A new case of photoallergic contact dermatitis caused by benzophenones in magazine covers.

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD) to benzophenone present in printing ink have been reported. However, precise chemical analyses and extended photo-patch tests have not been performed in these cases. OBJECTIVES: To determine which components present in a magazine cover are responsible for a patient's skin reaction, to determine the primary sensitizer, and precisely diagnose ACD and PACD. METHODS: After initial photo-patch tests were performed on a patient with a history of reaction to magazine covers after sun exposure, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and high-performance liquid chromatography analyses of the magazine covers, and additional photo-patch tests were performed. RESULTS: The first photo-patch test results confirmed PACD to ketoprofen and fenofibrate and evoked PACD to the magazine covers. 4-methyl benzophenone (4-MBP) and 1-hydroxy-cyclohexyl-phenyl-ketone (1-HCPK) were found in the magazine cover. Additional photo-patch tests confirmed PACD to 1-HCPK and to benzophenone, and photo-aggravated ACD to 4-MBP. The primary sensitizer was ketoprofen. CONCLUSIONS: Benzophenones are present in a wide variety of products, without always being listed on the packaging. Patients previously sensitized to other ketones, such as ketoprofen, may react to benzophenones without being able to avoid contact with these molecules. New regulations may be needed for more efficient eviction advice.

Multiple cases of sensitization to an antiseptic containing chlorhexidine digluconate/benzalkonium chloride/benzyl alcohol with different profiles of sensitization in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: An aqueous antiseptic containing "chlorhexidine digluconate/benzalkonium chloride/benzyl alcohol" (CBB) is widely used in France. The only previous documented study dealing with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to this antiseptic is one small case series in children. The French Vigilance Network for Dermatology and Allergy (REVIDAL-GERDA) has collected many cases in the last few years. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical and sensitization profiles of patients diagnosed with ACD to CBB. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients with contact dermatitis to CBB and positive tests to CBB and/or at least one of its components. All patients had to be tested with all components of CBB. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients (71 adults and 31 children) were included. The lesions were extensive in 63% of patients and 55% had delayed time to diagnosis. CBB patch tests were positive in 93.8% of cases. The allergen was identified in 97% of patients, mainly benzyl alcohol in adults (81.7%) and chlorhexidine digluconate in children (54.8%). About 32.4% of the patients were sensitized to several components. CONCLUSION: CBB is a cause of ACD at all ages. The components of the antiseptic should be tested. The sensitization profile seems to be different between adults and children.

Skin necrosis following local anesthetic: Same presentation for two different diagnoses.

BACKGROUND: Local anesthetics (LA) are widely used in medicine and are generally well tolerated. Although most adverse reactions are nonallergic, LA are a frequent reason for allergy consultation. OBJECTIVE: We want to expand the differential diagnosis of adverse reactions to LA by presenting rare diagnoses. METHODS: We present here two patients with similar clinical presentations, namely skin necrosis after local anesthesia with lidocaine, but with two different final diagnoses. RESULTS: For Patient 1, skin necrosis was imputed to the vasoconstrictor effect of epinephrine in a patient with vascular background aggravated by heavy consumption of tobacco and cannabis. Patient 2 final diagnosis was Nicolau syndrome (embolia cutis medicamentosa), a cutaneous necrosis at the site of injection. CONCLUSIONS: The allergist should be aware of these diagnoses and include them in the differential diagnosis of local anesthetic hypersensitivity.

Pru p 7 sensitization is a predominant cause of severe, cypress pollen-associated peach allergy.

BACKGROUND: Peach is a common elicitor of food allergic reactions. Peach-induced immediate reactions may occur as benign pollen-food syndromes, usually due to birch pollen-related PR-10 cross-reactivity in temperate climates, and as potentially severe primary food allergies, predominantly related to nsLTP Pru p 3 in Mediterranean regions. The newly described peach allergen Pru p 7 has gained recent attention as a potential peach allergy severity marker. Sensitization to Pru p 7 and its allergenic homologues of the gibberellin-regulated protein family occurs in areas with high Cupressaceae tree pollen exposure. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the distribution, clinical characteristics and molecular associations of Pru p 7 sensitization among subjects with suspected peach allergy in different regions of France. METHODS: Subjects with suspected peach allergy (n = 316) were included. Diagnostic work-up was performed according to current guidelines, including open food challenge when required. IgE antibody measurements and competition experiments were performed using the ImmunoCAP assay platform. RESULTS: Sensitization to Pru p 7 was present in 171 (54%) of all subjects in the study and in 123 of 198 (62%) diagnosed as peach allergic, more than half of whom were sensitized to no other peach allergen. Frequency and magnitude of Pru p 7 sensitization were associated with the presence of peach allergy, the clinical severity of peach-induced allergic reactions and the level of cypress pollen exposure. Cypress pollen extract completely outcompeted IgE binding to Pru p 7. Pru p 7 was extremely potent in basophil activation tests. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A subtype of Cupressaceae pollinosis, characterized by Pru p 7 sensitization, can be an underlying cause of severe peach allergy.

Is a specific eyelid patch test series useful? Results of a French prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Eyelids are frequent sites of contact dermatitis. No prospective study focused on eyelid allergic contact dermatitis (EACD) has yet been published, and this topic has never been studied in French patients. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate the usefulness of an eyelid series in French patients patch tested because of EACD, and to describe these patients. METHODS: We prospectively analysed standardized data for all patients referred to our departments between September 2014 and August 2016 for patch testing for suspected EACD as the main reason. All patients were patch tested with an eyelid series, the European baseline series (EBS), the French additional series, and their personal products. Patch testing with additional series and repeated open application tests (ROATs) or open tests were performed if necessary. A standardized assessment of the relevance was used, and the analysis of the results was focused on patients having positive test results with a current certain relevance. RESULTS: Two-hundred and sixty-four patients (238 women and 26 men) were included. Three-hundred and twenty-two tests gave positive results in 167 patients, 84 of whom had currently relevant reactions: 56 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the EBS, 16 had currently relevant positive test reactions to their personal products, 8 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the French additional series, and 4 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the eyelid series. Sixty-seven per cent of all relevant cases were related to cosmetic products. The most frequent allergens with current relevance were methylisothiazolinone (10.2%), fragrance mix I (3%), nickel (2.7%), hydroxyperoxides of linalool (2.7%) and limonene (2.3%), and Myroxylon pereirae (2.3%). Current atopic dermatitis was found in 9.5% of patients. The duration of dermatitis was shorter (23.2 vs 34.2 months; P = .035) in patients with currently relevant test reactions. The percentage of currently relevant tests remained the same when atopic patients or dermatitis localized only on the eyelids were taken into account. CONCLUSION: In French patients, testing for EACD with the extended baseline series and personal products, also including ROATs and use tests, appears to be adequate, considering the currently relevant positive test reactions. The regular addition of an eyelid series does not seem to be necessary.

Acetophenone azine: a new allergen responsible for severe contact dermatitis from shin pads.

BACKGROUND: Contact dermatitis resulting from the use of shin pads is usually caused by rubber components, dyes, benzoyl peroxide, or formaldehyde resins. OBJECTIVES: To investigate and identify a new allergen in shin pads that was responsible for severe contact dermatitis in a young football player. METHODS: High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) of samples of shin pads was performed. The boy was patch tested with pieces of shin pads and with acetophenone azine, a chemical substance identified by HPLC in the foam of the shin pads. RESULTS: HPLC identified acetophenone azine at concentrations of approximately 20 µg/g of shin pad samples. Patch tests gave strongly positive reactions to pieces of shin pads and to acetophenone azine down to 0.001% in acetone, whereas acetophenone and hydrazine sulfate were both negative. Twenty controls were negative for acetophenone azine 0.01% in acetone. CONCLUSIONS: Acetophenone azine is a new, strong allergen of shin pads, and more generally of other sport equipment based on ethylene vinyl acetate. It may be used as a biocide, but this has to be confirmed. Further investigations are needed to understand factors such as exposure, cross-reaction patterns, metabolism, and the optimal patch test preparation.

Outbreak of contact sensitization to methylisothiazolinone: an analysis of French data from the REVIDAL-GERDA network.

BACKGROUND: The preservative methylisothiazolinone (MI) is used in combination with methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI), but the MCI/MI mixture has been identified as highly allergenic. MI is considered to be less allergenic, and since the mid-2000s has been widely used alone, but is now clearly identified as a contact allergen. The French Vigilance Network for Dermatology and Allergy of the Study and Research Group on Contact Dermatitis (REVIDAL-GERDA) added MI to its baseline patch testing series in 2010. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the change in the proportion of MI-positive tests in France between 2010 and 2012. PATIENTS/MATERIALS/METHODS: We conducted a nationwide, multicentre, retrospective study of all MI-tested patients between 2010 and 2012. RESULTS: Sixteen centres participated in the study (7874 patients were tested). Patch tests were performed mainly at a concentration of MI 200 ppm aq. We observed a significant increase in the proportion of MI-positive tests in 2012 and 2011 as compared with 2010 (5.6%, 3.3%, and 1.5%, respectively; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We report a significant increase in the number of MI-positive tests. MI is confirmed to be a rapidly emerging allergen, as also observed in other European countries.

The six million dollar man.

In this case report, relapse of urticaria after a switch from oma- to mepolizumab successfully led to combination of biologics https://bit.ly/2GykNtI.

Multiple Drug Hypersensitivity Syndrome in a Large Database.

BACKGROUND: Multiple drug hypersensitivity syndrome (MDHS) is defined as confirmed drug hypersensitivity (DH) to at least 2 chemically and pharmacologically unrelated drugs. Reports of MDHS are scarce and poorly specified, and studies that diagnose MDHS on the basis of positive allergy test results are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate retrospectively the frequency and characteristics of patients with MDHS in a large database. METHODS: We included all patients who consulted and were tested in our Allergy Unit between September 1996 and February 2018 for a suspicion of DH. Clinical history and allergy workup results compiled in our Drug Allergy and Hypersensitivity Database were reviewed, and data of patients with a diagnosis of MDHS were retrieved and analyzed. RESULTS: During this period a total of 9250 patients were explored and 1819 tested positive for at least 1 drug. Forty-five cases, 30 female and 15 male patients cumulating 92 DHs, were confirmed as having MDHS. An immunologic mechanism, as demonstrated by positive skin testing, accounted for 59 DHs. Drug provocation tests were performed to confirm the diagnosis for the remaining 33 DHs. Of the 92 DHs in this series, 38 were classified as type IV and 21 as type I allergies; 33 remained of undetermined mechanism. Drug class occurrences seem to differ from those in monoallergic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the concept of MDHS as a distinct and rare subgroup of DH. The prevalence in our database was 2.5% in the total DH alleged patient population and 0.5% of the demonstrated DHs. Skin testing and drug provocation tests are mandatory for confirming the diagnosis.

IgE-mediated allergy to proton pump inhibitors with both delayed and immediate onset.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used for the treatment of gastrointestinal diseases. Incidence of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to PPIs has been rising, presumably because of their increased consumption. Most DHR are IgE-mediated, with half of the reactions being anaphylactic. We describe the case of a Caucasian 50-year-old female patient referred to our allergy department after 2 episodes of anaphylaxis. The allergy work-up distinguished PPI as a cause of delayed onset (14 hours) and immediate onset (45 minutes) IgE-mediated DHR.