Hand eczema in children referred for patch testing: North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 2000-2016.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the aetiologies and relevant allergens in paediatric patients with hand eczema (HE). OBJECTIVES: To characterize the aetiologies and determine the proportion of positive and currently relevant allergens in children/adolescents (age < 18 years) with HE referred for patch testing. METHODS: A retrospective analysis (2000-2016) of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data was performed. RESULTS: Of 1634 paediatric patients, 237 (14·5%) had involvement of the hands. Final physician diagnoses included allergic contact dermatitis (49·4%), atopic dermatitis (37·1%) and irritant contact dermatitis (16·9%). In multivariable logistic regression models, employment was the only association with increased odds of any HE or primary HE. Children with HE vs. those without HE had similar proportions of positive patch tests (56·1% vs. 61·7%; χ2 -test, P = 0·11). The five most common currently relevant allergens were nickel, methylisothiazolinone, propylene glycol, decyl glucoside and lanolin. In multivariable logistic regression models of the top 20 relevant allergens, HE was associated with significantly higher odds of currently relevant reactions to lanolin, quaternium-15, Compositae mix, thiuram mix, 2-mercaptobenzathiazole and colophony. The allergens with the highest mean significance-prevalence index number were methylisothiazolinone, carba mix, thiuram mix, nickel and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone. CONCLUSIONS: Children with HE who were referred for patch testing had a high proportion of positive patch tests, which was similar to the proportion found in children without HE. Children with HE had a distinct and fairly narrow profile of currently relevant allergens.

Patch testing discordance alert: false-negative findings with rubber additives and fragrances.

From July 1996 through June 1998, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group evaluated 318 patients for suspected contact dermatitis by patch testing simultaneously with Finn Chambers and the T.R.U.E. Test allergen system. Discrepancies between the two systems were found in some of the results, particularly with fragrance and rubber allergens. These results suggest that positive reactions to fragrance, thiuram, and carba mix allergens may be missed if the T.R.U.E. Test is used alone.

A preliminary report of the occupation of patients evaluated in patch test clinics.

BACKGROUND: The interplay between the occupational environment and worker's skin can result in contact dermatitis of both irritant and allergic types. Other forms of dermatitis can also be influenced by occupational exposures. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the occupations and allergens of occupational contact dermatitis cases with nonoccupational contact dermatitis cases. METHODS: Diagnostic patch testing with allergens of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group and occupational coding by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health methods. RESULTS: Of 2,889 patients referred for evaluation of contact dermatitis, 839 patients (29%) were found to have occupational contact dermatitis. Of the 839 cases deemed occupational, 455 cases (54%) were primarily allergic in nature and 270 cases (32%) were primarily irritant in nature. The remaining 14% were diagnoses other than contact dermatitis, aggravated by work. The occupation most commonly found to have allergic contact dermatitis was nursing. Allergens strongly associated with occupational exposure were thiuram, carbamates, epoxy, and ethylenediamine. CONCLUSION: Some contact allergens are more commonly associated with occupational contact dermatitis. Nursing and nursing support are occupations most likely to be overrepresented in contact dermatitis clinics.

To patch or not to patch: what is your threshold for patch testing?

Patch testing is as much art as it is science; we all are influenced by our clinical experience as well as by the literature. In an effort to assist those new to this often underutilized technique, we have solicited comments from five experienced clinicians about when to patch test and when not to patch test. Their responses should be a guide for us all.

North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for the detection of delayed-type hypersensitivity to topical allergens.

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis is a significant cause of cutaneous disease affecting many individuals. Patch testing, when used properly, often provides support for the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVE: This article reports patch testing results from July 1, 1994, to June 30, 1996, by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG). METHODS: Patients evaluated in our patch test clinics were tested with the same screening series of allergens by the use of a standardized patch testing technique. The data from these patients were recorded on a standard computer entry form and analyzed. RESULTS: Forty-nine allergens were tested on 3120 patients. Budesonide was added to the series in July 1995 and tested on 1678 patients. Of these patients, 66.5% had positive allergic patch test reactions, and 57% had at least one allergic reaction that was felt to be clinically relevant to the present or past dermatitis. The 20 screening allergens commercially available to United States dermatologists in the Allergen Patch Test Kit, accounted for only 54.1% of the patients with positive allergic reactions. The additional 30 allergens on the NACDG screening series accounted for 47% of patients with positive allergic reactions. Had the Allergen Patch Test Kit alone been used, 12.4% of all patients tested may have had their disease misclassified as a nonallergic disorder, and an additional 34.4% of all tested patients would not have had their allergies fully defined. Among those patients with positive responses to the supplemental allergens, 81% of the responses were of present or past relevance. The 12 most frequent contact allergens were nickel sulfate, fragrance mix, thimerosal, quaternium-15, neomycin sulfate, formaldehyde, bacitracin, thiuram mix, balsam of Peru, cobalt chloride, para-phenylenediamine, and carba mix. The present relevance varied with the specific allergen from 10.7% (thimerosal) to 85.7% (quaternium-15). Among newer allergens, methyldibromoglutaronitrile/phenoxyethanol (cosmetic preservative) caused positive allergic reactions in 2% of the patients; tixocortol-21-pivalate and budesonide (corticosteroids), in 2.0% and 1.1% of the patients, respectively; and ethylene urea/melamine formaldehyde mix (textile resin), in 5% of the patients. CONCLUSION: The usefulness of patch testing is enhanced with the number of allergens tested, because allergens not found on the commercially available screening series in the United States frequently give relevant allergic reactions.

Contact hypersensitivity to tixocortol pivalate.

BACKGROUND: Tixocortol pivalate is an established marker to topical corticosteroid allergy. The prevalence of tixocortol pivalate hypersensitivity is well established in Europe, where exposure to this corticosteroid as a therapeutic agent varies. In the United States, tixocortol pivalate is not commercially available and the prevalence of hypersensitivity to it is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the prevalence of tixocortol pivalate hypersensitivity in our patch-tested population. We further characterized these patients by clinical background, other contact allergens, and the reactivity to other corticosteroids. METHODS: Tixocortol pivalate has been incorporated in our standard 1-52 patch test series since November 1992. We reviewed the histories and patch test results in all patients tested with the standard 1-52 series from November 1992 to December 1996. RESULTS: Of 1536 patch-tested patients, 45 had hypersensitivity to tixocortol pivalate. Dermatitis involving the face was the most common (14 patients). Of the 45 patients, 40 had another allergen identified on patch testing. Eighteen patients underwent further patch testing to an extended corticosteroid panel, and 14 had sensitivity to another steroid agent. CONCLUSION: The 2.9% prevalence of tixocortol pivalate hypersensitivity in our patch test population is within the range reported in Europe. Patients with tixocortol pivalate hypersensitivity tend to have other contact allergens on patch testing. Predisposing factors to tixocortol pivalate hypersensitivity include facial dermatitis and sensitivity to other contact allergens.

A medical-center-wide, multidisciplinary approach to the problem of natural rubber latex allergy.

Latex is a common cause of occupational allergy in health care workers; latex-sensitized patients are at increased risk of allergic reactions in medical environments. Skin test reagents and latex-specific immunoglobulin E immunoassays were established for diagnosis of latex allergy. Inhibition immunoassays were developed for measuring latex aeroallergens and latex allergens in rubber products. A registry of latex-sensitive employees was established. High-allergen gloves were removed from the medical center inventory; latex aeroallergen levels subsequently declined. Despite an increasing number of gloves used annually, expenditures for gloves in 1994 were lower than in previous years. Latex-sensitive individuals can be identified using skin tests or immunoassays. Latex aeroallergen levels in medical environments can be reduced substantially at lower cost by using powder-free rubber gloves with lower allergen content.

An epidemic of occupational allergy to latex involving health care workers.

IgE-mediated sensitivity to natural rubber latex is being recognized more frequently among health care workers. Between January 1990 and June 1993, we evaluated 342 consecutive Mayo Medical Center employees who reported symptoms suggestive of latex allergy. All were interviewed and underwent puncture skin testing with extracts of rubber gloves. In some cases, latex-specific IgE antibodies were measured by immunoassay. One hundred four of the 342 employees evaluated (30%) were latex-allergic. Risk factors for sensitization included frequent use of disposable gloves, presence of prior atopic disease, and prior or current hand dermatitis. The peak onset of symptoms occurred in late 1989 and early 1990 and did not correlate with a peak in glove usage at our medical center, which continued to rise. Most sensitized employees (78%) reported contact urticaria from rubber gloves, and over two thirds also experienced allergic rhinitis, conjunctivitis, or asthma when working in areas where large numbers of gloves were being used. Sixteen episodes of rubber-induced anaphylaxis were documented in 12 employees; six episodes occurred after latex skin testing and were easily reversed with appropriate therapy. Our findings substantiate a local epidemic of latex allergy among medical center employees. Epidemiologic studies are needed to assess the effects of various interventions to reduce occupational exposure to latex allergens. Although prick skin testing with concentrated latex glove extracts presents some risk of systemic reaction, pending availability of commercial diagnostic extracts, such testing is generally safe when performed by skilled laboratory personnel. Skin testing is warranted to investigate health care workers suspected of being latex-sensitive.

Ultrastructural evaluation of mid-dermal elastolysis.

Mid-dermal elastolysis is a well-defined clinical and histopathologic entity manifested by fine wrinkling of the skin and a mid-dermal loss of elastic fibers. Ultrastructural and histologic studies were performed in an attempt to better define the cause of the elastolytic process. Biopsy specimens from the lesions of 3 patients with mid-dermal elastolysis were studied at light and electron microscopic levels. Ultrastructural evidence of normal elastic fiber engulfment by activated macrophages was observed; however, some fields also demonstrated envelopment of abnormally degenerated elastic tissue. Although there are many potential causes of this degeneration, photodistribution of the lesions suggests that ultraviolet damage is a primary inciting factor.

Extractable latex allergens and proteins in disposable medical gloves and other rubber products.

BACKGROUND: IgE-mediated sensitization to rubber proteins is being reported with increasing frequency in health care workers. To explore the relative importance of various sources of allergen exposure, we measured the total rubber allergen and protein levels in extracts of disposable rubber gloves and compared the allergen levels with those in extracts of other medical and consumer rubber products. METHODS: Rubber allergens were measured by inhibition immunoassay with a rubber glove extract as the solid-phase allergen and pooled plasma from five rubber-sensitized health care workers as the IgE antibody source. Proteins were measured by Ninhydrin assay. RESULTS: Among 71 lots of gloves tested, the extractable allergen and protein levels were significantly correlated and were appreciably higher in powdered gloves than in powder-free gloves. Allergen levels varied 3000-fold among gloves from different manufacturers and were higher in examination gloves than in surgical or chemotherapy gloves. Measurable allergen was found in 11 of 24 lots of "hypoallergenic" gloves tested. Allergen levels in toy balloons were comparable to those in powdered gloves; much lower allergen levels were measured in condoms and anesthesia rebreathing bags. CONCLUSIONS: The allergen content of disposable rubber gloves varies widely and is higher in powdered gloves than in powder-free gloves and higher in examination gloves than in surgical gloves. Hypoallergenic gloves may contain substantial amounts of IgE-binding proteins. Gloves and toy balloons appear to be more important sources of rubber allergens than the other rubber products tested.

Dermopathy of Graves disease (pretibial myxedema). Review of 150 cases.

Pretibial myxedema is an uncommon manifestation of Graves disease, and little information is available regarding its natural course and its relation to other manifestations of Graves disease. We reviewed 150 consecutive cases with the diagnosis of pretibial myxedema over a 20-year period in a referral center. Only 1 patient in this group did not have ophthalmopathy, whereas 88% had significant proptosis and 30% required orbital decompression surgery. Dermopathy was a late manifestation of Graves disease, and its onset usually followed the diagnosis of hyperthyroidism and ophthalmopathy. In a few patients, dermopathy preceded diagnosis of hyperthyroidism or onset of ophthalmopathy. Fourteen patients were never clinically hyperthyroid; spontaneous hypothyroidism had developed in 11 in this group. All cases involved the lower extremities, with only 1 patient having combined upper and lower extremity involvement. The most common form of thyroid dermopathy was nonpitting edema, followed by nodular and plaque forms, which occurred with equal frequency. The polypoid form occurred in 1 patient and the elephantiasic form in another; 7.3% had thyroid acropachy. Follow-up was available for 120 patients (range, 3 mo to 19 yr; mean, 3.2 yr), and complete remission was observed in only 12 patients. Topically applied corticosteroid therapy was used in 76 patients, and in this group 38% had sustained long-term partial remission, as opposed to 18% in the group receiving no corticosteroid therapy.

Diazolidinyl urea: incidence of sensitivity, patterns of cross-reactivity and clinical relevance.

Diazolidinyl urea (DIAZ) is a formaldehyde-releasing preservative used in cosmetics and personal-care products, which has been identified as a sensitizing agent in contact dermatitis. To determine whether DIAZ sensitization is secondary to formaldehyde release or due to its own allergenic properties, we reviewed 708 consecutive patch tests of patients with various dermatologic complaints. Profiles of the 58 individuals (8%) with DIAZ sensitivity were analyzed with respect to sex, age, exposures, and chronicity of dermatitis. Significant coexistent biocide reactivity was demonstrated for DIAZ and formaldehyde (81%); 12% reacted to DIAZ alone. We conclude that the primary mode of sensitization of DIAZ is via formaldehyde release and that independent contact allergy is less frequent.

Allergic reactions to latex among health-care workers.

With the emergence of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) epidemic and the practice of protecting health-care workers from all body fluids, the use of rubber gloves has increased, as has occupational allergy to latex among health-care workers. During 1991, 49 Mayo Medical Center employees sought assessment and treatment of rhinitis, conjunctivitis, contact urticaria, contact dermatitis, asthma, or eczema thought to be related to exposure to latex. Most of these persons had a history of atopy and worked in areas where rubber gloves were used and changed frequently. Of the 49 subjects, 34 had positive results of skin tests to latex products, and the sera from 19 of 35 persons tested contained increased latex-specific IgE antibodies. Employees with sensitivity to latex (and co-workers in the immediate areas) should use vinyl gloves and should notify their own health-care providers of their sensitization. Changes in job assignment may be necessary for some persons.

Dermatologic manifestations of human immunodeficiency virus infection.

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) have become major health problems in the United States, and patients with manifestations of these diseases are seen by physicians in all areas of medicine. Cutaneous manifestations develop in as many as 92% of HIV-positive persons. Familiarity with these manifestations facilitates early diagnosis and enhances the care of HIV-infected patients. The spectrum of mucocutaneous disorders in these patients includes an acute exanthem, multiple infections, neoplastic processes, and miscellaneous disorders. Herein we review the most common and the most specific dermatologic manifestations associated with HIV infection, which often are atypical, more severe, or less responsive to treatment than the corresponding diseases encountered in non-HIV-infected persons.

Cutaneous reactions to granulocyte-monocyte colony-stimulating factor.

BACKGROUND AND DESIGN: Granulocyte-monocyte colony-stimulating factor (GMCSF) is a hematopoietic growth factor that stimulates the proliferation and differentiation of neutrophils, eosinophils, and monocytes. We reviewed the cutaneous reactions that developed in 26 patients who received GMCSF as part of a chemotherapeutic protocol. RESULTS: Fourteen patients developed immediate localized angioedematous reactions at the subcutaneous GMCSF injection site, and 21 developed generalized cutaneous reactions. Four biopsy specimens were obtained from three patients who had generalized erythrodermic reactions. All specimens showed perivascular and periadnexal lymphocytic inflammation in the dermis, and two showed perivascular and periadnexal eosinophilia. Staining for eosinophil granule major basic protein showed infiltration by eosinophils and extracellular deposition of major basic protein in three specimens from two patients with eosinophilia. Extracellular deposition of neutrophil elastase and mast cell tryptase was minimal. CONCLUSIONS: Cutaneous reactions are prominently associated with GMCSF administration. Eosinophils, known to release toxic products after being activated, may have a role in these skin reactions through stimulation by GMCSF.

Patch testing in prurigo nodularis.

32 patients with prurigo nodularis evaluated at the Mayo Clinic from 1975 to 1987 have been patch tested for sensitivity to appropriate allergen series; 25 of these had relevant positive reactions and subsequent follow-up to 5 to 14 years was available for 11. 6 patients had persistent disease and 5 had resolution or marked improvement. 3 of these latter patients noted a strong positive correlation between improvement and avoidance of contact allergens. Screening for contact sensitivity may be helpful in the management of this refractory dermatosis, particularly if there is a coexistent dermatitis.