.0±18.7 in the control group (p=0.6840). The mean time from disease onset to presentation (days) was 17.0±14.0 and 12.9±11.3 in CsA and control groups, respectively (p=0.1568). At presentation, the mean grades of severity scores of various parameters were comparable. At 6 months, both groups showed a significant improvement in the mean severity grades of conjunctival hyperaemia (A, p=0.001; B, p=0.0001), mucocutaneous junction involvement (A, p=0.001; B, p=0.0001) and meibomian gland involvement (A, p=0.0471; B, p=0.006). Compared with baseline, the grades of corneal keratinisation (baseline, 0.48±0.7; 6 months, 1.02±0.8; p=0.0015) and neovascularisation (baseline, 1.07±1.2; 6 months, 1.57±1.0; p=0.0412) worsened after 6 months of CsA therapy. Intergroup comparison of grades of various parameters however did not reveal any significant difference at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant treatment with topical CsA is not superior to standard therapy, in cases of acute SJS.

Analysis of Hexavalent Chromium in Cement Samples From Countries Within and Outside the EU: A Study From the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group.

Background: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) is often severe and difficult to treat. The content of Cr(VI) in cement can be reduced by, for example, addition of iron(II) sulfate. Since 2005 the content of Cr(VI) in cement is regulated in the EU Directive 2003/53/EC and must not exceed 2 ppm. Since this regulation came into force, ACD caused by cement has markedly been reduced. Objective: To investigate Cr(VI) and total chromium content in samples of cement from countries within and outside the EU. Methods: The members of the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group (ICDRG) were invited to participate in the study with the aim to collect cement samples from geographically different areas. The content of Cr(VI) in the samples was estimated by the diphenyl carbazide spot test, atomic absorption spectroscopy was used to assess the total chromium content. Results: Forty-five cement samples were analyzed, containing amounts of Cr(VI) from <0.1 to >70 ppm. Twenty-one samples contained >2 ppm Cr(VI), 24 contained less. Four of 17 samples from within the EU contained >2 ppm Cr(VI), that is, higher amounts than stipulated in the EU directive, as compared with 17 samples from countries outside the EU. Conclusion: In countries outside the EU, significantly more cement samples contained >2 ppm Cr(VI).