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.

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.

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.

Smokeless tobacco keratosis.

Smokeless tobacco keratosis is a benign lesion characterized by the formation of white, gray, or pale macules or papules with wrinkling or rugae. It forms in the oral mucosa in response to the use of smokeless tobacco products. We present a 50-year-old man with an extensive history of smokeless tobacco use and development of the characteristic lesion. Shave biopsy showed typical changes of this benign condition and tobacco cessation was recommended.

North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2019-2020.

Background: Patch testing is an important diagnostic tool for assessment of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Objective: This study documents the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) patch testing results from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020. Methods: At 13 centers in North America, patients were tested in a standardized manner with a screening series of 80 allergens, and, as indicated, supplemental allergens. Results: Overall, 4121 patients were tested; 2871 (69.7%) had at least 1 positive/allergic patch test reaction and 2095 patients (51.2%) had a primary diagnosis of ACD. The most commonly positive allergens were nickel (18.2%), methylisothiazolinone (MI) (13.8%), fragrance mix (FM) I (12.8%), hydroperoxides of linalool (HPL) (11.1%), and benzisothiazolinone (BIT) (10.4%). Compared with that of 2017-2018, prevalence of top 20 allergens statistically increased for FM I, HPL, BIT, propolis, and hydroperoxides of limonene (3.5%). For the first time, MI positivity did not increase between reporting periods. Approximately one-fifth of patients (20.3%) had ≥1 clinically relevant reaction(s) to allergens/substances not on the NACDG series. Conclusions: The epidemic of MI contact allergy in North America may have reached a plateau. Patch testing using a robust screening series, and supplemental allergens as indicated, is necessary for comprehensive evaluation of ACD.

Patch Testing With Benzophenone-3 and -4: The North American Contact Dermatitis Group Experience, 2013-2020.

Background: Benzophenone (BZP)-3 and BZP-4 are ultraviolet (UV) absorbers used in sunscreens and personal care products (PCPs) and may cause allergic contact dermatitis. Objective: To characterize positive patch test reactions to BZP-3 (10% in petrolatum [pet]) and BZP-4 (2% pet) in a screening allergen series. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients tested to BZP-3 and BZP-4 was conducted by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group from 2013 to 2020. Results: Of 19,618 patients patch tested to BZP-3 and BZP-4, 103 (0.5%) and 323 (1.6%) had positive reactions, respectively: 413 (2.1%) reacted to at least 1 BZP (BZP-positive patient). As compared with BZP-negative patients, BZP-positive patients were significantly more likely to have a history of hay fever (39.3% vs 33.4%, P = 0.0134), history of atopic dermatitis (39.8% vs 30.7%, P = 0.0001), and facial involvement (37.4% vs 32.2%, P = 0.0272). Most reactions were currently clinically relevant (BZP-3: 90.4%; BZP-4: 65.8%). Common identified sources included PCPs and sunscreens. Coreactivity between BZP-3 and BZP-4 was low: 13.5% (14/104) of BZP-3-positive patients were allergic to BZP-4 and 4.3% (14/322) of BZP-4-positive patients were allergic to BZP-3. Conclusions: Eight-year prevalence of BZP positivity was 2.1%. Reactions were frequently clinically relevant and linked to PCPs and sunscreens.

Mimics of Dermatitis.

Dermatitis is a common condition frequently encountered by dermatologists. The diagnosis of dermatitis can be challenging because this condition is often multifactorial, and many skin diseases that can mimic dermatitis should be considered in the differential diagnosis. It is important to recognize and be familiar with these conditions because some of them can represent signs of systemic disease or malignancies and misdiagnosis can lead to mismanagement and adverse outcomes for the patient.

Occupational dermatitis to facial personal protective equipment in health care workers: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged wear of facial protective equipment can lead to occupational dermatoses. OBJECTIVE: To identify important causes of occupational dermatoses from facial protective equipment. METHODS: A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed using PubMed and Embase databases. Articles were included if they reported occupational dermatoses caused by surgical/procedure masks or N95 respirators, or both. RESULTS: We identified 344 articles, and 16 were suitable for inclusion in this review. Selected articles focused on facial occupational dermatoses in health care workers. Allergic contact dermatitis to the elastic straps, glue, and formaldehyde released from the mask fabric was reported. Irritant contact dermatitis was common on the cheeks and nasal bridge due to pressure and friction. Irritant dermatitis was associated with personal history of atopic dermatitis and prolonged mask wear (>6 hours). Acneiform eruption was reported due to prolonged wear and occlusion. Contact urticaria was rare. LIMITATIONS: Only publications listed in PubMed or Embase were included. Most publications were case reports and retrospective studies. CONCLUSION: This systematic review from members of the American Contact Dermatitis Society highlights cases of occupational dermatitis to facial protective equipment, including potential offending allergens. This work may help in the diagnosis and treatment of health care workers with facial occupational dermatitis.

Pilot Study of a Novel Therapeutic Approach for Refractory Advanced Stage Folliculotropic Mycosis Fungoides.

Folliculotropic mycosis fungoides is a variant of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma characterized as having a folliculocentric infiltrate of malignant T cells along with a worse prognosis in comparison to the epidermotropic variants. Patients with advanced forms of folliculotropic mycosis fungoides are often poorly responsive to both skin-directed as well as to systemic therapies. We report here a high response rate using a novel therapeutic regimen combining interferon gamma, isotretinoin in low dose and topical carmustine, and in some cases concomitant skin-directed therapies, among 6 consecutive patients with refractory folliculotropic mycosis fungoides with stages IB through IIIB who had previously failed both topical and systemic therapies. The potential mechanisms of this multimodality approach are discussed.

Evaluation and Management of Patch Test-Negative Patients With Generalized Dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with generalized dermatitis are common in dermatology practices. Allergic contact dermatitis is often suspected, and patients frequently undergo patch testing. When the patch testing result is negative, further evaluation and management of these patients are challenging. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to survey members of the American Contact Dermatitis Society regarding the evaluation and management of patch test-negative patients with generalized dermatitis. RESULTS: Generalized dermatitis was the most common term identified for patch test-negative patients with diffuse dermatitis. After having negative expanded patch testing results, most physicians proceeded with additional testing including skin biopsy, complete blood cell count with differential, and liver and renal function tests. The most commonly used systemic treatment is prednisone, followed by methotrexate. Narrow-band ultraviolet B (UVB) is the most commonly used light source. Antihistamines are frequently prescribed. Food allergy is not felt to be causative. This cohort of patients experiences significant impairment in quality of life, stress on personal relationships, and time off work. CONCLUSIONS: The management of patch test-negative patients with generalized dermatitis is challenging. This study provides insight into management of these complex patients. It also demonstrates practice gaps in the management of these patients, indicating a need for further studies to direct the evaluation and management of this patient population.

Contact Dermatitis: Practice Gaps and Challenges.

Patch testing remains the criterion standard for diagnosing allergic contact dermatitis. A thorough and detailed history, proper selection of allergens and testing procedure, as well as education of patients are all key parts of this procedure and important in the successful management of those suspected of having allergic contact dermatitis. Physicians must also be aware of the continual introduction of new chemicals that are potential new allergens and adjust screening allergens appropriately.

Allergic contact dermatitis: Patient diagnosis and evaluation.

Allergic contact dermatitis resulting from exposure to a chemical or chemicals is a common diagnosis in the dermatologist's office. We are exposed to hundreds of potential allergens daily. Patch testing is the criterion standard for diagnosing the causative allergens responsible for allergic contact dermatitis. Patch testing beyond standard trays is often needed to fully diagnose patients, but not all dermatology practices have access to this testing procedure or these allergens. In order to adequately evaluate patients, physicians must understand the pathophysiology of the disease process and be well versed in the proper evaluation of patients, indications for patch testing, proper testing procedure, and other diagnostic tools available and be aware of new and emerging allergens.

Allergic contact dermatitis: Patient management and education.

Allergic contact dermatitis is a common diagnosis resulting from exposure to a chemical or chemicals in a patient's personal care products, home, or work environment. Once patch testing has been performed, the education and management process begins. After the causative allergens have been identified, patient education is critical to the proper treatment and management of the patient. This must occur if the dermatitis is to resolve. Detailed education is imperative, and several resources are highlighted. Photoallergic contact dermatitis and occupational contact dermatitis are other considerations a clinician must keep in mind.