Sunscreens Part 1: Mechanisms and Efficacy.

As our knowledge of the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation continues to evolve, sunscreen remains an integral part of a comprehensive photoprotection strategy against multiple endpoints of ultraviolet-mediated damage. Part 1 of this review covers sunscreen active and additive ingredient properties, mechanisms of action and gaps in coverage. Following an overview of sunscreen's efficacy in protecting against sunburn, photocarcinogenesis, photoaging, pigmentary disorders, and idiopathic photodermatoses, we highlight considerations for product use and selection in children and individuals with skin of color.

Sunscreens Part 2: Regulation and Safety.

The second part of this CME article discusses sunscreen regulation and safety considerations for humans and the environment. First, we provide an overview of the history of the United States Food and Drug Administration's regulation of sunscreen. Recent Food and Drug Administration studies clearly demonstrate that organic ultraviolet filters are systemically absorbed during routine sunscreen use, but to date there is no evidence of associated negative health effects. We also review the current evidence of sunscreen's association with vitamin D levels and frontal fibrosing alopecia, and recent concerns regarding benzene contamination. Finally, we review the possible environmental effects of ultraviolet filters, particularly coral bleaching. While climate change has been shown to be the primary driver of coral bleaching, laboratory-based studies suggest that organic ultraviolet filters represent an additional contributing factor, which led several localities to ban certain organic filters.

More than just methylisothiazolinone: Retrospective analysis of patients with isothiazolinone allergy in North America, 2017-2020.

BACKGROUND: Isothiazolinones are a common cause of allergic contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of positive patch test reactions to isothiazolinones from 2017-2020 and characterize isothiazolinone-allergic (Is+) patients compared with isothiazolinone nonallergic (Is-) patients. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 9028 patients patch tested to methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/methylisothiazolinone (MI) 0.02% aqueous, MI 0.2% aqueous, benzisothiazolinone (BIT) 0.1% petrolatum, and/or octylisothiazolinone (OIT) 0.025% petrolatum. Prevalence, reaction strength, concurrent reactions, clinical relevance, and source of allergens were tabulated. RESULTS: In total, 21.9% (1976/9028) of patients had a positive reaction to 1 or more isothiazolinones. Positivity to MI was 14.4% (1296/9012), MCI/MI was 10.0% (903/9017), BIT was 8.6% (777/9018), and OIT was 05% (49/9028). Compared with Is-, Is+ patients were more likely to have occupational skin disease (16.5% vs 10.3%, P <.001), primary hand dermatitis (30.2% vs 19.7%, P <.001), and be >40 years (73.1% vs 61.9%, P <.001). Positive patch test reactions to >1 isothiazolinone occurred in 44.1% (871/1976) of Is+ patients. Testing solely to MCI/MI would miss 47.3% (611/1292) of MI and 60.1% (466/776) of BIT allergic reactions. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective cross-sectional study design and lack of follow-up data. CONCLUSION: Sensitization to isothiazolinones is high and concurrent sensitization to multiple isothiazolinone allergens is common.

Photopatch testing: Clinical characteristics, test results, and final diagnoses from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2009-2020.

BACKGROUND: Photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD) is a delayed hypersensitivity reaction to allergens only in the presence of ultraviolet radiation in sunlight. Photopatch testing (PhotoPT) is necessary to confirm the diagnosis of PACD. There are few published studies of PhotoPT in North America. OBJECTIVE: To summarise the results of patients photopatch tested by members of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG), 2009-2020. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patient characteristics and PhotoPT results to 32 allergens on the NACDG Photopatch Test Series. RESULTS: Most of the 454 tested patients were female (70.3%), 21-60 years old (66.7%) and White (66.7%). There were a total of 119 positive photopatch tests. Sunscreen agents comprised 88.2% of those, with benzophenones responsible for over half of them. Final diagnoses included PACD in 17.2%, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in 44.5%, polymorphous light eruption (PMLE) in 18.9% and chronic actinic dermatitis (CAD) in 9.0% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In 454 patients with suspected photosensitivity referred for photopatch testing in North America, approximately one-fifth had PACD. Sunscreen agents, especially benzophenones, were the most common photoallergens. Other common diagnoses included ACD, PMLE and CAD. Photopatch testing is an important tool for differentiating these conditions.

Prevalence and trend of allergen sensitization in patients with cheilitis referred for patch testing, North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 2001-2018.

BACKGROUND: An updated understanding of allergic contact cheilitis is needed. OBJECTIVES: To characterize clinical characteristics and allergen relevance in patients with cheilitis referred for patch testing. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 43 772 patients patch tested with the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) screening series from 2001 to 2018. RESULTS: Overall, 2094 patients (4.8%) had lips as one of three sites of dermatitis, 1583 (3.6%) had lips as the primary site and 1167 (2.7%) had lips as the sole site of dermatitis. Prevalences of cheilitis at any, primary, and sole sites significantly increased throughout the study cycle from 2001-2002 (2.7%, 2.2% and 1.7%) to 2017-2018 (7.8%, 5.2% and 3.7%). Approximately 60% of patients with any, a primary, or a sole site of cheilitis had one or more positive allergic patch-test reactions compared to 65% of those without cheilitis. CONCLUSION: Patients with cheilitis who were referred for patch testing had high rates of positive and relevant allergens. More than one in four patients with any, primary, or sole cheilitis had a positive reaction to non-NACDG screening allergens (28.0%, 26.8%, 31.1% vs. 21.6%) compared to patients without cheilitis, emphasizing the need for expanded patch test series in cheilitis.

Age-related differences in patch testing results among children: Analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 2001-2018.

BACKGROUND: An updated understanding of allergic contact dermatitis is needed, particularly in children. OBJECTIVES: To compare positive and clinically relevant reactions in children versus adults referred for patch testing. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 1871 children and 41,699 adults from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) from 2001-2018. RESULTS: Both final diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis (55.2% versus 57.3%; chi square, P = .0716) and prevalence of ≥ 1 currently relevant reaction to a NACDG screening allergen (49.2% vs 52.2%; P = .1178) were similar between children and adults. Currently in children, the most common relevant allergens were nickel sulfate (17.3%), hydroperoxides of linalool (7.8%), methylisothiazolinone (7.7%), cobalt chloride (7.0%), and fragrance mix I (4.9%). Approximately a fifth of children had a positive reaction to a non-NACDG allergen. CONCLUSION: Over half of children referred for patch testing were diagnosed with allergic contact dermatitis. The most common relevant allergens in children were nickel sulfate, cobalt chloride, and hydroperoxides of linalool. Twenty percent of children had at least 1 positive reaction to allergens/substances not on the NACDG screening series, underscoring the need for comprehensive testing.

Occupational contact dermatitis: Retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 2001 to 2016.

BACKGROUND: Patch testing is an important diagnostic tool for suspected allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in occupational settings. OBJECTIVE: Provide an overview of occupational skin disease (OSD) and an analysis of occupational ACD in North American patients undergoing patch testing between 2001and 2016. METHODS: Patients with OSD were analyzed for frequency of allergic reactions to a screening series of allergens, occupational relevance, location of skin disease, and exposure sources. Demographic, occupation, and industry information were recorded. RESULTS: Of 38,614 patients evaluated, 4471 (11.6%) had OSD, of whom 3150 (70.5%) had ACD. The most common occupationally related allergens included rubber accelerators, preservatives, and bisphenol A epoxy resin. Hands (75.8%), arms (30.0%), and face (15.9%) were common sites of dermatitis. The occupations most affected were service workers and machine operators. LIMITATIONS: Our cohort may not reflect the general working population. CONCLUSION: This study identified common occupational allergens, exposure sources, and occupations/industries at risk. This information may help the clinician evaluate and manage patients with occupational contact dermatitis.

Patch testing with ammonium persulfate: The North American Contact Dermatitis Group Experience, 2015-2018.

BACKGROUND: Ammonium persulfate (APS), an oxidizing agent used in hair products, manufacturing, and pool/spa water, can cause skin reactions, including allergic contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVE: To characterize positive patch test reactions to APS (2.5% petrolatum). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients tested to the North American Contact Dermatitis Group screening series from 2015 to 2018. RESULTS: Of 10,526 patients, 193 (1.8%) had positive patch test reactions to APS. Compared with APS-negative patients, APS-positive patients were significantly more likely to be male (43.2% vs 28.0%; P < .0001); have primary hand dermatitis (30.2% vs 22.0%; P = .0064), scattered generalized dermatitis (25.5% vs 17.9%; P = .0064), or trunk dermatitis (8.9% vs 4.9%; P = .0123); and have dermatitis that is occupationally related (22.2% vs 10.9%; P < .0001). More than half of the APS-positive reactions were currently relevant (57.0%); 19 (9.8%) were related to occupation, especially hairdressers (68.4%). Swimming pools/spas (23.3%) and hair care products (19.2%) were the most common sources of APS. LIMITATIONS: Immediate reactions and follow-up testing were not captured. CONCLUSION: The proportion of patients positive to APS was 1.8%. APS positivity was significantly associated with male sex and hand dermatitis. Swimming pool/spa chemicals were important sources of APS exposure.

Medical adhesive allergens: Retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2001-2018.

BACKGROUND: Identification of allergens causing medical adhesive contact allergy is difficult. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the demographics, clinical characteristics, patch test results, and occupational data for North American Contact Dermatitis Group patients with medical adhesive contact allergy. METHODS: A retrospective study of 43,722 North American Contact Dermatitis Group patients patch tested from 2001 to 2018 with medical adhesive (tapes/bandaids/adhesive aids/suture glue) sources, positive patch test results, and final primary diagnoses of allergic contact dermatitis. RESULTS: In total, 313 (0.7%) patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with other patients with final primary diagnoses of allergic contact dermatitis, patients with a medical adhesive allergy were less likely to be male (odds ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77) and/or aged >40 years (odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.96). The most common North American Contact Dermatitis Group screening series allergens were colophony (80.7%), balsam of Peru (3.9%), 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2.7%), and carba mix (2.7%). One-fourth of the patients (79/313, 25.2%) had positive patch test reactions to supplemental allergens/materials, and 54 (17.3%) of the 313 patients only had reactions to supplemental allergens/materials. LIMITATIONS: Results of comprehensive patch testing may be prone to referral population selection bias and may not be representative of the general dermatology population. CONCLUSION: Colophony was the most common allergen. Supplemental allergens and materials should be tested in the evaluation of a suspected medical adhesive contact allergy.

Patch testing with glucosides: The North American Contact Dermatitis Group experience, 2009-2018.

BACKGROUND: Alkyl glucosides are nonionic surfactants that are increasingly used in personal care products. OBJECTIVE: To characterize positive patch test reactions to decyl glucoside (5% petrolatum, tested 2009-2018) and lauryl glucoside (3% petrolatum, tested 2017-2018). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group. RESULTS: Of 24,097 patients patch tested to decyl and/or lauryl glucoside, 470 (2.0%) had positive reactions. Compared with glucoside-negative patients, glucoside-positive patients had higher odds of occupational skin disease (13.4% vs 10.1%; P = .0207), history of hay fever (38.5% vs 31.6%; P = .0014), atopic dermatitis (39.0% vs 28.6%; P < .0001), and/or asthma (21.8% vs 16.5%; P = .0023). Most glucoside reactions (83.9%) were currently relevant. The most common source was personal care products (63.0%), especially hair products (16.5%) and skin cleansers (15.2%). Of 4933 patients tested to decyl and lauryl glucoside, 134 (2.7%) were positive to 1 or both; 43.4% (43 of 99) of decyl-positive patients were also positive to lauryl glucoside and 55.1% (43/78) of lauryl glucoside patients were also positive to decyl glucoside. LIMITATIONS: The cohort predominantly reflects a referral population, and follow-up after testing was not captured. CONCLUSION: Glucoside positivity occurred in 2.0% of the tested patients. Reactions were often clinically relevant and linked to personal care products. Cross-reactivity was >40%.

Hand and foot dermatitis in patients referred for patch testing: Analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 2001-2018.

BACKGROUND: Dermatitis localized to hands (HD), feet (FD), or both hands and feet (HFD) has multiple etiologies, including atopic dermatitis, irritant contact dermatitis, and allergic contact dermatitis. Unfortunately, little is known about clinical differences between patients with HD, FD, and HFD. OBJECTIVE: To characterize differences in demographics, etiology, and patch testing results among patients presenting with HD, FD, or HFD referred for patch testing. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients patch tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group between 2001 and 2018. RESULTS: Of 43,677 patients who were patch tested, 22.8% had HD, 2.9% had FD, and 3.7% had HFD. Allergic and currently relevant patch test reactions to ≥1 North American Contact Dermatitis Group screening allergen occurred in similar proportions in all 3 study groups. However, HD (18.0%) had higher proportions of occupationally relevant reactions than HFD (8.9%) or FD (4.0%). Nickel and fragrance mix I were in the top 5 currently relevant allergens for HD, FD, and HFD. Other top allergens, as well as allergen sources, differed between HD, FD, and HFD. LIMITATIONS: No data on HD or FD morphology or distribution. CONCLUSION: HD, FD, and HFD have several differences with respect to patient characteristics, etiologies, and clinically relevant allergens.

Patch testing with cobalt in children and adolescents: North American contact dermatitis group experience, 2001-2018.

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to cobalt is more common in children and adolescents than adults. However, detailed information on sites and sources of cobalt ACD is limited. OBJECTIVES: To assess trends in positive and clinically relevant patch test reactions to cobalt in children and associated patient characteristics, common sources and body sites affected. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of children (<18 years) patch tested to cobalt by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group between 2001 and 2018. RESULTS: Of 1919 children patch tested, 228 (11.9%) and 127 (6.6%) had a positive/allergic or currently relevant patch test reaction to cobalt, respectively. The most common primary body sites affected were scattered generalized (30.0%), face, not otherwise specified (10.6%) and trunk (10.1%). Patients with allergic and currently relevant allergic patch test reactions were more likely to have a primary site of trunk (p = 0.0160 and p = 0.0008) and ears (p = 0.0005 and p < 0.0001). Affected body site(s) varied by cobalt source among patients with currently relevant reactions, especially for less common sources. The most commonly identified sources of cobalt included jewellery, belts and clothing. CONCLUSIONS: Positive patch test reactions to cobalt were common in children. The most common body site was scattered generalized and the sources of cobalt varied by body site.

What Is New in Occupational Allergic Contact Dermatitis in the Year of the COVID Pandemic?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article aims to summarize some recent trends in occupational allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), including dermatitis related to pandemic-level personal protective equipment in healthcare workers, hazards patients may experience when working from home, and occupational perspectives on the recent American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) allergens of the year and ACDS Core Allergen Series updates. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent ACDS Allergens of the Year may be particularly relevant to healthcare workers, including isobornyl acrylate, which is present in glucose sensors and propylene glycol present in hand cleansers and disinfectants. Lavender, limonene, and linalool, all of which are new additions to the ACDS Core Allergen Series, have been reported as causes for occupational ACD in massage therapists and aromatherapists. Isothiazolinone allergy continues to rise in both consumer and occupational settings. Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a wave of occupational ACD in healthcare workers to personal protective equipment, and revealed new potential allergens for individuals working from home. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis continues to exert a significant occupational disease burden. Remaining aware of the current trends in allergens may allow for earlier recognition, diagnosis, and treatment, subsequently helping our patients to work in healthier and safer environments.

Eyelid dermatitis in patients referred for patch testing: Retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1994-2016.

BACKGROUND: Eyelid dermatitis is a common dermatologic complaint. OBJECTIVE: To characterize patients with eyelid dermatitis. METHODS: Retrospective analysis (1994-2016) of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data. RESULTS: Of 50,795 patients, 2332 (4.6%) had eyelid dermatitis only, whereas 1623 (3.2%) also had dermatitis of the eyelids and head or neck. Compared with patients without eyelid involvement (n = 26,130), groups with eyelid dermatitis only and dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck were significantly more likely to be female, white, and older than 40 years, and to have a history of hay fever, atopic dermatitis, or both (P < .01). Final primary diagnoses included allergic contact dermatitis (eyelid dermatitis only: 43.4%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 53.5%), irritant contact dermatitis (eyelid dermatitis only: 17.0%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 9.8%), and atopic dermatitis (eyelid dermatitis only: 13.1%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 13.8%). Top 5 currently relevant allergens included nickel sulfate (eyelid dermatitis only: 18.6%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 22.5%), fragrance mix I (eyelid dermatitis only: 16.5%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 18.3%), methylisothiazolinone (eyelid dermatitis only: 16.5%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 17.7%), gold sodium thiosulfate (eyelid dermatitis only: 14.7%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 11.4%), and balsam of Peru (eyelid dermatitis only: 11.9%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 12.6%). Both eyelid-involvement groups were significantly more likely to react to gold sodium thiosulfate, carmine, shellac, dimethylaminopropylamine, oleamidopropyl dimethylamine, and thimerosal (P < .05) compared with the no eyelid involvement group. LIMITATIONS: Lack of specific distribution patterns of eyelid dermatitis and no long-term follow-up data. CONCLUSION: Patch testing remains a critical tool in evaluating patients with eyelid dermatitis.

Scalp involvement in patients referred for patch testing: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1996 to 2016.

BACKGROUND: Scalp conditions are often multifactorial. OBJECTIVE: To characterize patients with scalp involvement and patch-testing outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data (1996-2016). Study groups included patients with scalp involvement (≤3 anatomic sites coded) with or without additional sites. RESULTS: A total of 4.8% of patients (2331/48,753) had scalp identified as 1 of up to 3 affected anatomic sites. Approximately one-third of "scalp-only" individuals had a specific primary diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis (38.6%), followed by seborrheic dermatitis (17.2%) and irritant contact dermatitis (9.3%). When adjacent anatomic sites were affected, allergic contact dermatitis was more frequently identified as the primary diagnosis (>50%). The top 5 currently clinically relevant allergens in scalp-only patients were p-phenylenediamine, fragrance mix I, nickel sulfate, balsam of Peru, and cinnamic aldehyde. Methylisothiazolinone sensitivity was notable when adjacent anatomic sites were involved. The top 3 specifically identified sources for scalp-only allergens were hair dyes, shampoo/conditioners, and consumer items (eg, hair appliances, glasses). LIMITATIONS: Tertiary referral population. CONCLUSION: Isolated scalp involvement was less likely to be associated with allergic contact dermatitis than when adjacent anatomic sites were involved. Overlap with multiple diagnoses was frequent, including seborrheic dermatitis, irritant dermatitis, other dermatoses, or all 3. p-Phenylenediamine was the most common allergen.

Hand dermatitis in adults referred for patch testing: Analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 2000 to 2016.

BACKGROUND: Hand eczema (HE) is a heterogeneous and burdensome disorder. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the clinical characteristics, etiologies and allergen relevance in adults with HE referred for patch testing. METHODS: Retrospective analysis (2000-2016) of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data (n = 37,113). RESULTS: Overall, 10,034 patients had HE, with differences of overlap between allergic contact, irritant contact, and atopic dermatitis. Allergic contact HE fluctuated, whereas atopic HE steadily increased, and irritant HE decreased over time. HE was associated with higher proportions of positive patch tests (67.5% vs 63.8%; χ2, P < .0001). The five most common clinically relevant allergens were methylisothiazolinone, nickel, formaldehyde, quaternium-15, and fragrance mix I. HE was associated with significantly higher odds of positive patch test reactions and clinical relevance in 13 and 16 of the 25 most common allergens, respectively, including preservatives, metals, topical medications, and rubber accelerators. LIMITATIONS: No data on HE phenotype. CONCLUSION: HE in adults was associated with higher proportions of positive patch tests, with a heterogeneous profile of allergens. Patch testing remains an important tool in the evaluation of patients with HE.

Contact dermatitis to personal care products is increasing (but different!) in males and females: North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1996-2016.

BACKGROUND: Personal care products (PCPs) are commonly responsible for allergic contact dermatitis and irritant contact dermatitis. PCP use was historically associated with females, but male-targeted PCPs are increasingly being marketed. OBJECTIVE: To characterize and compare males with PCP-related contact dermatitis (MPCPs) and females with PCP-related contact dermatitis (FPCPs). METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data (1996-2016). RESULTS: Four thousand six hundred eighty of 16,233 men (28.8%) and 12,730 of 32,222 (39.5%) women had a PCP identified as a source of irritant contact dermatitis or a positive patch test reaction. The proportion of PCP-related dermatitis in both sexes significantly increased (>2.7-fold) over the decade of study. Compared with FPCPs, a larger proportion of MPCPs were older or had trunk or extremity dermatitis (P < .0001). MPCPs were twice as likely to have soaps as a source while FPCPs were twice as likely to have hair care products (P < .0001). The most common PCP-related North American Contact Dermatitis Group allergens for both sexes were methylisothiazolinone (MPCP 28.8% and FPCP 21.5%), fragrance mix I (MPCP 22.3% and FPCP 20.1%), balsam of Peru (MPCP 18.5% and FPCP 14.1%), quaternium-15 (MPCP 16.1% and FPCP 12.3%), and paraphenylenediamine (MPCP 11.5% and FPCP 11.1%). LIMITATIONS: Patient population referred for suspected contact dermatitis. CONCLUSIONS: PCP-related dermatitis is increasing. Sites of involvement and relevant PCP sources are distinct between sexes. Male and female variation in exposure history may explain differences in reactivity to some allergen groups.

Contact dermatitis associated with preservatives: Retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1994 through 2016.

BACKGROUND: Preservatives are often necessary components of commercial products. Large-scale North American studies on preservative allergy are limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate demographics, positive patch test reactions (PPTRs), clinical relevance, and trends for preservatives tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch testing results of preservatives from 1994 through 2016. RESULTS: A total of 50,799 patients were tested; 11,338 (22.3%) had a PPTR to at least 1 preservative. The most frequent reactions were to methylisothiazolinone 0.2% aqueous (aq) (12.2%), formaldehyde 2% aq (7.8%), formaldehyde 1% aq (7.8%), quaternium-15 2% petrolatum (pet) (7.7%), and methyldibromo glutaronitrile/phenoxyethanol 2% pet (5.1%). Paraben mix 12% pet (1%), iodopropynyl butylcarbamate 0.1% pet (0.4%), benzyl alcohol 1% pet (0.3%), and phenoxyethanol 1% pet (0.2%) had the lowest PPTRs. Linear regression analysis of preservatives tested showed that only methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone 0.01% aq (parameter estimate, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.17-0.66; P < .005) had a significant increase in PPTRs over time. LIMITATIONS: Collected variables are dependent on clinical judgment. Results may be prone to referral selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: This large North American study provides insight on preservative PPTRs and trends from 1994 through 2016.

Inter-rater variability in patch test readings and final interpretation using store-forward teledermatology.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding teledermatology for patch testing are limited. OBJECTIVES: Compare patch test readings and final interpretation by two in-person dermatologists (IPDs) with eight teledermatologists (TDs). METHODS: Patch tested patients had photographs taken of 70 screening series of allergens at 48 hours and second readings. Eight TDs reviewed photos and graded reactions (negative, irritant, doubtful, +, ++, +++) at 48 hours and second readings; in addition, they coded a final interpretation (allergic, indeterminant, irritant, negative) for each reaction. TDs rated overall image quality and confidence level for each patient and patch test reaction, respectively. Percentage of TD-IPD agreement based on clinical significance (success, indeterminate, and failure) was calculated. Primary outcome was agreement at the second reading. RESULTS: Data were available for 99, 101, and 66 participants at 48 hours, second reading, and final interpretation, respectively. Pooled failure (+/++/+++ vs negative) at second reading was 13.6% (range 7.9%-20.4%). Pooled failure at 48 hours and final interpretation was 5.4% (range 2.9%-6.8%) and 24.6% (range 10.2%-36.8%), respectively. Confidence in readings was statistically correlated with quality of images and disagreement. CONCLUSION: For patch testing, teledermatology has significant limitations including clinically significant pooled failure percentages of 13.6% for second readings and 24.6% for final interpretation.

Patch testing with sodium disulfite: North American Contact Dermatitis Group experience, 2017 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: Sodium disulfite (SD), also known as sodium metabisulfite, is an increasingly recognized cause of allergic contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this work was to characterize individuals with positive patch test reactions to SD as well as analyse reaction strength, clinical relevance, and sources. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of patients patch tested with SD (1% petrolatum) by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG), 2017 to 2018. RESULTS: Of 4885 patients patch tested with SD, 132 (2.7%) had a positive reaction. Common primary anatomic sites of dermatitis were face (28.8%), hands (20.5%), and a scattered/generalized distribution (13.6%). Compared with SD-negative patients, SD-positive patients were more likely male (odds ratio 2.81, 95% confidence interval 1.98-4.00) and/or over 40 years (odds ratio 1.95, 95% confidence interval 1.30-2.94). Reactions were most commonly + (50.4%) or ++ (34.1%); 65.2% were considered currently relevant. About 15.2% were definitively confirmed in sources, commonly personal care products (18.9%, especially hair dye), and drugs/medications/alcoholic beverages (9.1%). Only 2.3% of positive reactions were linked to occupation. CONCLUSIONS: Positive reactions to SD occurred in 2.7% of tested patients. Reactions were often clinically relevant and linked to personal care products and drugs/medications/alcoholic beverages.