Subclinical immune responses to nickel in sensitized individuals-a dose-response study.

BACKGROUND: Nickel is the leading cause of contact allergy in Europe, with 14.5% of the adult population being sensitized. Despite regulations limiting nickel release from consumer items, the incidence and prevalence of nickel allergy remain high. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical and subclinical immune response to low-dose nickel exposure on nickel pre-exposed skin to assess the adequacy of current regulatory limits. METHOD: Nickel-allergic and healthy controls were patch tested with nickel twice with a 3-4 weeks interval. The first exposure used the diagnostic concentration of 2000 µg/cm2 nickel sulphate, and the same skin areas were then re-exposed to 0.2, 0.5, 12.8 and 370 µg/cm2 nickel sulphate. After 48 h, the patch reactions were examined for clinical signs of eczema, and skin biopsies were collected. The transcriptomic immune profile was analysed with Nanostring nCounter and quantitative polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: Two nickel-allergic participants (15%) had clinical reactions to the regulatory limiting doses for nickel (0.2/0.5 µg/cm2) following re-exposure. There was immune activation in all skin areas following re-exposure to nickel, predominantly mediated by up-regulation of cytokines and chemokines. In all nickel re-exposed skin areas, 81 genes were up-regulated independent from the clinical response. In skin areas exposed to 0.2 µg/cm2, 101 immune-related genes were differentially expressed, even when no clinical response was observed. Healthy controls showed up-regulation of three genes in response to nickel re-exposures without any clinical reactions. CONCLUSION: Immune activation can be induced in skin with local memory to nickel upon challenge with nickel doses within the regulatory limits. Our findings suggest that the regulatory limits in the European nickel regulation may not provide sufficient protection for consumers against low-dose exposures.

Allergic contact dermatitis due to 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate in ostomy patients.

BACKGROUND: Many people live with ostomies after life-saving surgery. Ostomy patients often suffer from peristomal dermatitis. Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) has been reported, mostly due to contact allergy (CA) to topical agents. OBJECTIVES: We present three patients with therapy resistant peristomal dermatitis, suggesting ACD caused by different stoma products. METHODS: Patch testing was performed with baseline series, additional series, and selected allergens. They were also tested with their own ostomy products as is and separate extracts of the products. Extracts were analysed using Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS). RESULTS: In all three patients we diagnosed CA to 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate (HDDA), +++ in case (C) 1 and 3, ++ in C 2. HDDA was detected in C 2's ostomy pouch adhesive and in C 1's and 3's flange extenders used to improve the adhesion of the ostomy pouches. CONCLUSION: Therapy resistant peristomal dermatitis should always be suspected of ACD and patch testing, especially with the patient's own products, should be performed.

Patch Testing With Nickel, Cobalt, and Chromium in Patients With Suspected Allergic Contact Dermatitis.

Background: Allergic contact dermatitis is frequently caused by metals, including multiple metals simultaneously. Objectives: To assess characteristics and associations of positive and clinically relevant patch test (PT) reactions with solitary and concurrent metal sensitization. Methods: A retrospective analysis of PT results for nickel, cobalt, and/or chromium from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group between 2001 and 2018 (n = 43,522). Results: 18.0% had a positive/allergic reaction to nickel sulfate hexahydrate, 7.3% to cobalt chloride hexahydrate, and 3.0% to potassium dichromate. 87.9% patients had a currently relevant reaction to 0, 9.4% to 1, and 2.7% to multiple metals tested. Patients with 1 versus no currently relevant reactions to metal were more likely to have a primary dermatitis site of trunk, feet, and ears; patients with currently relevant reactions to multiple metals had more dermatitis affecting the trunk and ears. Metal sources varied by co-reacting metal, especially for patients with cobalt and chromium allergy. Jewelry was the most commonly identified source of nickel and cobalt for both solitary and concurrent metal allergy. Conclusions: Sensitization to multiple metals occurred in 6% of patients. Allergen sources varied between patients with sensitivity to 1 metal versus those who had concurrent sensitivity to cobalt and/or chromium.

Quality of patch testing patient's own material in patients with suspected occupational skin diseases throughout Germany: Interim results of the German Social Accident Insurance (DGUV) research project FB 317b.

BACKGROUND: Due to limited availability of commercial test preparations, patch testing patient's own material (POM) is of great importance to diagnose occupational allergic contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality of performance and documentation of patch testing with POM in patients with suspected occupational skin diseases (OSD) in Germany. METHODS: Retrospective-prospective analysis of protocols of patch tests with POM was conducted between 2013 and 2021 in patients with suspected OSD and submitted to statutory accident insurance institutions. Assessments were done by predefined criteria. RESULTS: Three thousand and four patch tests with POM from 460 patients were included. A full description of the POM was provided in 73.3% of all tests. The test concentration, test vehicle and pH value were documented in 74.3%, 70.5% and 42.2% of tests, for which the respective parameters were considered relevant. One hundred and sixty-one positive reactions to POM were documented. In 72%, sufficient patch testing with commercial test substances was conducted to investigate the positive reaction. In 30.4%, consecutive patch testing of all ingredients of the POM was done. CONCLUSIONS: The results not only show considerable shortcomings mainly in documentation but also to some extent performance of patch tests with POM in patients with suspected OSD in Germany.

2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA): A clinical review of contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis. Part 2. Cross- and co-sensitization, other skin reactions to HEMA, position of HEMA among (meth)acrylates, sensitivity as screening agent, presence of HEMA in commercial products and practical information on patch test procedures.

This is the second part of a literature review of the clinical aspects of contact allergy to and allergic contact dermatitis from 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA). Topics include cross- and co-sensitization, atypical manifestations of contact allergy, frequency of positive patch tests to HEMA compared with other (meth)acrylates, sensitivity of HEMA as a screening agent, the presence of HEMA in commercial products, and practical information on patch testing procedures. Primary sensitization to methacrylates including HEMA may result in methacrylate and acrylate cross-sensitization. There is a strong cross-allergy between HEMA, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), and hydroxypropyl methacrylate; many reactions to EGDMA are cross-reactions to primary HEMA sensitization. Rare atypical manifestations of HEMA-allergy include lichen planus, lymphomatoid papulosis, systemic contact dermatitis, leukoderma after positive patch tests, and systemic side effects such as nausea, diarrhoea, malaise, and palpitations. The occurrence of respiratory disease caused by methacrylates such as asthma is not infrequent. HEMA is the most frequently patch test-positive methacrylate. It is a good screening agent for allergy to other (meth)acrylates. Patch test sensitization to HEMA 2% pet. is extremely rare. There are (some) indications that HEMA is frequently used in dental products and nail cosmetics.

Occupational exposure to epoxy components and risk of dermatitis: A registry-based follow-up study of the wind turbine industry.

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact allergy and dermatitis are frequently reported among epoxy-exposed workers. OBJECTIVES: To determine the risk of dermatitis associated with epoxy exposure. METHODS: We followed 825 epoxy-exposed and 1091 non-exposed blue-collar workers, and 493 white-collar workers of a Danish wind turbine blade factory during 2017-2022 with linked data from national health registers on diagnoses, patch testing, or fillings of prescriptions for topical corticosteroids. Incidence rate ratios of dermatitis or a first-time topical corticosteroid prescription were estimated with Poisson regression using non-exposed blue-collar workers as reference. We similarly estimated incidence rate ratios for the duration of epoxy exposure and current epoxy exposure. RESULTS: Epoxy-exposed blue-collar workers showed a dermatitis incidence rate of 2.1 per 100 000 person days, a two-fold increased risk of dermatitis and a 20% increased risk of filling a prescription for topical corticosteroids. Incidence rate ratios were higher during early exposure and declined with further exposure for both outcomes. White-collar workers had generally lower risks. CONCLUSION: We observed an increased risk of dermatitis following epoxy exposure confirming previous case reports and cross-sectional studies emphasizing the need for intensified focus on preventive efforts for this group of workers.