[[Translated article]]Epidemiological, Clinical, and Allergic Profile of Psoriatic Patients. Evaluation of the Spanish Registry of Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (REIDAC).

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory dermatosis whose clinical and topographic distribution requires differential diagnosis, or the possible association with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), requiring patch testing (PT) as part of the diagnostic procedure. OBJECTIVES: To describe the epidemiological, clinical, and allergic profile of patients with a primary or secondary diagnosis of psoriasis undergoing PT and compare them with patients with a diagnosis of ACD at the end of the diagnostic process. METHODS: Cross-sectional study with data from REIDAC from 2018 through 2023 of selected patients with a diagnosis of psoriasis and/or ACD. RESULTS: A total of 11 502 patients were included, 513 of whom had been diagnosed with primary or secondary psoriasis, 3640 with ACD, and 108 with both diseases. Men were more predominant in the groups of patients with psoriasis, psoriasis + ACD, and lesions were more predominantly seen in the hands with little association with atopic factors vs the ACD group. The rate of positivity in PT to the 2022 Spanish battery of allergens was lower in the group with psoriasis only in 27% of the patients. The most common allergens found in the psoriasis group were also the most common ones found in the overall ACD population. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 36.2% of psoriatic patients tested positive in PT to the 2022 Spanish battery of allergens, which proved that this association is not uncommon. Overall, psoriatic patients had a higher mean age, were more predominantly men, and showed more hand involvement.

Standard and Expanded Series Patch Testing Update by the Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC). / Actualización de la batería estándar y batería ampliada de pruebas alérgicas de contacto por el Grupo Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea (GEIDAC).

After the meeting held by the Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC) back in October 2021, changes were suggested to the Spanish standard series patch testing. Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2% pet.), textile dye mixt (6.6% pet.), linalool hydroperoxide (1% pet.), and limonene hydroperoxide (0.3% pet.) were, then, added to the series that agreed upon in 2016. Ethyldiamine and phenoxyethanol were excluded. Methyldibromoglutaronitrile, the mixture of sesquiterpene lactones, and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene (Lyral) were alo added to the extended Spanish series of 2022.

Epidemiological, Clinical, and Allergic Profile of Psoriatic Patients. Evaluation of the Spanish Registry of Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (REIDAC). / Perfil epidemiológico, clínico y alérgico en pacientes con psoriasis. Evaluación del Registro Español de Dermatitis de Contacto (REIDAC).

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory dermatosis whose clinical and topographic distribution requires differential diagnosis, or the possible association with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), requiring patch testing (PT) as part of the diagnostic procedure. OBJECTIVES: To describe the epidemiological, clinical, and allergic profile of patients with a primary or secondary diagnosis of psoriasis undergoing PT and compare them with patients with a diagnosis of ACD at the end of the diagnostic process. METHODS: Cross-sectional study with data from REIDAC from 2018 through 2023 of selected patients with a diagnosis of psoriasis and/or ACD. RESULTS: A total of 11 502 patients were included, 513 of whom had been diagnosed with primary or secondary psoriasis, 3640 with ACD, and 108 with both diseases. Men were more predominant in the groups of patients with psoriasis, psoriasis+ACD, and lesions were more predominantly seen in the hands with little association with atopic factors vs the ACD group. The rate of positivity in PT to the 2022 Spanish battery of allergens was lower in the group with psoriasis only in 27% of the patients. The most common allergens found in the psoriasis group were also the most common ones found in the overall ACD population. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 36.2% of psoriatic patients tested positive in PT to the 2022 Spanish battery of allergens, which proved that this association is not uncommon. Overall, psoriatic patients had a higher mean age, were more predominantly men, and showed more hand involvement.

Synthesis and characterization of enantiopure chiral NH2/SO palladium complexes.

A series of enantiopure chiral NH2/SO palladium complexes have been synthesised with high yields by treating the corresponding tert-butylsulfinamide/sulfoxide derivatives with Pd(CH3CN)2Cl2. The enantiopure chiral ligands were prepared by stereoselective addition of tert-butyl or phenyl methylsulfinyl carbanions to different tert-butylsulfinylimines. In all cases, coordination occurs with concomitant desulfinylation. X-ray studies of the Pd complexes showed a higher trans influence of the phenylsulfinyl group in comparison to that of the tert-butylsulfinyl group. Furthermore, we have obtained and characterised two possible palladium amine/sulfonyl complexes, epimers at sulfur, resulting from N-desulfinylation and coordination of palladium with both oxygens of the prochiral sulfonyl group. The catalytic activity and enantioselectivity of the new Pd(II) complexes of acetylated amine/tert-butyl- and phenylsulfoxides in the carboxylated cyclopropanes arylation reaction has been studied, obtaining the best results with the phenylsulfoxide ligand 25(SC,SS) that produced the final arylated product in a 93 :7 enantiomeric ratio.

Contact Allergy to Shellac. Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study With Data From the Spanish Registry of Research in Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (REIDAC) / Alergia de contacto a shellac. Estudio transversal retrospectivo con datos del Registro Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea (REIDAC)

Introduction Shellac is a known allergen present mainly in cosmetics used on the eyelids and lips, although new sources of exposure have recently been described. Our objective was to assess the use of shellac as a contact allergen in Spain and the clinical profile of patients allergic to shellac. Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study included patients patch tested for shellac between 2018 and 2021 from the Spanish Registry of Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (REIDAC). Results A total of 980 patients were patch tested for shellac (20% in ethanol), and 37 (3.77%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.58–3.97%) showed positive results. Most of these patients were tested for shellac due to a suspicion of cosmetic contact dermatitis. Seven patients with present relevance were found, five with relation to cosmetics, and the other two with an occupational background of food handling. The reaction index for shellac was 0.51 and the positivity ratio was 67.56% (95% CI, 52.48–82.65%). Conclusions Shellac appears to be a prevalent allergen in patients with suspected contact dermatitis related with cosmetics or foodstuff. However, further studies are needed to validate its use in other patients (AU)

El shellac es un alérgeno conocido por su presencia en cosméticos para labios y párpados, aunque en los últimos años se han descrito nuevas fuentes de exposición. El objetivo de nuestro trabajo fue evaluar cómo se está usando el shellac, como alérgeno de contacto en España, y las características clínicas de los pacientes alérgicos al shellac. Métodos Se realizó un estudio retrospectivo transversal con los pacientes incluidos en el Registro Español de Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea en los que se realizaron pruebas epicutáneas con shellac desde 2018 a 2021. Resultados El shellac (20% en etanol) fue usado en 980 pacientes, con resultados positivos en 37 de ellos (3,77%; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 2,58-3,97%). La mayoría de estos pacientes realizaron las pruebas epicutáneas por una sospecha de dermatitis de contacto por cosméticos. Se encontraron 7 pacientes con una relevancia presente, 5 de ellos en relación con el uso de cosméticos, y los otros 2 fueron dermatitis de contacto ocupacionales en el contexto de la manipulación de alimentos. El índice de reacción para el shellac fue del 0,51% y la ratio de positividad del 67,56% (IC 95%: 52,48-82,65%). Conclusiones El shellac parece un alérgeno frecuente en los pacientes con sospecha de dermatitis de contacto por cosméticos o alimentos. Sin embargo, se necesitan más estudios para validar su uso en otros pacientes (AU)

[Artículo traducido] Alergia de contacto a shellac. Estudio transversal retrospectivo con datos del Registro Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea (REIDAC) / Contact Allergy to Shellac. Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study With Data From the Spanish Registry of Research in Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (REIDAC)

El shellac es un alérgeno conocido por su presencia en cosméticos para labios y párpados, aunque en los últimos años se han descrito nuevas fuentes de exposición. El objetivo de nuestro trabajo fue evaluar cómo se está usando el shellac, como alérgeno de contacto en España, y las características clínicas de los pacientes alérgicos al shellac. Métodos Se realizó un estudio retrospectivo transversal con los pacientes incluidos en el Registro Español de Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea en los que se realizaron pruebas epicutáneas con shellac desde 2018 a 2021. Resultados El shellac (20% en etanol) fue usado en 980 pacientes, con resultados positivos en 37 de ellos (3,77%; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 2,58-3,97%). La mayoría de estos pacientes realizaron las pruebas epicutáneas por una sospecha de dermatitis de contacto por cosméticos. Se encontraron 7 pacientes con una relevancia presente, 5 de ellos en relación con el uso de cosméticos, y los otros 2 fueron dermatitis de contacto ocupacionales en el contexto de la manipulación de alimentos. El índice de reacción para el shellac fue del 0,51% y la ratio de positividad del 67,56% (IC 95%: 52,48-82,65%). Conclusiones El shellac parece un alérgeno frecuente en los pacientes con sospecha de dermatitis de contacto por cosméticos o alimentos. Sin embargo, se necesitan más estudios para validar su uso en otros pacientes (AU)

Introduction Shellac is a known allergen present mainly in cosmetics used on the eyelids and lips, although new sources of exposure have recently been described. Our objective was to assess the use of shellac as a contact allergen in Spain and the clinical profile of patients allergic to shellac. Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study included patients patch tested for shellac between 2018 and 2021 from the Spanish Registry of Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (REIDAC). Results A total of 980 patients were patch tested for shellac (20% in ethanol), and 37 (3.77%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.58–3.97%) showed positive results. Most of these patients were tested for shellac due to a suspicion of cosmetic contact dermatitis. Seven patients with present relevance were found, five with relation to cosmetics, and the other two with an occupational background of food handling. The reaction index for shellac was 0.51 and the positivity ratio was 67.56% (95% CI, 52.48–82.65%). Conclusions Shellac appears to be a prevalent allergen in patients with suspected contact dermatitis related with cosmetics or foodstuff. However, further studies are needed to validate its use in other patients (AU)

Contact Allergy to Shellac. Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study With Data From the Spanish Registry of Research in Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (REIDAC). / [Artículo traducido] Alergia de contacto a shellac. Estudio transversal retrospectivo con datos del Registro Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea (REIDAC).

INTRODUCTION: Shellac is a known allergen present mainly in cosmetics used on the eyelids and lips, although new sources of exposure have recently been described. Our objective was to assess the use of shellac as a contact allergen in Spain and the clinical profile of patients allergic to shellac. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study included patients patch tested for shellac between 2018 and 2021 from the Spanish Registry of Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (REIDAC). RESULTS: A total of 980 patients were patch tested for shellac (20% in ethanol), and 37 (3.77%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.58-3.97%) showed positive results. Most of these patients were tested for shellac due to a suspicion of cosmetic contact dermatitis. Seven patients with present relevance were found, five with relation to cosmetics, and the other two with an occupational background of food handling. The reaction index for shellac was 0.51 and the positivity ratio was 67.56% (95% CI, 52.48-82.65%). CONCLUSIONS: Shellac appears to be a prevalent allergen in patients with suspected contact dermatitis related with cosmetics or foodstuff. However, further studies are needed to validate its use in other patients.

Contact Allergy to Shellac. Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study With Data From the Spanish Registry of Research in Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (REIDAC).

INTRODUCTION: Shellac is a known allergen present mainly in cosmetics used on the eyelids and lips, although new sources of exposure have recently been described. Our objective was to assess the use of shellac as a contact allergen in Spain and the clinical profile of patients allergic to shellac. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study included patients patch tested for shellac between 2018 and 2021 from the Spanish Registry of Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (REIDAC). RESULTS: A total of 980 patients were patch tested for shellac (20% in ethanol), and 37 (3.77%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.58-3.97%) showed positive results. Most of these patients were tested for shellac due to a suspicion of cosmetic contact dermatitis. Seven patients with present relevance were found, five with relation to cosmetics, and the other two with an occupational background of food handling. The reaction index for shellac was 0.51 and the positivity ratio was 67.56% (95% CI, 52.48-82.65%). CONCLUSIONS: Shellac appears to be a prevalent allergen in patients with suspected contact dermatitis related with cosmetics or foodstuff. However, further studies are needed to validate its use in other patients.

Polythylene glycol severe allergy and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: usefulness of testing with PEG 1500 extract.

Summary: Background. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is being used for first time as an excipient for mRNA anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines containing PEG 2000, highlighting it as a potential cause of anaphylaxis. Methods. We evaluated 126 patients with moderate-high risk of allergy to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines referred to our department from March-December 2021. Skin tests were performed with PEG 1500 extract (Roxall), using a stepwise approach, with readings at 30 minutes: prick tests with 0.1%, 1% and 10% concentrations; if negative, intradermal tests with 0.0001%, 0.001% and 0.01% concentrations. The same protocol was applied to 5 healthy controls Results. Six patients had positive immediate intradermal tests with PEG 1500, all with severe PEG allergy: one with a near-fatal anaphylaxis after glucocorticoid injection containing PEG 3350 and five with systemic allergic reactions after mRNA vaccines containing PEG 2000 (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna). One patient developed anaphylaxis during intradermal test. These six patients were negative to polysorbate 80. The remaining 120 patients had negative tests to PEG 1500; seven had positive tests to polysorbate 80. All controls had negative tests. Conclusions. To our knowledge this is the first study describing the allergy work-up testing with PEG 1500 commercial extract in the scope of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The algorithm designed for skin tests revealed to be a useful tool. Severe PEG allergy was diagnosed in 5% of patients, contraindicating PEG-containing vaccines. PEG allergy was excluded in one hundred patients that afterwards took SARS-CoV-2 vaccines containing PEG 2000. Investigation should be conducted in specialized drug allergy centers..

Dermatitis de contacto a alérgenos de la Batería Estándar Española en población del sur de Gran Canaria / Contact Dermatitis to Allergens in the Spanish Standard Series: Patch Test Findings in the South of Gran Canaria

Introducción y objetivos El eccema de contacto es un motivo frecuente de consulta. El grado y la frecuencia de sensibilización a alérgenos varían dependiendo de la población de referencia atendida. Revisamos los resultados de sensibilización a alérgenos de la Batería Estándar Española en una población dedicada mayoritariamente al sector turístico (Islas Canarias). Material y métodos Estudio descriptivo retrospectivo tomando la base de datos de la Unidad de Dermatitis de Contacto del Servicio de Dermatología del Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Insular de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, incluyéndose pacientes parcheados con la Batería Estándar Española desde enero de 2005 hasta junio de 2018. Se recogieron edad, sexo, atopia, localización, positividades y relevancia. Resultados Se estudiaron 1.568 pacientes. El 71,6% fueron mujeres, con una baja proporción de atopia (14,2%) y dermatitis ocupacional (15,8%). La mayoría fueron mayores de 40años (65,2%). Los alérgenos positivos más frecuentes fueron níquel (36,5%), metilcloroisotiazolinona/metilisotiazolinona (11,9%), metilisotiazolinona (11,8%), parafenilendiamina (7,5%) y dicromato potásico (6,3%). Conclusiones En la población estudiada se observa una mayor frecuencia de sensibilización respecto al resto de España para la mayoría de los alérgenos, siendo estas diferencias especialmente llamativas en el caso del níquel, de la metilcloroisotiazolinona/metilisotiazolinona y de la parafenilendiamina (AU)

Background and objectives Contact dermatitis is a common reason for consultation in dermatology. Sensitization levels and frequency, however, vary from one population to the next. The aim of this study was to review patch test results showing sensitization to allergens in the Spanish standard series in the Canary Islands, where a large proportion of the population works in tourism. Material and methods Retrospective, descriptive study of data from the dermatology department's contact dermatitis unit at Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Insular in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. We studied results recorded for patients patch tested with the Spanish standard series between January 2005 and June 2018. Results Data for 1568 patients were studied; 71.6% were women, and overall rates of atopy (14.2%) and occupational dermatitis (15.8%) were low. Most patients with a positive test (65.2%) were older than 40years. The main allergens eliciting positive reactions were nickel (36.5%), methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (11.9%), methylisothiazolinone (11.8%), paraphenylenediamine (7.5%), and potassium dichromate (6.3%). Conclusions Contact sensitization rates were higher than those reported elsewhere in Spain for most of the allergens studied. The differences were particularly notable for nickel, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, and paraphenylenediamine (AU)

[Translated article] Contact Dermatitis to Allergens in the Spanish Standard Series: Patch Test Findings in the South of Gran Canaria / Dermatitis de contacto a alérgenos de la Batería Estándar Española en población del sur de Gran Canaria

Background and objectives Contact dermatitis is a common reason for consultation in dermatology. Sensitization levels and frequency, however, vary from one population to the next. The aim of this study was to review patch test results showing sensitization to allergens in the Spanish standard series in the Canary Islands, where a large proportion of the population works in tourism. Material and methods Retrospective, descriptive study of data from the dermatology department's contact dermatitis unit at Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Insular in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. We studied results recorded for patients patch tested with the Spanish standard series between January 2005 and June 2018. Results Data for 1568 patients were studied; 71.6% were women, and overall rates of atopy (14.2%) and occupational dermatitis (15.8%) were low. Most patients with a positive test (65.2%) were older than 40years. The main allergens eliciting positive reactions were nickel (36.5%), methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (11.9%), methylisothiazolinone (11.8%), paraphenylenediamine (7.5%), and potassium dichromate (6.3%). Conclusions Contact sensitization rates were higher than those reported elsewhere in Spain for most of the allergens studied. The differences were particularly notable for nickel, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, and paraphenylenediamine (AU)

Introducción y objetivos El eccema de contacto es un motivo frecuente de consulta. El grado y la frecuencia de sensibilización a alérgenos varían dependiendo de la población de referencia atendida. Revisamos los resultados de sensibilización a alérgenos de la Batería Estándar Española en una población dedicada mayoritariamente al sector turístico (Islas Canarias). Material y métodos Estudio descriptivo retrospectivo tomando la base de datos de la Unidad de Dermatitis de Contacto del Servicio de Dermatología del Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Insular de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, incluyéndose pacientes parcheados con la Batería Estándar Española desde enero de 2005 hasta junio de 2018. Se recogieron edad, sexo, atopia, localización, positividades y relevancia. Resultados Se estudiaron 1.568 pacientes. El 71,6% fueron mujeres, con una baja proporción de atopia (14,2%) y dermatitis ocupacional (15,8%). La mayoría fueron mayores de 40años (65,2%). Los alérgenos positivos más frecuentes fueron níquel (36,5%), metilcloroisotiazolinona/metilisotiazolinona (11,9%), metilisotiazolinona (11,8%), parafenilendiamina (7,5%) y dicromato potásico (6,3%). Conclusiones En la población estudiada se observa una mayor frecuencia de sensibilización respecto al resto de España para la mayoría de los alérgenos, siendo estas diferencias especialmente llamativas en el caso del níquel, de la metilcloroisotiazolinona/metilisotiazolinona y de la parafenilendiamina (AU)

Contact Dermatitis to Allergens in the Spanish Standard Series: Patch Test Findings in the South of Gran Canaria. / Dermatitis de contacto a alérgenos de la Batería Estándar Española en población del sur de Gran Canaria.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Contact dermatitis is a common reason for consultation in dermatology. Sensitization levels and frequency, however, vary from one population to the next. The aim of this study was to review patch test results showing sensitization to allergens in the Spanish standard series in the Canary Islands, where a large proportion of the population works in tourism. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective, descriptive study of data from the dermatology department's contact dermatitis unit at Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Insular in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. We studied results recorded for patients patch tested with the Spanish standard series between January 2005 and June 2018. RESULTS: Data for 1568 patients were studied; 71.6% were women, and overall rates of atopy (14.2%) and occupational dermatitis (15.8%) were low. Most patients with a positive test (65.2%) were older than 40years. The main allergens eliciting positive reactions were nickel (36.5%), methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (11.9%), methylisothiazolinone (11.8%), paraphenylenediamine (7.5%), and potassium dichromate (6.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Contact sensitization rates were higher than those reported elsewhere in Spain for most of the allergens studied. The differences were particularly notable for nickel, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, and paraphenylenediamine.

Recomendaciones del Grupo Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea (GEIDAC) de la AEDV en relación con la realización de pruebas epicutáneas durante la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) / Patch Testing During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recommendations of the AEDV's Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC)

Con el progresivo control de la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2, los miembros del Grupo Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea (GEIDAC) realizan una propuesta sobre cuáles van a ser los requisitos, las limitaciones y los condicionantes para reanudar el servicio en las unidades de dermatitis de contacto en un escenario en el que se presume la persistencia del virus, con episodios ocasionales o estacionales de exacerbación. Se aconseja ajustar el número de pruebas epicutáneas (PE) a las posibilidades de cada centro y la revisión de los casos en lista de espera para priorizar a los pacientes en función de la gravedad y la urgencia. Se ofrecerán, si es factible, métodos telemáticos para los documentos relativos a las PE (información, pautas, documentos de consentimiento informado). De estar disponible, puede ofrecerse la opción de realizar una primera visita telemática. Igualmente, en pacientes seleccionados puede llevarse a cabo una televisita en las visitas de lectura a través de imágenes realizadas por el paciente o mediante una videovisita que permita visualizar el resultado de la exploración. Estas acciones permitirán reducir el número de visitas presenciales, aunque no el tiempo dedicado y asignado al facultativo para los actos médicos. Todas estas recomendaciones son sugerencias y se adaptarán a los requisitos y a las posibilidades de cada centro sanitario

As the COVID-19 pandemic gradually comes under control, the members of the Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC) have drawn up a proposed list of the requirements, limitations, and conditioning factors affecting the resumption of work in contact dermatitis units. The assumption is that the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is still circulating and that occasional or seasonal outbreaks will occur. They recommend that the first step should be to assess how many patch tests each clinic can handle and review the waiting list to prioritize cases according to disease severity and urgency. Digital technologies can, where possible, be used to send and receive the documentation necessary for the patch test (information, instructions, informed consent, etc.). If the necessary infrastructure is available, patients can be offered the option of a remote initial consultation. Likewise, in selected cases, the patch test results can be read in a virtual visit using photographs taken by the patient or a video visit can be scheduled to allow the physician to evaluate the site of application remotely. These measures will reduce the number of face-to-face visits required, but will not affect the time spent on each case, which must be scheduled in the normal manner. All of these recommendations are suggestions and should be adapted to the needs and possibilities of each health centre

Patch Testing During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recommendations of the AEDV's Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC). / Recomendaciones del Grupo Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea (GEIDAC) de la AEDV en relación con la realización de pruebas epicutáneas durante la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19).

As the COVID-19 pandemic gradually comes under control, the members of the Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC) have drawn up a proposed list of the requirements, limitations, and conditioning factors affecting the resumption of work in contact dermatitis units. The assumption is that the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus2 is still circulating and that occasional or seasonal outbreaks will occur. They recommend that the first step should be to assess how many patch tests each clinic can handle and review the waiting list to prioritize cases according to disease severity and urgency. Digital technologies can, where possible, be used to send and receive the documentation necessary for the patch test (information, instructions, informed consent, etc.). If the necessary infrastructure is available, patients can be offered the option of a remote initial consultation. Likewise, in selected cases, the patch test results can be read in a virtual visit using photographs taken by the patient or a video visit can be scheduled to allow the physician to evaluate the site of application remotely. These measures will reduce the number of face-to-face visits required, but will not affect the time spent on each case, which must be scheduled in the normal manner. All of these recommendations are suggestions and should be adapted to the needs and possibilities of each health centre.

Modelo predictivo de dermatitis alérgica de contacto en pacientes con eccema de manos / Predictive Model for Allergic Contact Dermatitis in Patients With Hand Eczema

INTRODUCCIÓN: La única indicación para la realización de pruebas epicutáneas en eccema de manos es su cronicidad. La presencia de una relevancia presente en las mismas supone un cambio en el manejo del paciente. Sería interesante conocer qué factores clínicos se asocian a presentar relevancia presente para establecer la indicación de pruebas de forma más temprana. OBJETIVO: Obtener un modelo predictivo sobre relevancia presente en pruebas epicutáneas en pacientes con eccema exclusivo de manos. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Se realizó un estudio retrospectivo en pacientes con eccema exclusivo de manos. Las variables estudiadas fueron: edad, sexo, tiempo de evolución, profesión y antecedentes de dermatitis atópica. Se obtuvo un modelo predictivo mediante regresión logística y se valoró su poder de discriminación mediante el área bajo la curva ROC. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 262 pacientes. El 66,03% presentó pruebas positivas, con un 28,6% de relevancias presentes. Mostraron asociación en el análisis univariante profesión peluquería-esteticista, historia personal de atopia, sexo masculino y tiempo de evolución > 6 meses. Mantuvieron asociación independiente en el análisis multivariante profesión peluquería-esteticista (factor de riesgo), sexo masculino e historia personal de atopia (factores protectores). El modelo predictivo resultante fue Puntuación=2,316×(peluquería-esteticista)-1,792×(dermatitis atópica)-0,601×(sexo masculino). CONCLUSIONES: En nuestro ámbito, la profesión, el sexo y la historia de atopia han demostrado influir en la probabilidad de presentar positividades con relevancia presente en pacientes con dermatitis de manos. Según nuestro modelo, la cronicidad del cuadro no debe suponer una indicación de realización de pruebas epicutáneas. Son necesarios futuros estudios con mayor tamaño muestral para determinar la verdadera utilidad de los modelos predictivos en estos pacientes

INTRODUCTION: Patch tests are only indicated for hand eczema when it is diagnosed as chronic. A positive reaction of current relevance requires a change in treatment strategy. Knowing which clinical factors are associated with current relevance would allow tests to be performed sooner. OBJECTIVE: To develop a model for predicting currently relevant patch test positivity in patients with hand eczema only. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective study of patients with hand eczema only. We collected data on age, sex, time since onset, occupation, and history of atopic dermatitis. We built a predictive logistic regression model and assessed discrimination by computing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: We included 262 patients; 66.03% had positive patch tests (28.6% of current relevance). Univariate analysis detected significant associations between positivity of current relevance and employment as a hairdresser-aesthetician, a personal history of atopy, male sex, and a time since onset of over 6 months. Multivariate analysis confirmed employment as a hairdresser-aesthetician as an independent risk factor and male sex and a personal history of atopy as protective factors. The score suggested by the predictive model was 2.316(hairdresser-aesthetician)-1.792(atopic dermatitis)-0.601(male sex). CONCLUSIONS: Occupation, sex, and a history of atopy influence the likelihood of patch test positivity of current relevance in patients with hand eczema in Spain. Our model suggests that a diagnosis of chronic eczema is not necessarily an indication for patch testing. Future studies with larger samples are needed to determine the true usefulness of predictive models in this setting