Eyelid dermatitis

Eyelid dermatitis in patch-tested adult patients: a systematic review with a meta-analysis

Eyelid dermatitis (ED) affects a cosmetically significant area and leads to patients' distress. Despite ongoing and recent research efforts, ED remains a multidisciplinary problem that needs further characterization. We aimed to evaluate the atopic eyelid dermatitis (AED) frequency in ED patients and to perform their clinical profiling. PubMed databases were searched from 01.01.1980 till 01.02.2024 to PRISMA guidelines using a search strategy: (eyelid OR periorbital OR periocular) AND (dermatitis or eczema). Studies with patch-tested ED patients were included. Proportional meta-analysis was performed using JBI SUMARI software. We included 65 studies across Europe, North America, Asia and Australia, with a total of 21,793 patch-tested ED patients. AED was reported in 27.5% (95% CI 0.177, 0.384) of patch-tested ED patients. Isolated ED was noted in 51.6% (95% CI 0.408, 0.623) of 8453 ED patients with reported lesion distribution, including 430 patients with isolated AED. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that the AED frequency in patch-tested ED patients exceeded the previous estimate of 10%. Isolated AED was noted in adult patients, attending contact allergy clinics. Future studies are needed to elucidate the global prevalence and natural history of isolated AED in adults.

Contact allergy to SIDAPA baseline series allergens in patients with eyelid dermatitis: An Italian multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Eyelid dermatitis is a frequent reason of dermatological consultation. Its aetiology is not univocal, being contact dermatitis, both allergic and irritant, the most frequent. The primary sources of allergen exposure include cosmetics, metals, and topical medications, from direct, indirect, or airborne contact.

OBJECTIVES

To define the frequency of positive patch test reactions to SIDAPA baseline series allergens, to document positive allergens, and to precise the final diagnosis in patients with eyelid involvement.

METHODS

A total of 8557 consecutive patients from 12 Italian Dermatology Clinics underwent patch testing with SIDAPA baseline series in 2018 and 2019. Patients were divided into two groups: (i) with eyelid involvement with or without other involved sites (E-Group) and (ii) without eyelid involvement (NE-Group). The final diagnosis and the frequency of positive relevant patch test reactions were evaluated.

RESULTS

E-Group consisted of 688 patients (females 78.6%, mean age 45.3 years), 8.0% of 8557 consecutively patch-tested patients. The final diagnosis in E-Group was ADC in 42.4%, ICD in 34.2%, and AD in 30.5%. The highest reaction rates were elicited by nickel sulphate and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone in both E-Group and NE-Group, even if these allergens were significantly more frequently positive in NE-Group patients than in E-Group ones. Positive patch test reactions to fragrance Mix II, dimethylaminopropylamine, and sorbitan sesquiolate were significantly more frequent in E-Group patients than in NE-Group ones.

CONCLUSIONS

Eyelid dermatitis is a frequent dermatological complaint. Allergic contact dermatitis is the most frequent diagnosis commonly caused by nickel sulphate, isothiazolinones, and fragrances. The surfactants dimethylaminopropylamine and sorbitan sesquioleate are emerging causes of eyelid allergic contact dermatitis.

Eyelid dermatitis in patients referred for patch testing: Retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1994-2016

BACKGROUND

Eyelid dermatitis is a common dermatologic complaint.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize patients with eyelid dermatitis.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis (1994-2016) of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data.

RESULTS

Of 50,795 patients, 2332 (4.6%) had eyelid dermatitis only, whereas 1623 (3.2%) also had dermatitis of the eyelids and head or neck. Compared with patients without eyelid involvement (n = 26,130), groups with eyelid dermatitis only and dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck were significantly more likely to be female, white, and older than 40 years, and to have a history of hay fever, atopic dermatitis, or both (P < .01). Final primary diagnoses included allergic contact dermatitis (eyelid dermatitis only: 43.4%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 53.5%), irritant contact dermatitis (eyelid dermatitis only: 17.0%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 9.8%), and atopic dermatitis (eyelid dermatitis only: 13.1%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 13.8%). Top 5 currently relevant allergens included nickel sulfate (eyelid dermatitis only: 18.6%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 22.5%), fragrance mix I (eyelid dermatitis only: 16.5%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 18.3%), methylisothiazolinone (eyelid dermatitis only: 16.5%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 17.7%), gold sodium thiosulfate (eyelid dermatitis only: 14.7%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 11.4%), and balsam of Peru (eyelid dermatitis only: 11.9%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 12.6%). Both eyelid-involvement groups were significantly more likely to react to gold sodium thiosulfate, carmine, shellac, dimethylaminopropylamine, oleamidopropyl dimethylamine, and thimerosal (P < .05) compared with the no eyelid involvement group.

LIMITATIONS

Lack of specific distribution patterns of eyelid dermatitis and no long-term follow-up data.

CONCLUSION

Patch testing remains a critical tool in evaluating patients with eyelid dermatitis.

Itch in Organs Beyond the Skin

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review was to explore mechanisms, causes, and therapies of itchy conditions involving organs beyond the skin including the eyes, ears, nose, and genital region.

RECENT FINDINGS

Conditions which cause itch in these locations vary from skin diseases that extend to these areas (i.e., atopic dermatitis, seborrheic dermatitis, and psoriasis) to allergic conditions (i.e., allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis) and to neuropathic conditions that relate to afferent nerve fiber damage (i.e., lumbosacral radiculopathies in genital disease) as well as some psychological components. Similar to the skin, itch in these locations involves a complex interaction between epithelial cells, unmyelinated C nerve fibers, and cytokines. There is also a significant component of neural sensitization phenomena. Mechanisms of itch beyond the skin are currently an understudied topic that affects millions of patients. Future research should be done in order to further understand the pathophysiology of itch in these body sites.

[Pathology of the eyelid in elderly patients]

OBJECTIVE

Didactic review of the various features of eyelid pathology in elderly patients.

METHODS

Illustrated review centered on diagnosis of the usual aspects and pitfalls of eyelid pathology divided into semiological chapters (tumors, blisters, erythema, etc.).

RESULTS

Pathology of the eyelids in elderly patients is extremely polymorphic. It is mainly centered on skin cancers (basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, adnexal carcinomas, and melanoma). Most severe aspects of the inflammatory diseases of the eyelid are bullous diseases (cicatricial pemphigoid, pemphigus, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, etc.). A number of rare diseases deserve mention since their presence could lead to the diagnosis of internal or systemic diseases (dermatomyositis, necrobiotic xanthogranuloma, Erdheim-Chester, etc.). In such conditions, early diagnosis is often based on the observation of isolated periocular symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though topographic dermatology is a somewhat reductive vision of skin diseases, pathology of the eyelids deserves special mention because of its polymorphism as well as its diagnostic and/or therapeutic significance.

One-visit, randomized, placebo-controlled, conjunctival allergen challenge study of scanning and imaging technology for objective quantification of eyelid swelling in the allergic reaction with contralateral use of olopatadine and artificial tears

BACKGROUND

The eyelids are more susceptible than other tissues to swelling, acute inflammation, and resultant long-term damage. However, no precise, objective means of measuring eyelid swelling in the clinical setting has been developed.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to assess the novel use of scanning and imaging technology for quantifying eyelid swelling and to use positive and negative controls to assess this new method for potential use in future clinical studies of eyelid swelling and pharmaceutical agents' effects on it.

METHODS

This was a 1-visit, single-center, prospective, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled study using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC). After baseline examinations and eyelid scanning, medication was instilled as follows: olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution in 1 eye and placebo in the other. An allergen solution to which patients had a history of reaction was instilled in each eye 15 minutes after instillation of medication. Evaluations were performed for itching (3, 5, and 7 minutes after CAC), redness and chemosis (10, 15, 20, and 30 minutes), subjective eyelid evaluation (15 and 30 minutes), and 3-dimensional (3D) objective eyelid scan (15 and 30 minutes).

RESULTS

One hundred seven patients were randomized. Fifty-six patients (35 women, 21 men; mean age, 44.7 years) were evaluable for efficacy. Results of the objective and subjective evaluations of eyelid swelling were consistent, indicating significantly less eyelid swelling in olopatadine-treated eyes than in those that received placebo (objective evaluation, P < 0.001 at 15 minutes, P < 0.017 at 30 minutes; subjective evaluation, P < 0.001 at 15 and 30 minutes). Patients rated eyelid swelling in the placebo eye as 2.31 times and 2.40 times greater than that in the olopatadine-treated eye at 15 and 30 minutes, respectively. However, the digitally scanned eyelid swelling was calculated to be 5.65 times and 1.76 times greater in the placebo eye at the same respective time points. Reduction of ocular chemosis was observed in olopatadine-treated eyes at all time points (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, eyelid swelling was quantifiably measured with 3D imaging technology. In this model, the standard antiallergy medication olopatadine, used as a positive control, significantly modulated eyelid swelling when used prophylactically. A negative control, artificial tears, did not significantly affect the allergic eyelid-swelling reaction. These results concurred with subjective grading but offered a more precise assessment of eyelid swelling.