Patch tests in non-immediate cutaneous adverse drug reactions: Late readings on Day 4 is more sensitive than on Day 3.

BACKGROUND: Patch tests (PTs) are recommended to identify the culprit drug in non-immediate cutaneous adverse drug reactions (NICADRs). We recently reported that, in patients with NICADRs, a unique reading of PTs at day (D)2 compared with an additional second late reading at D4 missed almost half (45.3%) of the positive PTs. OBJECTIVES: To assess the change in sensitivity of the PT reading on D4 compared with the reading on D3. METHODS: We performed a retrospective (July 2020-June 2023) monocentric study of patients who had PTs with two readings for a NICADR. We compared reading on D3 and the second reading on D4 for the suspected drug (primary outcome) and for the related drugs tested simultaneously (secondary outcome). RESULTS: During the study period, 249 patients underwent patch testing with D3 and D4 readings. Regarding the primary outcome, the first reading at D3 was positive for 13.7% of patients, and the reading at D4 for 24.9% of patients (p < 0.0001). Regarding the secondary outcome, only 9.6% of patients had all their positive PT at D3 compared with 24.9% of patients at D4 (p < 0.0001). Considering the evaluated drug classes, no statistical difference was observed. However, we highlight that D3 reading detected all positive carbamazepine PTs (n = 3) while positive clindamycin PTs (n = 4) were identified only with the help of the second reading on D4. CONCLUSION: This study showed that, an additional D4 reading compared with a single D3 reading enhanced the sensitivity of PTs to identify culprit drugs and related. Further studies should replicate these findings and evaluate the medico-economic balance and safety of a single reading of PTs on D4.

Allergic contact dermatitis from essential oil in consumer products: Mode of uses and value of patch tests with an essential oil series. Results of a French study of the DAG (Dermato-Allergology group of the French Society of Dermatology).

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the clinical characteristics and sensitivity of an essential oil patch test series (EOS) in patients sensitized to their own essential oils (EOs). METHOD: We analysed the clinical data and patch test results obtained with the European baseline series (BSE) and an EOS, as well as the mode of use of EOs, through a questionnaire included in the patient file. RESULTS: The study included 42 patients (79% women, average age 50 years) with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), 8 patients required hospitalization. All patients were sensitized to the EO they used, primarily lavender (Lavandula augustifolia, 8000-28-0), tea tree (Melaleuca alternifolia leaf oil, 68647-73-4), ravintsara (Cinnamomum camphora oil, 92201-50-8), and 2 cases were attributed to helichrysum (helichrysum italicum flower absolute, 90045-56-0). 71% had positive patch tests to fragrance mix I or II, 9 only to the EOS and 4 only with their personal EO. Interestingly, 40% of patients did not spontaneously mention the use of EOs, and only 33% received advice on their use at the time of purchase. CONCLUSION: Patch tests with the BSE, limonene and linalool HP, and oxidized tea tree oil is sufficient to detect most EO-sensitized patients. The most important is to test the patient's own used EOs.

Hand eczema in glove-wearing patients.

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis to gloves is mostly induced by rubber accelerators. The European baseline series (EBS) appears insufficient to detect glove allergy. Since 2017, it is recommended to use the European rubber series (ERS) and to test the patients' own gloves. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical profile of glove-wearing patients with hand eczema (HE) and to evaluate their sensitisation profile to glove allergens and the value of testing the patients' own gloves. METHODS: We conducted a French multicentre study of patients evaluated for HE between 2018 and 2020 and tested with the EBS, the ERS and their own gloves in patch tests and semi-open (SO) tests. RESULTS: A total of 279 patients were included; 32.6% of patients had positive tests to their own gloves or to glove allergens. Almost 45% of the sensitisations to glove allergens were detected only by the ERS. Among the patients tested both in patch tests and SO tests with their own gloves with positive results, 28% had positive SO tests only. Polyvinylchloride (PVC) gloves were positive in four patients. CONCLUSION: Our series confirms the need to test the ERS. All the patients' gloves must also be tested including PVC gloves. SO tests with gloves are useful as a complement to patch tests.

Patch tests in nonimmediate cutaneous adverse drug reactions: The importance of late readings on day 4.

BACKGROUND: Patch tests (PTs) with two readings have been used for decades to identify the culprit drug in nonimmediate cutaneous adverse drug reactions (NICADRs), followed more recently by late reading of intradermal tests (IDTs). Some teams tend to perform PTs with only one reading before IDTs or even directly perform IDTs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relevance of a late PT reading on day 4 (D4) in NICADRs. METHODS: We retrospectively selected patients who had a PT for an NICADR between July 2014 and March 2020. RESULTS: During the study period, 328 patients had a PT with available results. Among the 75 positive-PT patients with available data for the two readings, 41 (54.7%) had positive results on D2 and D4 and 34 (45.3%) had negative results on D2 but positive results on D4. No patient had positive results on D2 and negative results on D4. CONCLUSION: This study shows that a D4 reading enhanced the PT-positive results. A positive PT result allows for reducing the number of IDTs, which are more difficult and costly to perform. Our series suggests that a late PT reading at D4 should be performed for exploring NICADRs.

What is the optimal duration for a ROAT? The experience of the French Dermatology and Allergology group (DAG).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The repeated open application test (ROAT) is an adjuvant investigation measure to patch testing in the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. ESCD recommends a 15 days duration but its overall duration varies according to publications and patients hardly adhere to prolonged ROAT duration beyond 1 week. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Dermatology and Allergy Group of the French Society of Dermatology performed a prospective study with the aim of determining the best duration for the ROAT. RESULTS: A total of 328 ROAT results were collected for topical products, including cosmetics (60%) and topical medications (31.1%). Fifty-nine (18%) ROATs were positive, and 16 (5%) were doubtful. All the positive ROATs occurred within 10 days, with a median time to positivity of 3 days. CONCLUSION: According to our results, a minimum duration of 10 days is necessary to achieve a positive ROAT to a topical product.

Multiple cases of sensitization to an antiseptic containing chlorhexidine digluconate/benzalkonium chloride/benzyl alcohol with different profiles of sensitization in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: An aqueous antiseptic containing "chlorhexidine digluconate/benzalkonium chloride/benzyl alcohol" (CBB) is widely used in France. The only previous documented study dealing with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to this antiseptic is one small case series in children. The French Vigilance Network for Dermatology and Allergy (REVIDAL-GERDA) has collected many cases in the last few years. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical and sensitization profiles of patients diagnosed with ACD to CBB. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients with contact dermatitis to CBB and positive tests to CBB and/or at least one of its components. All patients had to be tested with all components of CBB. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients (71 adults and 31 children) were included. The lesions were extensive in 63% of patients and 55% had delayed time to diagnosis. CBB patch tests were positive in 93.8% of cases. The allergen was identified in 97% of patients, mainly benzyl alcohol in adults (81.7%) and chlorhexidine digluconate in children (54.8%). About 32.4% of the patients were sensitized to several components. CONCLUSION: CBB is a cause of ACD at all ages. The components of the antiseptic should be tested. The sensitization profile seems to be different between adults and children.

Is a specific eyelid patch test series useful? Results of a French prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Eyelids are frequent sites of contact dermatitis. No prospective study focused on eyelid allergic contact dermatitis (EACD) has yet been published, and this topic has never been studied in French patients. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate the usefulness of an eyelid series in French patients patch tested because of EACD, and to describe these patients. METHODS: We prospectively analysed standardized data for all patients referred to our departments between September 2014 and August 2016 for patch testing for suspected EACD as the main reason. All patients were patch tested with an eyelid series, the European baseline series (EBS), the French additional series, and their personal products. Patch testing with additional series and repeated open application tests (ROATs) or open tests were performed if necessary. A standardized assessment of the relevance was used, and the analysis of the results was focused on patients having positive test results with a current certain relevance. RESULTS: Two-hundred and sixty-four patients (238 women and 26 men) were included. Three-hundred and twenty-two tests gave positive results in 167 patients, 84 of whom had currently relevant reactions: 56 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the EBS, 16 had currently relevant positive test reactions to their personal products, 8 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the French additional series, and 4 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the eyelid series. Sixty-seven per cent of all relevant cases were related to cosmetic products. The most frequent allergens with current relevance were methylisothiazolinone (10.2%), fragrance mix I (3%), nickel (2.7%), hydroxyperoxides of linalool (2.7%) and limonene (2.3%), and Myroxylon pereirae (2.3%). Current atopic dermatitis was found in 9.5% of patients. The duration of dermatitis was shorter (23.2 vs 34.2 months; P = .035) in patients with currently relevant test reactions. The percentage of currently relevant tests remained the same when atopic patients or dermatitis localized only on the eyelids were taken into account. CONCLUSION: In French patients, testing for EACD with the extended baseline series and personal products, also including ROATs and use tests, appears to be adequate, considering the currently relevant positive test reactions. The regular addition of an eyelid series does not seem to be necessary.

Patch testing in non-immediate cutaneous adverse drug reactions: value of extemporaneous patch tests.

BACKGROUND: Patch testing following a standardized protocol is reliable for identifying the culprit drug in cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs). However, these patch tests (PTs) require pharmaceutical material and staff, which are not always easily available. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate an extemporaneous PT method in CADRs. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed data for all patients referred to our department between March 2009 and June 2013 for patch testing after a non-immediate CADR. The patients who supplied their own suspected drugs were tested both with extemporaneous PTs and with conventional PTs. Extemporaneous PTs involved a nurse crushing and diluting the drug in pet. in a ratio of approximately one-third to two-thirds. Standardized PTs were performed according to guidelines, with commercial drugs diluted to 30% or with active ingredients diluted to 10%. We analysed the data for the two PT methods in terms of the number of positive test reactions, drugs tested, and type of CADR for patients in whom the two PT methods were used. RESULTS: In total, 75 of 156 patients underwent the two PT procedures, including 91 double tests. Overall, 21 tests gave positive reactions with the two methods, and 69 other tests gave negative results with the two methods. CONCLUSION: Our series yielded results similar to those of published series concerning the types of CADR and the drugs responsible. Our results suggest that, for CADRs, if a patient supplies a suspected drug but if the pharmaceutical material and staff are not available for conventional PTs, extemporaneous PTs performed by the nurse with the commercial drug used by the patient can be useful and reliable.

Airborne allergic contact dermatitis caused by isothiazolinones in water-based paints: a retrospective study of 44 cases.

BACKGROUND: Airborne allergic contact dermatitis caused by paints containing isothiazolinones has been recognized as a health hazard. OBJECTIVES: To collect epidemiological, clinical and patch test data on airborne allergic contact dermatitis caused by isothiazolinone-containing paints in France and Belgium. METHODS: A descriptive, retrospective study was initiated by the Dermatology and Allergy Group of the French Society of Dermatology, including methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/methylisothiazolinone (MI)- and/or MI-sensitized patients who developed airborne allergic contact dermatitis following exposure to isothiazolinone-containing paint. RESULTS: Forty-four cases were identified, with mostly non-occupational exposure (79.5%). Of the patients, 22.5% of also had mucosal symptoms. In several cases, the dermatitis required systemic corticosteroids (27.3%), hospitalization (9.1%), and/or sick leave (20.5%). A median delay of 5.5 weeks was necessary to enable patients to enter a freshly painted room without a flare-up of their dermatitis. Approximately one-fifth of the patients knew that they were allergic to MI and/or MCI/MI before the exposure to paints occurred. CONCLUSION: Our series confirms that airborne allergic contact dermatitis caused by paints containing isothiazolinones is not rare, and may be severe and long-lasting. Better regulation of isothiazolinone concentrations in paints, and their adequate labelling, is urgently needed.

Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions with Antimalarials and Allergological Skin Tests.

BACKGROUND: Currently used antimalarial drugs (AM) are hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, which are prescribed for many autoimmune disorders. The value of skin tests on cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADR) with AM remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this retrospective study is to know whether skin tests for AM are useful and how to manage the recovery of AM therapy in these patients. METHODS: All patients referred for suspected CADR secondary to AM between 2001 and 2014 in eight French dermatology centers were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: We report herein a retrospective series of 20 patients with CADR and AM involvement. Skin tests, performed in 14/20 patients, were negative in all cases. Six patients had an oral provocation test with recurrence of CADR in 1 case. CONCLUSION: We encourage dermatologists to perform oral provocation tests in nonsevere CADR in order to allow AM rechallenge at progressive doses.