2-Cyanoethyl dimethyldithiocarbamate, a new contact allergen found in accelerator-free nitrile gloves.

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from rubber glove usage is usually caused by rubber additives such as the accelerators. However, in analyses of the suspected gloves, ordinary rubber allergens are not always found. Accelerator-free rubber gloves are available, but some patients with accelerator allergy do not tolerate them and might also be patch test positive to them. OBJECTIVES: To identify and chemically characterize a new allergen, 2-cyanoethyl dimethyldithiocarbamate (CEDMC), in rubber gloves. We describe two patient cases: patient 1 that led us to the identification of CEDMC and patient 2 with occupational ACD caused by CEDMC. METHODS: The patients were examined with patch testing including baseline and rubber series, and their own rubber gloves. High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) was used for chemical analysis of rubber gloves. The allergen was synthesized and identified by nuclear magnetic resonance, mass spectrometry and infrared spectrometry, and tested on patient 2. RESULTS: CEDMC was identified by HPLC in a nitrile glove associated with hand eczema in patient 1. Patient 2 whose nitrile gloves contained CEDMC was patch test positive to CEDMC. CONCLUSIONS: CEDMC is a new contact allergen in nitrile gloves and probably forms during vulcanization from residual monomer acrylonitrile and rubber additives.

Gene profiling reveals a contact allergy signature in most positive Amerchol L-101 patch test reactions.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of contact allergy (CA) to Amerchol L-101 (AL-101), a marker for lanolin allergy, is problematic. Positive patch test reactions are frequently doubtful or weakly positive and difficult to associate with clinical relevance. OBJECTIVE: To gain further insight on the allergic or irritant nature of skin reactions induced by AL-101 patch test. METHODS: We re-tested in a dose-response fashion, 10 subjects with AL-101 CA and performed comprehensive transcriptomic analysis (gene arrays, quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction [qRT-PCR]) of samples of their skin reactions. RESULTS: Eight of the 10 CA subjects reacted positively upon re-test, whereas two did not react. Most of AL-101 positive patch tests expressed an allergy signature with strong activation of gene modules associated with adaptive immunity and downregulation of cornification pathway genes. In addition, the breadth of gene modulation correlated with the magnitude of patch test reactions and the concentration of AL-101 applied. However, we observed that some of the positive patch test reactions to AL-101 expressed no/few allergy biomarkers, suggesting the induction of an irritant skin inflammation in these samples. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that AL-101 is an allergen that can cause both contact allergy and contact irritation. Our results also highlight that molecular profiling might help to strengthen clinical diagnosis.