Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 51
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Am Acad Dermatol ; 89(5): 1007-1014, 2023 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37768237

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: As both allergic contact dermatitis and atopic dermatitis (AD) have similar clinical presentations and are characterized by spongiotic dermatitis on skin biopsy, many children with AD are not referred for patch testing and allergic contact dermatitis is underdiagnosed. OBJECTIVE: To provide updated prevalence data of common contact allergens in children with and without AD. METHODS: This is a retrospective case-control study using the Pediatric Allergic Contact Dermatitis Registry from 2018 to 2022. RESULTS: A total of 912 children were included (615 with AD and 297 without AD). Children with AD were more likely to have a longer history of dermatitis (4.1 vs 1.6 years, P < .0001), have seen more providers (2.3 vs 2.1, P = .003), have greater than 1 positive patch test (PPT) result (P = .005), have a greater number of PPT results overall (2.3 vs 1.9, P = .012), and have a more generalized distribution of dermatitis (P = .001). PPT to bacitracin (P = .030), carba mix (P = .025), and cocamidopropyl betaine (P = .0007) were significantly increased in children with AD compared to those without AD. LIMITATIONS: Technical variation between providers and potential for misclassification, selection, and recall biases. CONCLUSION: Children with AD are significantly more likely to have PPT reactions and should be referred for evaluation of allergic contact dermatitis and obtain patch testing.

2.
J Am Acad Dermatol ; 84(2): 486-494, 2021 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33011325

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Prolonged wear of facial protective equipment can lead to occupational dermatoses. OBJECTIVE: To identify important causes of occupational dermatoses from facial protective equipment. METHODS: A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed using PubMed and Embase databases. Articles were included if they reported occupational dermatoses caused by surgical/procedure masks or N95 respirators, or both. RESULTS: We identified 344 articles, and 16 were suitable for inclusion in this review. Selected articles focused on facial occupational dermatoses in health care workers. Allergic contact dermatitis to the elastic straps, glue, and formaldehyde released from the mask fabric was reported. Irritant contact dermatitis was common on the cheeks and nasal bridge due to pressure and friction. Irritant dermatitis was associated with personal history of atopic dermatitis and prolonged mask wear (>6 hours). Acneiform eruption was reported due to prolonged wear and occlusion. Contact urticaria was rare. LIMITATIONS: Only publications listed in PubMed or Embase were included. Most publications were case reports and retrospective studies. CONCLUSION: This systematic review from members of the American Contact Dermatitis Society highlights cases of occupational dermatitis to facial protective equipment, including potential offending allergens. This work may help in the diagnosis and treatment of health care workers with facial occupational dermatitis.


Asunto(s)
Dermatitis Profesional/epidemiología , Dermatosis Facial/epidemiología , Personal de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Máscaras/efectos adversos , Respiradores N95/efectos adversos , Alérgenos/efectos adversos , Alérgenos/inmunología , Dermatitis Alérgica por Contacto/diagnóstico , Dermatitis Alérgica por Contacto/epidemiología , Dermatitis Alérgica por Contacto/etiología , Dermatitis Irritante/diagnóstico , Dermatitis Irritante/epidemiología , Dermatitis Irritante/etiología , Dermatitis Profesional/diagnóstico , Dermatitis Profesional/etiología , Dermatitis Profesional/terapia , Dermatosis Facial/diagnóstico , Dermatosis Facial/etiología , Dermatosis Facial/terapia , Humanos , Transmisión de Enfermedad Infecciosa de Paciente a Profesional/prevención & control
10.
Curr Allergy Asthma Rep ; 14(11): 474, 2014 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25228264

RESUMEN

Hand dermatitis is a common skin complaint. We use our hands to explore our environment; subsequently, our hands are in frequent contact with potential allergens and irritants. Patients with hand dermatitis may present to their allergist with this complaint. Approaching the diagnosis and treatment of hand dermatitis can be challenging, as both internal and external factors may contribute to the overall condition. Furthermore, the differential diagnosis of hand dermatitis is broad and the cause often multifactorial. Obtaining a thorough history and performing a focused examination may help the clinician differentiate between multiple causes of hand dermatitis. Numerous treatment options exist for hand dermatitis, and new potential treatments are in development as well. We aim to provide the allergist with a streamlined toolkit for help in the diagnosis and management of hand dermatitis.


Asunto(s)
Eccema/terapia , Dermatosis de la Mano/diagnóstico , Dermatosis de la Mano/terapia , Administración Cutánea , Dermatitis Profesional/diagnóstico , Dermatitis Profesional/epidemiología , Dermatitis Profesional/terapia , Dermatología , Diagnóstico Diferencial , Eccema/diagnóstico , Glucocorticoides/uso terapéutico , Dermatosis de la Mano/epidemiología , Humanos , Radioterapia , Piel/patología
12.
JAMA Dermatol ; 159(7): 772-777, 2023 07 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37256599

RESUMEN

Importance: Scoring systems for Stevens-Johnson syndrome and epidermal necrolysis (EN) only estimate patient prognosis and are weighted toward comorbidities and systemic features; morphologic terminology for EN lesions is inconsistent. Objectives: To establish consensus among expert dermatologists on EN terminology, morphologic progression, and most-affected sites, and to build a framework for developing a skin-directed scoring system for EN. Evidence Review: A Delphi consensus using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness criteria was initiated with a core group from the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists to establish agreement on the optimal design for an EN cutaneous scoring instrument, terminology, morphologic traits, and sites of involvement. Findings: In round 1, the 54 participating dermatology hospitalists reached consensus on all 49 statements (30 appropriate, 3 inappropriate, 16 uncertain). In round 2, they agreed on another 15 statements (8 appropriate, 7 uncertain). There was consistent agreement on the need for a skin-specific instrument; on the most-often affected skin sites (head and neck, chest, upper back, ocular mucosa, oral mucosa); and that blanching erythema, dusky erythema, targetoid erythema, vesicles/bullae, desquamation, and erosions comprise the morphologic traits of EN and can be consistently differentiated. Conclusions and Relevance: This consensus exercise confirmed the need for an EN skin-directed scoring system, nomenclature, and differentiation of specific morphologic traits, and identified the sites most affected. It also established a baseline consensus for a standardized EN instrument with consistent terminology.


Asunto(s)
Síndrome de Stevens-Johnson , Humanos , Síndrome de Stevens-Johnson/diagnóstico , Consenso , Técnica Delphi , Piel/patología , Cabeza , Vesícula/patología
13.
J Am Acad Dermatol ; 67(2): 289-304, 2012 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22305042

RESUMEN

Port wine stains (PWS) are the most common vascular malformation of the skin, occurring in 0.3% to 0.5% of the population. Noninvasive laser irradiation with flashlamp-pumped pulsed dye lasers (selective photothermolysis) currently comprises the gold standard treatment of PWS; however, the majority of PWS fail to clear completely after selective photothermolysis. In this review, the clinically used PWS treatment modalities (pulsed dye lasers, alexandrite lasers, neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet lasers, and intense pulsed light) and techniques (combination approaches, multiple passes, and epidermal cooling) are discussed. Retrospective analysis of clinical studies published between 1990 and 2011 was performed to determine therapeutic efficacies for each clinically used modality/technique. In addition, factors that have resulted in the high degree of therapeutic recalcitrance are identified, and emerging experimental treatment strategies are addressed, including the use of photodynamic therapy, immunomodulators, angiogenesis inhibitors, hypobaric pressure, and site-specific pharmaco-laser therapy.


Asunto(s)
Inhibidores de la Angiogénesis/uso terapéutico , Inmunosupresores/uso terapéutico , Terapia por Luz de Baja Intensidad/métodos , Mancha Vino de Oporto/tratamiento farmacológico , Mancha Vino de Oporto/radioterapia , Humanos , Terapia por Luz de Baja Intensidad/instrumentación
14.
Dermatitis ; 33(6): 421-428, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36255394

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a common dermatologic disease. Patch testing remains the criterion standard for diagnosis. In clinical practice, avoidance may be limited by patient occupation or noncompliance, the pervasive nature of the culprit agent, or barriers to expert care because of socioeconomic, cultural, or geographic factors. Thus, ACD is frequently chronic and/or recurrent; however, the comorbidities associated with ACD are not well characterized. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to identify associations between ACD and psychiatric, sleep health, cardiovascular, and infectious conditions. METHODS: In this study, we used a large US claims database to identify comorbidities associated with ACD diagnosed after patch testing, including psychiatric, sleep health, cardiovascular, and infectious conditions. We also stratified these associations by chronicity of disease. RESULTS: We identified associations between ACD and psychiatric, sleep-related, cardiovascular, and infectious comorbidities. We also found that more chronic ACD was associated with more infectious comorbidities. All of these associations remained significant on further subanalysis when patients with AD and venous stasis were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: Allergic contact dermatitis is associated with multiple comorbidities. Further study is required to corroborate these findings, determine causality, and to explore the impact of possible interventions in the workup and management of this common and often debilitating disease.


Asunto(s)
Dermatitis Alérgica por Contacto , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Dermatitis Alérgica por Contacto/epidemiología , Dermatitis Alérgica por Contacto/etiología , Dermatitis Alérgica por Contacto/diagnóstico , Pruebas del Parche/efectos adversos , Comorbilidad , Alérgenos
16.
J Drugs Dermatol ; 10(6): 622-4, 2011 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21637902

RESUMEN

The authors report a case of a patient who presented with thick, indurated, hyperpigmented plaques of the bilateral upper and lower extremities, ultimately discovered to be attributed to nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. The case was written to highlight the clinical manifestations of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, as well as to make dermatologists aware of this disease, their role in diagnosis and management, and review treatment options.


Asunto(s)
Hiperpigmentación/etiología , Fallo Renal Crónico/complicaciones , Dermopatía Fibrosante Nefrogénica/terapia , Humanos , Hiperpigmentación/diagnóstico , Extremidad Inferior/patología , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética/métodos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dermopatía Fibrosante Nefrogénica/diagnóstico , Dermopatía Fibrosante Nefrogénica/patología , Diálisis Renal , Extremidad Superior/patología
18.
Immunol Allergy Clin North Am ; 41(3): 375-392, 2021 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34225895

RESUMEN

Environmental, or exogenous, dermatitis is comprised of irritant and allergic contact dermatitis, which account for 80% and 20% of cases of contact dermatitis, respectively. Contact dermatitis is extremely common, and failure to diagnose this entity may result in overlooking a potentially curable driver of disease. In this review, we describe how clinical features, such as morphology or history, can assist in distinguishing exogenous from endogenous causes of dermatitis, and allergic from irritant contact dermatitis. Additionally, we provide an overview of common contact allergens and how dermatitis distribution can suggest possible culprit allergens. Patch testing is needed to confirm contact allergy.


Asunto(s)
Dermatitis Alérgica por Contacto , Dermatitis Irritante , Alérgenos , Dermatitis Alérgica por Contacto/diagnóstico , Dermatitis Alérgica por Contacto/etiología , Dermatitis Irritante/diagnóstico , Dermatitis Irritante/etiología , Humanos , Pruebas del Parche
19.
Dermatitis ; 32(2): 78-85, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33273243

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus infectious disease 2019 pandemic has resulted in health care workers donning personal protective equipment (PPE) for extended periods. OBJECTIVES: The aims of the study were to review facial PPE (surgical masks and N95 respirators) ingredients, to identify facial PPE resterilization techniques, and to recommend strategies for prevention and management of facial PPE-related dermatoses. METHODS: Twenty-one facial PPE (11 N95 respirators, 10 surgical masks) were reviewed. Resterilization techniques were identified. Personal protective equipment-induced occupational dermatoses and management strategies were explored. RESULTS: Polypropylene is the most common chemical identified in facial PPE. Most masks contain aluminum at the nosepiece. Two surgical masks released nickel. Facial PPE dermatoses include irritant contact dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, acne, and contact urticaria. Strategies for prevention and management of facial PPE occupational dermatoses are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: There are increasing reports of occupational dermatoses associated with facial PPE. This review discusses the components of facial PPE, mask resterilization methods, and strategies for prevention and management of facial PPE dermatoses.


Asunto(s)
Dermatitis Profesional/etiología , Dermatosis Facial/inducido químicamente , Exposición Profesional/efectos adversos , Equipo de Protección Personal/efectos adversos , COVID-19/prevención & control , Dermatitis Profesional/diagnóstico , Dermatosis Facial/diagnóstico , Humanos
20.
Dermatitis ; 31(1): 59-67, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31905187

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Photopatch testing is an important diagnostic tool in evaluating patients with suspected photoallergic contact dermatitis. Although protocols for photopatch testing have been described, there are no consensus recommendations by the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS). OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to examine the common practices of photopatch testing among ACDS members and to review and compare commonly used photoallergen series. METHODS: We conducted a questionnaire-based survey among ACDS members via e-mail to inquire about their photopatch test methods. We compared the results with the European consensus methodology and reviewed photoallergen series reported by the respondents. RESULTS: Of the 791 members contacted, 112 members (14%) responded to the survey. Among these, 50 respondents (45%) perform photopatch testing, approximately half of whom (48%) determine minimal erythema dose before the test using UVA with or without UVB irradiation. Respondents use a total of 13 photoallergen series, alone or in any combination, as well as customized series. CONCLUSIONS: These results have potential to aid clinicians in identifying photoallergen series best suited for their patients and suggest a need for consensus recommendations by the ACDS.


Asunto(s)
Dermatitis Fotoalérgica/diagnóstico , Pruebas del Parche/métodos , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina , Rayos Ultravioleta , Humanos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA