Ultraviolet filter, fragrance and preservative allergens in New Zealand sunscreens.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Allergic contact dermatitis, photoallergic contact dermatitis and irritant reactions to sunscreens are common reasons for dermatology consultation. Patch testing for contact allergy relies on up-to-date knowledge of allergen exposures. The aim of this study was to investigate contact allergens and photoallergens in sunscreens commercially sold on the shelves of supermarkets and pharmacies in New Zealand. METHODS: A comprehensive market data review of suppliers' websites was performed from March to August 2019 to obtain a list of the commonly sold sunscreens in our region. Ingredients were collated and analysed according to International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI) names. Ultraviolet (UV) filters, preservatives and fragrances were included for analysis. Place of sale and cost of sunscreens were also recorded. RESULTS: Ninety-five sunscreens were analysed: 36% sold in supermarkets, 43% in pharmacies and the remainder available in both. The most frequent UV filters were butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane (contained in 70% of products) followed by octocrylene (63%) and homosalate (50%). The common photoallergen benzophenone 3 was found in 19% of products. Phenoxyethanol was the most common preservative (68%) followed by disodium EDTA (30%) and propylparaben (26%). Two sunscreens contained methylisothiazolinone. Sixty-one per cent contained at least one fragrance, the most frequent being limonene (17%) and linalool (13%). There was an average of 1.1 New Zealand baseline series allergens per product (range 0 to 6, standard deviation 1.27). CONCLUSION: Common allergens including those with high sensitising potential were frequently found in New Zealand sunscreen. Knowledge of ingredients used by manufacturers is useful in dermatological assessment of skin contact reactions.

Topical corticosteroid allergy: Results of sequential testing to a corticosteroid series in New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: Our institution tests the European Baseline Series (EBS) and a steroid series sequentially in all patients presenting for patch testing. The rate of steroid sensitization in New Zealand has not previously been documented. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the rate of corticosteroid sensitization and assess additional benefit of testing the full steroid series over the steroid allergy markers in the EBS. METHODS/PATIENTS: Retrospective analysis of all patient demographics and patch test results over a 5-year period (2014 to 2019) was performed at a tertiary patch test clinic in Auckland, New Zealand. RESULTS: A total of 319 patients completed patch testing, and 4.4% were sensitized to one or more corticosteroids. As much as 79% of positive reactions were of current relevance; 11/14 reactions were to tixocortol pivalate or budesonide. The "number needed to test" to detect one additional case of corticosteroid sensitization by using the full corticosteroid series over the EBS alone was 107. CONCLUSIONS: Although corticosteroid sensitization was not uncommon in our population, the results suggest that sequential testing with the corticosteroid markers (budesonide and tixocortol) in the standard series alone is adequate. The additional corticosteroid series should be added if the markers are positive or where there is a clinical suspicion of corticosteroid allergy.

Patch testing in New Zealand: Barriers to evidence-based care.

Allergic contact dermatitis is a disabling condition, significantly impacting on quality of life, which can only be alleviated by identification and avoidance of a relevant allergen. Patch testing remains the gold standard diagnostic test for allergic contact dermatitis. The consistency with which patch testing is used varies throughout the world. The purpose of this study was to look at the adequacy of current patch testing practice in New Zealand. We undertook literature review of current guidance regarding patch testing and created a web-based survey to evaluate use of patch testing in New Zealand. This was sent to all 75 vocationally registered New Zealand dermatologists. Of respondents, 46% do not perform patch testing. The most commonly cited barriers were lack of nursing support, poor remuneration, time pressure and lack of facilities. 23% noted that public patch testing services are not available in their region. The majority do not record patch test results in a database. Access to and utilisation of patch testing in New Zealand is suboptimal. Increasing services in the public sector requires investment by health boards, as there remains a dermatology workforce shortage in New Zealand. In private practice, patients often find it unsatisfactory to pay for negative tests, and adequate remuneration of patch testing by private insurers is necessary. Surveillance of patch test results at a national level is lacking, and the development of a centralised database to identify common allergens affecting our population is recommended.

A baseline patch test series for New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: Patch testing is the gold standard diagnostic test for allergic contact dermatitis and needs to be relevant to the region and the population being tested. The aim of this study was to develop a specific New Zealand baseline series (NZBS). METHOD: We performed a retrospective case note review of patients attending four regional patch test centres between 2008 and 2020. Demographic and diagnostic information was collected for each patient along with results of patch testing. Using the results of this review, a group of 11 dermatologists with an interest in contact dermatitis agreed on a core group of allergens for inclusion in an NZBS, based on the frequency of positive reactions and allergens of interest. The remaining potential allergens were ranked by each dermatologist using an online questionnaire, with inclusion in the final NZBS by consensus. RESULTS: Results from 2402 patients (67% female, mean age 44 years) from Auckland, Wellington, Palmerston North and Christchurch were collated. The 10 most frequent positive (relevant and non-relevant) allergens were nickel sulfate (22.0%), fragrance mix I (8.6%), cobalt chloride (7.3%), Myroxylon pereirae (5.6%), colophonium (5.1%), p-phenylenediamine (4.9%), methylisothiazolinone/methylchloroisothiazolinone (4.1%), fragrance mix II (3.9%), potassium dichromate (3.5%) and methylisothiazolinone (3.4%). Based on these results, a core series of 30 allergens was developed, with an additional 30 allergens added to form the extended series (total 60 allergens). CONCLUSION: The baseline series of patch test allergens for routine use in New Zealand (NZBS) is based on national patch test data and expert consensus.

Allergic Contact Dermatitis of the Anogenital Region in Men and Women.

OBJECTIVES: Allergic contact dermatitis is an uncommon but important cause of skin disease in the anogenital region. Relevant allergens are described in women and less commonly in men. The aim of this study was to describe outcomes of patch testing in men and women presenting with anogenital dermatoses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cases patch tested for anogenital conditions at 2 patch test clinics in Sydney, Australia, from 2002 to 2017 were reviewed. Positive and relevant patch test reactions were recorded. RESULTS: Thirty-seven women and 27 men were included. Dermatitis was the most common diagnosis, followed by psoriasis and lichen sclerosus. Thirty percent had a final diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. The most frequent relevant allergens were fragrance mix I (9%), patients own products (9%), Myroxylon pereirae (8%), cocamidopropyl betaine (3%), and benzocaine (3%). CONCLUSIONS: The top positive and relevant allergens seen were in concordance with other reports from Australia and the rest of the world. Fragrances and medicaments are common allergens, and it is recommended that products used on anogenital skin be fragrance free. Testing patients own products is imperative.

Neutrophilic Dermatosis of the Hands: A Review of 17 Cases.

PURPOSE: Neutrophilic dermatosis of the hands is an inflammatory skin condition related to Sweet syndrome that responds to corticosteroids. It commonly affects the dorsum of the hand and often mimics infection, with violaceous inflammatory papules and plaques that may ulcerate. The aim of this study was to review the clinical presentation of neutrophilic dermatosis of the hands. METHODS: A retrospective review was undertaken of all cases of neutrophilic dermatosis of the hands seen at a tertiary hospital in New South Wales, Australia, over a 5-year period. RESULTS: Seventeen cases were identified. The mean time to diagnosis was 9 days after lesion onset. Most cases were older adults (mean age, 71 years). The most common referral diagnoses were infection or a nonhealing wound and 65% of cases reported a history of trauma. The dorsal index finger was the site of involvement in 41% of cases. One case involved the palm. Histopathology reports were available for skin punch biopsy for 14 of 17 cases, which showed dermal neutrophilic infiltrate (93%) and epidermal involvement with necrosis, ulceration, or pustulation (64%). Six cases were treated surgically prior to the correct diagnosis and management being introduced. CONCLUSIONS: Neutrophilic dermatosis of the hands was often misdiagnosed as infection. A history of trauma is common and may be misleading. Dermatological consultation and skin punch biopsy are useful in confirming the diagnosis, ideally prior to surgical management. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic IV.

Quality of Life and Sexual Distress in Women With Erosive Vulvovaginal Lichen Planus.

OBJECTIVES: Erosive vulvovaginal lichen planus (EVLP) is a chronic and painful genital dermatosis. Little is published about its impact on quality of life. This study aimed to evaluate quality of life and sexual function in women with EVLP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women with genital dermatoses were surveyed using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and Hospital Depression and Anxiety Scales. A subgroup completed the Female Sexual Distress Scale and Female Sexual Function Index subscales. Patient characteristics including age, diagnosis, and current treatment were recorded. Results from women with EVLP were compared with other diagnoses. RESULTS: Data from 77 women who participated between March 2013 and March 2014 were analyzed. Of these, 17 had EVLP. Comparator groups included women with vulval lichen sclerosus (n = 48) and vulval dermatitis (n = 12). In women with EVLP, 59% reported at least moderate impact on quality of life; mean DLQI scores: EVLP, 7.18; lichen sclerosus, 3.79; dermatitis, 8.67; p = .008. Overall, scores suggested depression in 14% and anxiety in 16% of participants. Sexual distress scores 11 or higher were recorded by 69% of women with EVLP, 63% of women with lichen sclerosus, and 56% of women with dermatitis. In those completing all sections of the survey (n = 40), DLQI was significantly correlated with depression (p = .004), sexual distress (p = .001), and sexual satisfaction (p = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Sixty-nine percent of women with EVLP reported sexual distress. Women with EVLP reported lesser quality of life than those with lichen sclerosus. Quality of life, anxiety and depression, sexual distress, and sexual function were all related in these participants.

Diagnostic criteria in 72 women with erosive vulvovaginal lichen planus.

BACKGROUND: Erosive vulvovaginal lichen planus (EVLP) is a chronic, painful dermatosis affecting mucocutaneous sites. Clinicopathological diagnostic criteria have been described on the basis of expert consensus. The aim of this study was to review the presentation of EVLP, particularly assessing the frequency of suggested diagnostic criteria. METHODS: Clinical signs, symptoms and histological features of women with a clinical diagnosis of EVLP were identified from clinical records and photographs. RESULTS: In all, 72 women with an average age of 67 years were included. Pain or burning were documented in 66/72 cases (92%) and itch in 36 (50%). Clinical images showed well-demarcated red shiny areas or erosions at the vaginal introitus (96%), scarring with loss of normal architecture (88%) and hyperkeratotic border and Wickham striae (46%). A total of 27 women had mucosal disease at another site (38%) and 24 had vaginal involvement (33%). Vulval histology was available for 45/72 cases (63%). The most prevalent histological finding was a band of inflammation with predominant lymphocytes (35/72, 49%). Overall, 97% of cases had at least three of nine suggested diagnostic criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The most frequent findings in women with EVLP were symptoms of pain or burning, well-demarcated red shiny areas or erosions at the introitus and scarring with loss of architecture. Our findings support the recently described diagnostic criteria for EVLP.