Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 7 de 7
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Dermatitis ; 2024 Mar 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38535725

RESUMO

Background: Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, our clinic has encountered numerous patients who report that either COVID-19 vaccination or infection was the precipitating event for their development of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Up to this time, there is no formal investigation regarding COVID-19 vaccination or infection causing ACD. However, there have been several registry-based case series of associated dermatoses after COVID-19 infection or vaccination. Objective: This study aimed to describe patient-reported associations between COVID-19 infection or vaccination and onset of ACD. Methods: A single-center retrospective noncomparative chart review of 1073 patients patch tested at the Park Nicollet Contact Dermatitis Clinic (Minneapolis, MN) from March 1, 2020, to March 1, 2022, was performed. Results: Of 1073 patients included in our study, 5 patients (0.47%) reported ACD symptom onset after COVID-19 infection and 12 patients (1.11%) reported onset after COVID-19 vaccination. Rates of clinical relevance were not significantly different than the general population for those who attributed ACD to COVID-19 infection or vaccination. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study in the literature investigating the potential association between COVID-19 vaccination or infection and the development of ACD through extensive retrospective chart review.

4.
Dermatitis ; 35(2): 149-151, 2024.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37590467

RESUMO

Background: Propylene glycol (PG) and butylene glycol (BG) are not known to be cross-reactors. However, no large-scale studies have assessed the cross-reactivity rate (CRR) between these 2 structurally and functionally similar compounds. Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine whether PG and BG demonstrate cross-reactivity. Methods: This is a retrospective chart review of 893 patients who underwent patch testing for both PG and BG from 2020 to 2022. The frequencies of positive reactions and concomitant reaction rates were calculated. Results: In our cohort, 53 (5.94%) patients reacted to PG and 13 patients (1.46%) reacted to BG. Of the patients who reacted to PG, 6 reacted to BG representing a CRR of 11.3%, whereas the CRR to PG in BG-allergic patients was 46.2%. Conclusions: For those allergic to BG, PG should be considered a cross-reactor. This relationship is somewhat unidirectional, as patients allergic to PG demonstrated a CRR to BG of only 11.3%, significantly lower than the 46.2% CRR to PG among BG-allergic patients.


Assuntos
Dermatite Alérgica de Contato , Humanos , Dermatite Alérgica de Contato/diagnóstico , Dermatite Alérgica de Contato/etiologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Propilenoglicol/efeitos adversos , Testes do Emplastro , Butileno Glicóis
5.
Contact Dermatitis ; 89(6): 484-487, 2023 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37706536

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Formaldehyde is a common preservative used to prevent microbial growth in water. It can be found in personal care products and household cleaning products, including laundry detergents. Formaldehyde has frequently been recognised as a cause of allergic contact dermatitis, but whether it remains present in textiles washed with formaldehyde-containing laundry detergents is unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to utilise the chromotropic acid method (CAM) to assess formaldehyde release from textiles washed with a laundry detergent known to contain formaldehyde. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Textiles were laundered with a detergent containing calcium formate at four concentrations (0×, 0.5×, 1× and 5× the recommended amount per manufacturer label) and kept wet or allowed to dry. Select textiles were subjected to an additional rinse cycle. Textiles were then tested utilising the CAM. A sample of the pure laundry detergent was also tested using the CAM. RESULTS: The CAM was positive only for wet textiles washed at 5× the recommended concentration of detergent and pure detergent. All dry textiles were negative. CONCLUSIONS: Formaldehyde release was not detected from any textiles washed following the manufacturer's recommendations. Once dry, it is likely safe for formaldehyde-allergic patients to wear textiles washed with formaldehyde-containing detergents.


Assuntos
Dermatite Alérgica de Contato , Detergentes , Humanos , Sabões , Alérgenos , Formaldeído , Têxteis
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA