ABSTRACT
In the armed forces, marching still remains a major component in the training of the young recruits. In the following we describe a young recruit who, following instructions, prophylactically used adhesives to prevent chafing. The recruit developed an allergic contact dermatitis with generalized spreading. The adhesive products recommended are sold on a global market and are extensively used. Allergic contact dermatitis from these products have so far only been reported from Sweden. Unfortunately, even though the first cases were reported some years ago, new cases are still diagnosed. When medical devices are recommended to be used on the skin for a prolonged time and under extreme conditions, sensitization and a subsequent allergic contact dermatitis must be considered.
Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Military Personnel , Humans , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Male , Adhesives/adverse effects , Patch Tests , Young AdultABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Ostomy , Humans , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Ostomy/adverse effects , Acrylates/adverse effects , Allergens/adverse effects , Patch Tests/methodsABSTRACT
Medical adhesive tapes are commonly recommended for the prevention of friction blisters during hiking and military marches. The aim of this paper is to report on the results of investigations into an outbreak of tape-related foot dermatitis in 26 military conscripts following continuous use of medical adhesive tapes for several days during a field exercise. Patch tests were performed using baseline series and aimed testing was performed with colophonium-related substances and different medical adhesive tapes. Contact allergy to the adhesive tapes used was found in 20 (77%) subjects, and contact allergy to colophonium in 16 (61%). Chemical analysis detected colophonium-related substances in the culprit tapes. Compared with consecutive dermatitis patients investigated at our Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology in the previous 10 years, conscripts with colophonium allergy had increased odds ratios for concomitant contact allergy to phenol formaldehyde resins and fragrance substances including hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool. The results show that prolonged use of medical adhesive tapes on intact skin carries a high risk for allergic contact dermatitis. Prior to their introduction on the market, medical devices should be assessed for possible side-effects.
Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Military Personnel , Humans , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Resins, Plant/adverse effects , Patch Tests/methods , Allergens/adverse effectsSubject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Military Personnel , Humans , Adhesives/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/prevention & control , Dermatitis, Occupational/prevention & control , Dermatitis, Occupational/complicationsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of face masks has increased among healthcare workers (HCWs). Questionnaire studies have shown a high frequency of self-reported facial adverse skin reactions. Case reports have been published on face mask-induced allergic contact dermatitis and urticaria. OBJECTIVES: To describe the results of the contact allergy investigations in consecutive HCWs investigated for skin reactions to face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic and the results of the chemical investigations of face masks supplied by the hospital. METHODS: Participants were patch tested with baseline series and chemicals previously reported in face masks not included in the baseline series. Face mask(s) brought by the HCW were tested as is and/or in acetone extract. Chemical analyses were performed on nine different face masks for potential allergens. RESULTS: Fifty-eight HCWs were investigated. No contact allergies were found to the face mask(s) tested. Eczema was the most common type of skin reaction, followed by an acneiform reaction. Colophonium-related substances were found in one respirator and 2,6-di-t-butyl-4-methylphenol (BHT) were found in two respirators. CONCLUSION: Based on this report, contact allergies to face masks is uncommon. Patch test with colophonium-related substances and BHT should be considered when investigating adverse skin reactions to face masks.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Facial Dermatoses , Humans , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Pandemics , Masks/adverse effects , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Patch Tests/methods , Facial Dermatoses/epidemiology , Facial Dermatoses/etiology , Health PersonnelABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The two dialkylthiocarbamyl benzothiazole sulphides, dimethyl-thiocarbamylbenzothiazole sulphide (DMTBS) and diethylthio-carbamylbenzothiazole sulphide (DETBS) were shown to be good markers of both thiuram and mercaptobenzothiazole sensitivity. OBJECTIVES: To investigate if DMTBS and/or DETBS could be better markers of contact allergy to common rubber additives than the ones currently used. METHODS: Sixty-eight dermatitis patients were patch tested with DMTBS and DETBS, both at 1% in petrolatum (pet). Because of late reactions in 10 patients, these were retested to DMTBS and DETBS in serial dilutions. Tetramethylthiuram monosulphide (TMTM) 1.0% pet was also tested. RESULTS: At the initial reading Days 3 and 7, no reactions were noted to DMTBS or DETBS. At retesting, 10 of the 68 (15%) patients reacted positively to lower concentrations of DMTBS than the initial test concentration. Seven of 8 also reacted to TMTM. Three of them had positive reactions to DEBTS. All 10 patients had reactions to more diluted solutions to DMBTS than to DEBTS (p = 0.0077; Mc-Nemar test, two-sided). CONCLUSIONS: Results speak for patch test sensitization to DMTBS with cross-reactivity to TMTM and also DEBTS. DMTBS and DEBTS could be new markers of rubber allergy but a safe test concentration must be found.
Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Humans , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Rubber/adverse effects , Allergens/adverse effects , Patch Tests/adverse effects , Sulfides/adverse effectsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Carvone (l-carvone) is a mint-tasting flavour additive that most of us is exposed to and can cause allergic contact reactions. OBJECTIVES: To analyse the frequency and the relevance of positive carvone reactions in a dermatitis population. METHOD: A retrospective analysis of dermatitis patients consecutively tested with carvone from 2017 to 2021. Data were retrieved from the department's patch-test database. RESULTS: Of 3554 patients tested with carvone, 28 (0.79%) had a positive reaction. Carvone-positive patients had higher mean age, were significantly more likely female (p < 0.001) and had often an intraoral/lip involvement (p < 0.001). In the carvone-positive group, 50% (n = 14) had a relevant reaction, and in 4 of 14, the relevance was first revealed after test reading. Of the carvone-positive patients, 18 of 28 did not have a coexisting allergy to a fragrance/flavour allergen and of these 44% had a relevant allergy. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that a significant fraction of relevant carvone contact allergies may be overlooked if the allergen is not tested. Furthermore, as the exposure is widespread, inclusion of carvone in the Swedish baseline series may be justified even if the contact allergy prevalence is below 1%.
Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Perfume , Humans , Female , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Patch Tests/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies , Allergens/adverse effects , Perfume/adverse effectsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Regularly updating the prevalence of fragrance contact allergy (CA) is important. Patch testing with fragrance markers in the baseline series and the ingredients of fragrance mixes (FMs) is still debated. OBJECTIVES: To update the prevalence and clinical characteristics of patients with fragrance CA. To establish the results of patch testing with individual allergens of FMs. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 3539 patients with dermatitis who were patch tested with the baseline series and FMs ingredients during 2016 to 2020 was performed. RESULTS: The prevalence of fragrance CA was 13%. About 10% of these patients with fragrance CA would be missed if the individual ingredients were not tested. Unlike hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde, there was no decreasing trend of CA to Evernia prunastri (oakmoss) extract after the EU regulation came into force. Patients with CA from only one ingredient of the mixes or having a weak positive reaction to the ingredients were significantly missed when tested with only the fragrance markers in the baseline series. CONCLUSIONS: Patch testing with individual fragrance allergens is crucial for experts to expand knowledge in the fragrance CA field. The concentrations of the allergens in FMs may need to be adjusted to detect patients with fragrance CA, since some were significantly overlooked.
Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Perfume , Allergens/adverse effects , Biomarkers , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Humans , Odorants , Patch Tests/methods , Perfume/adverse effects , Pharmaceutical Vehicles , Retrospective Studies , Sweden/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Recently, aluminum chloride hexahydrate (ACH) 10.0% petrolatum (pet) was recommended for patch testing to detect aluminum contact allergy. Aluminum lactate (AL) may be as reliable a test substance as ACH. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the frequencies of aluminum allergy when ACH and AL were used in patch testing consecutive patients. METHODS: Petrolatum preparations of ACH 10.0% and AL 12.0% were added to the baseline series in 2010-2017. Aluminum chloride hexahydrate 10.0% pet was added to the children baseline series from July 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017. RESULTS: A total of 5448 patients were patch tested with the extended baseline series and 196 children with the extended children baseline series. Forty-eight of the 5448 adults (0.9%) and 10 of the 196 children (5.1%) were diagnosed with aluminum contact allergy. A significant difference was found between the aluminum allergy frequencies in children and adults patch tested with ACH in 2013-2017 (P < 0.001). The difference between the frequencies of contact allergies for the 2 aluminum salts is not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patch testing with ACH and AL demonstrated similar contact allergy frequencies. To detect aluminum allergy, patch testing with ACH 10.0% pet is recommended. Aluminum chloride hexahydrate 10.0% pet should be considered for inclusion in baseline series for patch testing adults and children.
Subject(s)
Allergens/adverse effects , Aluminum Chloride/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Patch Tests/methods , Adult , Age Factors , Allergens/administration & dosage , Aluminum Chloride/administration & dosage , Aluminum Compounds/adverse effects , Child , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Female , Humans , Intradermal Tests/methods , Male , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Contact allergy to oxidized (ox.) linalool and ox. limonene has been reported to have a high prevalence, raising the question of inclusion into the baseline series. However, several important issues should be clarified and further investigated before inclusion can be warranted. OBJECTIVES: To report the trends of ox. terpenes allergy in patients with dermatitis, features of the patch test reactions, and clinical characteristics of the patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 5773 patients was performed. All patients were patch tested with baseline series, individual ingredients of fragrance mix I and II, ox. linalool, and ox. limonene from 2013 to 2020. RESULTS: The prevalence rates of contact allergy to ox. linalool and ox. limonene were 7.0% and 5.1%, respectively. Significantly increasing trends of contact allergy were observed. More than 95% of contact allergy cases were identified on Day 3/4. Patients with contact allergy to ox. linalool and ox. limonene were significantly younger than those with contact allergy to other fragrances and were predominantly female. Strong reactions were associated with older age and multiple fragrance allergies. CONCLUSIONS: Contact allergy to ox. linalool and ox. limonene is becoming increasingly important, and findings show intriguing features. More studies concerning the clinical relevance before recommending these substances for screening are required.
Subject(s)
Acyclic Monoterpenes/adverse effects , Allergens/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Patch Tests/methods , Adult , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Oxidation-Reduction , Retrospective Studies , Terpenes/adverse effectsABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to enhanced hygiene procedures and use of personal protective equipment, but also to increased attention to occupational skin disease in healthcare workers. The occurrence of hand and facial skin disease in > 5,000 Swedish healthcare workers was investigated in a questionnaire survey. Levels of skin exposure related to hygiene procedures and personal protective equipment were recorded. Caring for patients with COVID-19 entailed higher levels of wet work and face mask exposures, and was associated with higher 1-year prevalence of both hand eczema (36%) and facial skin disease (32%) compared with not being directly engaged in COVID-19 care (28% and 22%, respectively). Acne and eczema were the most common facial skin diseases; for both, a dose-dependent association with face mask use was found. Dose-dependent associations could be shown between hand eczema and exposure to soap and gloves, but not to alcohol-based hand disinfectants.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Dermatitis, Occupational , Eczema , Hand Dermatoses , Cross-Sectional Studies , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Eczema/diagnosis , Eczema/epidemiology , Hand Dermatoses/diagnosis , Hand Dermatoses/epidemiology , Health Personnel , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2Subject(s)
Chlorhexidine/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Occupational/immunology , Disinfectants/adverse effects , Immunoglobulin E/blood , Latex Hypersensitivity/immunology , Latex/adverse effects , Personnel, Hospital , Anesthesia Department, Hospital , Chlorhexidine/immunology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Denmark , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Disinfectants/immunology , Humans , Latex/immunology , Latex Hypersensitivity/diagnosis , SwedenABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Polyaminopropyl biguanide (INCI name) and polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) are polymeric biguanides. PHMB is a broad-spectrum antimicrobial substance used as a preservative in many products. Due to our limited knowledge on PHMB contact allergy frequency and the fact that cases of allergic contact dermatitis to PHMB might be missed, we have included PHMB as a screening allergen since 2016. OBJECTIVE: To report the prevalence of positive patch test reactions to PHMB as a screening allergen in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 1760 patch tested patients from July 2016 to December 2018 was performed. Polyaminopropyl biguanide 2.0% aqua was included in the extended Malmö baseline series during the study period. RESULTS: Of all patients, 1204 (68.4%) were female. Positive patch test reactions were reported in 19 patients (1.1%). The most common sites of lesions were face, head, and neck (52.6%). There was a significant correlation between concomitant reactions to PHMB and other cosmetic-related allergens. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of positive reactions to PHMB was higher than that previously reported. Patch testing with PHMB should be performed in patients with dermatitis who have lesions on the face, head, and neck.
Subject(s)
Biguanides/adverse effects , Cosmetics/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Preservatives, Pharmaceutical/adverse effects , Adult , Aged , Biguanides/chemistry , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Molecular Structure , Patch Tests , Prevalence , Retrospective Studies , Sweden/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The textile dye mix (TDM) 6.6% pet. contains Disperse Blue (DB) 35, Disperse Yellow 3, Disperse Orange (DO) 1 and 3, Disperse Red 1 and 17, and DB 106 and 124. The most frequent allergen in TDM-positive patients is DO 3. Around 85% of p-phenylenediamine (PPD)-allergic dermatitis patients have shown positive patch test reactions to DO 3. There has been a discussion to exclude DO 3 from TDM 6.6% because of frequent, strong reactions to TDM 6.6% and PPD. OBJECTIVES: To study if DO 3 can be omitted from a TDM. METHODS: Patch tests were performed on 2250 dermatitis patients with TDM 6.6%, TDM 5.6% pet., TDM 7.0% pet., and PPD 1.0% pet.; 122 patients were also patch tested with DO 3 1.0% pet. RESULTS: Among the 2250 patients patch tested, contact allergy prevalence to TDM 6.6% was 2.4%, to TDM 5.6% 1.8%, and to TDM 7.0% 2.0%. Of the 54 TDM 6.6%-positive patients, 55.6% reacted to PPD; as much as 42.2% of PPD-allergic women and 50% of PPD-allergic men reacted to TDM 6.6%. Of the 17 DO 3-positive patients, 94.1% showed a positive reaction to PPD. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that DO 3 can probably be omitted from TDM, but patch testing with TDM 6.6%, TDM 7.0%, DO 3 1.0%, and PPD 1.0% simultaneously is needed to finally decide whether it is possible or not.
Subject(s)
Azo Compounds/adverse effects , Coloring Agents/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Textiles/adverse effects , Adult , Azo Compounds/administration & dosage , Coloring Agents/administration & dosage , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patch Tests/methodsSubject(s)
Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring/adverse effects , Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring/instrumentation , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Insulin Infusion Systems/adverse effects , Acrylates/adverse effects , Adhesives/adverse effects , Adult , Camphanes/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Patch Tests , Resins, Plant/adverse effectsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Dermatitis caused by occupational contact allergy to rubber additives such as diphenylguanidine (DPG) in medical gloves is a hazard for healthcare workers. Both the duration of exposure to medical gloves and the number of gloves used per day vary. The use of alcoholic skin disinfectants before glove donning is mandatory. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether skin exposure to the rubber accelerator DPG released from glove material is influenced by alcoholic hand disinfectants, time, and pH. METHODS: With the use of ethanol washes, the amount of DPG left on the hands after wearing of gloves for 60 minutes was measured, and comparisons between hands exposed and not exposed to alcoholic disinfectant before glove donning were made. With the use of artificial sweat buffered at pH 4, 5, and 6, DPG release from the insides of gloves at different times was measured. RESULTS: The use of alcoholic disinfectant prior to polyisoprene glove donning increased the amount of DPG recovered from the hands. Of the DPG released from polyisoprene gloves into artificial sweat, almost 84% was released within 10 minutes. pH did not influence the rate of release. CONCLUSIONS: The use of alcoholic disinfectant increased skin exposure to the rubber accelerator DPG. Even a short duration of use of gloves results in substantial exposure to DPG.
Subject(s)
Gloves, Surgical , Guanidines/analysis , Hand Sanitizers , Occupational Exposure/analysis , Sweating , Butadienes , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Ethanol , Hand Dermatoses , Hemiterpenes , Humans , Nitriles , Time FactorsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Isobornyl acrylate (IBOA) has recently been identified as one sensitizer in the FreeStyle Libre glucose sensor. Analyses with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) have indicated the presence of N,N-dimethylacrylamide (DMAA) in the sensor. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seven patients were referred for patch testing after developing skin reactions when using FreeStyle Libre. All patients were patch tested with IBOA and DMAA. Two patients were tested with adhesive patches that had been removed from the sensors "as is," and two patients were tested with acetone extracts of materials from the sensor. The extracts were analysed with GC-MS. RESULTS: Six patients reacted to both IBOA and DMAA, and one patient reacted only to DMAA. Positive reactions were also observed in both patients tested with the adhesive patch "as is". One patient reacted to both an extract of the adhesive patch and an extract of the sensor itself. When analysed with GC-MS, IBOA was found in both extracts and DMAA was found in the extract of the sensor. CONCLUSION: Both IBOA and DMAA may be present in adhesives used in medical devices such as glucose sensors or insulin pumps, and should be patch tested when suspected contact allergic reactions to these products are investigated.