Physician practices and attitudes towards atopic dermatitis in Latin America: A cross-sectional study.

Background: The prevalence of atopic dermatitis (AD) is increasing in developing countries. Different worldwide guidelines have been proposed, but their applicability for AD specialists in Latin American (LA) countries is unknown. Objective: The objective of this study was to explore the medical approach to treating AD in LA countries. Methods: The study population comprised AD specialists (allergists and dermatologists). They completed an electronic survey containing questions about the health system, diagnostic criteria, and pharmacotherapy approach to treating AD. The survey was constructed and validated by the Atopic Dermatitis Committee of the Latin American Society of Allergy Asthma and Immunology (SLAAI) in Spanish and Portuguese. Each member was responsible for distributing the questionnaire through different networks in their respective countries. Results: A total of 284 AD specialists from 13 LA countries completed the questionnaire; among them, 67% were allergists and 33% were dermatologists. Less than 50% of the AD specialists strictly followed guideline recommendations. Among the AD specialists, the European and North American guidelines were more frequently used, and only 16% followed LA guidelines. Dermatologists used the local guidelines less frequently than allergists. Most physicians did not routinely use AD assessment tools (55%). The frequency of the diagnostic tests depends on symptom severity. The availability of some systemic treatments, such as biologics and Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors, is not universal in all LA countries. Conclusion: There were marked differences between the specialists, and these differences seemed to be affected by their specialty and each country's healthcare system. New AD education strategies that consider the particularities of the region could allow patients to be more accurately managed. AD assessment tools may provide a way to enhance AD treatment and allow for shared decision-making, patient empowerment, and standardized care.

Healthcare Disparities in Atopic Dermatitis in Latin America: A Narrative Review.

INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, pruritic skin disease caused by a mixture of genetic, immunological, and environmental factors, characterized by periods of inflammation and remission. In Latin America (LA), the prevalence of AD ranges up to 25% in children and 1-3% in adults. The natural history of the disease for most patients is that AD goes into remission in adolescence and adult life. Only 10-30% of patients continue to have symptoms of the disease in adulthood. There are patients (3-4%) who have the onset of AD during adolescence or after adulthood. Those with limited access to healthcare services, such as diagnosis and treatment, have increased difficulties coping with AD. Healthcare disparities are a complex topic that include social, political, racial/ethnic, and geographical factors. Publications about healthcare disparities in AD in LA are scarce. As a result, recognizing and resolving healthcare inequalities is critical to improving the treatment and quality of life (QoL) of individuals with AD. METHODS: A panel of Latin American experts in dermatology and allergies was provided with a series of relevant questions to address before a multiday conference. During this conference, the entire group discussed and edited each narrative through numerous drafts and rounds of discussion until they reached a consensus. RESULTS: This paper examines the barriers to equal access to care and recommends realistic actions to overcome them. Inadequate disease knowledge, cultural and linguistic barriers, stigmatization, maldistribution of resources, absence of local clinical practice guidelines, arduous patient journey, and limited consultation time were identified as causes of health inequality. CONCLUSIONS: Among the suggested solutions are enhanced education for healthcare professionals, patients, and the general public, a focus on underprivileged communities, telemedicine and telementoring, translators, multidisciplinary teams, and local living clinical practice guidelines.

Patch Testing With Nickel Sulfate 5.0% Traces Significantly More Contact Allergy Than 2.5%: A Prospective Study Within the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group.

BACKGROUND: Nickel allergy is the most common contact allergy, and a nickel salt is, therefore, included in most baseline patch test series. In the baseline series of the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group and the American Contact Dermatitis Society, nickel sulfate hexahydrate (NSH) in petrolatum at 2.5% is included, whereas NSH at 5.0% is included in many other baseline series, such as the European and Swedish ones. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to investigate whether NSH at 5.0% detects significantly more contact allergy than NSH 2.5% when both preparations are tested simultaneously in consecutive dermatitis patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two thousand two hundred eighty-seven consecutive dermatitis patients were patch tested simultaneously with NSH in petrolatum at 2.5% and 5.0%. The allergy rates were compared for all clinics individually and combined using McNemar test, 2-sided. RESULTS: Contact allergy to NSH 5.0% and 2.5% was found in 20.3% and 16.8%, respectively ( P < 0.0001). In 6 of 11 clinics, significantly more patients tested positive to the higher NSH concentration. For the 2 clinics in North America combined, significantly more patients tested positive to NSH 5.0%. CONCLUSIONS: The NSH preparation in the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group baseline patch test series should be considered to be changed from NSH 2.5% (1 mg NSH/cm 2 ) to 5.0% (2 mg NSH/cm 2 ).

Contact Allergy to Fragrance Mix II and Hydroxyisohexyl 3-Cyclohexene Carboxaldehyde: A Retrospective Study by International Contact Dermatitis Research Group.

BACKGROUND: Fragrance mix II (FM II) is included in the baseline patch test series recommended by the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group (ICDRG). Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC) is the most important sensitizer of the 6 fragrance materials included in FM II. Besides being a part of FM II, HICC is also tested separately in the ICDRG baseline series. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to investigate the prevalence of contact allergy to FM II and HICC in 2012-2016 with a focus on simultaneous reactions and the percentage of missed contact allergy to HICC provided that only FM II had been tested. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 25,019 consecutive dermatitis patients in 13 dermatology clinics representing 12 countries in 5 continents were patch tested with FM II and HICC in the baseline series. RESULTS: Contact allergy to FM II and HICC was found in 3.9% and 1.6%, respectively. For FM II, the frequency varied from 1.5% to 7.6% in different centers. The corresponding range for HICC was 0.2% to 3.6%. Simultaneous contact allergy to FM II and HICC was noted in 1.4% with the range 0.2% to 2.6%. Seventy-seven patients (0.31%) with contact allergy to HICC did not test positively to FM II. The range for missed HICC allergy by testing only FM II in the different centers would be 0.04% to 0.74%. The ratio between the contact allergy rates for FM II and HICC was similar for all centers, except for Montreal having significantly more contact allergy to FM II than to HICC. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of missed contact allergy to HICC when testing only with FM II was less than 0.5%, therefore questioning the need to test HICC separately in the ICDRG baseline series.

Patch Testing With Formaldehyde 2.0% (0.60 mg/cm2) Detects More Contact Allergy to Formaldehyde Than 1.0.

BACKGROUND: The International Contact Dermatitis Research Group increased the patch test concentration of formaldehyde from 1.0% aqueous (aq) to 2.0% aq (in 2011). OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to investigate the outcome of the decision. METHODS: Consecutive dermatitis patients in 8 different clinics were patch tested with formaldehyde 1.0% aq and 2.0% aq. The test solutions were applied with a micropipette to the filter paper discs in the respective chamber. RESULTS: A total of 2778 patients were tested with 1.0% aq and 2766 to 2.0% aq. Sixty-five patients (2.3%, calculated from 2766 tested, to 2.0% aq) had positive patch test reactions interpreted as contact allergy to formaldehyde. This is a rather low frequency. Of these 65, 46 were women (46/1703 [2.7%]) and 19 were men (19/1063 [1.8%]). Thirty-six reacted only to 2.0% aq, 21 patients reacted to both concentrations, and 8 patients reacted only to 1.0% aq. Significantly, more patients reacted to 2.0% aq compared with 1.0% aq (P < 0.001). There was no significant sex difference. A total of 0.8% irritant reactions were recorded to formaldehyde 2.0% aq and 0.1% to 1.0% aq. CONCLUSIONS: The increased formaldehyde patch test concentration to 2.0% aq revealed more formaldehyde contact allergy.

Systematic review about 10 interventions in dermatitis. A document from the Latin American Society of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

The Latin American Society of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (SLAAI) conducted a systematic search in the Medline and LILACS' database in order to get articles linked to 10 current questions about dermatitis. The assessment of the quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations was made through the GRADE system. The completeness and transparency of the recommendations for this clinical guide were assessed with the AGREE Reports Verification Checklist. The final document was shared with physicians, allergists, dermatologists, and pediatricians, and with patients and academic institutions such as universities and medical scientific societies for external assessment. According to the review, clinical scales should be used to measure the severity of the dermatitis, and some interventions such as the use of probiotics may benefit the patient; nevertheless, more studies are required before this management option can be used in the everyday practice. Other interventions such as dietary restrictions and the use of antihistamines seem to be well-founded only in particular cases and they should not be a general recommendation for all patients. This practical guide presents recommendations for the treatment of atopic dermatitis; these recommendations can be helpful for medical staff, patients, and health systems.

La Sociedad Latinoamericana de Asma, Alergia e Inmunología realizó una búsqueda sistemática en la base de datos de Medline y LILACS para obtener artículos relacionados con 10 preguntas actuales sobre dermatitis. La evaluación de la calidad de la evidencia y la fuerza de las recomendaciones se realizaron a través del sistema GRADE. La integridad y la transparencia de las recomendaciones se evaluaron con la lista de verificación de informes AGREE. El documento final se compartió con médicos, alergólogos, dermatólogos y pediatras, pacientes e instituciones académicas, como universidades y sociedades médicas científicas, para su evaluación externa. Conforme a la revisión, se debe usar escalas clínicas para evaluar la gravedad de la dermatitis; algunas intervenciones como el uso de probióticos pueden beneficiar al paciente, sin embargo, se requieren más estudios antes de utilizarlas en la práctica diaria. La restricción de la dieta y el uso de antihistamínicos parecen tener fundamento solo en casos particulares y no deben indicarse a todos los pacientes. Esta guía práctica presenta recomendaciones para el tratamiento de la dermatitis atópica que pueden ser útiles para el personal médico, los pacientes y los sistemas de salud.

Multicenter Patch Testing With Methylchloroisothizoline/Methylisothiazolinone in 100 and 200 ppm Within the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group.

BACKGROUND: The preservative methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) is a well-known contact sensitizer. Historically, there have been different opinions on the optimal patch test concentration of MCI/MI, and both 0.01% and 0.02% aqueous (aq.) have been proposed. In 2011, based on literature reviews, it was recommended that the concentration of 0.02% aq. should be used in the international baseline series. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to verify the recommendation from 2011 by comparing the patch test results from consecutive patch testing with MCI/MI 0.01% and 0.02% in clinics representing countries around the world. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two thousand seven hundred three consecutive patients with dermatitis in 8 dermatology clinics representing 8 countries were patch tested with MCI/MI 0.01% aq. and, in parallel with MCI/MI 0.02% aq., provisionally included in the baseline series. RESULTS: Contact allergy to MCI/MI at 0.01% and 0.02% was found in 3.7% and 5.6% of the patients, respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Methylchloroisothiazolinone/MI 0.02% aq. (dose, 6 µg/cm) diagnoses significantly more contact allergy than 0.01% (dose, 3 µg/cm), without resulting in more adverse reactions. Methylchloroisothiazolinone/MI at 0.02% aq. should therefore be continuously used in the international baseline series.

Multicenter Patch Testing With Methylisothiazolinone and Methylchloroisothiazolinone/Methylisothiazolinone Within the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group.

BACKGROUND: The preservatives methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) and MI are well-known contact sensitizers. Recently, an increase in the contact allergy frequency for MI 0.2% aqueous (aq) has been seen in many European countries paralleled with an increase in MCI/MI allergy. Many of the MI-allergic patients do not react to MCI/MI 0.01% or 0.02% because the concentration of MI in these preparations is too low (25 and 50 ppm, respectively) to elicit a positive patch test reaction. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to investigate the prevalence of contact allergy to MI in the participating clinics representing various countries all over the world, to assess how many additional individuals with contact allergy are found by testing MI 0.2% aq in parallel with MCI/MI 0.02%, and to assess the clinical relevance of MI and MCI/MI allergies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 9 dermatology clinics representing 9 countries, 3865 consecutive patients with dermatitis were patch tested with MI 0.2% aq and in parallel with MCI/MI 0.02% aq, provisionally included into the baseline series. An assessment of clinical relevance in those allergic to MI was also made. RESULTS: Contact allergy to MI was found in 284 patients (7.3%). The frequency of contact allergy varied from 0.8% to 10.9% in different centers. Simultaneous reactivity to 200 ppm of MCI/MI was found in 67.3% of the MI-positive patients. Contact allergy to MI alone without any simultaneous contact allergy to 200 ppm of MCI/MI was diagnosed in 93 patients (32.7%; 2.4% of all tested patients). The contact allergy to MI and/or MCI/MI could explain or contribute to dermatitis in more than 60% of the MI-allergic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Methylisothiazolinone of 2000 ppm needs to be patch tested on its own to not miss contact allergy.

Proposed ICDRG Classification of the Clinical Presentation of Contact Allergy.

The International Contact Dermatitis Research Group proposes a classification for the clinical presentation of contact allergy. The classification is based primarily on the mode of clinical presentation. The categories are direct exposure/contact dermatitis, mimicking or exacerbation of preexisting eczema, multifactorial dermatitis including allergic contact dermatitis, by proxy, mimicking angioedema, airborne contact dermatitis, photo-induced contact dermatitis, systemic contact dermatitis, noneczematous contact dermatitis, contact urticaria, protein contact dermatitis, respiratory/mucosal symptoms, oral contact dermatitis, erythroderma/exfoliative dermatitis, minor forms of presentation, and extracutaneous manifestations.

Multicenter Patch Testing With a Resol Resin Based on Phenol and Formaldehyde Within the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group.

BACKGROUND: Contact allergy to phenol-formaldehyde resins (PFRs) based on phenol and formaldehyde is not detected by a p-tertiary-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin included in most baseline patch test series. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to investigate the contact allergy rate to PFR-2 in an international population and to investigate associated simultaneous allergic reactions. METHODS: Thirteen centers representing the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group included PFR-2 into their patch test baseline series during a period of 6 months in 2012. RESULTS: Of 2259 patients tested, 28 (1.2%) reacted to PFR-2. Of those 28 individuals, one had a positive reaction to formaldehyde and 2 to p-tertiary-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin. Simultaneous allergic reactions were noted to colophonium in 3, to Myroxylon pereirae in 5, and to fragrance mix I in 8. CONCLUSIONS: The contact allergy frequency in the tested population (1.2%) merits its inclusion into the international baseline series and possibly also into other baseline series after appropriate investigations. Significantly, overrepresented simultaneous allergic reactions were noted for M. pereirae and fragrance mix I.

Patch testing to a textile dye mix by the international contact dermatitis research group.

BACKGROUND: Disperse dyes are well-known contact sensitizers not included in the majority of commercially available baseline series. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the outcome of patch testing to a textile dye mix (TDM) consisting of 8 disperse dyes. METHODS: Two thousand four hundred ninety-three consecutive dermatitis patients in 9 dermatology clinics were patch tested with a TDM 6.6%, consisting of Disperse (D) Blue 35, D Yellow 3, D Orange 1 and 3, D Red 1 and 17, all 1.0% each, and D Blue 106 and D Blue 124, each 0.3%. 90 reacted positively to the TDM. About 92.2% of the patients allergic to the TDM were also tested with the 8 separate dyes. RESULTS: Contact allergy to TDM was found in 3.6% (1.3-18.2) Simultaneous reactivity to p-phenylenediamine was found in 61.1% of the TDM-positive patients. Contact allergy to TDM and not to other p-amino-substituted sensitizers was diagnosed in 1.2%. The most frequent dye allergen in the TDM-positive patients was D Orange 3. CONCLUSIONS: Over 30% of the TDM allergic patients had been missed if only the international baseline series was tested. Contact allergy to TDM could explain or contribute to dermatitis in over 20% of the patients. Textile dye mix should be considered for inclusion into the international baseline series.

Irritant contact dermatitis.

Irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) is the most common form of contact dermatitis. It represents the cutaneous response to the toxic/physical effects of a wide variety of environmental agents. Nowadays, it is recognized that irritancy does not represent a single monomorphous entity but rather a complex biologic syndrome with diverse pathophysiology and clinical manifestations. The clinical presentation is highly variable depending on several factors, including properties and strength of the irritant, dose, duration and frequency of exposure, environmental factors, and skin susceptibility. The pathophysiological mechanism depends on activation of the innate immune system and involves skin barrier disruption, cellular changes, and release of proinflammatory mediators that directly recruit and activate T lymphocytes. The diagnosis of irritant contact dermatitis is often clinical, and involves a comprehensive history and examination, as well as the exclusion of allergic contact dermatitis with patch testing. Recent advances in understanding the pathogenesis as well as better awareness of the clinical significance of ICD will lead to a improved care for our patients.

Diagnostic approach in allergic and irritant contact dermatitis.

Contact dermatitis is a highly frequent disease with a significant impact on the quality of life of the affected patients and a relevant socioeconomic impact. According to the pathophysiological mechanisms involved, two major types of contact dermatitis may be recognized: irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). The two types may, and often do, coexist. Differentiating between ICD and ACD is often difficult in the clinical setting. The basis for a diagnosis of either ICD or ACD is mainly established by a comprehensive clinical history and physical examination, as well as by performing appropriate diagnostic patch testing. The only useful and reliable method for the diagnosis of ACD remains the patch test. Positive patch test results, the current and/or past relevance of which has to be assessed, are confirmative of contact sensitization. Additional tests, such as the repeated open application test or the provocative use test, are sometimes necessary to confirm a causal relationship. This algorithmic diagnostic approach will allow the adoption of rational measures of allergen or irritant avoidance and the implementation of realistic patient information and education.

Skin tolerability associated with transdermal drug delivery systems: an overview.

As transdermal patches become more widely prescribed, it is important that clinicians understand: (a) the common causes of skin reactions with these medications; (b) how to minimize these reactions; and (c) how to manage the signs and symptoms. Here we review published data for skin reactions with patch medications approved within the past decade. Overall, the most common application site signs and symptoms appear to be localized redness (erythema) or itching, sometimes accompanied by swelling (edema). Typically, these are mild to moderate in severity, transient in nature, and occur in 20% to 50% of patients. Most are localized to the area of application, and resolve spontaneously within several days following patch removal. Discontinuations due to these types of event are infrequent, ranging from 1.7% to 6.8% in the 6-month trials reviewed here. Based on expert opinion, the majority of these skin reactions would be a form of irritant contact dermatitis, with infrequent cases of allergic contact dermatitis. These types of reactions usually cause minimal pain or discomfort to the patient, and are unlikely to be of medical concern. Signs and symptoms of irritant contact dermatitis may be minimized by rotation of the application site, careful removal of the patch, and appropriate use of moisturizers and topical corticosteroids. In conclusion, the potential advantages of transdermal patches usually outweigh any additional skin issues; however, further research into treatment and management strategies is required.