Prevalence and causative allergens of contact cheilitis in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Cheilitis is an inflammatory condition of the lips. Its causes can be exogenous (irritants, allergens), endogenous (atopic dermatitis, systemic disorders) or unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of allergic contact cheilitis (ACC), its risk factors, and common allergens in patients with cheilitis at a Thai university-based tertiary care hospital. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients with cheilitis referred for patch testing between January 2007 and December 2021. RESULTS: Among 5366 patients referred for patch testing, 410 (7.6%) had cheilitis. ACC was diagnosed in 32% of the cheilitis patients. Compared to non-ACC cases, the patients with ACC were more likely to be young and female and have a disease duration of <3 months, no underlying disease and a white-collar job (p-value <0.05). The most common contact allergens were patient's products (73.3%), nickel sulfate (29.8%), potassium dichromate (14.5%), castor oil (14.3%) and benzalkonium chloride (13.0%). Lip cosmetics and toothpastes were major ACC sources. CONCLUSIONS: ACC should be considered in cheilitis patients, especially in patients with specific risk factors. Castor oil is an emerging allergen. Patch testing using commercial allergen series and patients' own products is crucial for identifying causative agents. The development of a specific cheilitis series is warranted.

Contact sensitizations in massage therapists with occupational contact dermatitis: Patch test data of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology, 2008-2020.

BACKGROUND: Massage therapists are particularly exposed to constituents of massage preparations, wet work and mechanical strain and therefore, at high risk to develop occupational dermatitis (OD). OBJECTIVES: To describe the sensitization spectrum of massage therapists with OD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective study, patch test data of patients with OD (128 massage therapists and 24 374 patients working in other professions) collected by the Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK, 2008-2020) were analysed. RESULTS: Hand dermatitis (91.4%) and allergic contact dermatitis (34.4%) were common in massage therapists with OD. Most frequent were sensitizations to fragrances/essential oils which were found in 54 (42.2%) massage therapists and thus, more often than in other patients with OD. Concomitant positivity to several fragrances/essential oils was frequent. In 8 (14.8%) of the 54 massage therapists, sensitizations to fragrances/essential oils were not detected with the baseline series, but only with special fragrance series. CONCLUSIONS: Allergic contact dermatitis is common in massage therapists with OD and is mainly caused by fragrances and essential oils. Hence, massage therapists should be aware of this risk. When OD is suspected, not only the baseline series, but also special fragrance series should be patch tested in this occupational group.

A new-old allergen: propolis contact hypersensitivity 1992-2021 / Egy régi-új allergén - a propolisz szenzibilizáló hatásának vizsgálata 1992 és 2021 között

Introduction: Propolis is a resinous substance collected by bees. Its use is widespread in cosmetics and natural medi-cine because of variable beneficial effects. Local application and consumption may cause hypersensitivity.Objective: Aim of this study was to analyze the 30-year data of patients with propolis hypersensitivity.Method: 17 784 patients were patch tested between 1992 and 2021 in the Allergology Outpatient Unit of the De-partment of Dermatology, Venereology and Dermatooncology of the Semmelweis University. 464 patients (2.6%) had propolis sensibility. We present the annual changes in the frequency of propolis sensibility, the typical diagnoses, age groups, localizations most affected by clinical symptoms and the co-hypersensitivities according to propolis sen-sibility.Results: In the 30-year period, the sensitization frequency of propolis was on average 2.6%; in 2019-2021, we de-tected a sudden increase (6.2%, 8.4%, 6.9%). Female predominance was typical (70.7%). Most patients belonged to the age group 51-60 years (24.6%), the mean age was 52.5 years. Most skin symptoms appeared on hands (34.2%), legs (18.4%), and face (17.5%). Regarding co-hypersensitivities, fragrance mix I (27.7%), balsam of Peru (26.8%) and wood tar (23.0%) can be mentioned.Conclusion: The general need for biocosmetics, complementary and alternative medicine raises the exposure of propolis. The risk of contact hypersensitivity is increased because propolis products are used mostly on inflamed skin with higher allergen penetration. According to our results, propolis - beside its advantageous properties - is an important environ-mental allergen, especially among elderly women. Propolis sensibility, the possible cross-and co-hypersensitivities can cause contact dermatitis or may worsen different skin diseases. Propolis sensibility can be verified by patch testing.

Spreading Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Tea Tree Oil in an Over-the-Counter Product Applied on a Wart.

Tea tree oil is an essential oil obtained by distillation from the leaves and terminal branchlets of Melaleuca alternifolia and is now present in numerous products for body care and self-medication. We report a case of allergic contact dermatitis to tea tree oil in a young man who was applying a lotion containing tea tree oil on a wart localized on the plantar aspect of the right big toe, which had previously been treated with cryotherapy. He developed a severe eczematous eruption on the right foot and the right leg, with subsequent id reactions affecting the right thigh, the contralateral lower limb, the trunk and the upper limbs. The lotion was discontinued, and the dermatitis resolved after topical corticosteroid therapy. Patch testing with the aforementioned lotion 10% pet. and oxidized tea tree oil 5% pet. identified tea tree oil as the culprit agent of the dermatitis. This case report confirms that products made of natural ingredients, often perceived to be harmless, can cause allergic reactions.

Is incident sensitization to p-phenylenediamine related to particular exposure patterns? Results of a questionnaire study.

Evidence regarding the risk of active sensitization (AS) to p-phenylenediamine (PPD), patch tested 1% in petrolatum, is conflicting. The objective of this study was to evaluate the relative frequency of 'environmental' exposures and skin reactions to products potentially containing PPD in subgroups of patients with versus without newly diagnosed contact allergy (CA) to PPD upon retesting. Patients patch tested twice with PPD between 1996 and 2004 in the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) network were identified and classified into 4 groups, according to the 2 test results with PPD at D3. A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to 171 patients (response 57%). The frequency of exposure to 'henna tattoos', dark hair dyes, or textiles or work as hairdresser did not differ significantly between the groups. A significantly shorter median interval between the 2 patch tests was observed in the group with newly diagnosed PPD CA compared with the other groups (293 versus >700 days). The results of the study add new, if somewhat weak, evidence to the notion that patch testing with PPD may indeed carry some risk of AS, as environmental exposures to PPD were as common in the subgroup of patients with incident CA to PPD as in the remaining patients.

Erythema multiforme due to contact with weeds: a recurrence after patch testing.

Erythema multiforme (EM) as a complication of patch testing (PT) is rare. A 52-year-old woman with a 13-year history of episodes of EM, after contact with weeds during home gardening, had had no recent history of herpes simplex, other infection, drug ingestion or vaccination. On examination, EM lesions were distributed on the exposed skin. 5 weeks after complete resolution, PT and photopatch testing (PPT) were done with fresh plants she brought in. She was PT with a standard series and the Hermal-Trolab plants, woods, tars, balsams and flavors series. Intradermal testing, with a 3 + reaction to mixed weed pollens, was done 3 weeks later. Specific IgE to weed pollens class 1 (CAP-Pharmacia) was detected. Eczematous PT reactions were obtained with fresh leaves: common chickweed (Stellaria media Caryophyllaceae), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale Compositae), field-milk thistle (Sonchus arvensis Compositae) and white clover (Trifolium repens Leguminosae). Photoaggravation was seen to common chickweed and dandelion. Positive PT was also seen with alantolactone. By the 4-day reading, a typical EM had commenced, coming up to quite the same extent as seen on admission. There was no photosensitivity (UV skin tester, K. Waldmann). In the essential oil obtained from common chickweed, thin layer chromatography (TLC) revealed the well-known contact allergens borneol, menthol, linalool, 1,8-cineole, and other terpenes such as epoxy-dehydro-caryophyllene, monoterpene alcohol-ester and caryophyllene. Up to now, no data on essential oil in Stellaria media (common chickweed) have been reported. It can be concluded that EM developed due to contact with weeds, and recurred after patch testing. Neither blistering nor eczematous lesions have been seen on her skin, making this case very unusual. As far as the world literature is concerned, this is only the 4th report of EM developing in association with patch testing.