2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA): A clinical review of contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis. Part 2. Cross- and co-sensitization, other skin reactions to HEMA, position of HEMA among (meth)acrylates, sensitivity as screening agent, presence of HEMA in commercial products and practical information on patch test procedures.

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.

2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA): A clinical review of contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis-Part 1. Introduction, epidemiology, case series and case reports.

2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) has been increasingly recognised as a contact allergen and was added to the European baseline series in 2019. In this article (2 parts), the results of an extensive literature review of the clinical aspects of contact allergy/allergic contact dermatitis to HEMA are presented. In part 1, the epidemiology of HEMA contact allergy is discussed and detailed information on published case series and case reports presented. HEMA is an important cause of contact allergy/allergic contact dermatitis in North America and Europe with recent prevalences of >3% in the USA + Canada and 1.5%-3.7% in Europe. Currently, most cases are caused by nail cosmetics, both in consumers and professional nail stylists. In our literature review, we have found 24 studies presenting case series of patients with allergic contact dermatitis attributed to HEMA and 168 case reports. However, the presence of HEMA in the products causing ACD was established in only a minority. Part 2 will discuss cross- and co-sensitisation, and other skin reactions to HEMA, will assess whether HEMA is the most frequent (meth)acrylate allergen and how sensitive HEMA as a screening agent is, investigate the presence of HEMA in commercial products and provide practical information on patch testing procedures.

Patch testing in drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS): A literature review.

The literature on positive patch test results in drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is reviewed. One hundred and five drugs were identified that have together caused 536 positive patch tests in 437 DRESS patients. By far, the most reactions (n = 145) were caused by carbamazepine, followed by amoxicillin, isoniazid, phenytoin, ethambutol, fluindione, phenobarbital, rifampicin, and ceftriaxone; 43 drugs each caused a single case only. The drug classes causing the highest number of reactions were anticonvulsants (39%), beta-lactam antibiotics (20%), antituberculosis agents (11%), non-beta-lactam antibiotics (6%), and iodinated contrast media (5%). The sensitivity of patch testing (percentage of positive reactions) is high for anticonvulsants (notably carbamazepine), beta-lactam antibiotics (notably amoxicillin), and, possibly, iodinated contrast media. Allopurinol and sulfasalazine frequently cause DRESS but never give positive patch tests. Patch testing in DRESS appears to be safe, although mild recurrence of DRESS symptoms, mostly skin reactions, may not be rare. Multiple drug hypersensitivity was found to occur in 16% of all patients, but it is argued that the true frequency is higher. Clinical aspects of DRESS, including diagnosing the disease and identifying culprit drugs (patch tests, intradermal tests, in vitro tests, challenge tests) are also provided, emphasizing the role of patch testing.

Results of patch testing in acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP): A literature review.

The literature on positive patch-test results in acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) is reviewed. Ninety-three drugs were identified that have together caused 259 positive patch tests in 248 patients with AGEP. The drug classes causing the highest number of reactions are beta-lactam antibiotics (25.9%), other antibiotics (20.8%), iodinated contrast media (7.3%), and corticosteroids (5.4%), together accounting for nearly 60% of all reactions. The highest number of reactions to individual drugs was to amoxicillin (n = 36), followed by pristinamycin (n = 25), diltiazem (n = 14), amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (n = 13), clindamycin (n = 11), and iomeprol (n = 8); 59 of the 93 drugs each caused a single case only. The "Top-10" drugs together caused over 50% of all reactions. The sensitivity of patch testing (percentage of positive reactions) in patients with AGEP is largely unknown, but may generally be ~50%, which also applies to pristinamycin. Patch testing in AGEP appears to be safe, although mild recurrence of AGEP skin symptoms or other rashes may occur occasionally. Clinical aspects of AGEP, including epidemiology, etiology and pathophysiology, clinical features, histology, treatment, and prognosis are briefly presented, as are diagnosing the disease and identifying the culprit drugs with patch tests, intradermal tests, in vitro tests, and challenge tests.

Patch Testing in Drug Eruptions: Practical Aspects and Literature Review of Eruptions and Culprit Drugs.

ABSTRACT: There is overwhelming evidence that many delayed cutaneous adverse drug reactions (beginning >6 hours after drug intake) are mediated by delayed-type (type IV) hypersensitivity, including maculopapular eruptions, erythroderma, symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema/baboon syndrome, eczematous eruptions, fixed drug eruptions, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms/drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome. Therefore, after resolution of the reaction, patch tests should be performed as first diagnostic method to identify the culprit drug(s). This article provides tools to perform drug patch tests properly and safely, discussing clinical history, indications, procedure, drug patch test materials, sensitivity, the meaning of negative patch tests, and safety of the procedure. In addition, a literature review of eruptions and culprit drugs is provided in tabular format.

Systemic allergic dermatitis (systemic contact dermatitis) from pharmaceutical drugs: A review.

The literature on systemic allergic dermatitis (SAD; also known as systemic contact dermatitis) is reviewed. Both topical drugs (from absorption through mucosae or skin) and systemic drugs (oral, parenteral, rectal) may be responsible for the disorder. The topical route appears to be rare with 41 culprit topical drugs found to cause SAD in 95 patients. Most reactions are caused by budesonide (especially from inhalation), bufexamac, and dibucaine. SAD from systemic drugs is infrequent with 95 culprit drugs found to cause SAD in 240 patients. The drugs most frequently implicated are mitomycin C, methylprednisolone (salt, ester), and hydrocortisone (salt). The largest group of culprit drugs consisted of corticosteroids (19%), being responsible for >30% of the reactions, of which nearly 40% were not caused by therapeutic drugs, but by drug provocation tests. The most frequent manifestations of SAD from drugs are eczematous eruptions (scattered, widespread, generalized, worsening, reactivation), maculopapular eruptions, symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE [baboon syndrome]) and widespread erythema or erythroderma. Therapeutic systemic drugs hardly ever cause reactivation of previously positive patch tests and infrequently of previous allergic contact dermatitis. The pathophysiology of SAD has received very little attention. Explanations for the rarity of SAD are suggested.

Fragrances: Contact Allergy and Other Adverse Effects.

This article gives an overview of fragrance allergy. The following subjects are discussed: composition of perfumes, contact with fragrances, diagnosing fragrance allergy, frequency of allergy, clinical picture of allergic contact dermatitis, culprit products, occupational contact dermatitis, and other adverse effects of fragrances. For diagnosing fragrance sensitization, personal products and a fragrance series may need to be tested in addition to the baseline series. In the general adult population, up to 4.5% may be allergic to fragrance materials, and in consecutive patients patch tested for suspected contact dermatitis, the frequency may reach 20% to 25%. More than 150 fragrances have caused contact allergy. The most frequent sensitizers are linalool and limonene hydroperoxides, hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde, treemoss and oakmoss absolute, isoeugenol, cinnamyl alcohol, and cinnamal. Culprit products for induction of sensitization are often deodorants, fine fragrances, and aftershaves. Occupational contact dermatitis from fragrances is seen occasionally. Other adverse effects are all discussed but occur infrequently.

Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru) - A critical review of the literature and assessment of the significance of positive patch test reactions and the usefulness of restrictive diets.

In this article, contact allergy to Myroxylon pereirae resin (MP) (balsam of Peru) is reviewed. The topics presented include the uses, the chemical composition, the frequency of sensitization, the relevance of positive reactions, the MP-containing products causing allergic contact dermatitis, co-reactivity with other fragrance and non-fragrance materials, the sensitizers, the usefulness of MP as a "marker" of fragrance allergy, and the effectiveness of, and indications for, "balsam-restrictive" diets. Sensitization to MP occurs in 4% to 8% of patients routinely tested for suspected contact dermatitis. There are few adequate data on relevance. Topical pharmaceuticals were formerly, but are not today, important sources of sensitization. Cosmetics and foods or drinks are hardly ever products responsible for sensitization to MP. Positive patch test reactions in the large majority probably result from previous sensitization to MP constituents because of their presence in fragrances and fragranced products, MP thereby acting as marker (or "indicator") of fragrance allergy. However, fragrance mix I is a more sensitive marker, and the added diagnostic value of testing with MP is unknown. The allergenic ingredients of MP include isoeugenol, eugenol and cinnamyl alcohol, but there are other-largely unknown-chemicals that are responsible for contact allergy. Suggestions are given for further research to address questions thus far unanswered and to improve patient care.

Essential Oils, Part VI: Sandalwood Oil, Ylang-Ylang Oil, and Jasmine Absolute.

In this article, some aspects of sandalwood oil, ylang-ylang oil, and jasmine absolute are discussed including their botanical origin, uses of the plants and the oils and absolute, chemical composition, contact allergy to and allergic contact dermatitis from these essential oils and absolute, and their causative allergenic ingredients.

Essential Oils, Part III: Chemical Composition.

Data on the chemistry of essential oils which have caused contact allergy are provided. The largest group of chemicals found in essential oils consists of terpenes. The number of identified components usually ranges from 100 to 250, but in some oils (lavender, geranium, rosemary) 450 to 500 chemicals have been found. Many chemicals are present in a large number of oils, up to 98% for ß-caryophyllene and 97% for limonene. Chemicals that are important constituents of >20 oils are limonene, linalool, and α-pinene. In many essential oils, there are 2 to 5 components which together constitute over 50% to 60% of the oil. In some oils, however, there is one dominant ingredient, making up more than 50% of the oil, including (E)-anethole in aniseed and star anise oil, carvone in spearmint oil, 1,8-cineole (eucalyptol) in Eucalyptus globulus oil, and (E)-cinnamaldehyde in cassia oil. The most important chemicals in 93 individual oils are specified.

Essential Oils, Part IV: Contact Allergy.

Nearly 80 essential oils (including 2 jasmine absolutes) have caused contact allergy. Fifty-five of these have been tested in consecutive patients suspected of contact dermatitis, and nine (laurel, turpentine, orange, tea tree, citronella, ylang-ylang, sandalwood, clove, and costus root) showed greater than 2% positive patch test reactions. Relevance data are generally missing or inadequate. Most reactions are caused by application of pure oils or high-concentration products. The clinical picture depends on the responsible product. Occupational contact dermatitis may occur in professionals performing massages. The (possible) allergens in essential oils are discussed. Several test allergens are available, but patients should preferably be tested with their own products. Co-reactivity with other essential oils and the fragrance mix is frequent, which may partly be explained by common ingredients. Patch test concentrations for essential oils are suggested.

Tea tree oil: contact allergy and chemical composition.

In this article, contact allergy to, and the chemical composition of, tea tree oil (TTO) are reviewed. This essential oil is a popular remedy for many skin diseases, and may be used as neat oil or be present in cosmetics, topical pharmaceuticals and household products. Of all essential oils, TTO has caused most (published) allergic reactions since the first cases were reported in 1991. In routine testing, prevalences of positive patch test reactions have ranged from 0.1% to 3.5%. Nearly 100 allergic patients have been described in case reports and case series. The major constituents of commercial TTO are terpinen-4-ol, γ-terpinene, 1,8-cineole, α-terpinene, α-terpineol, p-cymene, and α-pinene. Fresh TTO is a weak to moderate sensitizer, but oxidation increases its allergenic potency. The major sensitizers appear to be ascaridole, terpinolene, α-terpinene, 1,2,4-trihydroxymenthane, α-phellandrene, and limonene. The clinical picture of allergic contact dermatitis caused by TTO depends on the products used. Most reactions are caused by the application of pure oil; cosmetics are the culprits in a minority of cases. Patch testing may be performed with 5% oxidized TTO. Co-reactivity to turpentine oil is frequent, and there is an overrepresentation of reactions to fragrance mix I, Myroxylon pereirae, colophonium, and other essential oils.

Essential Oils, Part I: Introduction.

Essential oils are widely used in the flavor, food, fragrance, and cosmetic industries in many applications. Contact allergy to them is well known and has been described for 80 essential oils. The relevance of positive patch test reactions often remains unknown. Knowledge of the chemical composition of essential oils among dermatologists is suspected to be limited, as such data are published in journals not read by the dermatological community. Therefore, the authors have fully reviewed and published the literature on contact allergy to and chemical composition of essential oils. Selected topics from this publication will be presented in abbreviated form in Dermatitis starting with this issue, including I. Introduction; II. General aspects; III. Chemistry; IV. General aspects of contact allergy; V. Peppermint oil, lavender oil and lemongrass oil; VI: Sandalwood oil, ylang-ylang oil, and jasmine absolute.

New Contact Allergens: 2008 to 2015.

Every year, new contact allergens, chemicals reported to have caused contact allergy/ACD for the first time, are described in literature. In the journals Contact Dermatitis and Dermatitis, 172 such compounds were identified in the period 2008-2015, 119 of which induced ACD. These are presented with the following data: name, synonyms, Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number, patch test data, function or class, causative product, number of patients, occupation (in case of occupational ACD), additional clinical data (if applicable), and references. Approximately one third of the new allergens were ingredients of cosmetics, followed by drugs causing occupational ACD (18%), chemicals in rubber, plastics, and paints (9%), drugs causing a drug eruption (9%), as well as chemicals used in laboratories inducing occupational ACD (8%). In 40%, the dermatitis was occupationally acquired. Fifty-three other chemicals causing contact allergy as indicated by positive patch test reactions only are shown without specifics.

Contact and photocontact allergy to octocrylene: a review.

Octocrylene is an ultraviolet (UV)B and UVAII absorber that was introduced some 15 years ago, and is now widely used in sunscreen agents and skin care cosmetics. Since 2003, several studies, notably from France, Belgium, Spain, and Italy, have reported an increasing number of patients with photocontact allergy to octocrylene. This reaction is seen mainly in adult patients who have previously used topical products containing the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug ketoprofen. Photosensitization to ketoprofen leads, in many cases, to photocontact allergy to octocrylene; the mechanism of this reaction is unknown. Contact allergy to octocrylene also occurs, but is far less frequent, and is seen, in most cases, in children, resulting from the use of octocrylene-containing sunscreen products. In this article, (photo)contact allergy to octocrylene is fully reviewed.