The reactivity of the back revisited. Are there differences in reactivity in different parts of the back?

BACKGROUND

In the contact dermatitis literature, it is regularly stated that the patch test reactivity on various areas of the back differs, which might have a large impact on the reproducibility of patch testing.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the reproducibility of patch testing on the upper back with regard to the left as opposed to the right side, and the medial as opposed to the lateral part of the upper back. The reproducibility over time and with regard to the reactivity pattern was also investigated.

METHODS

Thirty-one subjects with contact allergy to the metals gold (n = 19) or nickel (n = 12) were patch tested with serial dilutions, in triplicate applications, on different locations on the upper back. The Friedman test was used for statistical calculations.

RESULTS

No significant differences in the reactivity of the back were found. In all gold-allergic patients and 11 of 12 nickel-allergic patients, the allergy could be reproduced with regard to previous patch testing, but the degree of reactivity differed.

CONCLUSIONS

When a high level of standardization of the patch test technique with the same test system was used, there were no differences in patch test reactions and sites of application on the upper back.

Skincare products containing low concentrations of formaldehyde detected by the chromotropic acid method cannot be safely used in formaldehyde-allergic patients

BACKGROUND

Formaldehyde is a well-known contact sensitizer. Formaldehyde releasers are widely used preservatives in skincare products. It has been found that formaldehyde at concentrations allowed by the European Cosmetics Directive can cause allergic contact dermatitis. However, we still lack information on whether formaldehyde at low concentrations affects dermatitis in formaldehyde-allergic individuals.

OBJECTIVES

To study the effects of low concentrations of formaldehyde on irritant contact dermatitis in formaldehyde-allergic individuals.

METHODS

Fifteen formaldehyde-allergic individuals and a control group of 12 individuals without contact allergy to formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers were included in the study. The individuals performed the repeated open application test (ROAT) during 4 weeks with four different moisturizers releasing formaldehyde in concentrations that had been determined as > 40, 20-40, 2·5-10 and 0 p.p.m. by the chromotropic acid (CA) spot test. Dimethyloldimethylhydantoin was used as a formaldehyde releaser in the moisturizers. The ROAT was performed on areas of experimentally induced sodium lauryl sulfate dermatitis. The study was double blind, controlled and randomized.

RESULTS

Nine of the 15 formaldehyde-allergic individuals had reappearance or worsening of dermatitis on the areas that were treated with moisturizers containing formaldehyde. No such reactions were observed in the control group (P < 0·001) or for the moisturizers without formaldehyde in the formaldehyde-allergic individuals (P < 0·001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that the low concentrations of formaldehyde often found in skincare products by the CA method are sufficient to worsen an existing dermatitis in formaldehyde-allergic individuals.

Swedish Experiences From Patch Testing Methylisothiazolinone Separately

The preservative methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) is a well-known sensitiser and present in the Swedish baseline series since the 1980s. The proportions of MCI/MI are 3:1. MI alone has been used as a preservative since less than 10 years. This study was conducted on behalf of the Swedish Contact Dermatitis Research Group to evaluate inclusion of MI in the Swedish baseline series since the preparation of MCI/MI might fail to detect contact-allergic reactions to MI alone. Patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis at 5 Swedish dermatology departments were consecutively patch tested with MI 2,000 ppm aq and MCI/MI 200 ppm aq. The number of cases with exclusive contact allergy to MI varied between 0.8-4.2%. In total, 1.9% reacted exclusively to MI and not to MCI/MI. Due to the considerable frequency of contact allergy to MI not traced by MCI/MI, MI 2,000 ppm aq is included in the Swedish baseline series from January 2014. This corresponds to a dose of 60 μg/cm2.

Patch testing with a textile dye mix in two concentrations - a multicentre study by the Swedish contact dermatitis research group

Disperse dyes, which are used for colouring synthetic textile fibres, are well-known contact sensitisers. To investigate the outcome of patch-testing with a textile dye mix (TDM) at 7 dermatology clinics in Sweden, a TDM tested at 2 concentrations was included into the baseline series during one year. The mix consisted of Disperse (D) Blue 35, D Yellow 3, D Orange 1 and 3, D Red 1 and 17, all 1.0%, and D Blue 106 and D Blue 124, each 0.3% in the mix 6.6% and 1.0% each in the mix 8.0%. In 2,122 tested patients, contact allergy to the TDM at the concentration 8.0% was found in 2.8% and to the TDM at 6.6% in 2.5% of the patients. The contact allergy to the TDM could explain or contribute to the dermatitis in about 35% of the patients.

CONCLUSION

contact allergy to the TDM is common and inclusion into the Swedish baseline series should be considered.

Swedish Experiences From Patch Testing Methylisothiazolinone Separately

The preservative methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) is a well-known sensitiser and present in the Swedish baseline series since the 1980s. The proportions of MCI/MI are 3:1. MI alone has been used as a preservative since less than 10 years. This study was conducted on behalf of the Swedish Contact Dermatitis Research Group to evaluate inclusion of MI in the Swedish baseline series since the preparation of MCI/MI might fail to detect contact-allergic reactions to MI alone. Patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis at 5 Swedish dermatology departments were consecutively patch tested with MI 2,000 ppm aq and MCI/MI 200 ppm aq. The number of cases with exclusive contact allergy to MI varied between 0.8-4.2%. In total, 1.9% reacted exclusively to MI and not to MCI/MI. Due to the considerable frequency of contact allergy to MI not traced by MCI/MI, MI 2,000 ppm aq is included in the Swedish baseline series from January 2014. This corresponds to a dose of 60 μg/cm2.

Are gloves sufficiently protective when hairdressers are exposed to permanent hair dyes? An in vivo study

BACKGROUND

The use of permanent hair dyes exposes hairdressers to contact allergens such as p-phenylenediamine (PPD), and the preventive measures are insufficient.

OBJECTIVES

To perform an in vivo test to study the protective effect of gloves commonly used by hairdressers.

PATIENTS/MATERIALS/METHODS

Six gloves from Sweden, Italy and Germany were studied: two vinyl, one natural rubber latex, two nitrile, and one polyethylene. The hair dye used for the provocation was a dark shade permanent dye containing PPD. The dye was mixed with hydrogen peroxide, and 8 PPD-sensitized volunteers were tested with the gloves as a membrane between the hair dye and the skin in a cylindrical open chamber system. Three exposure times (15, 30 and 60 min) were used.

RESULTS

Eczematous reactions were found when natural rubber latex, polyethylene and vinyl gloves were tested with the dye. The nitrile gloves gave good protection, even after 60 min of exposure to the hair dye.

CONCLUSIONS

Many protective gloves used by hairdressers are unsuitable for protection against the risk of elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis caused by PPD.

Patch testing with a textile dye mix in two concentrations - a multicentre study by the Swedish contact dermatitis research group

Disperse dyes, which are used for colouring synthetic textile fibres, are well-known contact sensitisers. To investigate the outcome of patch-testing with a textile dye mix (TDM) at 7 dermatology clinics in Sweden, a TDM tested at 2 concentrations was included into the baseline series during one year. The mix consisted of Disperse (D) Blue 35, D Yellow 3, D Orange 1 and 3, D Red 1 and 17, all 1.0%, and D Blue 106 and D Blue 124, each 0.3% in the mix 6.6% and 1.0% each in the mix 8.0%. In 2,122 tested patients, contact allergy to the TDM at the concentration 8.0% was found in 2.8% and to the TDM at 6.6% in 2.5% of the patients. The contact allergy to the TDM could explain or contribute to the dermatitis in about 35% of the patients.

CONCLUSION

contact allergy to the TDM is common and inclusion into the Swedish baseline series should be considered.

Patch testing with formaldehyde 2.0% in parallel with 1.0% by the Swedish contact dermatitis research group

In a multicentre study consecutively patch-tested dermatitis patients were tested simultaneously with 1.0% and 2.0% (w/v) formaldehyde in aqua applied with a micropipette (15 µl) to the filter paper disc in Finn Chambers (0.30 mg/cm(2) and 0.60 mg/cm(2), respectively). A total of 2,122 dermatitis patients were patch-tested. In all, 77 (3.6%) patients reacted positively to formaldehyde; 37 reacted only to 2.0%, 35 reacted to both concentrations and 5 patients reacted only to 1.0%. Significantly more patients were thus diagnosed with contact allergy to formaldehyde with 2.0% compared to 1.0% (p < 0.001) without causing more irritant reactions. The detected number of isolated allergic reactions to the 2 formaldehyde-releasers in the Swedish baseline series and not to formaldehyde itself raises the question whether quaternium-15 1.0% and diazolidinyl urea 2.0% should be present in the Swedish baseline series.

Patch testing with formaldehyde 2.0% in parallel with 1.0% by the Swedish contact dermatitis research group

In a multicentre study consecutively patch-tested dermatitis patients were tested simultaneously with 1.0% and 2.0% (w/v) formaldehyde in aqua applied with a micropipette (15 µl) to the filter paper disc in Finn Chambers (0.30 mg/cm(2) and 0.60 mg/cm(2), respectively). A total of 2,122 dermatitis patients were patch-tested. In all, 77 (3.6%) patients reacted positively to formaldehyde; 37 reacted only to 2.0%, 35 reacted to both concentrations and 5 patients reacted only to 1.0%. Significantly more patients were thus diagnosed with contact allergy to formaldehyde with 2.0% compared to 1.0% (p < 0.001) without causing more irritant reactions. The detected number of isolated allergic reactions to the 2 formaldehyde-releasers in the Swedish baseline series and not to formaldehyde itself raises the question whether quaternium-15 1.0% and diazolidinyl urea 2.0% should be present in the Swedish baseline series.

Usage test with palladium-coated earrings in patients with contact allergy to palladium and nickel

BACKGROUND

Since the EU Nickel Directive came into force, concern has been raised that palladium may increasingly replace nickel in alloys used in jewellery and dentistry, and that it may cause as many allergy problems as nickel.

OBJECTIVES

(i) To investigate the clinical relevance of contact allergy to palladium resulting from the wearing of palladium-coated earrings, and (ii) to evaluate the concordance in test results between palladium chloride (PdCl2 ), sodium tetrachloropalladate (Na2 PdCl4 ), and nickel(II) sulfate hexahydrate (NiSO4 .6H2 O), as well as variability in patch test reactivity.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Forty female patients with pierced earlobes and previously known contact allergy to palladium and nickel were patch tested with dilution series of nickel and palladium salts. They wore earrings covered with palladium and titanium for 9 weeks to monitor the appearance of any clinical manifestations.

RESULT/CONCLUSION

There is a low risk of eczema in palladium-allergic and nickel-allergic individuals when they wear jewellery coated with pure palladium, but further studies are needed to determine whether palladium, when present in alloys, could cause allergic reactions. PdCl2 , like NiSO4 .6H2 O, shows variability in patch test reactivity over time. Furthermore, Na2 PdCl4 seems to be a more sensitive test substance than PdCl2 for the detection of palladium allergy.

Several cases of work-related allergic contact dermatitis caused by isocyanates at a company manufacturing heat exchangers

BACKGROUND

A 43-year-old woman was referred by her occupational health service with suspected occupational contact dermatitis. In connection with the investigation, a workplace visit was undertaken at her company, which used an adhesive based on pre-polymeric diphenylmethane diisocyanate in one of its units. During the visit, we became aware of six other employees with skin problems who were then referred to our department for investigation.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the seven employees complaining about skin problems.

METHODS

Seven employees were patch tested with a baseline series, an isocyanate series, and a series with work material.

RESULTS

Five of seven patients had occupational contact allergy. Four reacted to isocyanate-related test preparations, and one to a cleanser used at the workplace.

CONCLUSIONS

Workplace visits constitute an important part of an occupational investigation, as they might give a broader picture of the problems at a company. In this case, it was found that 5 of 100 employees currently had or had previously had occupation-related skin problems. Owing to 'healthy worker selection', some of these patients might have been missed if we had not performed a full-scale workplace visit.