Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 51
Filter
1.
JAMA Dermatol ; 2024 May 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38776098

ABSTRACT

This cross-sectional study uses data from the 2014-2018 National Health Interview Survey to assess whether there is an association between parental e-cigarette use and atopic dermatitis in children.

2.
J Am Acad Dermatol ; 89(5): 1007-1014, 2023 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37768237

ABSTRACT

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.

3.
JAMA Dermatol ; 159(7): 772-777, 2023 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37256599

ABSTRACT

Importance: Scoring systems for Stevens-Johnson syndrome and epidermal necrolysis (EN) only estimate patient prognosis and are weighted toward comorbidities and systemic features; morphologic terminology for EN lesions is inconsistent. Objectives: To establish consensus among expert dermatologists on EN terminology, morphologic progression, and most-affected sites, and to build a framework for developing a skin-directed scoring system for EN. Evidence Review: A Delphi consensus using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness criteria was initiated with a core group from the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists to establish agreement on the optimal design for an EN cutaneous scoring instrument, terminology, morphologic traits, and sites of involvement. Findings: In round 1, the 54 participating dermatology hospitalists reached consensus on all 49 statements (30 appropriate, 3 inappropriate, 16 uncertain). In round 2, they agreed on another 15 statements (8 appropriate, 7 uncertain). There was consistent agreement on the need for a skin-specific instrument; on the most-often affected skin sites (head and neck, chest, upper back, ocular mucosa, oral mucosa); and that blanching erythema, dusky erythema, targetoid erythema, vesicles/bullae, desquamation, and erosions comprise the morphologic traits of EN and can be consistently differentiated. Conclusions and Relevance: This consensus exercise confirmed the need for an EN skin-directed scoring system, nomenclature, and differentiation of specific morphologic traits, and identified the sites most affected. It also established a baseline consensus for a standardized EN instrument with consistent terminology.


Subject(s)
Stevens-Johnson Syndrome , Humans , Stevens-Johnson Syndrome/diagnosis , Consensus , Delphi Technique , Skin/pathology , Head , Blister/pathology
7.
JAMA Dermatol ; 159(1): 106-109, 2023 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36383358

ABSTRACT

This case series describes the development of morbilliform drug eruption after breast surgery.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Humans , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects
9.
Dermatitis ; 33(6): 421-428, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36255394

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a common dermatologic disease. Patch testing remains the criterion standard for diagnosis. In clinical practice, avoidance may be limited by patient occupation or noncompliance, the pervasive nature of the culprit agent, or barriers to expert care because of socioeconomic, cultural, or geographic factors. Thus, ACD is frequently chronic and/or recurrent; however, the comorbidities associated with ACD are not well characterized. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to identify associations between ACD and psychiatric, sleep health, cardiovascular, and infectious conditions. METHODS: In this study, we used a large US claims database to identify comorbidities associated with ACD diagnosed after patch testing, including psychiatric, sleep health, cardiovascular, and infectious conditions. We also stratified these associations by chronicity of disease. RESULTS: We identified associations between ACD and psychiatric, sleep-related, cardiovascular, and infectious comorbidities. We also found that more chronic ACD was associated with more infectious comorbidities. All of these associations remained significant on further subanalysis when patients with AD and venous stasis were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: Allergic contact dermatitis is associated with multiple comorbidities. Further study is required to corroborate these findings, determine causality, and to explore the impact of possible interventions in the workup and management of this common and often debilitating disease.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Humans , United States/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Patch Tests/adverse effects , Comorbidity , Allergens
14.
Immunol Allergy Clin North Am ; 41(3): 375-392, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34225895

ABSTRACT

Environmental, or exogenous, dermatitis is comprised of irritant and allergic contact dermatitis, which account for 80% and 20% of cases of contact dermatitis, respectively. Contact dermatitis is extremely common, and failure to diagnose this entity may result in overlooking a potentially curable driver of disease. In this review, we describe how clinical features, such as morphology or history, can assist in distinguishing exogenous from endogenous causes of dermatitis, and allergic from irritant contact dermatitis. Additionally, we provide an overview of common contact allergens and how dermatitis distribution can suggest possible culprit allergens. Patch testing is needed to confirm contact allergy.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Irritant , Allergens , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Irritant/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Irritant/etiology , Humans , Patch Tests
16.
J Am Acad Dermatol ; 84(2): 486-494, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33011325

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Prolonged wear of facial protective equipment can lead to occupational dermatoses. OBJECTIVE: To identify important causes of occupational dermatoses from facial protective equipment. METHODS: A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed using PubMed and Embase databases. Articles were included if they reported occupational dermatoses caused by surgical/procedure masks or N95 respirators, or both. RESULTS: We identified 344 articles, and 16 were suitable for inclusion in this review. Selected articles focused on facial occupational dermatoses in health care workers. Allergic contact dermatitis to the elastic straps, glue, and formaldehyde released from the mask fabric was reported. Irritant contact dermatitis was common on the cheeks and nasal bridge due to pressure and friction. Irritant dermatitis was associated with personal history of atopic dermatitis and prolonged mask wear (>6 hours). Acneiform eruption was reported due to prolonged wear and occlusion. Contact urticaria was rare. LIMITATIONS: Only publications listed in PubMed or Embase were included. Most publications were case reports and retrospective studies. CONCLUSION: This systematic review from members of the American Contact Dermatitis Society highlights cases of occupational dermatitis to facial protective equipment, including potential offending allergens. This work may help in the diagnosis and treatment of health care workers with facial occupational dermatitis.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Facial Dermatoses/epidemiology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Masks/adverse effects , N95 Respirators/adverse effects , Allergens/adverse effects , Allergens/immunology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Irritant/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Irritant/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Irritant/etiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/therapy , Facial Dermatoses/diagnosis , Facial Dermatoses/etiology , Facial Dermatoses/therapy , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control
17.
Dermatitis ; 32(2): 78-85, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33273243

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus infectious disease 2019 pandemic has resulted in health care workers donning personal protective equipment (PPE) for extended periods. OBJECTIVES: The aims of the study were to review facial PPE (surgical masks and N95 respirators) ingredients, to identify facial PPE resterilization techniques, and to recommend strategies for prevention and management of facial PPE-related dermatoses. METHODS: Twenty-one facial PPE (11 N95 respirators, 10 surgical masks) were reviewed. Resterilization techniques were identified. Personal protective equipment-induced occupational dermatoses and management strategies were explored. RESULTS: Polypropylene is the most common chemical identified in facial PPE. Most masks contain aluminum at the nosepiece. Two surgical masks released nickel. Facial PPE dermatoses include irritant contact dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, acne, and contact urticaria. Strategies for prevention and management of facial PPE occupational dermatoses are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: There are increasing reports of occupational dermatoses associated with facial PPE. This review discusses the components of facial PPE, mask resterilization methods, and strategies for prevention and management of facial PPE dermatoses.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Facial Dermatoses/chemically induced , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , COVID-19/prevention & control , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Facial Dermatoses/diagnosis , Humans
20.
Dermatitis ; 31(1): 59-67, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31905187

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Photopatch testing is an important diagnostic tool in evaluating patients with suspected photoallergic contact dermatitis. Although protocols for photopatch testing have been described, there are no consensus recommendations by the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS). OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to examine the common practices of photopatch testing among ACDS members and to review and compare commonly used photoallergen series. METHODS: We conducted a questionnaire-based survey among ACDS members via e-mail to inquire about their photopatch test methods. We compared the results with the European consensus methodology and reviewed photoallergen series reported by the respondents. RESULTS: Of the 791 members contacted, 112 members (14%) responded to the survey. Among these, 50 respondents (45%) perform photopatch testing, approximately half of whom (48%) determine minimal erythema dose before the test using UVA with or without UVB irradiation. Respondents use a total of 13 photoallergen series, alone or in any combination, as well as customized series. CONCLUSIONS: These results have potential to aid clinicians in identifying photoallergen series best suited for their patients and suggest a need for consensus recommendations by the ACDS.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Photoallergic/diagnosis , Patch Tests/methods , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Ultraviolet Rays , Humans , Surveys and Questionnaires
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...