Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 177
Filter
1.
Contact Dermatitis ; 2024 May 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38778718

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Earlier studies suggested a potential association between tobacco smoking and nickel sensitization, but little is known about other contact allergens. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association of smoking status and contact sensitizations as well as subtypes of dermatitis, and to analyse the sensitization profiles of tobacco smokers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Within the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), we performed a cross-sectional multicentre pilot study comprising 1091 patch-tested patients from 9 departments, comparing 541 patients with a history of cigarette smoking (281 current and 260 former smokers) with 550 never-smokers. RESULTS: We could not confirm the previously reported association between nickel sensitization and tobacco smoking. Moreover, sensitizations to other allergens, including colophony, fragrance mix I, Myroxylon pereirae and formaldehyde, were not increased in cigarette smokers compared with never smokers. Hand dermatitis (50.6% vs. 33.6%) and occupational cause (36.2% vs. 22.5%) were significantly more frequent among cigarette smokers compared with never-smokers as shown by non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Although our study does not allow a firm conclusion on whether smoking status contributes to certain contact sensitizations, it confirms an association of smoking with hand dermatitis and occupational cause.

2.
Br J Dermatol ; 190(6): 895-903, 2024 May 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38123140

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Concerns regarding contact allergies and intolerance reactions to dental materials are widespread among patients. Development of novel dental materials and less frequent amalgam use may alter sensitization profiles in patients with possible contact allergy. OBJECTIVES: To analyse current sensitization patterns to dental materials in patients with suspected contact allergy. METHODS: This retrospective, multicentre analysis from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) selected participants from 169 834 people tested in 2005-2019 and registered with (i) an affected area of 'mouth' (and 'lips'/'perioral'), (ii) with the dental material in question belonging to one of three groups (dental filling materials, oral implants or dentures or equivalents) and (iii) with patch-testing done in parallel with the German baseline series, (dental) metal series and dental technician series. RESULTS: A total of 2730 of 169 834 tested patients met the inclusion criteria. The patients were predominantly women (81.2%) aged ≥ 40 years (92.8%). The sensitization rates with confirmed allergic contact stomatitis in women (n = 444) were highest for metals (nickel 28.6%, palladium 21.4%, amalgam 10.9%), (meth)acrylates [2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) 4.8%] and the substances propolis (6.8%) and 'balsam of Peru' (11.4%). The most relevant acrylates were HEMA, 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate, methyl methacrylate, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate and pentaerythritol triacrylate. Few men were diagnosed with allergic contact stomatitis (n = 68); sensitization rates in men were highest for propolis (14.9%) and amalgam (13.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Allergic contact stomatitis to dental materials is rare. Patch testing should not only focus on metals such as nickel, palladium, amalgam and gold, but also (meth)acrylates and the natural substances propolis and 'balsam of Peru'.


Subject(s)
Dental Amalgam , Dental Materials , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Patch Tests , Humans , Female , Male , Retrospective Studies , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/immunology , Adult , Middle Aged , Dental Materials/adverse effects , Dental Amalgam/adverse effects , Aged , Adolescent , Young Adult , Child , Methacrylates/adverse effects , Balsams/adverse effects , Dental Implants/adverse effects , Stomatitis/epidemiology , Stomatitis/chemically induced , Stomatitis/immunology , Stomatitis/diagnosis , Stomatitis/etiology , Propolis/adverse effects , Dentures/adverse effects , Germany/epidemiology , Allergens/adverse effects , Allergens/immunology , Child, Preschool
3.
Contact Dermatitis ; 90(5): 470-478, 2024 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38146081

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: EU Commission Regulation 2017/1410 prohibits using atranol and chloroatranol, the main allergens in Evernia prunastri (oakmoss), and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC) in cosmetic products. Oakmoss absolute is contained in fragrance mix (FM) I and HICC in FM II which are patch tested as screening mixtures in the baseline series. OBJECTIVE: To describe the time trends of reaction frequencies to both FMs as well as to their components in FM-positive patients. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 2012-2021. RESULTS: Positive reactions to FM I (FM II) declined from 9.1% (4.7%) in 2012 to 4.6% (3.0%) in 2021. Full breakdown tests were performed in 24% (FM I) and 31% (FM II), respectively, of the mix-positive patients. From this data, frequencies of sensitization to the 14 single fragrances of FM I and FM II were calculated. For the majority, a decline was noted from 2012/2013 to 2020/2021, for oakmoss absolute 1.9%-0.8% and for HICC 1.8%-0.9%. CONCLUSION: EU Commission Regulation 2017/1410 was an effective measure. However, our data have some limitations, possibly causing underestimation of sensitization frequencies to fragrances.


Subject(s)
Aldehydes , Cyclohexenes , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Perfume , Resins, Plant , Terpenes , Humans , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Odorants , Retrospective Studies , Patch Tests/adverse effects , Allergens/adverse effects , Perfume/adverse effects
4.
Contact Dermatitis ; 89(3): 161-170, 2023 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37315639

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Hair cosmetic products contain several, partly potent contact allergens, including excipients like preservatives. Hand dermatitis in hairdressers is common, scalp and face dermatitis in clients or self-users (summarised here as 'consumers') may be severe. OBJECTIVE: To compare frequencies of sensitization to hair cosmetic ingredients and other selected allergens between female patch tested patients working as hairdressers and consumers without professional background, respectively, who were tested for suspected allergic contact dermatitis to such products. METHODS: Patch test and clinical data collected by the IVDK (https://www.ivdk.org) between 01/2013 and 12/2020 were descriptively analysed, focusing on age-adjusted sensitization prevalences in the two subgroups. RESULTS: Amongst the 920 hairdressers (median age: 28 years, 84% hand dermatitis) and 2321 consumers (median age: 49 years, 71.8% head/face dermatitis), sensitization to p-phenylenediamine (age-standardised prevalence: 19.7% and 31.6%, respectively) and toluene-2,5-diamine (20 and 30.8%) were most common. Contact allergy to other oxidative hair dye ingredients was also more commonly diagnosed in consumers, whereas ammonium persulphate (14.4% vs. 2.3%) and glyceryl thioglycolate (3.9 vs. 1.2%) as well as most notably methylisothiazolinone (10.5% vs. 3.1%) were more frequent allergens in hairdressers. CONCLUSIONS: Hair dyes were the most frequent sensitizers both in hairdressers and in consumers; however, as indication for patch testing may differ, prevalences cannot directly be compared. The importance of hair dye allergy is evident, often with marked coupled reactivity. Workplace and product safety need to be further improved.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Eczema , Hair Dyes , Hair Preparations , Humans , Female , Adult , Middle Aged , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Hair Preparations/adverse effects , Hair Dyes/adverse effects , Allergens/adverse effects , Patch Tests , Pharmaceutical Vehicles , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology
6.
Contact Dermatitis ; 89(2): 85-94, 2023 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37177844

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Hydroperoxides of limonene (Lim-OOHs) and linalool (Lin-OOHs) are potent contact sensitizers. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of positive patch test (PT) reactions to Lim-OOHs and Lin-OOHs in consecutive patients, their demographic factors and concomitant reactions. METHODS: Between 7/2018 and 12/2020, Lim-OOHs 0.3% pet. and Lin-OOHs 1% pet. were patch tested in 5511 consecutive patients. We assessed PT reactivity and analysed data from patients with either positive or negative PTs to Lim-OOHs and Lin-OOHs. RESULTS: Positive PT results to Lim-OOHs (n = 170, 3.1%) and Lin-OOHs (n = 483, 8.8%) were frequent. Most of the positive reactions were weak (LimOOHs n = 134/LinOOHs n = 429), and even more frequently, doubtful (n = 252/n = 578) or irritant reactions (n = 81/n = 178) were documented. PT reactivity to Lim-OOHs and Lin-OOHs was increased in patients with irritant reactions to sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS). The proportion of leg dermatitis and concomitant positive reactions to fragrances and essential oils was increased in patients with reactivity to these hydroperoxides. CONCLUSION: The observed reaction pattern suggests that both test preparations display an irritant potential with an increased risk of false positive reactions. Preparations should be chemically monitored in order to reduce irritancy. Mindful interpretation of PT results and aimed patch testing of lower concentrations is recommended.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Perfume , Humans , Limonene/adverse effects , Monoterpenes/adverse effects , Hydrogen Peroxide/adverse effects , Patch Tests/adverse effects , Irritants , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Perfume/adverse effects , Allergens/adverse effects
7.
Contact Dermatitis ; 88(6): 446-455, 2023 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36861774

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Benzisothiazolinone (BIT; CAS no. 2634-33-5) is used as a biocide in various products, including water-based paints, metalworking fluids, and household products. In recent years, increasing sensitization rates have been observed in Europe. OBJECTIVE: To describe a time trend of sensitization to BIT, analyse concomitant reactions, and identify patients with increased risk of BIT sensitization. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data from 26 739 patients patch tested with BIT, sodium salt, 0.1% petrolatum as part of several special test series within the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 2002 to 2021. RESULTS: Positive reactions to BIT were noted in 771 patients (2.9%). Sensitization frequency varied over time and increased in recent years, peaking at 6.5% in 2020. Painters and metalworkers handling metalworking fluids, but not cleaners, had a significantly increased risk of BIT sensitization. From our data, there is no evidence of immunological cross-reactivity between BIT and other isothiazolinones. CONCLUSION: The increasing frequency of sensitization justifies adding BIT to the baseline series. More research on the clinical relevance of positive patch test reactions to BIT and the cause for the rising numbers of BIT sensitization is needed.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Humans , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Allergens/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies , Thiazoles/adverse effects , Patch Tests/adverse effects
8.
JAMA Dermatol ; 159(3): 267-274, 2023 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36652228

ABSTRACT

Importance: The common use of isothiazolinones as preservatives is a global cause of allergic contact dermatitis. Differences in allowable concentrations of methylisothiazolinone (MI) exist in Europe, Canada, and the US. Objective: To compare the prevalence of positive patch test reactions to the methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) combination and MI alone in North America and Europe from 2009 to 2018. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group, European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA), and the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) databases included data from patients presenting for patch testing at referral patch test clinics in North America and Europe. Exposures: Patch tests to MCI/MI and MI. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis to MCI/MI and MI. Results: From 2009 to 2018, participating sites in North America and Europe patch tested a total of 226 161 individuals to MCI/MI and 118 779 to MI. In Europe, positivity to MCI/MI peaked during 2013 and 2014 at 7.6% (ESSCA) and 5.4% (IVDK) before decreasing to 4.4% (ESSCA) and 3.2% (IVDK) during 2017 and 2018. Positive reactions to MI were 5.5% (ESSCA) and 3.4% (IVDK) during 2017 and 2018. In North America, the frequency of positivity to MCI/MI increased steadily through the study period, reaching 10.8% for MCI/MI during 2017 and 2018. Positive reactions to MI were 15.0% during 2017 and 2018. Conclusions and Relevance: The study results suggest that in contrast to the continued increase in North America, isothiazolinone allergy is decreasing in Europe. This trend may coincide with earlier and more stringent government regulation of MI in Europe.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Humans , Prevalence , Retrospective Studies , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , North America/epidemiology , Europe/epidemiology , Patch Tests/methods
9.
Contact Dermatitis ; 88(4): 263-274, 2023 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36694979

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Occupational skin diseases have led the occupational disease statistics in Europe for many years. Especially occupational allergic contact dermatitis is associated with a poor prognosis and low healing rates leading to an enormous burden for the affected individual and for society. OBJECTIVES: To present the sensitization frequencies to the most relevant allergens of the European baseline series in patients with occupational contact dermatitis (OCD) and to compare sensitization profiles of different occupations. METHODS: The data of 16 022 patients considered having OCD after patch testing within the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA) network between January 2011 and December 2020 were evaluated. Patients (n = 46 652) in whom an occupational causation was refuted served as comparison group. RESULTS: The highest percentages of OCD were found among patients working in agriculture, fishery and related workers, metal industry, chemical industry, followed by building and construction industry, health care, food and service industry. Sensitizations to rubber chemicals (thiurams, carbamates, benzothiazoles) and epoxy resins were associated with at least a doubled risk of OCD. After a decline from 2014 onwards, the risks to acquire an occupation-related sensitization to methyl(chloro)isothiazolinone (MCI/MI) and especially to methylisothiazolinone (MI) seem to increase again. Sensitization rates to formaldehyde were stable, and to methyldibromo glutaronitrile (MDBGN) slightly decreasing over time. CONCLUSIONS: Among allergens in the European Baseline Series, occupational relevance is most frequently attributed to rubber accelerators, epoxy resins and preservatives.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Humans , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Patch Tests/adverse effects , Rubber , Epoxy Resins , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Allergens , Benzothiazoles
12.
Contact Dermatitis ; 88(1): 43-53, 2023 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36088572

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Massage therapists are particularly exposed to constituents of massage preparations, wet work and mechanical strain and therefore, at high risk to develop occupational dermatitis (OD). OBJECTIVES: To describe the sensitization spectrum of massage therapists with OD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective study, patch test data of patients with OD (128 massage therapists and 24 374 patients working in other professions) collected by the Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK, 2008-2020) were analysed. RESULTS: Hand dermatitis (91.4%) and allergic contact dermatitis (34.4%) were common in massage therapists with OD. Most frequent were sensitizations to fragrances/essential oils which were found in 54 (42.2%) massage therapists and thus, more often than in other patients with OD. Concomitant positivity to several fragrances/essential oils was frequent. In 8 (14.8%) of the 54 massage therapists, sensitizations to fragrances/essential oils were not detected with the baseline series, but only with special fragrance series. CONCLUSIONS: Allergic contact dermatitis is common in massage therapists with OD and is mainly caused by fragrances and essential oils. Hence, massage therapists should be aware of this risk. When OD is suspected, not only the baseline series, but also special fragrance series should be patch tested in this occupational group.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Dermatology , Oils, Volatile , Perfume , Humans , Patch Tests/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Retrospective Studies , Oils, Volatile/adverse effects , Information Services , Massage , Allergens
13.
HNO ; 70(12): 870-877, 2022 Dec.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36194292

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although allergic diseases are among the most important health disorders, allergology is not anchored as an independent subject in the clinical part of medical studies in Germany. OBJECTIVE: As all universities and institutes face the same challenge, the aim of our project was to establish exemplary coordination and networking of education in allergology at one location in agreement with all involved departments and institutes. Particularly, Comprehensive Allergy Centers (CAC) offer an established infrastructure via which the revised allergology education program can be transferred to other universities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After an extensive inventory of the current allergological curriculum at the University Medical Center Göttingen, a new teaching concept was developed in interdisciplinary consensus, supplemented by first-time provision of additional digital contents ("blended learning"), and finally evaluated. RESULTS: Initially, we observed a high level of fragmentation in the teaching of allergology in the clinical study sections of human medicine, with no coordination between the 12 clinical departments/institutes involved and no coherent framework for the specific learning content. Within the established structure of the interdisciplinary CAC, we revised, coordinated, and defined key areas for improved student education in clinical allergology. The allocation of new interactive learning elements as well as supplementary materials for self-studies was welcomed by the students and positively evaluated. A survey among students after completing the former vs. current curricula showed significant improvements in achieving the desired educational objectives.


Subject(s)
Hypersensitivity , Medicine , Humans , Cross-Sectional Studies , Interdisciplinary Studies , Curriculum , Students , Hypersensitivity/diagnosis , Hypersensitivity/therapy
15.
J Dtsch Dermatol Ges ; 20(5): 712-734, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35527339

ABSTRACT

Contact dermatitis is an inflammation of the epidermis and dermis at the site of exposure triggered by external agents. The two main forms are irritant and allergic contact dermatitis, which cause significant health and socioeconomic costs in addition to a marked reduction in quality of life. The anamnesis and the clinical picture are decisive for the necessary diagnostic measures. The most accurate possible diagnostic classification of contact dermatitis by means of allergological testing is important for disease management, since not only classical eczema therapy but also avoidance of the exogenous triggering factors are of great importance here. The choice of therapy should be based on the acuity, clinical severity, morphology of the lesions and localization of the contact dermatitis. A combination of basic therapy, topical, physical, and systemic therapy adapted to the patient's needs is required, whereby not all forms of therapy must be carried out simultaneously but can be used in a varying manner. Primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention strategies aim at the recognition of the triggering noxae or allergens with subsequent contact avoidance or minimization. The present S1-guideline on contact dermatitis is primarily intended to provide dermatologists, allergologists and physicians working in allergology and occupational dermatology with a decision-making aid for the selection and implementation of suitable and sufficient diagnostics, therapy, and prevention.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Eczema , Allergens , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/therapy , Eczema/diagnosis , Humans , Patch Tests/adverse effects , Quality of Life
17.
Contact Dermatitis ; 87(1): 71-80, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35417610

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Essential oils (EOs) are widely used in cosmetics, perfumes, massage fluids, aroma therapy and natural medicine. Some EOs contain contact sensitizers. OBJECTIVES: To describe the frequency of sensitization to EOs in dermatitis patients presenting in skin clinics including concomitant reactions, to evaluate the EO patch test preparations and to identify patient groups with an increased risk of EO sensitization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 2010-2019. RESULTS: Twelve EOs were patch tested in an aimed manner in 10 930 patients, of whom 908 (8.3%) reacted to at least 1 EO. Only 6 EOs elicited more than 1% positive patch test reactions: ylang ylang (I + II) oil (3.9%), lemongrass oil (2.6%), jasmine absolute (1.8%), sandalwood oil (1.8%), clove oil (1.6%) and neroli oil (1.1%). Concomitant reactions among EOs or to EOs and fragrances were frequent. Among EO-positive patients, women, leg dermatitis patients, patients aged 40 years or more, masseurs and cosmeticians were over-represented. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitization to EOs occurs, albeit infrequently in most cases. Masseurs and cosmeticians have an increased risk of sensitization to EOs.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Oils, Volatile , Perfume , Allergens/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Female , Humans , Oils, Volatile/adverse effects , Patch Tests/adverse effects , Perfume/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies
20.
Allergy ; 77(5): 1477-1485, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34687560

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patch test (PT) readings are recommended after 48 h and 72 h (D3). An additional day 7 (D7) reading has been suggested by some, although data on efficient patient selection are scarce. We investigated positive D7 reactions regarding (i) allergens in the baseline series and additional PT series of the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG) and (ii) characteristics of the patients tested. METHODS: Retrospective, multicentre analysis of 190 allergens derived from 17 DKG test series in 4687 patients with an additional D7 reading. Patients were patch tested with the baseline series and additional series, if required. Occurrence of novel D7 reactions as well as increasing skin reactions from D3 to D7 was analysed separately. RESULTS: Depending on the allergen tested, waiving D7 readings would have missed 4.4-26.8% of positive PT results. Patch test series with the highest number of novel D7 reactions were baseline series, metal series, and leather/shoe series. New positive reactions on D7 were associated with age over 50 years and with a negative irritant control containing sodium lauryl sulphate. Of note, application of the PT allergens for 48 h instead of 24 h was positively associated with late PT reactions. CONCLUSION: Within the most frequently tested allergens, without late readings, on average 11.7% of sensitizations would have been missed. Novel late reacting allergens were identified. This study comprehensively dissects patient-, allergen- and test-dependent parameters in support for D7 readings. We propose to always consider late readings individually based on effort-benefit considerations.


Subject(s)
Allergens , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Humans , Middle Aged , Patch Tests/methods , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...