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.

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 testing while immunosuppressed: potential risks and benefits.

INTRODUCTION: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a common cutaneous inflammatory skin disorder that is diagnosed via epicutaneous patch testing (PT). ACD may also coexist with other systemic inflammatory conditions such as atopic dermatitis and psoriasis. Many of the treatments used to manage severe ACD, along with other systemic conditions, interact with and suppress the immune system, thereby potentially interfering with the mechanism of PT. There is uncertainty in the literature regarding the effects of immunosuppression on the results of PT. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar to identify articles relevant to the topic of this review. Only articles available in English were included. AREAS COVERED: This review discusses the impact of immunomodulating therapies on the results of PT. We summarize the available evidence and provide updated recommendations for several immunomodulating drugs commonly used in patients undergoing PT. EXPERT OPINION: In general, the results of PT are most reliable when performed without immunosuppression. If this is not feasible, it is best to have patients on as low a dose of immunosuppression as possible, but it may not be necessary to stop or change an immunomodulating drug prior to PT.

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.

Prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis in children with and without atopic dermatitis: A multicenter retrospective case-control study.

BACKGROUND: As both allergic contact dermatitis and atopic dermatitis (AD) have similar clinical presentations and are characterized by spongiotic dermatitis on skin biopsy, many children with AD are not referred for patch testing and allergic contact dermatitis is underdiagnosed. OBJECTIVE: To provide updated prevalence data of common contact allergens in children with and without AD. METHODS: This is a retrospective case-control study using the Pediatric Allergic Contact Dermatitis Registry from 2018 to 2022. RESULTS: A total of 912 children were included (615 with AD and 297 without AD). Children with AD were more likely to have a longer history of dermatitis (4.1 vs 1.6 years, P < .0001), have seen more providers (2.3 vs 2.1, P = .003), have greater than 1 positive patch test (PPT) result (P = .005), have a greater number of PPT results overall (2.3 vs 1.9, P = .012), and have a more generalized distribution of dermatitis (P = .001). PPT to bacitracin (P = .030), carba mix (P = .025), and cocamidopropyl betaine (P = .0007) were significantly increased in children with AD compared to those without AD. LIMITATIONS: Technical variation between providers and potential for misclassification, selection, and recall biases. CONCLUSION: Children with AD are significantly more likely to have PPT reactions and should be referred for evaluation of allergic contact dermatitis and obtain patch testing.

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 Paraphenylenediamine: The North American Contact Dermatitis Group Experience (1994-2018).

Background/Objectives: Paraphenylenediamine (PPD) is an aromatic amine dye that may cause allergic contact dermatitis. This study examines the epidemiology of allergic patch test reactions to PPD. Methods: This retrospective analysis characterizes individuals tested to PPD (1% petrolatum) by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (1994-2018). Demographics and dermatitis site(s) were compared between PPD-allergic and PPD-negative patients. PPD reactions were analyzed by reaction strength, clinical relevance, occupational relatedness, and source as well as coreactivity with structurally related compounds. Results: Of 54,917 patients tested to PPD, 3095 (5.6%) had an allergic patch test reaction. Compared with PPD-negative patients, PPD-allergic patients had significantly greater odds of age >40 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.55 [95% confidence interval; CI 1.43-1.69]) and female gender (OR 1.52 [95% CI 1.41-1.66]), but lower odds of being White (OR 0.66 [95% CI 0.60-0.71]). The most common primary anatomic sites of dermatitis were face (25.5%), hands (21.9%), and scattered/generalized pattern (15.5%). Over half (55.3%) of PPD reactions were ++ or +++ at the final reading and 60.9% were currently relevant. Common exposure sources included hair dye (73.5%) and clothing/shoes/apparel (3.9%). Occupationally related reactions occurred in 8.3%, most commonly in hairdressers/cosmetologists (72.8%). The most common coreactions were benzocaine (11.3%), N-isopropyl-N'-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine (6.7%), disperse dye mix (6.5%), and black rubber mix (5.1%). Conclusions: The 24-year percentage of allergic reactions to PPD was 5.6%. PPD allergy was associated with female gender and age >40 years. PPD allergic patients were less likely to be White. Allergic reactions were usually clinically relevant and hair dye was the most frequently identified source.

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.