Occupational Contact Dermatitis in Construction Workers: A Retrospective Analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 2001-2020.

Background: Construction workers (CWs) are at risk for occupational contact dermatitis (CD) owing to workplace exposures. Objective: Determine the prevalence of occupational allergic CD and characterize common occupational allergens in CWs referred for patch testing in the United States and Canada. Methods: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of patients patch tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group from 2001 to 2020. Results: Of 47,843 patch-tested patients, 681 (1.4%) were CWs. Compared with non-CWs, CWs were more likely to be male (91.0% vs 30.9%) have occupational skin disease (36.9% vs 11.4%) and have hand involvement (37.2% vs 22.5%) (all P < 0.0001). Of 681 CWs, 60.1% (411) had clinically relevant positive patch test reactions, and nearly 1/3 of CWs (128) had occupationally relevant reactions. Most common occupationally relevant allergens were potassium dichromate 0.25% pet. (30.5%, 39/128), bisphenol A epoxy resin 1% pet. (28.1%, 36/128), carba mix 3% pet. (14.8%, 19/128), cobalt (ii) chloride hexahydrate 1% pet. (14.1%, 18/128), and thiuram mix 1% pet. (14.1%, 18/128). Top sources of occupationally relevant allergens were cement/concrete/mortar (20.4%, 46/225), gloves (15.1%, 34/225), and coatings (paint/lacquer/shellac/varnish/stains) (9.8%, 22/225). Conclusions: Occupational CD in North American CWs is common. In this group, frequently identified etiological sources of occupational allergic CD included metals, epoxy resin, and rubber.

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.

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.

Tangled Truths: Unraveling the Link Between Frontal Fibrosing Alopecia and Allergic Contact Dermatitis.

Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) is an increasingly common diagnosis, especially in middle-aged women, and has garnered growing attention in the scientific literature. This variant of lichen planopilaris (LPP) is recognized as a progressive scarring alopecia affecting the frontal and temporal regions of the scalp as well as the eyebrows and occasionally other sites. Although its precise etiology remains elusive, various factors such as genetics, medications, hormonal influences, and environmental exposures-including specific chemicals present in sunscreens-have been implicated in its pathogenesis but without evidence of causality. The potential relationship between contact allergy and FFA has been explored, with some suggesting an increased prevalence of contact allergy among patients diagnosed with FFA. This article aims to explore the potential association between contact allergy and FFA, focusing on the current published literature and implicated allergens.

Allergic or Not: Final Interpretation of Doubtful Patch Test Reactions From the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2019-2020.

Background: Doubtful patch test reactions generally do not meet criterion for positivity in patch testing. However, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) allows for doubtful reactions to be coded with a final determination of "allergic/positive" based on the temporal pattern, appearance, known characteristics of the allergen, and/or other supportive patch test reactions. Objectives: To analyze NACDG data from the 2019-2020 patch test cycle to identify patterns in the interpretation and relevance of doubtful reactions. Methods: The frequency and proportions of doubtful reactions were tabulated and analyzed for patterns. Statistical analyses were limited to allergens with ≥30 doubtful reactions to ensure adequate sample size. Results: Of patch-tested patients, 31.9% (1315/4121) had ≥1 doubtful reaction. Of 2538 total doubtful reactions, 46% (n = 1167) had a final interpretation of "allergic/positive." The allergens with the highest proportion of doubtful reactions at the final visit were hydroperoxides of linalool 1% (4.5%), fragrance mix I 8.0% (3.9%), and cetrimonium chloride 0.5% (3.4%). Methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) 0.02% (P < 0.001), MI 0.2% (P < 0.001), nickel sulfate hexahydrate 2.5% (P = 0.001), and neomycin sulfate 20.0% (P = 0.003) doubtful reactions were more likely to be interpreted as allergic than nonallergic. Methyldibromoglutaronitrile/phenoxyethanol 0.2% (P < 0.001), oleamidopropyl dimethylamine 0.1% (P < 0.001), formaldehyde 2.0% (P < 0.001), cetrimonium chloride 0.5% (P < 0.001), benzophenone-4 (sulisobenzone) 10% (P < 0.001), iodopropynyl butylcarbamate 0.5% (P < 0.001), cocamidopropyl betaine 1.0% (P = 0.002), and benzisothiazolinone 0.1% (P = 0.012) doubtful reactions were less likely to be interpreted as allergic. Of the 1167 doubtful reactions interpreted as allergic, 84.9% had current relevance. Conclusions: Doubtful reactions were common and approximately one half were coded with a final interpretation of "allergic/positive." Of those, most were clinically relevant. MCI/MI, MI, nickel, and neomycin were more likely to be interpreted as allergic.

Analysis of Contact Allergens in Polyvinyl Chloride Examination Gloves in the United States.

Background: Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) gloves are recommended as a safe alternative for patients with rubber accelerator allergy. However, allergic contact dermatitis to other chemicals in PVC gloves has been reported. Objective: To analyze single-use PVC medical examination gloves in the United States for the presence of potential contact allergens. Methods: Using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, 20 unique PVC gloves were analyzed in triplicate for 6 chemicals: benzisothiazolinone, bisphenol A, mono(2-ethylhexyl) maleate, tricresyl phosphate, triphenyl phosphate, and triphenyl phosphite. Results: All 20 PVC gloves contained detectable quantities of benzisothiazolinone (range, 0.001-1.48 parts per million [ppm]), bisphenol A (0.01-0.11 ppm), triphenyl phosphate (0.01-2.11 ppm), and triphenyl phosphite (0.001-0.22 ppm). Eighteen (90%) gloves contained mono(2-ethylhexyl) maleate (0.001-0.14 ppm) and 3 (15%) contained tricresyl phosphate (0.001-0.002 ppm). Conclusions: Known allergens were present in all 20 PVC gloves. However, the detected levels were mostly low and their relationship with sensitization and elicitation thresholds requires further study.

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.

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.

A Survey of Skin Reactions Associated With Acrylic Nail Cosmetics, With a Focus on Home Kits: Is There a Need for Regulation?

Background: Sensitization to (meth)acrylates, the most common nail cosmetic allergens, is rising. In recent years, home acrylic nail kits have become easily available. Objective: To investigate the characteristics of individuals reporting skin reactions associated with acrylic nail cosmetics, particularly home kits. Methods: Cross-sectional survey of Facebook nail allergy support groups. Inclusion criteria were self-reported skin reactions associated with acrylic nails and age ≥18 years. Results: There were 199 respondents, nearly all female (99%), mostly white (83%), and 25-54 years old (83%). Seventy-eight percent reported using home acrylic kits, more than half for the first time during COVID-19. They predominantly learned about kits through social media (68%) and received training through websites/online videos (74%). Most home users (83%) first developed skin reactions after starting to use home kits. Compared with nonhome users, significantly more home users reported skin reaction onset within 1 year of use, as well as nail damage (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Among online nail allergy support group members, home acrylic nail kit use was common and associated with earlier development of skin reactions and more frequent nail damage than professional acrylic manicures. These findings raise important questions about the need to regulate home acrylic nail kits.

Psychiatric comorbidities on an inpatient dermatology consultation service: A cross-sectional analysis.

Despite the high prevalence of psychiatric illness in hospitalised dermatology patients, characterisation of psychiatric comorbidities on an inpatient dermatology consultation service in the United States has yet to be performed. To fill this gap in knowledge, we investigated the prevalence of and factors associated with psychiatric illness on the inpatient dermatology consultation service at the University of Southern California. Of the 429 patients seen by the dermatology consultation service between June 2021 to July 2022, 147 (34%) had psychiatric illness (defined as having at least 1 psychiatric diagnosis). Increasing age was associated with a decreased likelihood of psychiatric illness, while housing instability, chronic dermatologic disease, drug reaction, and pruritus without rash were associated with an increased likelihood of psychiatric illness. The high prevalence of psychiatric illness observed in hospitalised dermatology patients emphasises the importance of collaboration between consultant dermatologists and mental health specialists, particularly when specific sociodemographic or disease factors are present.

Lanolin: The 2023 American Contact Dermatitis Society Allergen of the Year.

In 2023, lanolin was named the American Contact Dermatitis Society Allergen of the Year. Despite its widespread use in personal care products and industrial goods, lanolin is thought to be a rare sensitizer in patients with healthy skin; however, those with chronic inflammatory skin conditions are at a higher risk for allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to lanolin. The proper patch test formulation for lanolin is a source of contention. In this article, we discuss ACD to lanolin with a focus on its paradoxical nature and the subtleties to consider when patch testing to this controversial allergen.

Patch Test Results Among Older Adults: A Retrospective Analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data (2009-2020).

Background: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in older adults (OA) represents a significant health burden, but few studies examine the prevalence and characteristics of contact allergy and ACD in this population. Objective: To compare positive and clinically relevant patch test results in OA versus younger adults (YA) and children. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patch test results obtained in OA (≥65 years), YA (19-64 years), and children (≤18 years) by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2009 to 2020. Results: Of 28,177 patients patch tested, 5366 (19.0%) were OA. OA were more likely to have a final primary diagnosis of ACD as compared with YA (50.8% vs 49.2%, P = 0.035) and children (44.6%, P < 0.0001). The primary site of dermatitis also differed by age group, with OA having a higher proportion of dermatitis affecting the trunk, scalp, anogenital region, and "under clothing," and a lower proportion of dermatitis affecting the face, lips, and feet. Limitations: Retrospective design, lack of follow-up, and referral population. Conclusion: OA were as likely and were statistically even more likely to have a final primary diagnosis of ACD compared with YA and children. Anatomic site of dermatitis also differed by age group. This underscores the need for patch testing in OA when ACD is suspected.

Patch Testing to Chlorhexidine Digluconate, 1% Aqueous: North American Contact Dermatitis Group Experience, 2015-2020.

Background: Chlorhexidine is an antiseptic that may cause allergic contact dermatitis. Objectives: To describe the epidemiology of chlorhexidine allergy and characterize positive patch test reactions. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients patch tested to chlorhexidine digluconate 1% aqueous by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2015-2020. Results: Of 14,731 patients tested to chlorhexidine digluconate, 107 (0.7%) had an allergic reaction; of these, 56 (52.3%) reactions were currently clinically relevant. Most (59%) reactions were mild (+), followed by strong (++, 18.7%) and very strong (+++, 6.5%). Common primary dermatitis anatomic sites in chlorhexidine-positive patients were hands (26.4%), face (24.5%), and scattered/generalized distribution (17.9%). Compared with negative patients, chlorhexidine-positive patients were significantly more likely to have dermatitis involving the trunk (11.3% vs 5.1%; P = 0.0036). The most commonly identified source category was skin/health care products (n = 41, 38.3%). Only 11 (10.3%) chlorhexidine reactions were occupationally related; of these, 81.8% were in health care workers. Conclusions: Chlorhexidine digluconate allergy is uncommon, but often clinically relevant. Involvement of the hands, face, and scattered generalized patterns was frequent. Occupationally related reactions were found predominantly in health care workers.

Is Laundry Detergent a Common Cause of Allergic Contact Dermatitis?

Both patients and health care providers commonly suspect laundry detergent as the cause of skin problems; however, research suggests that the prevalence of laundry detergent-associated allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) may be quite low. Herein, we provide a summary of the evidence for the potential allergenicity of laundry detergent, including common allergens present in laundry detergent, the role of machine washing, and the differential diagnosis for laundry detergent-associated ACD.