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.

False-positive "poral" cobalt patch test reactions reside in the eccrine acrosyringium.

Seventy (32%) of 222 patients patch tested in our contact dermatitis clinic from 1993 to 1995 had irritant reactions to cobalt. These reactions were "poral" and seemed to reflect a unique and probably toxic effect of cobalt on the acrosyringium. The reactions are neither follicular nor petechial and we believe they are not allergic. The histopathology of the reactions is described in detail.

Prevalence of gold sensitivity in asymptomatic individuals with gold dental restorations.

BACKGROUND: The clinical relevance of positive patch test reactions to gold sodium thiosulfate in asymptomatic individuals with gold dental restorations is often unclear. Knowledge of the prevalence of gold sensitivity in individuals with and without gold dental restorations is required to better understand the relevance of these reactions. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of positive patch test reactions to gold in asymptomatic individuals with gold dental restorations (gold patients) compared with similar individuals without gold dental appliances (nongold patients). METHODS: One hundred thirty-six healthy, asymptomatic patients were patch tested to gold sodium thiosulfate, nickel sulfate and palladium chloride. Readings occurred after 2 days and 7 days. RESULTS: Of the patients tested, 24 of 71 (33.8%) gold patients had a positive reaction to gold versus 7 of 65 (10.8%) of the nongold patients, P <.001. Of those with a positive gold reaction, 12 of 31 (38.7%) also had a positive nickel reaction. Nickel alone was positive in 18 of 71 (25. 4%) of gold patients versus 11 of 65 (16.9%) of nongold patients. 19 of 29 (65.5%) of those with a positive nickel reaction also reacted to palladium and 19 of 22 (86.4%) of those with a palladium reaction also reacted to nickel. The rate of allergy to gold computed over a 3-year period for patients patch tested in the Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU) Contact Dermatitis Clinic was 13.5% (46/342). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of gold sensitivity in individuals with gold dental restorations is approximately 33.8%. This is significantly greater than the 10.8% prevalence seen in individuals without gold dental appliances, as well as greater than the 3-year rate from the OHSU Contact Dermatitis Clinic. This data should help shed light on issues of clinical relevance.

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.

Psoralen plus UVA protocol for Compositae photosensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Patients allergic to sesquiterpene lactones found in Compositae plants may develop severe photosensitivity, which can result in persistent light reaction. Treatment of these exquisitely photosensitive individuals can be very difficult, often requiring hospitalization. Although some treatment regimens have used psoralen plus UVA (PUVA) therapy, no specific outpatient protocol has been established OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop an effective PUVA outpatient regimen to treat compositae photosensitivity. METHODS: A prednisone-assisted PUVA protocol was established in which the prednisone does was decreased weekly, and the PUVA dose was increased during the same time interval. RESULTS: Both patients enrolled in the study experienced dramatic improvement in their previously unresponsive eruptions. CONCLUSIONS: Two men aged 66 and 80 years were subjected to this protocol. Both men had chronic photodistributed dermatitis that resolved with this treatment and in one instance has remained clear for 18 months without needing further PUVA therapy.

Allergic and irritant patch test reactions and atopic disease.

This study presents a profile of patients with chronic recalcitrant eczematous disease referred by dermatologists for contact allergy evaluation. Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and irritant responses were carefully defined, as was the presence or absence of atopy obtained by history. Of 410 patients studied, 44% had no history of atopic disease and 46% were classed as definitely atopic. Among relevant ACD patch test reactors (n = 198), 51.5% had atopy, compared with 40.9% with no atopy but this difference was not significant. Likewise, among atopics (n = 189), 54% had definite, relevant ACD patch test responses while 33.9% had negative ACD (again not significant). Significance was seen in the higher mean number of positive allergic patch tests in the atopic group (2.7 versus 2.0, p = 0.0223). Irritant patch tests were highest among patients with both ACD and atopy (p = 0.0308) and the proportion of irritant responses correlated with increasing numbers of positive ACD tests. We conclude that atopics are at least as likely to have ACD as are non-atopics. Irritancy is increased in these patients with chronic dermatitis and the frequency of irritant reactions correlates with both greater numbers of ACD responses and with presence of atopy.

Technical and ethical problems associated with patch testing.

When relevant allergens are identified by patch testing, and patients can avoid them in their environment, improvement of dermatitis is the rule. Some forms of chronic dermatitis may not clear completely, but patients are usually satisfied with modification of their previously more severe problem. In 1981 when asked what he felt were the five most important advances in clinical dermatology during the 20th century, Dr. Marion B. Sulzburger, an icon in American dermatology, said that, "The increased use and usefulness of the patch test and the international standardization of test concentrations and methods" was number one. Those of us who are enthusiastic patch testers and fascinated by the evaluation of patients with irritant and allergic contact dermatitis would agree. It is a thrilling clinical experience to be able to tell a machinist that he need not stop his lifelong occupation, but instead will do fine if he will simply avoid the waterless hand cleanser he has been using which is preserved with glutaraldehyde. The woman whose facial dermatitis has embarrassed her for years and clears when she stops using the Quaternium-15 preserved moisturizer that you have identified in your patch testing is grateful to you forever, and again happy in her own life. In 1991, my research assistants, Patricia Norris and Mary Lou Belozer, and I studied 30 university hospital workers who answered our advertisement asking for individuals who believed they were troubled by their rubber gloves (unreported study). By evaluating these people through history, physical examination, and patch testing, we were able to prove glove relatedness in 14 of them. Nine of the 14 had contact urticaria to latex, and only 5 had allergic contact dermatitis to rubber glove ingredients. Fifteen of our patients had irritant dermatitis. In this study, none of the patients with allergic contact dermatitis to glove ingredients had contact urticaria. However, since that time, we have observed a number of patients who had both forms of allergic reaction. Three of our patients who presented with nummular (patchy) hand dermatitis also had contact urticaria to latex, but no positive patch tests. With latex glove avoidance, their dermatitis resolved; an example of how scratching urticaria can eventuate in longer lasting dermatitis in some people ("the itch that rashes"). The patients presented to their dermatologist with dermatitis, but their true initiating event was urticaria which lasted only hours. The gratifying part of this study was that patch testing and contact urticaria testing allowed us to discover the 5 patients with allergic contact dermatitis and the 9 patients with contact urticaria who could benefit from glove alternatives. We were also able to assure patients in the remainder of the group that their hand eczema was not glove induced, but rather was related to their wet work. In most instances, therapeutic intervention helped, but in several cases job changes were required. Patch testing, when done properly, produces exciting results. When done improperly, it confuses and misleads patients and results in embarrassment to physicians who cannot properly interpret their results. Should a physician choose to include patch testing in his or her evaluation of patients with contact dermatitis it is essential, in my view, that he or she have highly developed skills in the diagnosis and treatment of skin diseases, and that these physicians be elaborately trained in the techniques of application and the methods of interpretation of patch tests.

Abnormal skin irritancy in atopic dermatitis and in atopy without dermatitis.

BACKGROUND AND DESIGN: Past observations have shown increased irritancy in patients with "conditioned hyperirritability" due to active dermatitis, including atopic dermatitis (AD). In less active atopic conditions, irritancy levels are less certain. We have utilized 48-hour Finn Chamber testing with graded dilutions of sodium lauryl sulfate to detect irritancy thresholds in well-defined groups of patients with AD, inactive AD, and allergic respiratory disease with no dermatitis and in normal nonatopic subjects. RESULTS: Significantly greater frequency of response to sodium lauryl sulfate in both AD groups and also in patients with allergic rhinitis with no dermatitis was seen. Effective concentrations of sodium lauryl sulfate causing irritation in 50% or more of subjects (ED50) ranged from 0.0625% to 0.31% in all atopic groups, percentages that were significantly lower than the normal ED50 of 0.60%. Response intensity was also significantly greater in each atopic group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed significantly greater irritant responses in atopic subjects with no skin disease or in subjects with inactive AD and confirmed past findings that showed greatly increased irritancy in patients with active AD. We hypothesize that abnormal intrinsic hyperreactivity in inflammatory cells, rather than in skin cells, in atopic individuals predisposes to a lowered threshold of irritant responsiveness.

All the things I knew were true about contact dermatitis that aren't.

Twenty-five years of experience in evaluating people with irritant and allergic contact dermatitis has taught me that many of my preconceived notions were false. No patients are more challenging and interesting to investigate or more rewarding to help than those with long-standing histories of undiagnosed contact dermatitis. Furious resolve during investigation coupled with a willingness to be proven wrong and to find the unexpected is most likely to result in a successful outcome for patients with contact dermatitis.

Contact dermatitis from beryllium in dental alloys.

An increasing number of metals with the potential to cause allergic contact dermatitis have found their way into dental alloys for economic and practical reasons. 2 patients are reported who developed gingivitis adjacent to the Rexillium III alloy in their dental prostheses. Patch testing demonstrated positive reactions to beryllium sulfate, a component of the alloy. Components of dental alloys and the mechanism of the contact dermatitis are discussed.

Allergic contact dermatitis to two antioxidants in latex gloves: 4,4'-thiobis(6-tert-butyl-meta-cresol) (Lowinox 44S36) and butylhydroxyanisole. Allergen alternatives for glove-allergic patients.

Allergic contact dermatitis developed on the hands and/or face of two patients after exposure to latex examination gloves. Both patients were patch test negative to the usual rubber allergens, but both had a positive patch test reaction to 4,4'-thiobis(6-tert-butyl-m-cresol) (Lowinox 44S36). Patient 2 was also patch test positive to butylhydroxyanisole. The patients were tested with other gloves, to find gloves that they could safely use. Glove manufacturers were queried to ascertain the occurrence of Lowinox 44S36 and butylhydroxyanisole in different brands of latex and vinyl examination gloves. A list of gloves and their associated allergens was generated and is provided to assist dermatologists in helping patients choose gloves free of specific allergens.

Multiple keratoacanthomas after megavoltage radiation therapy.

Multiple keratoacanthomas developed on the face of a woman after radiation therapy to the nasal sinuses. Treatment with isotretinoin appeared to shorten her recovery period.

Methylchloroisothiazolinone-methylisothiazolinone reactions in patients screened for vehicle and preservative hypersensitivity.

More than 1100 patients were tested with methylchloroisothiazolinone-methylisothiazolinone, 100 ppm, in aqueous and petrolatum-based patch test materials from 1985 to 1987 by members of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group. Thirteen reactions to the aqueous materials and 10 to the petrolatum-based materials were observed. Irritant reactions were infrequent, and about half the reactions were deemed relevant. From 1984 to 1985, patch tests with this substance at a concentration of 250 ppm in petrolatum were conducted. Thirteen persons were identified as allergic, but three others were sensitized by the patch test procedure. Sensitization as not observed in tests with aqueous or petrolatum-based substance at a concentration of 100 ppm, and this concentration appears to be the best compromise between safety and sensitive detection of allergy. Use tests are helpful but not infallible as a guide in establishing relevance with methylchloroisothiazolinone-methylisothiazolinone. Wash-off products are frequently well tolerated by patients with positive reactions to this substance.