Metals

Contact Dermatitis: Classifications and Management

Contact dermatitis (CD) is a common inflammatory skin disease caused by exposure to contact allergens and irritants. It is also the most common reason of occupational dermatitis and contributes greatly to hand dermatitis and facial dermatitis. Besides the two major forms of contact dermatitis: allergic contact dermatitis and irritant contact dermatitis, other subtypes of CD have been recognized including immediate skin reactions, photoinduced contact dermatitis, systemic contact dermatitis, and non-eczematous contact dermatitis. CD is a great imitator which can mimic many kinds of skin diseases, such as atopic dermatitis, lichen planus, and angioedema. For the diagnosis of CD, a complete medical history, including occupational history, is very important. It can give a clue of CD and provide a list of suspected substances. Besides the well-known diagnostic test, patch testing, there are many other diagnostic tests can be used to help diagnosis of CD and identify the causative allergens, including photopatch test, skin tests for detecting of immediate contact reactions, serum allergen-specific IgE test, and qualitative and quantitative testing of allergen in the suspected materials patients exposed to and challenge test. Before the treatment, the suspected irritants or allergens should be avoided completely. This includes both the removal of the patient from the environment that contains those substances and the promotion of the metabolism and expulsion of the allergens that have been absorbed by the body. In addition, it is also important to restore the skin barrier and reduce skin inflammation through multiple treatments, such as emollients, topical corticosteroids, and antihistamines, as well as systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppressants. Early and appropriate treatments are important to prevent further deterioration and persistence of the skin condition.

Patch testing with aluminium Finn Chambers could give false-positive reactions in patients with contact allergy to aluminium

BACKGROUND

Earlier laboratory studies have shown that sodium tetrachloropalladate, Myroxylon pereirae, caine mix II, and palladium chloride trigger the release of aluminium (Al) from Finn Chambers (FC).

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether aluminium realease from FC could influence the diagnostic outcome of patch testing with FC.

METHOD

A retrospective analysis of patch test results from 2010 to 2019 was performed. A two-sided Fisher's exact test was used to calculate any overrepresentation of contact allergy to Al among patients with positive reactions to sodium tetrachloropalladate, Myroxylon pereirae, caine mix II, and palladium chloride.

RESULTS

A total of 5446 patients had been tested with FC during the study period. There was a significant overrepresentation of contact allergy to Al among patients with positive reactions to sodium tetrachloropalladate, Myroxylon pereirae, caine mix II, and palladium chloride. Patients with a strong Al allergy had significantly higher amounts of concomitant reactions to sodium tetrachloropalladate, Myroxylon pereirae, caine mix II, and palladium chloride compared to patients with weak Al allergy. These results were not seen for patients tested with Finn Chambers AQUA.

CONCLUSION

In patients with contact allergy to Al, patch testing with Finn chambers could give false-positive reactions to sodium tetrachloropalladate, Myroxylon pereirae, caine mix II, and palladium chloride.

Heavy metals and the skin: Sensitization patterns in Lithuanian metalworkers

BACKGROUND

Metalworkers are exposed to many sensitizing and irritant substances. There are no published data on contact allergy in this population in the Baltic countries.

OBJECTIVES

To detect skin symptoms related to occupational exposure and to describe the reactivity pattern to the European baseline series in workers from two metal plants in Lithuania.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study 185 metalworkers (154 production workers and 31 office staff) filled an interviewer-administered questionnaire. Patch testing was performed in 135 metalworkers and office staff, as a control group.

RESULTS

Metalworkers younger than 40 years complained statistically significantly more often of skin symptoms, especially on the hands and face, than older workers. Physician-diagnosed skin diseases were reported in 1.7% of cases. Metalworkers, working <20 years in the factory, more often had skin symptoms. Contact with chemicals at the workplace was suspected as the main factor provoking skin symptoms. Metalworkers were sensitized mainly to cobalt, and nickel was the most prevalent allergen among office staff.

CONCLUSION

Younger metalworkers more often had skin symptoms suspected of being work-related compared to older ones. Sensitization to cobalt was more prevalent in the metalworkers than in the control group.

New UK nickel-plated steel coins constitute an increased allergy and eczema risk

BACKGROUND

Nickel-plated steel coins have recently been introduced in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the performance and allergy risk of the new nickel-plated coins (five and ten pence) with those of the cupro-nickel coins being replaced.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Coin handling studies with assessment of skin exposure and metal release in artificial sweat were performed. Six volunteers participated.

RESULTS

The amount of nickel deposited onto skin during the handling of nickel-plated coins for 1 hr was 7.5 µg/cm(2) , four times higher than that from cupro-nickel coins. The nickel content in the oxidized surface of nickel-plated coins was higher, explaining the higher skin dose. Initial nickel release rates were 10-27 times higher than 1-week rates, emphasizing that brief and repeated contact results in significant nickel exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

Nickel-plated coins deposit higher levels of nickel onto skin than cupro-nickel coins, and hence pose an increased allergy risk. One-week release in artificial sweat is not suitable for determining the risk of handling items with high nickel release that come into short, repeated contact with the skin. The nickel skin dose is recommended for risk assessment. UK citizens are now, because of this change in coinage, unnecessarily exposed to higher levels of nickel on the skin. This is of public health concern.

Hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implants - diagnostic algorithm and suggested patch test series for clinical use

Cutaneous and systemic hypersensitivity reactions to implanted metals are challenging to evaluate and treat. Although they are uncommon, they do exist, and require appropriate and complete evaluation. This review summarizes the evidence regarding evaluation tools, especially patch and lymphocyte transformation tests, for hypersensitivity reactions to implanted metal devices. Patch test evaluation is the gold standard for metal hypersensitivity, although the results may be subjective. Regarding pre-implant testing, those patients with a reported history of metal dermatitis should be evaluated by patch testing. Those without a history of dermatitis should not be tested unless considerable concern exists. Regarding post-implant testing, a subset of patients with metal hypersensitivity may develop cutaneous or systemic reactions to implanted metals following implant. For symptomatic patients, a diagnostic algorithm to guide the selection of screening allergen series for patch testing is provided. At a minimum, an extended baseline screening series and metal screening is necessary. Static and dynamic orthopaedic implants, intravascular stent devices, implanted defibrillators and dental and gynaecological devices are considered. Basic management suggestions are provided. Our goal is to provide a comprehensive reference for use by those evaluating suspected cutaneous and systemic metal hypersensitivity reactions.