Glutaraldehyde-Induced Allergic Contact Dermatitis: A Case Report and Safety Standards.

Glutaraldehyde (GA), a potent disinfectant and sterilizing agent extensively used in healthcare settings, has garnered attention for its association with contact dermatitis. This occupational skin condition, often induced by repeated exposure to GA, poses significant challenges to the well-being of healthcare professionals and patients alike. Understanding the causes, symptoms, and preventive measures against GA-induced contact dermatitis is essential for promoting a safe and healthy working environment in healthcare facilities. A 28-year-old female presented with a severe burning sensation and dark brown patches in the lower chin region, one day following root canal treatment. Based on the characteristic appearance of patches and the typical burning sensation associated with an allergic reaction, a diagnosis of acute contact dermatitis was made. Patch testing by an expert dermatologist confirmed that the patient was allergic to GA. GA, a popular commercial germicidal product, is widely used as a cold sterilizing agent for operative dental instruments. The patient developed a reaction as the endodontic files used during the root canal procedure were cold sterilized with 2% GA. The lesion experienced significant improvement and ultimately healed following the administration of corticosteroids and antihistamines. This report concerns a case of GA-induced contact dermatitis. As GA is being used more widely, particularly in dental clinics, this case was of interest and is reported in the safety interest of patients and clinicians.

Contact allergy in Swedish professional ice hockey players.

BACKGROUND: Professional ice hockey players may contract irritant and allergic contact dermatitis. AIMS: To investigate the presence of contact allergy (CA) in professional ice hockey players in Sweden. METHODS: Ten teams from the two top leagues were assessed for potential occupational exposure to sensitizers. Exactly 107 players were patch tested with an extended baseline series and a working series, in total 74 test preparations. The CA rates were compared between the ice hockey players and controls from the general population and dermatitis patients. RESULTS: One out of 4 players had at least one contact allergy. The most common sensitizers were Amerchol L 101, nickel and oxidized limonene. CA was as common in the ice hockey players as in dermatitis patients and significantly more common than in the general population. Fragrances and combined sensitizers in cosmetic products (fragrances + preservatives + emulsifier) were significantly more common in ice hockey players compared with the general population. CONCLUSION: The possible relationship between CA to fragrances and cosmetic products on the one hand and the presence of dermatitis on the other should be explored further.

Etiology of Delayed Inflammatory Reaction Induced by Hyaluronic Acid Filler.

The etiology and pathophysiology of delayed inflammatory reactions caused by hyaluronic acid fillers have not yet been elucidated. Previous studies have suggested that the etiology can be attributed to the hyaluronic acid filler itself, patient's immunological status, infection, and injection technique. Hyaluronic acid fillers are composed of high-molecular weight hyaluronic acids that are chemically cross-linked using substances such as 1,4-butanediol diglycidyl ether (BDDE). The mechanism by which BDDE cross-links the two hyaluronic acid disaccharides is still unclear and it may exist as a fully reacted cross-linker, pendant cross-linker, deactivated cross-linker, and residual cross-linker. The hyaluronic acid filler also contains impurities such as silicone oil and aluminum during the manufacturing process. Impurities can induce a foreign body reaction when the hyaluronic acid filler is injected into the body. Aseptic hyaluronic acid filler injections should be performed while considering the possibility of biofilm formation or delayed inflammatory reaction. Delayed inflammatory reactions tend to occur when patients experience flu-like illnesses; thus, the patient's immunological status plays an important role in delayed inflammatory reactions. Large-bolus hyaluronic acid filler injections can induce foreign body reactions and carry a relatively high risk of granuloma formation.

Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome/drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms. Part II diagnosis and management.

Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome, also known as drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, is a severe cutaneous adverse reaction characterized by an exanthem, fever, and hematologic and visceral organ involvement. The differential diagnosis includes other cutaneous adverse reactions, infections, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, and neoplastic disorders. Three sets of diagnostic criteria have been proposed; however, consensus is lacking. The cornerstone of management is immediate discontinuation of the suspected drug culprit. Systemic corticosteroids remain first-line therapy, but the literature on steroid-sparing agents is expanding. Longitudinal evaluation for sequelae is recommended. Adjunctive tests for risk stratification and drug culprit identification remain under investigation. Part II of this continuing medical education activity begins by exploring the differential diagnosis and diagnosis of drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome/drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms and concludes with an evidence-based overview of evaluation and treatment.

Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome/drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms. Part I. Epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinicopathological features, and prognosis.

Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DiHS), also known as drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), is a severe cutaneous adverse reaction (SCAR) characterized by an exanthem, fever, and hematologic and visceral organ involvement. Anticonvulsants, antibiotics, and allopurinol are the most common triggers. The pathogenesis involves a complex interplay between drugs, viruses, and the immune system primarily mediated by T-cells. DiHS/DRESS typically presents with a morbilliform eruption 2-6 weeks after drug exposure, and is associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and risk of relapse. Long-term sequelae primarily relate to organ dysfunction and autoimmune diseases. Part I of this continuing medical education activity on DiHS/DRESS provides an update on epidemiology, novel insights into pathogenesis, and a description of clinicopathological features and prognosis.

Patterns of simultaneous contact allergies in patients with contact sensitization to oxidised linalool and oxidised limonene.

BACKGROUND: Contact allergy rates of linalool and limonene hydroperoxides (HPs) have increased. OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the patterns of simultaneous positive patch test (PT) reactions and prevalences of multiple contact allergies (MCAs) in patients with contact allergy to linalool and/or limonene HPs. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of consecutive dermatitis patients in 2015-2020 was performed. RESULTS: Of all 4192 patients, 1851 had at least one positive PT reaction. Of these, 410 (22.2%) had MCAs, significantly related to a higher age (p-value = 0.003). Patients with an exclusively positive reaction to linalool HPs but not limonene HPs were shown to have MCAs (p-value <0.001, odds ratio (95% confidence interval) = 4.15 (3.01-5.73)). Patients with simultaneous contact allergies to both linalool and limonene HPs had contact allergies to many other screening and fragrance allergens. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous positive PT reactions to allergens in baseline series and fragrances are common in patients with the HPs contact allergy, especially linalool HPs. The pattern of simultaneous PT reactions principally suggested the co-sensitization of the cosmetic allergens.

Contact allergy to oxidised geraniol may be over-represented in individuals with photocontact allergy to ketoprofen.

BACKGROUND: Simultaneous overrepresentations of contact allergies and photocontact allergies are common in individuals with photocontact allergy to ketoprofen. AIMS: To investigate whether contact allergy to oxidised (ox.) geraniol, geraniol, geranial, neral and citral is overrepresented in individuals with photocontact allergy to ketoprofen. METHODS: The contact allergy rates to ox. geraniol, geraniol, geranial, neral and citral in routinely patch tested dermatitis patients were compared with the corresponding rates in individuals with photocontact allergy to ketoprofen. RESULTS: Allergic patch test reactions were noted to ox. geraniol 11% (n = 39, 5.8%), ox. geraniol 6% (n = 12, 1.8%), geraniol 6% (n = 2, 0.3%), geranial (n = 18, 2.7%), neral (n = 7, 1.0%) and citral (n = 15, 2.2%). In those four patients who were diagnosed with photocontact allergy to ketoprofen during the test period, a significant overrepresentation (p = 0.020) of simultaneous contact allergy to ox. geraniol 11% was demonstrated. Overrepresentation of simultaneous contact allergy to various combinations of ox. geraniol, ox. limonene and ox. linalool was also noted in ketoprofen-photoallergic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Contact allergy to ox. geraniol, geranial and citral is common in routinely tested dermatitis patients. There is an overrepresentation of simultaneous contact allergy to ox. geraniol, ox. limonene and ox. linalool in patients with photocontact allergy to ketoprofen.

Delayed postoperative reactions to metamizole: a diagnostic challenge.

Summary: Background. Metamizole, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug from the pyrazolone group, is a frequent cause of immediate hypersensitivity reactions and, more rarely, of delayed drug hypersensitivity reactions. Due to its favorable pharmacokinetic characteristics, metamizole is widely used in the postoperative period for pain control. Methods. Retrospective study of patients referred for allergological study between January 2012 and June2022 for postoperative hypersensitivity reactions. Clinical and diagnostic data were collected through review of patients' medical records. Twenty patients with postoperative hypersensitivity reactions were referred, of which 10 presented delayed reactions. We analyzed the results of skin prick, intradermal and patch tests performed with an intravenous metamizole solution as well as provocation tests performed with metamizole and acetylsalicylic acid. Cross-reactivity to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was excluded by confirmation of clinical tolerance to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or by acetylsalicylic acid provocation test. Results. In 7 of the 10 patients a delayed reaction to metamizole was diagnosed. These reactions were characterized as maculopapular exanthema, occurring in multiple postoperative settings. Skin tests were negative, except in one patient with late mild erythema in the ipsilateral upper limb and no reaction at the site of intradermal injection. Delayed hypersensitivity was demonstrated by late positive metamizole provocation tests. Conclusions. This study demonstrated that for a correct diagnosis a high degree of suspicion about possible delayed hypersensitivity drug reactions to metamizole in the postoperative setting is needed. In the investigation, provocation test with metamizole was decisive for diagnostic confirmation.

Assessing delayed penicillin hypersensitivity using the PENFAST+ score.

Introduction: Approximately 10% of individuals report a suspected allergy to penicillin, but according to allergy work-ups, only 10%-15% of them are truly allergic. A clinical decision score, the PEN-FAST, was developed and validated to identify adults with low-risk penicillin allergy. Objectives: The objective of this study was to improve the performance of the PEN-FAST score, particularly for those with delayed hypersensitivity (HS), by improving the negative predictive value. Methods: STEP 1: Retrospective evaluation of the PEN-FAST score in patients with proven immediate and delayed penicillin allergy. STEP 2: Identification of additional criteria among Step 1 patients misclassified by PEN-FAST score. Development of the PEN-FAST+ score using multivariable logistic regression in a prospective cohort of patients with a suspicion of HS to penicillin. STEP 3: Comparison of diagnostic performances of PEN-FAST and PEN-FAST+ scores. Results: The PEN-FAST score showed limitations in predicting the relapse of immediate skin HS or delayed maculopapular exanthema, with 28.6% and 38.4% of patients misclassified, respectively. We identified two potential additional criteria: skin rash lasting more than 7 days and immediate reaction occurring in less than 1 h (generalized or localized on palmoplantar area or scalp itching/heat feeling). A total of 32/252 (12.7%) patients were confirmed to be allergic to penicillin. With PEN-FAST, 37% of patients (n = 10) with delayed allergic penicillin HS were misclassified. With PEN-FAST+, 3 patients with delayed HS confirmed by a ST (11.1%) were misclassified. The AUC was significantly higher for PEN-FAST+ than PEN-FAST (85% vs. 72%, p = 0.03).

Clinical Application of In Vitro Tests for COVID-19 Vaccine Delayed Hypersensitivity Diagnostics.

Drug hypersensitivity reactions can be classified as immediate or delayed. While diagnostic options for immediate reactions are well developed and standardized, delayed reactions (in many cases type IV according to Gell and Coombs) are a challenge for allergy work-up. In recent years, some in vitro markers have been proposed and used for delayed reactions, such as contact dermatitis. Primary strategy: Avoidance is difficult to achieve, especially for COVID-19 vaccinations, when immunity against infection is extremely important. The aim of our study was to evaluate the application of in vitro delayed hypersensitivity tests in COVID-19 vaccines. Seven patients with a positive history of severe delayed drug allergy were enrolled. Vein blood was collected to stimulate cells with the tested vaccines (Comirnaty, Janssen, Spikevax) and excipients with the assessment of CD40L, CD69, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-10, IFNgamma, TNFalfa, and intracellular markers: granulysin and INFgamma. In addition, basophile activation tests, patch tests, skin prick tests, and intradermal tests were performed with the tested vaccine. Finally, the decision was made to either administer a vaccine or resign. Two out of seven patients were considered positive for drug hypersensitivity in the in vitro test according to the high vaccine stimulation index measured with CD69 (6.91 and 12.18) and CD40L (5.38 and 15.91). All patch tests, BATs, and skin tests were negative. Serum interleukin measurements were inconclusive as the impact of the vaccine itself on the immunity system was high. Intracellular markers gave uncertain results due to the lack of stimulation on the positive control. CD69 and CD40L could be reliable in vitro markers for delayed hypersensitivity to COVID-19 vaccines. Patch tests, skin tests, BATs, and serum interleukins did not confirm their usefulness in our study.

[Elucidating and characterizing the dynamic biological processes that account for the sustainability of Leishmania populations]. / Décrypter et caractériser les processus biologiques dynamiques qui rendent compte de la pérennité des populations de Leishmania.

To attempt resolving this issue accurately, it was necessary to anchor our experimental approaches in the observations and pioneering work of our predecessors, notably Alphonse Laveran, Louis Parrot, Edmond and Étienne Sergent. The latter, among other things, had identified as natural hosts of leishmaniasis, rodent populations with which hematophagous telmophagous sand fly populations cohabited closely.When human populations emerged in these natural ecosystems, after the sedentarization of Homo sapiens, more or less important disturbances would have led to a transition of sand fly hematophagy, from zoophilia, to zoo-anthropophilia and anthropophilia.The creation of infrastructures that allow the breeding and integration into experimental groups of both holobiont sand flies and holobiont laboratory rodents (rats, mice, hamsters, etc.) remains crucial. With such infrastructures, it becomes possible to grasp and characterize the multilateral dynamic processes - mostly clinically silent - that account for the biogenesis of tissue and/or cellular niches protecting populations of Leishmania developmental morphotypes, including those ensuring host-to-host transmission, albeit in small numbers.

Delayed hypersensitivity reaction following lip fillers, not one but four times in the same patient.

This case report describes a healthy 25-year-old woman who underwent lip filler augmentation and developed a delayed hypersensitivity reaction not once but four times. A Caucasian female with no medical history presented to the authors in March 2022 with diffuse painful swelling on the left upper lip. Upon examination, the affected area was soft and tender on palpation, with no palpable nodules or lumps. Five days later,the patient reported waking up with tenderness and swelling on her right upper lip this time. Two months after this incident the patient reported that she had experienced two similar incidents at the beginning of May. She again reported waking up with the same symptoms on her right upper lip, which spontaneously resolved within 48 h; and then four days later, she exhibited the same symptoms on her left upper lip. When questioned, she did not recall any flu-like symptoms or signs of COVID-19. She had been vaccinated against COVID-19, but this was long before she had lip fillers injected, namely, in 2020 (two years before the events described here). In this case, no obvious triggering factor was identified, apart from the fact that the patient had been stressed due to upcoming examination. Stress is known to cause flares of autoimmune or infectious diseases, such as herpes simplex virus, through complicated processes that influence immune function. Therefore, stress could have been the triggering factor in the current case.

Delayed inflammatory reaction to hyaluronic acid lip filler after the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: A case report.

Hypersensitivity reactions can be a side effect to any vaccine, but they are usually rare. The COVID-19 vaccination may cause hypersensitivity, and several cases of delayed hypersensitivity (DH) to hyaluronic acid (HA) dermal filler have been documented. The current report presents a case of a 36-year-old female patient with DH to HA dermal filler after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Symptoms, including dryness, swelling, and a painless nodule, appeared after the first and second doses of the vaccine. The patient was treated with intralesional hyaluronidase and triamcinolone in the outpatient clinic. Although HA is relatively safe and routinely used in aesthetic medicine, DH reactions must be considered. Therefore, an appropriate patient history should be obtained, and physicians should provide counselling on the potential reactions to avoid these adverse effects.

Delayed hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media: A diagnostic approach by skin tests.

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) have risen due to their increasing use in x-ray-based imaging modalities. Delayed hypersensitivity reactions are mainly caused by nonionic monomeric compounds and represent an issue impacting the diagnostic-therapeutic pathways of cancer, cardiology and surgery patients. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate the usefulness of skin tests in delayed hypersensitivity reactions to ICM and to evaluate the tolerability of iobitridol, a monomeric nonionic low osmolality compound, as a possible safe alternative. METHODS: Patients with delayed hypersensitivity reactions to ICM referred to us from 2020 to 2022 were prospectively enrolled in the study. All patients underwent patch test and, if negative, intradermal test with the culprit ICM and iobitridol as alternative. RESULTS: A total of 37 patients (females 24, 64.9%) were enrolled in the study. Iodixanol and iomeprol were the most frequently involved ICM (48.5% and 35.2%, respectively); 62.2% of patients presented maculopapular eruption, while 37.8% reported delayed urticaria-like rash. Skin tests resulted positive to the culprit ICM in 19 patients (51.4%), 16 to patch test and 3 to intradermal test. Skin tests with iobitridol, tested as alternative, resulted positive in 3/19 patients (15.8%). All 16 patients with negative results to iobitridol were administered this ICM and tolerated it. CONCLUSIONS: In at least half of patients, delayed-type hypersensitivity was demonstrated by skin tests, particularly by patch test. This diagnostic approach resulted simple, cost-effective and safe, not only to confirm the culprit ICM but also to identify iobitridol as feasible alternative.