Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
: 20 | 50 | 100
1 - 20 de 1.953
1.
Allergol Immunopathol (Madr) ; 52(3): 78-86, 2024.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38721959

INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic and relapsing inflammatory skin disease mainly affecting children. Similarly, Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is an inflammatory skin disease, but unlike AD it results from direct exposure to an external agent. Theoretically, the impaired skin barrier facilitates the penetration of potential allergens. Therefore, AD patients are at risk for an associated ACD, exacerbating their skin condition. Because eczema is similar, performing a patch test (PT) for the differential diagnosis is essential. METHODS: In this cross-sectional transversal study, we performed a PT with 30 sensitizers in 26 children with AD, selected according to established criteria for suspected ACD, and treated at an AD center of a pediatric university hospital in Rio de Janeiro. Clinical presentation, patient profile, main sensitizers, and frequency of ACD caused by therapeutic skincare products were evaluated. RESULTS: In all, 23 (88.5%) patients reacted to at least one allergen, 21 (80.7%) had a relevant positive patch test, and 15 (57.7%) were polysensitized. The main positive sensitizers were nickel (38.5%), blue disperse (30.8%), fragrance mix (30.8%), and neomycin (23.1%). Nineteen (73%) patients reacted to substances present in therapeutic or skincare products. CONCLUSION: Our data underscore the importance of performing a PT in AD children whose eczema has atypical distribution. The expressive percentage of positive tests, especially of allergens in skincare products, indicates the constant need to review the proposed treatments. Therefore, we recommend a specific and expanded PT battery for pediatric AD patients, including a negative control, to increase sensitivity for diagnosing ACD.


Allergens , Dermatitis, Atopic , Patch Tests , Humans , Patch Tests/methods , Cross-Sectional Studies , Dermatitis, Atopic/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Atopic/immunology , Child , Female , Male , Brazil , Allergens/immunology , Child, Preschool , Adolescent , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/immunology , Infant , Diagnosis, Differential
2.
Ital J Dermatol Venerol ; 159(2): 83-104, 2024 Apr.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38650492

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a common inflammatory skin disease caused by delayed hypersensitivity to chemical and biotic contact allergens. ACD significantly affects the patients' quality of life negatively impacting both occupational and non-occupational settings. Patch testing is the gold standard diagnostic in vivo test to precise the ACD etiology and to correctly perform prevention. According to the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) legislative decree no. 178 of 29th May 1991, allergens are defined as medicines and therefore they are subject to strict regulation. In 2017, AIFA (decree no. 2130/2017) started a procedure to regulate contact allergens on the Italian market and actually the contact allergens temporarily authorized are reported in AIFA decree no. 98/2022, valid until November 2023. The availability on the market of contact allergens to diagnose ACD and continuous updating on the basis of new epidemiological trends are mandatory, jointly with the continuous update of the baseline and integrative series for patch testing. For this reason, the scientific community represented in Italy by the Skin Allergies Study Group of SIDeMaST (Italian Society of Dermatology and Venereology) and SIDAPA (Italian Society of Allergological, Occupational and Environmental Dermatology) are constantly working, in close relationship with the European scientific communities with large expertise in this important sector of the modern Dermatology. Herein, we report the setting up of regulatory legislation by AIFA and the new Italian Adult Baseline Series for patch testing.


Allergens , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Patch Tests , Italy , Patch Tests/methods , Humans , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/immunology
3.
J. optom. (Internet) ; 17(1)Jan.-March. 2024.
Article En | IBECS | ID: ibc-229114

Purpose To compare improvements in visual acuity (VA) and stereoacuity between active vision therapy (AVT) and conventional patching therapy in children with amblyopia. Methods This study included 65 children aged 5 to 16 years (mean age±SD, 11.00±3.29 years) with unilateral amblyopia. Among them, 31 children underwent active vision therapy (AVT group), and 34 children underwent conventional patching therapy (patching group). AVT group underwent three sequential phases of AVT: Monocular phase (pursuit, saccades, fixation, visuomotor, eye-hand coordination, and central peripheral activities), biocular phase (diplopia awareness, antisuppression, monocular fixation in a binocular field, accommodative activities, bilateral integration, and fine motor activities) and binocular phase (fusion and stereopsis). Patching group patched their fellow eyes as per guidelines by Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Best-corrected monocular VA and stereoacuity were measured at baseline and after three months of therapy in both groups. Results There were significant improvements in the mean acuities in amblyopic eye (AE) in both AVT (0.32±0.11 logMAR, p <0.001) and patching groups (0.27±0.19 logMAR, p ˂ 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in mean acuity gains in AE between AVT and patching groups (p = 0.059). Mean gains in stereoacuities (log seconds of arc) were statistically significant in both AVT (0.81±0.34, p < 0.001) and patching groups (0.32±0.34, p < 0.001). The stereoacuity gain in the AVT group was significantly higher compared to patching group (p < 0.001). Conclusion Active vision therapy had a better impact than conventional patching therapy in terms of improvement of stereoacuity but not in terms of VA when used for treating children with amblyopia. (AU)


Humans , Male , Female , Child, Preschool , Child , Adolescent , Visual Acuity , Amblyopia/therapy , Patch Tests/methods , Visual Perception , Vision, Ocular
4.
Contact Dermatitis ; 90(5): 501-506, 2024 May.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38332444

BACKGROUND: Many people live with ostomies after life-saving surgery. Ostomy patients often suffer from peristomal dermatitis. Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) has been reported, mostly due to contact allergy (CA) to topical agents. OBJECTIVES: We present three patients with therapy resistant peristomal dermatitis, suggesting ACD caused by different stoma products. METHODS: Patch testing was performed with baseline series, additional series, and selected allergens. They were also tested with their own ostomy products as is and separate extracts of the products. Extracts were analysed using Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS). RESULTS: In all three patients we diagnosed CA to 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate (HDDA), +++ in case (C) 1 and 3, ++ in C 2. HDDA was detected in C 2's ostomy pouch adhesive and in C 1's and 3's flange extenders used to improve the adhesion of the ostomy pouches. CONCLUSION: Therapy resistant peristomal dermatitis should always be suspected of ACD and patch testing, especially with the patient's own products, should be performed.


Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Ostomy , Humans , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Ostomy/adverse effects , Acrylates/adverse effects , Allergens/adverse effects , Patch Tests/methods
5.
Contact Dermatitis ; 90(6): 607-612, 2024 Jun.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38382066

BACKGROUND: Doubtful reactions in patch testing are infrequently reported in the literature; however, recent reports have suggested they be assessed with the same scrutiny as stronger reactions. OBJECTIVE: Assess the clinical relevance of doubtful reactions in patch testing. METHODS: Retrospective study of 1514 patients comprehensively patch tested via the NACDG standard series and additional allergens based on history. The clinical relevance of each reaction was graded based on the NACDG scale: definite, probable, possible, past, unknown and irritant. Reactions were considered 'unique' if an additional mild-to-strong reaction to the same chemical at a different concentration was not observed. RESULTS: 68.9% (1043) of patients demonstrated at least 1 doubtful reaction. Of 4453 total doubtful reactions, 92.2% (4106) were unique. Only 3.3% (137) and 12.2% (500) of these were determined to be of definite or probable clinical relevance respectively. 'Fragrance' was the most common allergen family present among the unique definite doubtful reactions (37). However, 24 (64.9%) of these also had a stronger reaction to another fragrance. Cocamidopropyl betaine was the second most frequent allergen demonstrating definite doubtful reactions (27) and unique in 85.2% (23) of cases. Methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) was most prevalent (36) but less frequently unique (58.3%, 21). CONCLUSIONS: Doubtful reactions may not be as impactful to clinical decision making as theorised in the literature. Few demonstrate definite clinical significance, and many have related stronger reactions that capture them for clinical purposes. Identification of doubtful reactions to cocamidopropyl betaine and MCI/MI may be of greatest significance as they most frequently were not supported by stronger reactions.


Allergens , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Patch Tests , Humans , Patch Tests/methods , Retrospective Studies , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Allergens/adverse effects , Female , Male , Middle Aged , Adult , Perfume/adverse effects , Clinical Relevance
6.
Contact Dermatitis ; 90(6): 566-573, 2024 Jun.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38387040

BACKGROUND: Quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for skin sensitization is used to derive safe use levels of sensitising fragrance ingredients in products. Post-marketing surveillance of the prevalence of contact allergy to these ingredients provides relevant data to help evaluate the performance of these measures. OBJECTIVES: To determine a suitable patch test concentration for five fragrance materials that had hitherto not been tested on a regular basis. These concentrations are then to be used in a surveillance study with patch testing consecutive patients over an extended monitoring period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Furaneol, CAS.3658-77-3; trans-2-hexenal, CAS.6728-26-3; 4,8-dimethyl-4,9-decadienal, CAS.71077-31-1; longifolene, CAS.475-20-7; benzaldehyde, CAS.10052-7, were patch tested with other fragrance allergens in four clinics. Patch testing was conducted in three rounds, starting with the lowest concentrations of the five ingredients. The doses were increased in the subsequent rounds if no late-appearing positive reactions and virtually no irritant reactions were reported. RESULTS: Overall, 373 patients were tested. No positive allergic reaction was reported to the five ingredients. Patch test results of other fragrance allergens are reported. CONCLUSIONS: The highest test concentrations are each considered safe for patch testing consecutive patients. Further surveillance based on these preparations will evaluate the hypothesis that QRA-driven consumer product levels of these fragrances can prevent sensitization.


Allergens , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Patch Tests , Perfume , Humans , Patch Tests/methods , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Perfume/adverse effects , Female , Male , Adult , Middle Aged , Allergens/adverse effects , Allergens/administration & dosage , Aged , Risk Assessment , Young Adult , Adolescent , Product Surveillance, Postmarketing
7.
J Am Acad Dermatol ; 90(5): 953-962, 2024 May.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38215793

BACKGROUND: Distinguishing between allergic and nonallergic forms of Contact Dermatitis (CD) is challenging and requires investigations based on patch-testing. Early detection of allergy biomarkers in active CD lesions could refine and simplify the management of CD patients. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the molecular signatures of active CD lesions. METHODS: We studied the expression of 12 allergy biomarkers by qRT-PCR in active lesions of 38 CD patients. Allergic CD (ACD) was diagnosed based on patch test (PT) results and exposure assessment. Molecular signatures of active lesions, as well as positive PT reactions, were compared with those of reference chemical allergens and irritants. RESULTS: Nineteen of the 38 CD patients reacted positively upon patch-testing and exposure assessment confirmed ACD diagnosis for 17 of them. Gene profiling of active CD lesions revealed 2 distinct molecular patterns: patients harboring signatures similar to reference allergens (n = 23) or irritants (n = 15). Among the 23 patients with an "allergy signature," we found the 17 patients with confirmed ACD, while no culprit allergen was identified for the 6 other patients. Interestingly, the 15 patients without biomarker induction had negative PT, suggesting that they developed nonallergic CD reactions. CONCLUSION: Molecular signatures from active skin lesions may help to stratify CD patients and predict those suffering from ACD.


Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Irritant , Humans , Irritants , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/genetics , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/pathology , Allergens , Patch Tests/methods , Biomarkers , Dermatitis, Irritant/diagnosis
8.
Contact Dermatitis ; 90(3): 273-279, 2024 Mar.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38164086

BACKGROUND: The growing popularity of nail techniques based on acrylates has led to a higher frequency of sensitization in both nail technicians and users. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to assess cases of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by acrylates in individuals with occupational or non-occupational exposure to nail techniques. METHODS: A preliminary study was conducted on 30 patients with ACD caused by acrylates in nail techniques, who were patch tested from September 2022 to March 2023 at the First Department of Dermatology and Venereology of Andreas Syggros Hospital, Athens, Greece. RESULTS: Thirty female patients with ACD to acrylates were documented (15 users and 15 nail technicians and users). The most common allergens were: 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate (HPMA) and ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), which tested positive in all 30 patients (100.0%). Twenty patients (66.7%) had been exposed to dental procedures involving acrylates, before the onset of ACD. Nail technicians exhibited extensive skin lesions, 40.0% experienced ACD within the first year of work and 13.3% during their professional practice. Three of them (20.0%) had to discontinue their work. CONCLUSION: Acrylates have been identified as potent allergens, necessitating the implementation of safety measures for the use of these chemicals in nail techniques.


Cosmetics , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Humans , Female , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Acrylates/adverse effects , Pilot Projects , Greece , Patch Tests/methods , Retrospective Studies , Methacrylates/adverse effects , Allergens , Cosmetics/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Occupational/complications
9.
Contact Dermatitis ; 90(2): 103-109, 2024 Feb.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38086538

Only few studies on contact allergy in African countries have been published. The aim of the present study was to provide an overview of the most common contact allergens identified by the use of patch tests in African countries based on a review of the existing literature. A total of twenty-four publications from eight African countries were initially identified by search in PubMed. The abstracts and method sections were screened, and 15 studies in which patch tests were actually used to identify the allergen causing the allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) were finally selected. Nickel, cobalt, chromium, fragrance mix and p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin were the dominating contact allergens responsible for 40%-90% of the positive patch test reactions. This study indicates that a targeted effort directed towards prevention, avoidance and regulation of reliably identified contact allergens could reduce the disease burden of ACD considerable in some African countries.


Allergens , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Humans , Allergens/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Patch Tests/methods , Nickel , Cobalt , Retrospective Studies
10.
Contact Dermatitis ; 90(3): 266-272, 2024 Mar.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38093646

BACKGROUND: Artificial nail materials are mixtures that are prone to contain several sensitizing (meth)acrylates. It is not known whether the listing of (meth)acrylates is correct in these products' packages. Protective gloves suited for nail work are needed. OBJECTIVES: To analyse (meth)acrylates in gel nail and acrylic nail products chemically and to compare the results with the information in the product labels, and to study penetration of artificial nail materials through selected disposable gloves. METHODS: We analysed 31 gel nail products and 6 acrylic nail products for their (meth)acrylate content by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). We tested the penetration of two nail products through three disposable gloves: nitrile rubber, neoprene rubber and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). RESULTS: Altogether 32/37 products contained (meth)acrylates. In all of them, there was discrepancy between the listed (meth)acrylates and those discovered in the analysis. The commonest (meth)acrylates were hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA, 20/37 samples) and hydroxypropyl methacrylate (HPMA, 9/37 samples), but many of the product packages failed to declare them. Isobornyl acrylate (IBA) was discovered in nine gel nail products. The neoprene glove could withstand nail gel for 20 min and thin nitrile glove and PVC glove for 5 min. Acrylic nail liquid penetrated through disposable gloves quickly. CONCLUSIONS: Labelling of artificial nail products was notably incorrect on most products. Requirements for product labelling must be updated so that the risk of sensitization associated with artificial nail products is clearly indicated. Disposable gloves can probably be used short-term in gel nail work, whereas disposable gloves do not protect the user from acrylic nail liquids.


Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Humans , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/prevention & control , Nails , Neoprene/adverse effects , Rubber/adverse effects , Patch Tests/methods , Acrylates/adverse effects , Methacrylates , Nitriles
11.
Contact Dermatitis ; 90(3): 262-265, 2024 Mar.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38093676

BACKGROUND: Over the last 10 years, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from acrylate-containing nail cosmetics (acrylic nails, gel nails, gel nail polish) has been reported repeatedly. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the frequency and clinical features of ACD in nail cosmetics in a university hospital in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study in patients diagnosed with ACD from acrylate-containing nail cosmetics at the Amsterdam University Medical Centers between January 2015 and August 2023. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients, all women, were diagnosed with ACD from nail cosmetics, representing 1.6% of all individuals and 2.3% of all women patch tested in this period. Sixty-five of sixty-seven (97%) subjects had a positive patch test to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA). Forty-nine patients (73%) were consumers and 18 (27%) were professional nail stylists. The sites most frequently affected with dermatitis were the fingers (79%), hands (40%) and the head and/or neck. Avoidance of contact with acrylate-containing products resulted in complete clearing of dermatitis in 80% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: ACD from acrylate-containing nail cosmetics is frequent in women patch tested in Amsterdam. Nearly all were identified by a positive patch test to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate in the (meth)acrylate series or the European baseline series.


Cosmetics , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Humans , Female , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Retrospective Studies , Nails , Methacrylates/adverse effects , Acrylates/adverse effects , Cosmetics/adverse effects , Patch Tests/methods
12.
Contact Dermatitis ; 90(2): 110-115, 2024 Feb.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37840032

BACKGROUND: Preservatives are a frequent cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and have caused numerous epidemics. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to determine the prevalence of preservative sensitivity, assess the change in the frequency of sensitivity, identify new preservatives with increased sensitivity rates, and evaluate the situation in Turkey by comparing our findings with current literature. METHODS: A total of 201 patients diagnosed with ACD between 2018 and 2020, were patch tested with the European baseline series and additional seven preservative haptens. The change in the prevalence of sensitivity to each preservative hapten was investigated by comparing the data from the study conducted in our department between 2000 and 2004. RESULTS: Results showed that 17.4% (n = 35) of the patients were positive to preservatives. Comparison with previous data from 2000 to 2004 revealed an increase in the frequency of sensitization. The most prevalent allergen was methyldibromo glutaronitrile (9.5%), followed by methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (6.5%), and methylisothiazolinone (5%). CONCLUSION: The increase in preservative sensitivity in Turkey is the most remarkable finding. Although MDBGN was prohibited in cosmetic products, MCI/MI and MI are still widely used. Our findings suggest that awareness of preservative sensitivity should be increased and additional precautions should be taken, also in Turkey, regarding the use of preservatives.


Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Preservatives, Pharmaceutical , Humans , Allergens/adverse effects , Cosmetics , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Haptens , Nitriles , Patch Tests/methods , Preservatives, Pharmaceutical/adverse effects , Thiazoles , Turkey/epidemiology
13.
Contact Dermatitis ; 90(3): 291-298, 2024 Mar.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38043569

BACKGROUND: Due to limited availability of commercial test preparations, patch testing patient's own material (POM) is of great importance to diagnose occupational allergic contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality of performance and documentation of patch testing with POM in patients with suspected occupational skin diseases (OSD) in Germany. METHODS: Retrospective-prospective analysis of protocols of patch tests with POM was conducted between 2013 and 2021 in patients with suspected OSD and submitted to statutory accident insurance institutions. Assessments were done by predefined criteria. RESULTS: Three thousand and four patch tests with POM from 460 patients were included. A full description of the POM was provided in 73.3% of all tests. The test concentration, test vehicle and pH value were documented in 74.3%, 70.5% and 42.2% of tests, for which the respective parameters were considered relevant. One hundred and sixty-one positive reactions to POM were documented. In 72%, sufficient patch testing with commercial test substances was conducted to investigate the positive reaction. In 30.4%, consecutive patch testing of all ingredients of the POM was done. CONCLUSIONS: The results not only show considerable shortcomings mainly in documentation but also to some extent performance of patch tests with POM in patients with suspected OSD in Germany.


Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Humans , Patch Tests/methods , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Retrospective Studies , Insurance, Accident , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Germany , Allergens
14.
Dermatitis ; 35(1): 43-48, 2024.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38011689

Background: Botanicals are increasingly incorporated into skincare products. Although allergic contact dermatitis due to botanicals is recognized, data describing the prevalence of positive patch tests to botanicals are sparse. Objective: To report the Mayo Clinic experience of patch testing to selected botanical products in the standard, extended standard, fragrance, and plant series. Methods: IRB-approved retrospective study of the Mayo Clinic experience with patch testing to botanicals from 1997 to 2017. Results: In total, 12,169 people were patch tested to botanicals in the standard, extended standard, fragrance, and plant series; 4032 were men and 8137 were women. The mean age of the population tested was 54 (standard deviation 17.7) years. Almost 11% (1320/12,169) of the patch-tested population exhibited positive reactions to at least 1 botanical agent. Myroxylon pereirae resin 25% was the most common positive allergen in the series. Patients who had positive reactions to at least 1 botanical agent were more (19.8%) likely to have a positive reaction to at least 1 additional botanical than those patients who did not have any positive tests. Most patients presented with generalized involvement (334) or involvement of the hands (284) or face (232). Conclusion: Physicians should be aware of the high prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis and patch test positivity associated with botanical products.


Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Perfume , Male , Humans , Female , Adolescent , Patch Tests/methods , Retrospective Studies , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Allergens/adverse effects , Perfume/adverse effects
15.
J Am Acad Dermatol ; 90(3): 512-520, 2024 Mar.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37871801

BACKGROUND: Limited and conflicting data have been reported on the impact of dupilumab (DUPI) on patch test (PT) results and its efficacy against allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to analyze PT reactivities and relevance during treatment with DUPI to determine whether they could detect ACD in patients with uncontrolled or worsened atopic dermatitis (AD) who were receiving this agent. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter study examined 76 DUPI-treated patients who had undergone PTs. The relevant information was collected during 3 visits. RESULTS: Overall, 36 patients (47%) had ≥1 positive PT reaction, and 142 PT results were positive. Twenty-three patients (30%) had ≥1 positive and clinically relevant PT result. Five of them had clinical eczema improvement after allergen avoidance. We compared the PT results of 36 patients before and during DUPI therapy, representing 1230 paired PT allergens, of which 1022 were the same, 34 were positive, 44 were lost, and 130 were uninterpretable. LIMITATIONS: Because the number of patients included remains limited, our findings should be confirmed with a larger sample. CONCLUSION: Our results confirmed the usefulness of PTs for patients receiving DUPI, with good PT reproducibility. We suggest that all DUPI-treated patients with AD developing partial responses or experiencing symptom worsening should undergo PTs to look for contact sensitization.


Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Atopic , Humans , Patch Tests/methods , Reproducibility of Results , Prospective Studies , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Atopic/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Atopic/drug therapy , Dermatitis, Atopic/chemically induced , Allergens/adverse effects
16.
Contact Dermatitis ; 90(5): 466-469, 2024 May.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38146793

BACKGROUND: 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) was added to the European baseline series (EBS) in 2019. Few recent data are available on the frequency and relevance of positive reactions to this hapten. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the frequency and relevance of positive patch tests to HEMA in the EBS in a university hospital in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective study in patients with positive patch tests to HEMA investigated between June 2019 and August 2023. RESULTS: Of 2927 consecutive patients, 88 (79 women and 9 men; 3.0%) had a positive reaction to HEMA. The prevalence in women was 3.9%, in men 1.0%. Forty-three (49%) reactions were judged to be of current clinical relevance and 21 (24%) of past relevance. In this group of 64 patients with relevant reactions, 18 (28%) had occupational contact with (meth)acrylate-containing products, of who 11 (61%) were nail stylists. In 46 patients with non-occupational allergic contact dermatitis, 31 (67%) had allergic reactions to nail cosmetics. Glues and glue-containing products accounted for 22% of the materials causing allergic contact dermatitis and dental products for 8%. CONCLUSIONS: Allergic reactions to HEMA are very frequent in women investigated in Amsterdam. Nearly two thirds of cases were caused by nail cosmetics.


Cosmetics , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Male , Humans , Female , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Retrospective Studies , Patch Tests/methods , Methacrylates/adverse effects , Acrylates/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology
17.
Contact Dermatitis ; 90(5): 514-519, 2024 May.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38151921

BACKGROUND: The relationship between atopic dermatitis (AD) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a matter of debate. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of our study is to assess the frequency of ACD in patients with AD, the incriminated allergens and the potential risk factors. METHODS: This is a prospective study, including cases of AD diagnosed based on Hanifin and Rajka's criteria. All patients were patch tested to the European baseline series and corticosteroid series. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients were included. Fifty-six patients (60.2%) had positive patch test results of which 71.4% were relevant. The most frequent allergens were: textile dye mix (24.7%), nickel (20.4%), cobalt (12.9%), isothiazolinone (8.6%), quanterium 15 (4.3%) and balsam of Peru (4.3%). Chromium, fragrance mix I, fragrance mix II and PTBP were positive in three cases (3.2%). Two cases of allergy to corticoids were identified. Facial involvement and duration of AD were significantly associated with contact sensitization (p = 0.04 and p = 0.005, respectively). Avoidance of relevant allergens resulted in a statistically significant decrease in SCORAD (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ACD remains an important co-morbidity of AD. We observed a high frequency of ACD to textile dyes, isothiazolinones and fragrances. Avoidance of relevant allergens has resulted in an improvement of patients' skin symptoms.


Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Atopic , Humans , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Allergens/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Atopic/complications , Prospective Studies , Prevalence , Patch Tests/methods , Retrospective Studies
18.
Expert Rev Clin Immunol ; 20(5): 455-461, 2024 May.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38140898

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.


Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Atopic , Humans , Patch Tests/methods , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Atopic/diagnosis , Immunosuppression Therapy , Risk Assessment , Allergens
19.
Contact Dermatitis ; 90(1): 1-16, 2024 Jan.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37778325

This is the second part of a literature review of the clinical aspects of contact allergy to and allergic contact dermatitis from 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA). Topics include cross- and co-sensitization, atypical manifestations of contact allergy, frequency of positive patch tests to HEMA compared with other (meth)acrylates, sensitivity of HEMA as a screening agent, the presence of HEMA in commercial products, and practical information on patch testing procedures. Primary sensitization to methacrylates including HEMA may result in methacrylate and acrylate cross-sensitization. There is a strong cross-allergy between HEMA, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), and hydroxypropyl methacrylate; many reactions to EGDMA are cross-reactions to primary HEMA sensitization. Rare atypical manifestations of HEMA-allergy include lichen planus, lymphomatoid papulosis, systemic contact dermatitis, leukoderma after positive patch tests, and systemic side effects such as nausea, diarrhoea, malaise, and palpitations. The occurrence of respiratory disease caused by methacrylates such as asthma is not infrequent. HEMA is the most frequently patch test-positive methacrylate. It is a good screening agent for allergy to other (meth)acrylates. Patch test sensitization to HEMA 2% pet. is extremely rare. There are (some) indications that HEMA is frequently used in dental products and nail cosmetics.


Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Humans , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Patch Tests/methods , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Methacrylates/adverse effects , Acrylates/adverse effects
20.
Contact Dermatitis ; 90(1): 66-73, 2024 Jan.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37828279

BACKGROUND: While many studies have reported on occupational allergic contact dermatitis amongst dental personnel, studies on the relevance of patch testing in dental patients are scarce. OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency and clinical relevance of contact allergy in patients with intra- and perioral complaints. METHODS: A total of 360 patients with intra- and perioral complaints suspected of having a contact allergy were patch-tested with the dental allergen series, European Baseline Series, and extended Amsterdam Baseline Series at Amsterdam University Medical Centers between January 2015 and November 2021. RESULTS: A total of 285 patients (79.2%) had a positive patch test reaction for either one (18.6%) or multiple allergens (60.6%). Sodium tetrachloropalladate was the most sensitising allergen with 98 patients (27.2%) testing positive, followed by nickel sulphate (23.3%), methylisothiazolinone (15.6%), and fragrance mix I (14.2%). Clinical relevance was found in 68 of 208 patients (32.7%), with patients having one (15.4%) or multiple (17.3%) patch test reactions clinically relevant to their (peri)oral complaints. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant patch test reactions were frequently seen in dental patients. Although this study provides us with a better understanding on the frequency and clinical relevance of contact allergy in dental patients, further studies are needed to confirm our results.


Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Humans , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Clinical Relevance , Allergens/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Patch Tests/methods , Retrospective Studies
...