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

Recognizing and Managing Allergic Contact Dermatitis: Focus on Major Allergens

Patch testing is the reference standard for the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. Identification and avoidance of culprit allergens are essential in the treatment of this disease. Each year, new allergens are identified as emerging or important. The authors discuss allergens that are common, enduring, emergent, incompletely recognized, and controversial for the practicing allergist and dermatologist. This Clinical Management Review will encompass a review of fragrances, preservatives, rubber, acrylates, metals, and medications; their common sources of exposure; controversies in diagnosis and patch testing; management and how to avoid those allergens. This review will also include practical aspects of diagnosis and management and will provide resources that can be used as guidance for physicians and patients on nickel, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, and fragrance, the most common allergens positive on patch testing.

Managing Contact Dermatitis Without Patch Testing

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a common skin condition caused by contact with an exogenous agent that elicits an inflammatory response. Patch testing (PT) is considered the gold standard for diagnosing ACD. Unfortunately, PT may not be available to some patients due to insurance and financial limitations, contributing to health care disparity and leaving patients with undiagnosed, incompletely managed dermatitis that can have further detrimental health and occupational effects. For other patients, PT is precluded by lack of availability of specialist/expert care, comorbid medications, or diffuse disease. This article will present a patient with ACD and will work through the differential diagnosis and share strategies for empiric avoidance of suspected/common triggers. The epidemiology of ACD with respect to race and ethnicity, considerations for affordability of hypoallergenic products, access to testing, and the need for future research are addressed in this article.

Comparison of the Skin Microbiota in the Periocular Region between Patients with Inflammatory Skin Diseases and Healthy Participants: A Preliminary Study

(1) Background: Periocular or periorbital dermatitis is a common term for all inflammatory skin diseases affecting the area of skin around the eyes. The clear etiopathogenesis of periocular dermatitis is still not fully understood. Advances in molecular techniques for studying microorganisms living in and on our bodies have highlighted the microbiome as a possible contributor to disease, as well as a promising diagnostic marker and target for innovative treatments. The aim of this study was to compare the composition and diversity of the skin microbiota in the periocular region between healthy individuals and individuals affected by the specific entity of periocular dermatitis. (2) Methods: A total of 35 patients with periocular dermatitis and 39 healthy controls were enrolled in the study. After a skin swab from the periocular region was taken from all participants, DNA extraction and 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing using Illumina NovaSeq technology were performed. (3) Results: Staphylococcus and Corynebacterium were the most abundant bacterial genera in the microbiota of healthy skin. Analysis of alpha diversity revealed a statistically significant change (p < 0.05) in biodiversity based on the Faith's PD index between patients and healthy individuals. We did not observe changes in beta diversity. The linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) revealed that Rothia, Corynebacterium, Bartonella, and Paracoccus were enriched in patients, and Anaerococcus, Bacteroides, Porphyromonas, and Enhydrobacter were enriched in healthy controls. (4) Conclusions: According to the results obtained, we assume that the observed changes in the bacterial microbiota on the skin, particularly Gram-positive anaerobic cocci and skin commensals of the genus Corynebacterium, could be one of the factors in the pathogenesis of the investigated inflammatory diseases. The identified differences in the microbiota between healthy individuals and patients with periocular dermatitis should be further investigated.

Hand eczema in Italian patients referred for patch testing: A retrospective SIDAPA study (2016-2023)

BACKGROUND

Hand eczema (HE) is a common skin disease with a negative impact on patients' quality of life in occupational and non-occupational settings. Up-to-date, data on HE in Italian patients referred for patch testing are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To characterise the profile in terms of demographics, aetiology and patch test results of Italian patients affected by HE referred for patch testing.

METHODS

A retrospective descriptive study on consecutive patients affected by HE who underwent patch testing from 2016 to 2023 in eight dermatology clinics was performed. HE patients were divided into two groups according to the exclusive (HE-only group) and not-exclusive (HE+ group) hand involvement, and compared to patients with eczema localised in body areas other than hands (NHE group).

RESULTS

One thousand five hundred and ninety-seven patients were affected by HE (35.3% males; mean age 42.7 years), 60.2% belonging to the HE-only group and 39.8% to the HE+ group. Occupational dermatitis was diagnosed in 33.2% of HE-only patients, 25.0% of HE+ patients and 5.2% of NHE patients (p < 0.001). HE-only patients presented: Allergic Contact Dermatitis (ACD), Irritant Contact Dermatitis (ICD), atopic HE in 48.1%, 47.5% and 7.1%, respectively; hyperkeratotic palmar, acute recurrent vesicular and nummular clinical subtypes in 52.2%, 43.9% and 11.9%, respectively; relevant positive patch test reactions in 48.1% (nickel sulphate 18.9%, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone 10.6%, methylisothiazolinone 8.6%, p-phenylenediamine 6.0% and potassium dichromate 4.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

HE patients, and particularly those with exclusive hand involvement, show a particular profile in terms of demographic and clinical characteristics, etiologies and relevant positive patch test reactions.

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.

Contact allergens responsible for eyelid dermatitis in adults

Allergic contact dermatitis has been established as the most frequent cause of eyelid dermatitis, but it is often misdiagnosed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of patients with eyelid dermatitis who were referred for patch testing. The patients were divided into three subgroups in this retrospective study: patients with only eyelid involvement, patients with involvement of eyelids and other areas, and patients without eyelid involvement. Data was collected on diagnoses, medical history, personal care products and make-up use, occupational dermatitis, and positive allergens. An independent t-test, one-way ANOVA, and chi-squared test were used to analyze the data. A total of 427 patients who referred for patch tests were included in the study. Of these, 139 patients had eyelid dermatitis. Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) was the most common diagnosis in all three groups referred for patch tests. Use of shaving cream and hair conditioner was significantly higher in patients with only eyelid involvement and nickel sulfate was the most common allergen among them. Patch testing is the gold standard tool in the evaluation of eyelid contact dermatitis, and it is a necessity in the treatment of eyelid dermatitis, for the accurate identification of responsible allergens.

Allergic disorders of the eyelid

Eyelid dermatitis may present with a variety of clinical findings including erythema, pruritus, and edema, and it has a wide differential. Allergic contact dermatitis due to allergen sources in personal care products, cosmetics, and fragrances is a leading cause of eyelid dermatitis and may be challenging to diagnose by clinical examination alone. Expanded patch testing, in addition to careful inspection of the surrounding skin for additional areas of involvement and clinical clues, remains an important tool in differentiating allergic contact dermatitis from other relevant etiologies of eyelid dermatitis including irritant contact dermatitis, atopic dermatitis, seborrheic dermatitis, and rosacea. We present a practical approach to the management of eyelid dermatitis including the use of a topical anti-inflammatory for long-term control of eyelid findings. Further diagnostic workup may be warranted in patients with refractory eyelid dermatitis.

Allergic contact dermatitis of the eyelids: An interdisciplinary review

PURPOSE

A review of the published literature on the pathogenesis and treatment of eyelid allergic contact dermatitis and ocular surface involvement.

METHODS

Literature search of MEDLINE (Ovid) was conducted using for allergic contact dermatitis and disease of the eyelid or periorbital skin. Dates included in search criteria were from January 1, 2010 to January 12, 2023. 120 articles were reviewed by at least two authors.

RESULTS

Allergic eyelid contact dermatitis(ACD) is a Type IV hypersensitivity reaction to chemical exposure of sensitized eyelid skin. Most patients improve with avoidance strategies. Understanding chemicals that may trigger eyelid ACD, identifying allergens with patch testing, and use of topical steroids can help patients with this challenging disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Recalcitrant allergic eyelid dermatitis can be addressed by an interdisciplinary team and avoidance strategies based on patch testing.

Features of the Skin Microbiota in Common Inflammatory Skin Diseases

Many relatively common chronic inflammatory skin diseases manifest on the face (seborrheic dermatitis, rosacea, acne, perioral/periorificial dermatitis, periocular dermatitis, etc.), thereby significantly impairing patient appearance and quality of life. Given the yet unexplained pathogenesis and numerous factors involved, these diseases often present therapeutic challenges. The term “microbiome” comprises the totality of microorganisms (microbiota), their genomes, and environmental factors in a particular environment. Changes in human skin microbiota composition and/or functionality are believed to trigger immune dysregulation, and consequently an inflammatory response, thereby playing a potentially significant role in the clinical manifestations and treatment of these diseases. Although cultivation methods have traditionally been used in studies of bacterial microbiome species, a large number of bacterial strains cannot be grown in the laboratory. Since standard culture-dependent methods detect fewer than 1% of all bacterial species, a metagenomic approach could be used to detect bacteria that cannot be cultivated. The skin microbiome exhibits spatial distribution associated with the microenvironment (sebaceous, moist, and dry areas). However, although disturbance of the skin microbiome can lead to a number of pathological conditions and diseases, it is still not clear whether skin diseases result from change in the microbiome or cause such a change. Thus far, the skin microbiome has been studied in atopic dermatitis, seborrheic dermatitis, psoriasis, acne, and rosacea. Studies on the possible association between changes in the microbiome and their association with skin diseases have improved the understanding of disease development, diagnostics, and therapeutics. The identification of the bacterial markers associated with particular inflammatory skin diseases would significantly accelerate the diagnostics and reduce treatment costs. Microbiota research and determination could facilitate the identification of potential causes of skin diseases that cannot be detected by simpler methods, thereby contributing to the design and development of more effective therapies.