1
|
Edlund M, Holm M, Inerot A, Långsved L, Dahlman-Höglund A, Hagvall L. Contact sensitization and self-reported eczema in Swedish painters with occupational exposure to isothiazolinones. Contact Dermatitis 2024; 91:126-132. [PMID: 38769738 DOI: 10.1111/cod.14572] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2024] [Revised: 04/05/2024] [Accepted: 04/18/2024] [Indexed: 05/22/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Due to an increasing occupational usage of isothiazolinone (IT)-containing preservatives, and their potential to cause skin sensitization and allergic contact dermatitis, that is, chronic disease, there is a need for more knowledge on how highly exposed workers are affected. OBJECTIVES The overall objective was to explore dermatological symptoms of potentially long-lasting or chronic character in Swedish painters. METHODS Building painters from western and southern Sweden were initially invited to perform a questionnaire on occurrence of skin symptoms. Participants with affirmative responses, and the right inclusion criteria, were further invited to patch testing with four different ITs: benzisothiazolinone (BIT), methylisothiazolinone, methylchloroisothiazolinone and octylisothiazolinone. RESULTS There was a tendency towards higher occurrence of positive patch test reactions among the painters compared with occupationally unexposed registry patients; however, not statistically significant differences. BIT was the substance most frequently causing positive test results in both groups. The occurrence of adult-onset eczema was higher in painters than in the control group of electricians, and just shy of statistical significance concerning any of several skin locations (face/legs/arms/hands). CONCLUSION Building painters present with positive patch test reactions to common paint preservatives (ITs), and they report adult-onset eczema more often than do less occupationally exposed groups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria Edlund
- Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Mathias Holm
- Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Annica Inerot
- Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Linda Långsved
- Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Anna Dahlman-Höglund
- Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Lina Hagvall
- Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Özkaya E, Mangır Ö. High prevalence but no current clinical relevance of methyldibromo glutaronitrile since its ban in Turkey in 2015. Contact Dermatitis 2024. [PMID: 39034492 DOI: 10.1111/cod.14642] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2024] [Revised: 06/29/2024] [Accepted: 07/03/2024] [Indexed: 07/23/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Regulatory actions significantly reduced methyldibromo glutaronitrile (MDBGN)-induced allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from cosmetics in Europe. Turkey banned MDBGN in 2015. OBJECTIVES To assess sensitization and ACD rates to MDBGN before and after its ban in Turkey. METHODS Data from 2653 consecutively patch tested patients between 1996 and 2023 with MDBGN 0.1% pet. (n = 573) or 0.2%-0.3% pet. (n = 1310) or 0.5% pet. (n = 770) were analysed. MDBGN was tested as MDBGN/phenoxyethanol (PE) in 1434 patients. RESULTS The sensitization prevalence was 1.7% (45/2653), peaking at 5.3% in 2018 and 2023 with MDBGN 0.3% pet. There was a two-fold male predominance, with patients exclusively ≥20 years old. None of the patients reacted to PE. ACD occurred in 0.7% (19/2653), mainly affecting hands and linked to non-occupational exposure (78.9%), particularly from rinse-off/leave-on cosmetics. The pattern of 'middle-aged men with hand eczema and fragrance allergy' was particularly notable. Occupational ACD was rare (21.1%), occurring mainly in hairdressers from hair gel. Positive reactions with current clinical relevance dropped from 48.3% (1996-2014) to zero after 2015 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The ban effectively reduced MDBGN-induced ACD in Turkey, yet the prevalence of positive patch test reactions remains high, likely due to past exposures or other undisclosed sources. We suggest continued testing of MDBGN in the EBS in Turkey.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Esen Özkaya
- Department of Dermatology and Venereology, İstanbul Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Ömer Mangır
- Department of Dermatology and Venereology, İstanbul Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Faraz K, Seely M, Marano AL. The role of the environment in allergic skin disease. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2024; 24:323-330. [PMID: 38733510 DOI: 10.1007/s11882-024-01147-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/17/2024] [Indexed: 05/13/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW This paper explores how environmental factors influence allergic skin diseases, including atopic dermatitis (AD), contact dermatitis (CD), urticaria, angioedema, and reactions to drugs and insect bites. RECENT FINDINGS Research indicates a significant impact of environmental elements on allergic skin diseases. High air pollution levels exacerbate symptoms, while climate change contributes to increased skin barrier dysfunction, particularly affecting AD. Allergen prevalence is influenced by climate and pollution. Irritants, like those in detergents and cosmetics, play a major role in CD. Plants also contribute, causing various skin reactions. Understanding the interplay between environmental factors and allergic skin diseases is crucial for effective management. Physicians must address these factors to support patient well-being and promote skin health amidst environmental changes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Khushnood Faraz
- Duke University School of Medicine, 1000 Trent Dr, Durham, NC, 27710, USA
| | - Mason Seely
- Duke University School of Medicine, 1000 Trent Dr, Durham, NC, 27710, USA
| | - Anne L Marano
- Department of Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, 1000 Trent Dr, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Almeman A. The digital transformation in pharmacy: embracing online platforms and the cosmeceutical paradigm shift. JOURNAL OF HEALTH, POPULATION, AND NUTRITION 2024; 43:60. [PMID: 38720390 PMCID: PMC11080122 DOI: 10.1186/s41043-024-00550-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2024] [Accepted: 04/09/2024] [Indexed: 05/12/2024]
Abstract
In the face of rapid technological advancement, the pharmacy sector is undergoing a significant digital transformation. This review explores the transformative impact of digitalization in the global pharmacy sector. We illustrated how advancements in technologies like artificial intelligence, blockchain, and online platforms are reshaping pharmacy services and education. The paper provides a comprehensive overview of the growth of online pharmacy platforms and the pivotal role of telepharmacy and telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, it discusses the burgeoning cosmeceutical market within online pharmacies, the regulatory challenges faced globally, and the private sector's influence on healthcare technology. Conclusively, the paper highlights future trends and technological innovations, underscoring the dynamic evolution of the pharmacy landscape in response to digital transformation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ahmad Almeman
- Department of Pharmacology, College of Medicine, Qassim University, Buraydah, Saudi Arabia.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Stingeni L, Foti C, Guarneri F, Corazza M, Cristaudo A, Ferrucci SM, Gallo R, Martina E, Musumeci ML, Napolitano M, Nettis E, Patruno C, Pigatto PD, Piras V, Schena D, Casciola G, Antonelli E, Hansel K. Contact allergy to SIDAPA baseline series allergens in patients with eyelid dermatitis: An Italian multicentre study. Contact Dermatitis 2024; 90:479-485. [PMID: 38268123 DOI: 10.1111/cod.14507] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2023] [Revised: 01/03/2024] [Accepted: 01/12/2024] [Indexed: 01/26/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luca Stingeni
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
| | - Caterina Foti
- Section of Dermatology and Venereology, Department of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area (DiMePRe-J), University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Italy
| | - Fabrizio Guarneri
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
| | - Monica Corazza
- Section of Dermatology and Infectious Diseases, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
| | - Antonio Cristaudo
- Clinical Dermatology Unit, San Gallicano Dermatological Institute IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Silvia Mariel Ferrucci
- Dermatology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy
| | - Rosella Gallo
- Section of Dermatology, Dipartimento di Scienze della Salute (DISSAL), University of Genoa and IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy
| | - Emanuela Martina
- Dermatology Clinic, Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences, Polytechnic Marche University, Ancona, Italy
| | | | - Maddalena Napolitano
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Eustachio Nettis
- Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, School of Allergology and Clinical, Immunology, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari, Italy
| | - Cataldo Patruno
- Section of Dermatology, Health Sciences Department, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy
| | | | - Viviana Piras
- Dermatological Clinic, Department of Medical Science and Public Health, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
| | - Donatella Schena
- Section of Dermatology and Venereology, Department of Medicine, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Gabriele Casciola
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
| | - Elettra Antonelli
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
| | - Katharina Hansel
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Stingeni L, Bianchi L, Caroppo ES, Belloni Fortina A, Caroppo F, Corazza M, Borghi A, Gallo R, Trave I, Ferrucci SM, Beretta A, Guarneri F, Martina E, Napolitano M, DE Lucia M, Patruno C, Bennardo L, Romita P, Foti C, Tramontana M, Marietti R, Argenziano G, Hansel K. The new Italian SIDAPA Baseline Series for patch testing (2023): an update according to the new regulatory pathway for contact allergens. Ital J Dermatol Venerol 2024; 159:83-104. [PMID: 38650492 DOI: 10.23736/s2784-8671.24.07733-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/25/2024]
Abstract
Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a common inflammatory skin disease caused by delayed hypersensitivity to chemical and biotic contact allergens. ACD significantly affects the patients' quality of life negatively impacting both occupational and non-occupational settings. Patch testing is the gold standard diagnostic in vivo test to precise the ACD etiology and to correctly perform prevention. According to the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) legislative decree no. 178 of 29th May 1991, allergens are defined as medicines and therefore they are subject to strict regulation. In 2017, AIFA (decree no. 2130/2017) started a procedure to regulate contact allergens on the Italian market and actually the contact allergens temporarily authorized are reported in AIFA decree no. 98/2022, valid until November 2023. The availability on the market of contact allergens to diagnose ACD and continuous updating on the basis of new epidemiological trends are mandatory, jointly with the continuous update of the baseline and integrative series for patch testing. For this reason, the scientific community represented in Italy by the Skin Allergies Study Group of SIDeMaST (Italian Society of Dermatology and Venereology) and SIDAPA (Italian Society of Allergological, Occupational and Environmental Dermatology) are constantly working, in close relationship with the European scientific communities with large expertise in this important sector of the modern Dermatology. Herein, we report the setting up of regulatory legislation by AIFA and the new Italian Adult Baseline Series for patch testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luca Stingeni
- Dermatology Section, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy -
| | - Leonardo Bianchi
- Dermatology Section, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
| | - Elena S Caroppo
- Dermatology Section, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
| | | | | | - Monica Corazza
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
| | - Alessandro Borghi
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
| | - Rosella Gallo
- Division of Dermatology, Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
| | - Ilaria Trave
- Division of Dermatology, Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
| | - Silvia M Ferrucci
- Dermatology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy
| | - Andrea Beretta
- Dermatology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy
| | - Fabrizio Guarneri
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
| | - Emanuela Martina
- Dermatological Clinic, Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences, Polytechnic University of the Marche Region, Ancona, Italy
| | - Maddalena Napolitano
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Mario DE Lucia
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Cataldo Patruno
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Health Sciences, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy
| | - Luigi Bennardo
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Health Sciences, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy
| | - Paolo Romita
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, University of Bari, Bari, Italy
| | - Caterina Foti
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, University of Bari, Bari, Italy
| | - Marta Tramontana
- Dermatology Section, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
| | - Rossella Marietti
- Dermatology Section, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Argenziano
- Dermatology Unit, Department of Mental and Physical Health and Preventive Medicine, "Luigi Vanvitelli" University of Campania, Naples, Italy
| | - Katharina Hansel
- Dermatology Section, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Reeder MJ, Nihal A, Aravamuthan SR, Warshaw EM, DeKoven JG, Atwater AR, Houle MC, Adler BL, Silverberg JI, Taylor JS, Pratt MD, Belsito DV, Yu J, Botto NB, Mowad CM, Dunnick CA, DeLeo VA. Allergic or Not: Final Interpretation of Doubtful Patch Test Reactions From the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2019-2020. Dermatitis 2024; 35:138-143. [PMID: 38320244 DOI: 10.1089/derm.2023.0285] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2024]
Abstract
Background: Doubtful patch test reactions generally do not meet criterion for positivity in patch testing. However, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) allows for doubtful reactions to be coded with a final determination of "allergic/positive" based on the temporal pattern, appearance, known characteristics of the allergen, and/or other supportive patch test reactions. Objectives: To analyze NACDG data from the 2019-2020 patch test cycle to identify patterns in the interpretation and relevance of doubtful reactions. Methods: The frequency and proportions of doubtful reactions were tabulated and analyzed for patterns. Statistical analyses were limited to allergens with ≥30 doubtful reactions to ensure adequate sample size. Results: Of patch-tested patients, 31.9% (1315/4121) had ≥1 doubtful reaction. Of 2538 total doubtful reactions, 46% (n = 1167) had a final interpretation of "allergic/positive." The allergens with the highest proportion of doubtful reactions at the final visit were hydroperoxides of linalool 1% (4.5%), fragrance mix I 8.0% (3.9%), and cetrimonium chloride 0.5% (3.4%). Methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) 0.02% (P < 0.001), MI 0.2% (P < 0.001), nickel sulfate hexahydrate 2.5% (P = 0.001), and neomycin sulfate 20.0% (P = 0.003) doubtful reactions were more likely to be interpreted as allergic than nonallergic. Methyldibromoglutaronitrile/phenoxyethanol 0.2% (P < 0.001), oleamidopropyl dimethylamine 0.1% (P < 0.001), formaldehyde 2.0% (P < 0.001), cetrimonium chloride 0.5% (P < 0.001), benzophenone-4 (sulisobenzone) 10% (P < 0.001), iodopropynyl butylcarbamate 0.5% (P < 0.001), cocamidopropyl betaine 1.0% (P = 0.002), and benzisothiazolinone 0.1% (P = 0.012) doubtful reactions were less likely to be interpreted as allergic. Of the 1167 doubtful reactions interpreted as allergic, 84.9% had current relevance. Conclusions: Doubtful reactions were common and approximately one half were coded with a final interpretation of "allergic/positive." Of those, most were clinically relevant. MCI/MI, MI, nickel, and neomycin were more likely to be interpreted as allergic.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Margo J Reeder
- From the Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Aman Nihal
- University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Srikanth R Aravamuthan
- From the Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Erin M Warshaw
- Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
- Department of Dermatology, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
- Department of Dermatology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Joel G DeKoven
- Division of Dermatology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Amber R Atwater
- Department of Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Marie-Claude Houle
- Division of Dermatology, CHU de Quebec, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
| | - Brandon L Adler
- Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Jonathan I Silverberg
- Department of Dermatology, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - James S Taylor
- Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Melanie D Pratt
- Division of Dermatology, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Donald V Belsito
- Department of Dermatology, Columbia University Irving Medical School, New York, New York, USA
| | - Jiade Yu
- Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Nina B Botto
- Department of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Chris M Mowad
- Department of Dermatology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Cory A Dunnick
- Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA; and
- Rocky Mountain Regional Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado, USA
| | - Vincent A DeLeo
- Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Reeder MJ, Zhang D, Aravamuthan SR, Warshaw EM, DeKoven JG, Silverberg JI, Adler BL, Atwater AR, Taylor JS, Houle MC, Belsito DV, Yu J, Botto N, Mowad CM, Dunnick CA, DeLeo VA, Pratt MD. More than just methylisothiazolinone: Retrospective analysis of patients with isothiazolinone allergy in North America, 2017-2020. J Am Acad Dermatol 2024; 90:319-327. [PMID: 37879460 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2023.10.032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2023] [Revised: 09/14/2023] [Accepted: 10/13/2023] [Indexed: 10/27/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Isothiazolinones are a common cause of allergic contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVE To examine the prevalence of positive patch test reactions to isothiazolinones from 2017-2020 and characterize isothiazolinone-allergic (Is+) patients compared with isothiazolinone nonallergic (Is-) patients. METHODS Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 9028 patients patch tested to methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/methylisothiazolinone (MI) 0.02% aqueous, MI 0.2% aqueous, benzisothiazolinone (BIT) 0.1% petrolatum, and/or octylisothiazolinone (OIT) 0.025% petrolatum. Prevalence, reaction strength, concurrent reactions, clinical relevance, and source of allergens were tabulated. RESULTS In total, 21.9% (1976/9028) of patients had a positive reaction to 1 or more isothiazolinones. Positivity to MI was 14.4% (1296/9012), MCI/MI was 10.0% (903/9017), BIT was 8.6% (777/9018), and OIT was 05% (49/9028). Compared with Is-, Is+ patients were more likely to have occupational skin disease (16.5% vs 10.3%, P <.001), primary hand dermatitis (30.2% vs 19.7%, P <.001), and be >40 years (73.1% vs 61.9%, P <.001). Positive patch test reactions to >1 isothiazolinone occurred in 44.1% (871/1976) of Is+ patients. Testing solely to MCI/MI would miss 47.3% (611/1292) of MI and 60.1% (466/776) of BIT allergic reactions. LIMITATIONS Retrospective cross-sectional study design and lack of follow-up data. CONCLUSION Sensitization to isothiazolinones is high and concurrent sensitization to multiple isothiazolinone allergens is common.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Margo J Reeder
- Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin.
| | - Donglin Zhang
- Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Srikanth R Aravamuthan
- Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Erin M Warshaw
- Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Department of Dermatology, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Department of Dermatology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Joel G DeKoven
- Division of Dermatology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Jonathan I Silverberg
- Department of Dermatology, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia
| | - Brandon L Adler
- Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Amber R Atwater
- Department of Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - James S Taylor
- Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Marie-Claude Houle
- Division of Dermatology, CHU de Quebec, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada
| | - Donald V Belsito
- Department of Dermatology, Columbia University Irving Medical School, New York, New York
| | - Jiade Yu
- Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Nina Botto
- Department of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Christen M Mowad
- Department of Dermatology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania
| | - Cory A Dunnick
- Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado; Department of Dermatology, Rocky Mountain Regional Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Vincent A DeLeo
- Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Melanie D Pratt
- Division of Dermatology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Paulsen E. The sesquiterpene lactone mix: A review of past, present and future aspects. Contact Dermatitis 2023; 89:434-441. [PMID: 37820718 DOI: 10.1111/cod.14419] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2023] [Revised: 08/15/2023] [Accepted: 09/06/2023] [Indexed: 10/13/2023]
Abstract
The sesquiterpene lactones (SLs) are secondary plant metabolites, which are widespread in the Compositae/Asteraceae plant family. The first SLs were detected more than 100 years ago, and allergic contact dermatitis from Compositae has been reported since the beginning of the 1900s, but it was not until the late 1960s and early 1970s that a collaboration between dermatologists, chemists and botanists led to the detection of SLs as the main allergens of Compositae plants. In the 1980s, the SL mix, consisting of equimolar amounts of alantolactone, costunolide and dehydrocostus lactone, was developed as a screening agent for Compositae sensitisation. Today, after inclusion of SL mix in the baseline series, the mean prevalence of reactions in Europe is around 1%, and in North America 0.8%. In countries outside Europe and North America, the prevalence ranges between 0% and 10.7%. The detection rate of SL mix is lower than that of some plant extracts, and ideally, SL mix should be supplemented with a mix of SLs from locally prevalent allergenic plants. The prevalence of positive reactions to SL mix suggests continued baseline testing in most European countries, North America, New Zealand, Australia and probably some Chinese centres.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Evy Paulsen
- Department of Dermatology and Allergy Centre, Odense University Hospital, Odense C, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
de Groot AC, Rustemeyer T. 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA): A clinical review of contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis-Part 1. Introduction, epidemiology, case series and case reports. Contact Dermatitis 2023; 89:401-433. [PMID: 37752620 DOI: 10.1111/cod.14405] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2023] [Revised: 07/31/2023] [Accepted: 08/04/2023] [Indexed: 09/28/2023]
Abstract
2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) has been increasingly recognised as a contact allergen and was added to the European baseline series in 2019. In this article (2 parts), the results of an extensive literature review of the clinical aspects of contact allergy/allergic contact dermatitis to HEMA are presented. In part 1, the epidemiology of HEMA contact allergy is discussed and detailed information on published case series and case reports presented. HEMA is an important cause of contact allergy/allergic contact dermatitis in North America and Europe with recent prevalences of >3% in the USA + Canada and 1.5%-3.7% in Europe. Currently, most cases are caused by nail cosmetics, both in consumers and professional nail stylists. In our literature review, we have found 24 studies presenting case series of patients with allergic contact dermatitis attributed to HEMA and 168 case reports. However, the presence of HEMA in the products causing ACD was established in only a minority. Part 2 will discuss cross- and co-sensitisation, and other skin reactions to HEMA, will assess whether HEMA is the most frequent (meth)acrylate allergen and how sensitive HEMA as a screening agent is, investigate the presence of HEMA in commercial products and provide practical information on patch testing procedures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Thomas Rustemeyer
- Dermato-Allergology and Occupational Dermatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, AZ, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Warshaw EM, Han J, Kullberg SA, DeKoven JG, Adler BL, Silverberg JI, Houle MC, Pratt MD, Belsito DV, Yu J, Botto NC, Reeder MJ, Taylor JS, Atwater AR, Dunnick CA, DeLeo VA, Mowad CM. Patch Testing to Chlorhexidine Digluconate, 1% Aqueous: North American Contact Dermatitis Group Experience, 2015-2020. Dermatitis 2023; 34:501-508. [PMID: 37279017 DOI: 10.1089/derm.2023.0077] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
Background: Chlorhexidine is an antiseptic that may cause allergic contact dermatitis. Objectives: To describe the epidemiology of chlorhexidine allergy and characterize positive patch test reactions. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients patch tested to chlorhexidine digluconate 1% aqueous by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2015-2020. Results: Of 14,731 patients tested to chlorhexidine digluconate, 107 (0.7%) had an allergic reaction; of these, 56 (52.3%) reactions were currently clinically relevant. Most (59%) reactions were mild (+), followed by strong (++, 18.7%) and very strong (+++, 6.5%). Common primary dermatitis anatomic sites in chlorhexidine-positive patients were hands (26.4%), face (24.5%), and scattered/generalized distribution (17.9%). Compared with negative patients, chlorhexidine-positive patients were significantly more likely to have dermatitis involving the trunk (11.3% vs 5.1%; P = 0.0036). The most commonly identified source category was skin/health care products (n = 41, 38.3%). Only 11 (10.3%) chlorhexidine reactions were occupationally related; of these, 81.8% were in health care workers. Conclusions: Chlorhexidine digluconate allergy is uncommon, but often clinically relevant. Involvement of the hands, face, and scattered generalized patterns was frequent. Occupationally related reactions were found predominantly in health care workers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erin M Warshaw
- From the Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
- Department of Dermatology, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
- Department of Dermatology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Joohee Han
- From the Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Sara A Kullberg
- From the Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
- Department of Dermatology, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
- University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Joel G DeKoven
- Division of Dermatology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Brandon L Adler
- Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Jonathan I Silverberg
- Department of Dermatology, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Marie-Claude Houle
- Division of Dermatology, CHU de Quebec, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
| | - Melanie D Pratt
- Division of Dermatology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Donald V Belsito
- Department of Dermatology, Columbia University Irving Medical School, New York, New York, USA
| | - Jiade Yu
- Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Nina C Botto
- Department of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Margo J Reeder
- Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - James S Taylor
- Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Amber R Atwater
- Department of Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Cory A Dunnick
- Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA
- Rocky Mountain Regional Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado, USA
| | - Vincent A DeLeo
- Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Chris M Mowad
- Department of Dermatology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Warshaw EM, Peterson MY, Atwater AR, DeKoven JG, Pratt MD, Taylor JS, Belsito DV, Silverberg JI, Reeder MJ, DeLeo VA, Houle MC, Dunnick CA, Yu J, Adler B, Mowad C, Botto NC. Patch Testing to Paraphenylenediamine: The North American Contact Dermatitis Group Experience (1994-2018). Dermatitis 2023; 34:536-546. [PMID: 37523239 DOI: 10.1089/derm.2023.0140] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/02/2023]
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Paraphenylenediamine (PPD) is an aromatic amine dye that may cause allergic contact dermatitis. This study examines the epidemiology of allergic patch test reactions to PPD. Methods: This retrospective analysis characterizes individuals tested to PPD (1% petrolatum) by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (1994-2018). Demographics and dermatitis site(s) were compared between PPD-allergic and PPD-negative patients. PPD reactions were analyzed by reaction strength, clinical relevance, occupational relatedness, and source as well as coreactivity with structurally related compounds. Results: Of 54,917 patients tested to PPD, 3095 (5.6%) had an allergic patch test reaction. Compared with PPD-negative patients, PPD-allergic patients had significantly greater odds of age >40 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.55 [95% confidence interval; CI 1.43-1.69]) and female gender (OR 1.52 [95% CI 1.41-1.66]), but lower odds of being White (OR 0.66 [95% CI 0.60-0.71]). The most common primary anatomic sites of dermatitis were face (25.5%), hands (21.9%), and scattered/generalized pattern (15.5%). Over half (55.3%) of PPD reactions were ++ or +++ at the final reading and 60.9% were currently relevant. Common exposure sources included hair dye (73.5%) and clothing/shoes/apparel (3.9%). Occupationally related reactions occurred in 8.3%, most commonly in hairdressers/cosmetologists (72.8%). The most common coreactions were benzocaine (11.3%), N-isopropyl-N'-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine (6.7%), disperse dye mix (6.5%), and black rubber mix (5.1%). Conclusions: The 24-year percentage of allergic reactions to PPD was 5.6%. PPD allergy was associated with female gender and age >40 years. PPD allergic patients were less likely to be White. Allergic reactions were usually clinically relevant and hair dye was the most frequently identified source.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erin M Warshaw
- From the Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet/Health Partners Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
- Department of Dermatology, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
- Department of Dermatology, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Malina Yamashita Peterson
- From the Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet/Health Partners Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
- University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Amber R Atwater
- Department of Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Joel G DeKoven
- Division of Dermatology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Melanie D Pratt
- Division of Dermatology, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - James S Taylor
- Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Donald V Belsito
- Department of Dermatology, Columbia University Irving Medical School, New York, New York, USA
| | - Jonathan I Silverberg
- Department of Dermatology, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Margo J Reeder
- Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Vincent A DeLeo
- Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Marie-Claude Houle
- Division of Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec, Laval University, Québec, Canada
| | - Cory A Dunnick
- Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA
| | - Jiade Yu
- Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Brandon Adler
- Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Christen Mowad
- Department of Dermatology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Nina C Botto
- Department of Dermatology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Zawawi S, Yang YW, Cantwell HM, Drage LA, Youssef MJ, Yiannias JA, Davis MDP, Hall MR. Trends in Patch Testing With the Mayo Clinic Standard Series, 2017-2021. Dermatitis 2023; 34:405-412. [PMID: 37192467 DOI: 10.1089/derm.2023.0063] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/18/2023]
Abstract
Background: Patch testing to a standard series is used to identify culprit allergens in patients with contact dermatitis. The reaction rates evolve over time based on trends in cutaneous exposures by the general population. Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze the patch test results of the Mayo Clinic standard series in patients tested from 2017 to 2021. Methods: The patch test reactions of standard series allergens tested from 2017 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed and compared with the results of our prior report from 2011 to 2015 as well as the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) report from 2017 to 2018. Results: Of 2667 patients tested, 1683 (63.1%) had at least 1 positive reaction. The 15 allergens with the highest reaction rates were hydroperoxides of linalool 1%, nickel (II) sulfate hexahydrate, methylisothiazolinone, Myroxylon pereirae resin, hydroperoxides of linalool 0.5%, methyldibromo glutaronitrile, neomycin sulfate, cobalt (II) chloride hexahydrate, fragrance mix I, benzalkonium chloride, bacitracin, hydroperoxides of limonene, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, p-phenylenediamine, and textile dye mix. Twelve (80%) of these allergens were also in the top 15 of the most recent NACDG report. Conclusions: Hydroperoxides of linalool and hydroperoxides of limonene are new allergens that have been added to our standard series. These are associated with high reaction rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suha Zawawi
- From the Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Yul W Yang
- Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, Florida, USA; and
| | - Hafsa M Cantwell
- Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Lisa A Drage
- Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Molly J Youssef
- Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - James A Yiannias
- Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, Florida, USA; and
| | - Mark D P Davis
- Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Matthew R Hall
- From the Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Patel K, Palmer A, Nixon R. Allergic contact dermatitis from propylene glycol: A case series from Australia. Contact Dermatitis 2023. [PMID: 37100088 DOI: 10.1111/cod.14325] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2022] [Revised: 03/22/2023] [Accepted: 04/14/2023] [Indexed: 04/28/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Propylene glycol (PG) is used in a variety of cosmetics, food and pharmaceuticals. PG is a known sensitizer but also irritating when patch tested (PT). OBJECTIVES The aims were to investigate the frequency of contact sensitization to PG and to identify cases of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). METHODS A retrospective study was performed on patients PT at the Skin Health Institute (SHI), Victoria, Australia to PG 5% pet. and PG 10% aq. between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2020. RESULTS In all, 6761 patients were PT to PG and 21 (0.31%) reacted. Of those 21 individuals, 9 (42.9%) had a relevant reaction. 75% of relevant positive reactions were in patients PT to PG 10% aq. The most common source of PG exposure was topical medicaments (77.8% of relevant reactions) and moisturizers, with the largest group being topical corticosteroids. CONCLUSION Contact sensitization to PG in the patch test population remains uncommon, although it is possible that testing with concentrations of 5%-10% PG did not identify all reactions. Topical corticosteroids were the most important cause. Patients with suspected contact dermatitis to topical corticosteroids should be PT to PG.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kajal Patel
- Skin Health Institute, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Li ZM, Kannan K. Occurrence of 1,3-Diphenylguanidine, 1,3-Di- o-tolylguanidine, and 1,2,3-Triphenylguanidine in Indoor Dust from 11 Countries: Implications for Human Exposure. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 2023; 57:6129-6138. [PMID: 37010350 PMCID: PMC10116588 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.3c00836] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2023] [Revised: 03/23/2023] [Accepted: 03/23/2023] [Indexed: 06/19/2023]
Abstract
1,3-Diphenylguanidine (DPG), 1,3-di-o-tolylguanidine (DTG), and 1,2,3-triphenylguanidine (TPG) are synthetic chemicals widely used in rubber and other polymers. Nevertheless, limited information is available on their occurrence in indoor dust. We measured these chemicals in 332 dust samples collected from 11 countries. DPG, DTG, and TPG were found in 100%, 62%, and 76% of the house dust samples, at median concentrations of 140, 2.3, and 0.9 ng/g, respectively. The sum concentrations of DPG and its analogues varied among the countries in the following decreasing order: Japan (median: 1300 ng/g) > Greece (940) > South Korea (560) > Saudi Arabia (440) > the United States (250) > Kuwait (160) > Romania (140) > Vietnam (120) > Colombia (100) > Pakistan (33) > India (26). DPG accounted for ≥87% of the sum concentrations of the three compounds in all countries. DPG, DTG, and TPG exhibited significant correlations (r: 0.35-0.73; p < 0.001). Elevated concentrations of DPG were found in dust from certain microenvironments (e.g., offices and cars). Human exposure to DPG through dust ingestion were in the ranges 0.07-4.40, 0.09-5.20, 0.03-1.70, 0.02-1.04, and 0.01-0.87 ng/kg body weight (BW)/day for infants, toddlers, children, teenagers, and adults, respectively.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhong-Min Li
- Department
of Pediatrics, New York University Grossman
School of Medicine, New York, New York 10016, United States
- Department
of Environmental Medicine, New York University
Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York 10016, United States
| | - Kurunthachalam Kannan
- Department
of Pediatrics, New York University Grossman
School of Medicine, New York, New York 10016, United States
- Department
of Environmental Medicine, New York University
Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York 10016, United States
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Reeder MJ, Atwater AR, Silverberg JI, Belsito DV, Sasseville D, Zug KA, Taylor JS, Pratt MD, Maibach HI, Fowler JF, Adler BL, Houle MC, Mowad CM, Botto N, Yu J, Dunnick CA. North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2019-2020. Dermatitis 2023; 34:90-104. [PMID: 36917520 DOI: 10.1089/derm.2022.29017.jdk] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 39.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
Abstract
Background: Patch testing is an important diagnostic tool for assessment of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Objective: This study documents the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) patch testing results from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020. Methods: At 13 centers in North America, patients were tested in a standardized manner with a screening series of 80 allergens, and, as indicated, supplemental allergens. Results: Overall, 4121 patients were tested; 2871 (69.7%) had at least 1 positive/allergic patch test reaction and 2095 patients (51.2%) had a primary diagnosis of ACD. The most commonly positive allergens were nickel (18.2%), methylisothiazolinone (MI) (13.8%), fragrance mix (FM) I (12.8%), hydroperoxides of linalool (HPL) (11.1%), and benzisothiazolinone (BIT) (10.4%). Compared with that of 2017-2018, prevalence of top 20 allergens statistically increased for FM I, HPL, BIT, propolis, and hydroperoxides of limonene (3.5%). For the first time, MI positivity did not increase between reporting periods. Approximately one-fifth of patients (20.3%) had ≥1 clinically relevant reaction(s) to allergens/substances not on the NACDG series. Conclusions: The epidemic of MI contact allergy in North America may have reached a plateau. Patch testing using a robust screening series, and supplemental allergens as indicated, is necessary for comprehensive evaluation of ACD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joel G DeKoven
- From the *Division of Dermatology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
- Division of Occupational Health, Unity Health Toronto, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada
| | - Erin M Warshaw
- Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet/Health Partners Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
- Department of Dermatology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
- Department of Dermatology, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Margo J Reeder
- Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Amber R Atwater
- Department of Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Jonathan I Silverberg
- Department of Dermatology, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Donald V Belsito
- Department of Dermatology, Columbia University Irving Medical College, New York, New York, USA
| | - Denis Sasseville
- Division of Dermatology, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Canada
| | - Kathryn A Zug
- Department of Dermatology, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, Nebraska, USA
| | - James S Taylor
- Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Melanie D Pratt
- Division of Dermatology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Howard I Maibach
- Department of Dermatology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Joseph F Fowler
- Division of Dermatology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA
| | - Brandon L Adler
- Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Marie-Claude Houle
- Division of Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec, Laval University, Québec, Canada
| | - Christen M Mowad
- Division of Dermatology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Nina Botto
- Department of Dermatology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - JiaDe Yu
- Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Cory A Dunnick
- Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Reeder MJ, Warshaw E, Aravamuthan S, Belsito DV, Geier J, Wilkinson M, Atwater AR, White IR, Silverberg JI, Taylor JS, Fowler JF, Maibach HI, DeKoven JG, Buhl T, Botto N, Giménez-Arnau AM, Gallo R, Mowad C, Lang CCV, DeLeo VA, Johnston G, Pratt MD, Brockow K, Adler BL, Houle MC, Dickel H, Schuttelaar MLA, Yu J, Spiewak R, Dunnick C, Filon FL, Valiukeviciene S, Uter W. Trends in the Prevalence of Methylchloroisothiazolinone/Methylisothiazolinone Contact Allergy in North America and Europe. JAMA Dermatol 2023; 159:267-274. [PMID: 36652228 PMCID: PMC9857829 DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.5991] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
Importance The common use of isothiazolinones as preservatives is a global cause of allergic contact dermatitis. Differences in allowable concentrations of methylisothiazolinone (MI) exist in Europe, Canada, and the US. Objective To compare the prevalence of positive patch test reactions to the methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) combination and MI alone in North America and Europe from 2009 to 2018. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group, European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA), and the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) databases included data from patients presenting for patch testing at referral patch test clinics in North America and Europe. Exposures Patch tests to MCI/MI and MI. Main Outcomes and Measures Prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis to MCI/MI and MI. Results From 2009 to 2018, participating sites in North America and Europe patch tested a total of 226 161 individuals to MCI/MI and 118 779 to MI. In Europe, positivity to MCI/MI peaked during 2013 and 2014 at 7.6% (ESSCA) and 5.4% (IVDK) before decreasing to 4.4% (ESSCA) and 3.2% (IVDK) during 2017 and 2018. Positive reactions to MI were 5.5% (ESSCA) and 3.4% (IVDK) during 2017 and 2018. In North America, the frequency of positivity to MCI/MI increased steadily through the study period, reaching 10.8% for MCI/MI during 2017 and 2018. Positive reactions to MI were 15.0% during 2017 and 2018. Conclusions and Relevance The study results suggest that in contrast to the continued increase in North America, isothiazolinone allergy is decreasing in Europe. This trend may coincide with earlier and more stringent government regulation of MI in Europe.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Margo J Reeder
- Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison
| | - Erin Warshaw
- Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota.,Department of Dermatology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.,Department of Dermatology, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Srikanth Aravamuthan
- Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison
| | - Donald V Belsito
- Department of Dermatology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Johannes Geier
- Information Network of Departments of Dermatology, Institute at the University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
| | - Mark Wilkinson
- Department of Dermatology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, England
| | - Amber Reck Atwater
- Department of Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Ian R White
- St John's Institute of Dermatology, Guy's Hospital, London, England
| | - Jonathan I Silverberg
- Department of Dermatology, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC.,Department of Dermatology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
| | - James S Taylor
- Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Joseph F Fowler
- Division of Dermatology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky
| | - Howard I Maibach
- Department of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco
| | - Joel G DeKoven
- Division of Dermatology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Timo Buhl
- Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, Georg August University, Göttingen, Germany
| | - Nina Botto
- Department of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco
| | | | - Rosella Gallo
- Clinica Dermatologica, IRCCS-AOU San Martino-IST and Department of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
| | - Christen Mowad
- Division of Dermatology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania
| | - Claudia C V Lang
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Vincent A DeLeo
- Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
| | - Graham Johnston
- Department of Dermatology, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, England
| | - Melanie D Pratt
- Division of Dermatology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Knut Brockow
- Department of Dermatology and Allergology Biederstein, Faculty of Medicine, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Brandon L Adler
- Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
| | - Marie-Claude Houle
- Division of Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Quebec, Laval University, Quebec, Quebec, Canada
| | - Heinrich Dickel
- Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, St Josef Hospital, University Medical Center, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
| | - Marie Louise A Schuttelaar
- Department of Dermatology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - JiaDe Yu
- Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Radoslaw Spiewak
- Department of Experimental Dermatology and Cosmetology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland
| | - Cory Dunnick
- Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado, Denver
| | - Francesca Larese Filon
- Department of Public Health, Occupational Medicine, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy
| | - Skaidra Valiukeviciene
- Department of Skin and Venereal Diseases, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania
| | - Wolfgang Uter
- Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Erlangen/Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Pemberton MA, Kimber I. Propylene glycol, skin sensitisation and allergic contact dermatitis: A scientific and regulatory conundrum. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2023; 138:105341. [PMID: 36702195 DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2023.105341] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2022] [Revised: 01/15/2023] [Accepted: 01/21/2023] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Propylene glycol (PG) has widespread use in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, fragrances and personal care products. PG is not classified as hazardous under the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) but poses an intriguing scientific and regulatory conundrum with respect to allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), the uncertainty being whether and to what extent PG has the potential to induce skin sensitisation. In this article we review the results of predictive tests for skin sensitisation with PG, and clinical evidence for ACD. Patch testing in humans points to PG having the potential to be a weak allergen under certain conditions, and an uncommon cause of ACD in subjects without underlying/pre-disposing skin conditions. In clear contrast PG is negative in predictive toxicology tests for skin sensitisation, including guinea pig and mouse models (e.g. local lymph node assay), validated in vitro test methods that measure various key events in the pathway leading to skin sensitisation, and predictive methods in humans (Human Repeat Insult Patch and Human Maximisation Tests). We here explore the possible scientific basis for this intriguing inconsistency, recognising there are arguably no known contact allergens that are universally negative in, in vitro, animal and human predictive tests methods.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ian Kimber
- Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Uter W, Strahwald J, Hallmann S, Johansen JD, Havmose MS, Kezic S, van der Molen HF, Macan J, Babić Ž, Franić Z, Macan M, Turk R, Symanzik C, Weinert P, John SM. Systematic review on skin adverse effects of important hazardous hair cosmetic ingredients with a focus on hairdressers. Contact Dermatitis 2023; 88:93-108. [PMID: 36254351 DOI: 10.1111/cod.14236] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/11/2022] [Revised: 09/20/2022] [Accepted: 10/12/2022] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The burden of occupational hand eczema in hairdressers is high, and (partly strong) allergens abound in the hair cosmetic products they use. OBJECTIVES To systematically review published evidence concerning contact allergy to an indicative list of active ingredients of hair cosmetics, namely, p-phenylenediamine (PPD), toluene-2,5-diamine (PTD), persulfates, mostly ammonium persulfate (APS), glyceryl thioglycolate (GMTG), and ammonium thioglycolate (ATG), concerning the prevalence of sensitization, particularly in terms of a comparison (relative risk; RR) between hairdressers and non-hairdressers. METHODS Following a PROSPERO-registered and published protocol, eligible literature published from 2000 to February 2021 was identified, yielding 322 publications, and extracted in standardized publication record forms, also considering risk of bias. RESULTS Based on 141 publications, the contact allergy prevalence to PPD was 4.3% (95% CI: 3.8-4.9%) in consecutively patch tested patients. Other ingredients were mostly tested in an aimed fashion, yielding variable, and partly high contact allergy prevalences. Where possible, the RR was calculated, yielding an average increased sensitization risk in hairdressers of between 5.4 (PPD) and 3.4 (ATG). Additional evidence related to immediate-type hypersensitivity, experimental results, exposures, and information from case reports was qualitatively synthesized. CONCLUSIONS An excess risk of contact allergy is clearly evident from the pooled published evidence from the last 20 years. This should prompt an improvement in working conditions and product safety.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wolfgang Uter
- Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen/Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Julia Strahwald
- Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen/Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Sarah Hallmann
- Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen/Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Jeanne D Johansen
- National Allergy Research Centre, Department of Skin and Allergy, University of Copenhagen, Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Martin S Havmose
- National Allergy Research Centre, Department of Skin and Allergy, University of Copenhagen, Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Sanja Kezic
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Henk F van der Molen
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jelena Macan
- Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Željka Babić
- Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Zrinka Franić
- Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Marija Macan
- Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Rajka Turk
- Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Cara Symanzik
- Department of Dermatology, Environmental Medicine and Health Theory, Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany.,Institute for Interdisciplinary Dermatological Prevention and Rehabilitation (iDerm) at Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany
| | - Patricia Weinert
- Institute for Interdisciplinary Dermatological Prevention and Rehabilitation (iDerm) at Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany
| | - Swen M John
- Department of Dermatology, Environmental Medicine and Health Theory, Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany.,Institute for Interdisciplinary Dermatological Prevention and Rehabilitation (iDerm) at Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Symanzik C, Weinert P, Babić Ž, Hallmann S, Havmose MS, Johansen JD, Kezic S, Macan M, Macan J, Strahwald J, Turk R, van der Molen HF, John SM, Uter W. Skin Toxicity of Selected Hair Cosmetic Ingredients: A Review Focusing on Hairdressers. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2022; 19:7588. [PMID: 35805241 PMCID: PMC9265752 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19137588] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2022] [Revised: 06/06/2022] [Accepted: 06/18/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022]
Abstract
The safety assessment of cosmetics considers the exposure of a 'common consumer', not the occupational exposure of hairdressers. This review aims to compile and appraise evidence regarding the skin toxicity of cysteamine hydrochloride (cysteamine HCl; CAS no. 156-57-0), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP; CAS no. 9003-39-8), PVP copolymers (CAS no. 28211-18-9), sodium laureth sulfate (SLES; CAS no. 9004-82-4), cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA; CAS no. 68603-42-9), and cocamidopropyl betaine (CAPB; CAS no. 61789-40-0). A total of 298 articles were identified, of which 70 were included. Meta-analysis revealed that hairdressers have a 1.7-fold increased risk of developing a contact allergy to CAPB compared to controls who are not hairdressers. Hairdressers might have a higher risk of acquiring quantum sensitization against cysteamine HCl compared to a consumer because of their job responsibilities. Regarding cocamide DEA, the irritant potential of this surfactant should not be overlooked. Original articles for PVP, PVP copolymers, and SLES are lacking. This systematic review indicates that the current standards do not effectively address the occupational risks associated with hairdressers' usage of hair cosmetics. The considerable irritant and/or allergenic potential of substances used in hair cosmetics should prompt a reassessment of current risk assessment practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cara Symanzik
- Institute for Interdisciplinary Dermatological Prevention and Rehabilitation (iDerm) and Department of Dermatology, Environmental Medicine and Health Theory, Osnabrück University, 49076 Osnabrueck, Germany; (P.W.); (S.M.J.)
| | - Patricia Weinert
- Institute for Interdisciplinary Dermatological Prevention and Rehabilitation (iDerm) and Department of Dermatology, Environmental Medicine and Health Theory, Osnabrück University, 49076 Osnabrueck, Germany; (P.W.); (S.M.J.)
| | - Željka Babić
- Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, HR 10001 Zagreb, Croatia; (Ž.B.); (M.M.); (J.M.); (R.T.)
| | - Sarah Hallmann
- Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Erlangen, 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (S.H.); (J.S.); (W.U.)
| | - Martin Stibius Havmose
- National Allergy Research Centre, Department of Skin and Allergy, University of Copenhagen, Gentofte Hospital, 2900 Copenhagen, Denmark; (M.S.H.); (J.D.J.)
| | - Jeanne Duus Johansen
- National Allergy Research Centre, Department of Skin and Allergy, University of Copenhagen, Gentofte Hospital, 2900 Copenhagen, Denmark; (M.S.H.); (J.D.J.)
| | - Sanja Kezic
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, University of Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands; (S.K.); (H.F.v.d.M.)
| | - Marija Macan
- Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, HR 10001 Zagreb, Croatia; (Ž.B.); (M.M.); (J.M.); (R.T.)
| | - Jelena Macan
- Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, HR 10001 Zagreb, Croatia; (Ž.B.); (M.M.); (J.M.); (R.T.)
| | - Julia Strahwald
- Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Erlangen, 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (S.H.); (J.S.); (W.U.)
| | - Rajka Turk
- Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, HR 10001 Zagreb, Croatia; (Ž.B.); (M.M.); (J.M.); (R.T.)
| | - Henk F. van der Molen
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, University of Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands; (S.K.); (H.F.v.d.M.)
| | - Swen Malte John
- Institute for Interdisciplinary Dermatological Prevention and Rehabilitation (iDerm) and Department of Dermatology, Environmental Medicine and Health Theory, Osnabrück University, 49076 Osnabrueck, Germany; (P.W.); (S.M.J.)
| | - Wolfgang Uter
- Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Erlangen, 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (S.H.); (J.S.); (W.U.)
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND The patch test is the standard for diagnosing allergic contact dermatitis. Standardized trays allow the examination of the most prevalent allergens, whereas customized trays are more appropriate for addressing specific allergens and require expertise. They are therefore usually performed in specialized clinics. METHODS We assessed the results of 4355 patch tests performed between 2012 and 2020 in a contact dermatitis clinic located in a large tertiary medical center. All patients were tested using the European baseline series and additional trays as clinically indicated. We assessed the frequency of relevant positive reactions outside the European baseline series. We then examined the added value and number of tests (NNTs) that need to be performed to elicit one relevant positive reaction per tray and common allergens. RESULTS Nine hundred fifty-four patients (21.9%) had 1 or more positive relevant reactions; 43.3% tested positive for an allergen outside the European baseline series (OEBS). The acrylate and fragrance trays were highly represented among the positive and relevant reactions OEBS with NNTs of 4.4 and 6.8, respectively. 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate is the most prevalent allergen OEBS and is considered a marker for acrylate sensitivity with a high rate of cross-reactions and concordance rate of 85%, justifying its addition to the EBS in 2018. Other highly represented allergens include chloramphenicol, 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate, and Amerchol L-101, a lanolin derivative. The cosmetics and textile trays, although often tested, have relatively low added values of 3.7% and 2.3%, respectively. Surprisingly, the cutaneous adverse drug reaction series tray (CAD-1000) yielded no positive reactions, whereas testing the patients' medication yielded positive results in 10.9% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS Expanded patch testing is crucial to accurately diagnose allergic contact dermatitis and almost doubles the number of patients with relevant positive reactions. Acrylate sensitivity is an emerging epidemic with a high positive reaction rate and low NNT, as is sensitivity to the allergens in the fragrance tray. 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate is a reliable marker for acrylate sensitivity with a concordance rate of 85%. Chloramphenicol is a common culprit and should be added to the standard tray in countries with a high usage rate. A low NNT was also observed when testing the patients' own cosmetics and medications; this should, therefore, be encouraged. The textile tray yielded a relatively high NNT; however, it should be performed when clinically indicated in the absence of a reliable marker in the EBS.
Collapse
|
22
|
Impact of trends in new and emerging contact allergens. Int J Womens Dermatol 2022; 8:e006. [PMID: 35620033 PMCID: PMC9112390 DOI: 10.1097/jw9.0000000000000006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2021] [Accepted: 12/09/2021] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Allergic contact dermatitis represents a T cell-mediated, delayed-type hypersensitivity response to exogenous agents. While allergic contact dermatitis is one of the most common causes of skin disease encountered by dermatologists, emerging trends within the field are in constant flux, as influenced by ever-changing industry practices and evolving consumer behaviors. Although certain allergens continue to predominate, new chemicals are frequently being introduced, thus shifting the pattern of allergen exposure and sensitization. This review examines the impact of trends in new and emerging contact allergens, with particular attention to clinical contexts in which these agents may be encountered. In addition, we offer a working knowledge of these allergens’ characteristics, sources, and relevance, while outlining recommendations to accurately evaluate, diagnose, and provide appropriate counseling for these diseases.
Collapse
|
23
|
Mercader-García P. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by shellac. Contact Dermatitis 2022; 86:557-559. [PMID: 35194808 DOI: 10.1111/cod.14083] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/02/2022] [Revised: 02/14/2022] [Accepted: 02/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
|
24
|
Photoaggravated Contact Dermatitis to Methylisothiazolinone and Associated Photosensitivity: A Case Series. Dermatitis 2022; 33:e60-e63. [PMID: 35089901 DOI: 10.1097/der.0000000000000833] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
25
|
Shoe Allergens: A Retrospective Analysis of Cross-sectional Data From the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2005-2018. Dermatitis 2022; 33:62-69. [PMID: 35029350 DOI: 10.1097/der.0000000000000750] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Shoe contact allergy can be difficult to diagnose and manage. OBJECTIVE The aim of the study was to characterize demographics, clinical characteristics, patch test results, and occupational data for the North American Contact Dermatitis Group patients with shoe contact allergy. METHODS This is a retrospective study of 33,661 patients, patch tested from 2005 to 2018, with a shoe source, foot as 1 of 3 sites of dermatitis, and final primary diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. RESULTS Three hundred fifty-two patients met the inclusion criteria. They were more likely to be male (odds ratio = 3.36, confidence interval = 2.71-4.17) and less likely to be older than 40 years (odds ratio = 0.49, confidence interval = 0.40-0.61) compared with others with positive patch test reactions. The most common relevant North American Contact Dermatitis Group screening allergens were potassium dichromate (29.8%), p-tert-butylphenol formaldehyde resin (20.1%), thiuram mix (13.3%), mixed dialkyl thioureas (12.6%), and carba mix (12%). A total of 29.8% (105/352) had positive patch test reactions to supplemental allergens, and 12.2% (43/352) only had reactions to supplemental allergens. CONCLUSIONS Shoe contact allergy was more common in younger and male patients. Potassium dichromate and p-tert-butylphenol formaldehyde resin were the top shoe allergens. Testing supplemental allergens, personal care products, and shoe components should be part of a comprehensive evaluation of suspected shoe contact allergy.
Collapse
|
26
|
Occupational Contact Dermatitis in Dental Personnel: A Retrospective Analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 2001 to 2018. Dermatitis 2022; 33:80-90. [PMID: 35029351 DOI: 10.1097/der.0000000000000847] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Dental personnel are at risk of developing occupational contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVES The aims of the study were to determine prevalence of occupational contact dermatitis in dental personnel referred for patch testing and to characterize relevant allergens and sources. METHODS The study used a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) data, 2001-2018. RESULTS Of 41,109 patients, 585 (1.4%) were dental personnel. Dental personnel were significantly more likely than nondental personnel to be female (75.7% vs 67.4%, P < 0.0001), have occupationally related dermatitis (35.7% vs 11.5%, P < 0.0001), and/or have primary hand involvement (48.6% vs 22.5%, P < 0.0001). More than one quarter of dental personnel (62/585, 27.7%) had 1 or more occupationally related allergic patch test reaction(s). There were 249 occupationally related reactions to NACDG screening allergens, most commonly glutaraldehyde (18.1%), thiuram mix (16.1%), and carba mix (14.1%). The most common sources of NACDG screening allergens were gloves (30.7%), dental materials (26.6%), and sterilizing solutions (13.1%). Seventy-three dental personnel (12.5%) had 1 or more positive patch test reactions to occupationally related allergen(s)/substances not on the screening series. Occupationally related irritant contact dermatitis was identified in 22.2% (n = 130) of dental personnel, most commonly to nonskin soaps/detergents/disinfectants (32.0%). CONCLUSIONS Occupational contact dermatitis is common in dental personnel referred for patch testing. Comprehensive testing beyond screening series is important in these patients.
Collapse
|
27
|
Atwater AR, Bembry R, Liu B, Warshaw EM, DeKoven JG, Silverberg JI, Taylor JS, Zug KA, Houle MC, Belsito DV, Maibach HI, Reeder MJ, Sasseville D, Dunnick C, Fowler JF, Pratt MD, DeLeo VA. Medical Adhesive Allergens: Retrospective Analysis of Cross-Sectional Data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2001-2018. J Am Acad Dermatol 2021; 87:1024-1032. [PMID: 34875303 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.11.055] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/30/2021] [Revised: 11/16/2021] [Accepted: 11/29/2021] [Indexed: 10/31/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Identification of allergens causing medical adhesive contact allergy is difficult. OBJECTIVE Characterize the demographics, clinical characteristics, patch test results and occupational data for North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) patients with medical adhesive contact allergy. METHODS Retrospective study of 43,722 NACDG patients patch-tested 2001-2018, with: 1) medical adhesive (tapes/band aids/adhesive aids/suture glue) source, 2) positive patch test, and 3) final primary diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. RESULTS 313 (0.7%) patients met inclusion criteria. Compared to other patients with final primary diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis, medical adhesive allergy patients were less likely male (odds ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval [0.45-0.77]) and/or age >40 (0.76 [0.6-0.96]). The most common NACDG screening series allergens were colophony (80.7%), balsam of Peru (3.9%), 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2.7%) and carba mix (2.7%). One-fourth (79/313, 25.2%) had positive patch test reactions to supplemental allergens/materials, and 17.3% (54/313) only had reactions to supplemental allergens/materials. LIMITATIONS Results of comprehensive patch testing may be prone to referral population selection bias and may not be representative of the general dermatology population. CONCLUSION Colophony was the most common allergen. Supplemental allergens and materials should be tested in the evaluation of suspected medical adhesive contact allergy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amber Reck Atwater
- Department of Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
| | - Raina Bembry
- Department of Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Beiyu Liu
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
| | - Erin M Warshaw
- Departments of Dermatology, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Park Nicollet Health Services, and University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
| | - Joel G DeKoven
- Division of Dermatology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jonathan I Silverberg
- Department of Dermatology, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC
| | - James S Taylor
- Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, OH
| | - Kathryn A Zug
- Department of Dermatology, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH
| | - Marie-Claude Houle
- Division of Dermatology, CHU de Quebec, Laval University, Quebec, Canada
| | - Donald V Belsito
- Department of Dermatology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - Howard I Maibach
- Department of Dermatology, University of California Medical School, San Francisco, CA
| | - Margo J Reeder
- Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI
| | - Denis Sasseville
- Division of Dermatology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Cory Dunnick
- Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO
| | - Joseph F Fowler
- Division of Dermatology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY
| | - Melanie D Pratt
- Division of Dermatology, University of Ottawa, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Vincent A DeLeo
- Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Warshaw EM, Buonomo M, DeKoven JG, Pratt MD, Reeder MJ, Silverberg JI, Belsito DV, Maibach HI, Atwater AR, Houle MC, Taylor JS, Zug KA, DeLeo VA, Dunnick CA. Importance of Supplemental Patch Testing Beyond a Screening Series for Patients With Dermatitis: The North American Contact Dermatitis Group Experience. JAMA Dermatol 2021; 157:1456-1465. [PMID: 34730775 PMCID: PMC8567181 DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.4314] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2021] [Accepted: 08/23/2021] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Patch test screening series for patients with dermatitis are limited and may miss clinically relevant contact allergens. OBJECTIVE To characterize individuals with dermatitis who showed clinically relevant patch test findings to supplemental (nonscreening) allergens or substances. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A 17-year, retrospective cross-sectional analysis (January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2018) of North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) data from multiple centers in North America was conducted. A total of 43 417 patients with dermatitis underwent patch testing to the NACDG screening series in a standardized manner with 65 to 70 allergens and supplemental allergens as clinically indicated. Patients with 1 or more clinically relevant reactions to a supplemental (nonscreening) allergen/substance were analyzed between November 18, 2020, and March 12, 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The main outcomes were to assess the number of patients with clinically relevant reactions to supplemental (nonscreening) allergens and compare characteristics (including demographic characteristics and occupations) between patients with a clinically relevant patch test reaction to 1 or more supplemental allergens or substances (supplement-positive) and those without a reaction (supplement-negative) using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. Secondary outcomes included sources of allergic contact dermatitis and, for occupationally related cases, specific occupations and industries. RESULTS Of 43 417 patients included in the study who underwent patch testing to the NACDG screening series (65-70 allergens), 9507 individuals (21.9%) had currently relevant reactions to 1 or more supplemental allergens or substances. Of these, 6608 were women (69.5%) and the mean (SD) age was 47.2 (0.54) years. Compared with patients who had supplement-negative results, patients with supplement-positive findings were significantly less likely to be male (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94; P < .001) and/or have atopic dermatitis (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.93; P < .001). Common primary sites of dermatitis in 9499 patients with supplement-positive findings included the face (2856 [30.1%]), hands (2029 [21.4%]), and scattered/generalized distribution (1645 [17.3%]). Frequent sources of supplemental allergens in 9235 patients included personal care products (4746 [51.4%]) and clothing/wearing apparel (1674 [18.1%]). Of 9362 patients with available data, supplemental allergens/substances were occupationally related in 1580 (16.9%); of those with identified occupations, 25.1% (384 of 1529) were precision production, craft, or repair workers. Of 9507 patients with supplement-positive findings, 2447 (25.7%) had no currently relevant reactions to NACDG screening allergens. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This cross-sectional study found that 21.9% of patients who underwent patch testing to an allergen screening series of 65 to 70 allergens had at least 1 relevant reaction to supplemental allergens/substances. Of these, one-quarter reacted only to a supplemental allergen/substance. Screening series include common, important allergens, but these findings suggest that the addition of specialty allergens and personal or work products is critical for the successful diagnosis and management of allergic contact dermatitis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erin M. Warshaw
- Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota
- Department of Dermatology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
- Department of Dermatology, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Michele Buonomo
- Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota
- Department of Dermatology, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota
- University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis
| | - Joel G. DeKoven
- Division of Dermatology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Melanie D. Pratt
- Division of Dermatology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Margo J. Reeder
- Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison
| | - Jonathan I. Silverberg
- Department of Dermatology, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC
| | - Donald V. Belsito
- Department of Dermatology, Columbia University Irving Medical School, New York, New York
| | | | - Amber R. Atwater
- Department of Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Marie-Claude Houle
- Division of Dermatology, CHU de Quebec, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
| | - James S. Taylor
- Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Kathryn A. Zug
- Department of Dermatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Vincent A. DeLeo
- Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California
| | | |
Collapse
|
29
|
Prevalence of Contact Allergy to Nickel. Dermatitis 2021; 33:355-361. [DOI: 10.1097/der.0000000000000812] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
30
|
Prevalence and trend of allergen sensitization in patients with a diagnosis of stasis dermatitis referred for patch testing, North American contact dermatitis group data, 2001-2016. Arch Dermatol Res 2021; 314:857-867. [PMID: 34748058 DOI: 10.1007/s00403-021-02295-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/30/2021] [Accepted: 10/22/2021] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Few studies explored the relationship between stasis dermatitis (SD) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). OBJECTIVE To examine trends, associations, and clinical relevance of ACD in patients referred for patch testing who had a final SD diagnosis. METHODS Retrospective analysis from 2001 to 2016 of 38,723 patients from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group. RESULTS After patch testing, 303 (0.7%) patients were diagnosed with SD; 46.7% had a concomitant diagnosis of ACD. Patients with vs. without a final SD diagnosis had similar proportions of ≥ 1 positive allergic reaction (59.7% vs. 64.7%; Chi-square, P = 0.0724) but higher odds of allergic reactions to fragrance mix I, bacitracin, quaternium-15, Myroxylon pereirae, benzalkonium chloride, ethyleneurea melamine formaldehyde, diazolidinyl urea, and propylene glycol. The most commonly relevant allergens in patients with final SD diagnosis were fragrance mix I, Myroxylon pereirae, bacitracin, quaternium-15, and formaldehyde. The most common allergen sources were personal care products, topical medications and other health aid products. CONCLUSION Nearly half of patients with a final SD diagnosis were also diagnosed with ACD, supporting the role of patch testing in select SD patients.
Collapse
|
31
|
Patch Testing to Ethylhexylglycerin: The North American Contact Dermatitis Group Experience, 2013-2018. Dermatitis 2021; 33:36-41. [PMID: 34570737 DOI: 10.1097/der.0000000000000709] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Ethylhexylglycerin (EHG) is a recently recognized contact allergen. OBJECTIVE The aims of the study were to characterize individuals with positive patch test reactions to EHG and to analyze reaction strength, clinical relevance, and allergen sources. METHODS This study was a retrospective analysis of the patients patch tested to EHG (5% petrolatum) by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (2013-2018). RESULTS Of 15,560 patients tested to EHG, 39 (0.25%) had positive (final interpretation of "allergic") reactions. Most were female (71.8%) and/or older than 40 years (76.9%). There were no statistically significant differences between age, sex, or atopic history when compared with EHG-negative patients. The most common anatomic sites of dermatitis were the face (28.2%) and scattered generalized distribution (25.6%). Most EHG-positive reactions were + (35.9%) or ++ (33.3%). Current clinical relevance was high (79.5%); none, however, were related to occupation. Personal care products were the most common source of exposure to EHG (59.0%). CONCLUSIONS Ethylhexylglycerin is a rare contact allergen; the positive frequency of 0.25% is similar to other low allergenic preservatives including parabens, benzyl alcohol, and phenoxyethanol. The patch test concentration of 5.0% seems to be nonirritating. Although relatively uncommon, EHG reactions were usually clinically relevant (79.5%), often because of moisturizers/lotions/creams.
Collapse
|
32
|
Patch Test Reactions Associated With Topical Medications: A Retrospective Analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data (2001-2018). Dermatitis 2021; 33:144-154. [PMID: 34405832 DOI: 10.1097/der.0000000000000777] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES Topical medications may lead to allergic contact dermatitis. This study characterized positive patch test reactions associated with medications in patients evaluated by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG). METHODS This study is a retrospective analysis of the NACDG data (2001-2018). Patients with at least 1 positive patch test reaction associated with a medication source were included. Allergens, reaction characteristics, clinical relevance, and source details were tabulated. RESULTS Of 43,722 patients, 6374 (14.6%) had positive allergic patch test reactions associated with 1 or more topical medication sources. Patients with versus without allergic reactions to medications were more likely to be older than 40 years (P < 0.0001) and/or have primary sites of dermatitis on the legs, anal/genital region, or trunk (P < 0.0001). There were 8787 reactions to NACDG allergens; the most common were neomycin (29.4%), bacitracin (29.1%), propylene glycol 100% (10.6%), tixocortol-17-pivalate (10.0%), lidocaine (7.9%), budesonide (4.9%), and dibucaine (4.4%). Propylene glycol 100% was the most common inactive ingredient (10.6%). Current relevance was present in 61.0%. A total of 6.5% of the individuals with medication allergy would have had 1 or more positive patch test reactions missed if only tested to the NACDG screening series. CONCLUSIONS Positive patch test reactions associated with topical medications were common (14.6%), and most were clinically relevant. Patients with topical medication allergy were twice as likely to have anal/genital involvement. Active ingredients, especially neomycin, bacitracin, and tixocortol-17-pivalate, were frequent culprits.
Collapse
|
33
|
Abstract
ABSTRACT Allergic contact dermatitis from topical drugs is frequent and is seen in 10% to 17% of patients patch tested for suspected contact dermatitis. More than 360 drugs have been implicated as contact allergens, of which-generally-antibiotics, corticosteroids, local anesthetics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the most frequent culprits. This article provides an overview of allergic contact dermatitis to topical drugs, discussing their prevalence of sensitization, predisposing factors, clinical manifestations (both typical and atypical), the drugs described as allergens, cross-reactivity and coreactivity, and diagnostic procedures.
Collapse
|
34
|
Warshaw EM, Shaver RL, DeKoven JG, Taylor JS, Zug KA, Pratt MD, Atwater AR, Houle MC, Maibach HI, Belsito DV, Silverberg JI, Dunnick CA, Reeder MJ, Sasseville D, Fowler JF, DeLeo VA. Patients with patch test reactions associated with eye care products: Retrospective analysis of North American contact dermatitis group data, 2001-2018. Contact Dermatitis 2021; 85:712-715. [PMID: 34314025 DOI: 10.1111/cod.13950] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/10/2021] [Revised: 07/19/2021] [Accepted: 07/26/2021] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Erin M Warshaw
- Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.,Department of Dermatology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.,Department of Dermatology, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Rob L Shaver
- Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.,Department of Dermatology, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.,Medical School, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Joel G DeKoven
- Division of Dermatology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - James S Taylor
- Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Kathryn A Zug
- Department of Dermatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA
| | - Melanie D Pratt
- Division of Dermatology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Amber R Atwater
- Department of Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Marie-Claude Houle
- Division of Dermatology, CHU de Québec, Laval University, Québec, Québec, Canada
| | - Howard I Maibach
- Department of Dermatology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Donald V Belsito
- Department of Dermatology, Columbia University Irving Medical School, New York, New York, USA
| | - Jonathan I Silverberg
- Department of Dermatology, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Cory A Dunnick
- Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA
| | - Margo J Reeder
- Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Denis Sasseville
- Division of Dermatology, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Joseph F Fowler
- Division of Dermatology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA
| | - Vincent A DeLeo
- Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Silverberg JI, Hou A, Warshaw EM, DeKoven JG, Maibach HI, Belsito DV, Zug KA, Taylor JS, Sasseville D, Dunnick CA, Houle MC, Atwater AR, Reeder MJ, DeLeo VA, Pratt MD, Fowler JF, Zirwas MJ, Marks JG. Age-related differences in patch testing results among children: Analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 2001-2018. J Am Acad Dermatol 2021; 86:818-826. [PMID: 34314743 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.07.030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2021] [Revised: 07/08/2021] [Accepted: 07/15/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND An updated understanding of allergic contact dermatitis is needed, particularly in children. OBJECTIVES To compare positive and clinically relevant reactions in children versus adults referred for patch testing. METHODS Retrospective analysis of 1871 children and 41,699 adults from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) from 2001-2018. RESULTS Both final diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis (55.2% versus 57.3%; chi square, P = .0716) and prevalence of ≥ 1 currently relevant reaction to a NACDG screening allergen (49.2% vs 52.2%; P = .1178) were similar between children and adults. Currently in children, the most common relevant allergens were nickel sulfate (17.3%), hydroperoxides of linalool (7.8%), methylisothiazolinone (7.7%), cobalt chloride (7.0%), and fragrance mix I (4.9%). Approximately a fifth of children had a positive reaction to a non-NACDG allergen. CONCLUSION Over half of children referred for patch testing were diagnosed with allergic contact dermatitis. The most common relevant allergens in children were nickel sulfate, cobalt chloride, and hydroperoxides of linalool. Twenty percent of children had at least 1 positive reaction to allergens/substances not on the NACDG screening series, underscoring the need for comprehensive testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan I Silverberg
- Department of Dermatology, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; Department of Dermatology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
| | - Alexander Hou
- Department of Dermatology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Erin M Warshaw
- Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Department of Dermatology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Department of Dermatology, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Joel G DeKoven
- Division of Dermatology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Howard I Maibach
- Department of Dermatology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Donald V Belsito
- Department of Dermatology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Kathryn A Zug
- Department of Dermatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - James S Taylor
- Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Denis Sasseville
- Division of Dermatology, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Cory A Dunnick
- Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Marie-Claude Houle
- Division of Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Quebec, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
| | - Amber R Atwater
- Department of Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Margo J Reeder
- Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Vincent A DeLeo
- Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California
| | - Melanie D Pratt
- Division of Dermatology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Joseph F Fowler
- Division of Dermatology University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky
| | - Matthew J Zirwas
- Department of Dermatology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
| | - James G Marks
- Department of Dermatology, Pennsylvania State University, State College, Hershey, Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Burnett CL, Bergfeld WF, Belsito DV, Cohen D, Klaassen CD, Liebler DC, Marks JG, Peterson LA, Shank RC, Slaga TJ, Snyder PW, Heldreth B. Amended Safety Assessment of Methylisothiazolinone as Used in Cosmetics. Int J Toxicol 2021; 40:5S-19S. [PMID: 34259065 DOI: 10.1177/10915818211015795] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) reassessed the safety of Methylisothiazolinone, which functions as a preservative in cosmetics. The Panel reviewed relevant animal and human data provided in this safety assessment, and data from the previously published safety assessments of Methylisothiazolinone, and concluded that Methylisothiazolinone is safe for use in rinse-off cosmetic products at concentrations up to 100 ppm (ie, 0.01%) and safe in leave-on cosmetic products when they are formulated to be nonsensitizing, which may be determined based on a quantitative risk assessment or similar methodology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - David Cohen
- Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety Member
| | | | | | - James G Marks
- Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety Former Member
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Burnett CL, Bergfeld WF, Belsito DV, Klaassen CD, Liebler DC, Marks JG, Peterson LA, Shank RC, Slaga TJ, Snyder PW, Heldreth B. Amended Safety Assessment of Methylchloroisothiazolinone and Methylisothiazolinone as Used in Cosmetics. Int J Toxicol 2021; 40:20S-33S. [PMID: 34259066 DOI: 10.1177/10915818211016382] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) reassessed the safety of the mixture Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/Methylisothiazolinone (MI), which functions as a preservative in cosmetic products. The Panel reviewed relevant animal and human data provided in this safety assessment, and data from the previously published safety assessment of this mixture, and concluded that MCI/MI is safe in cosmetics when formulated to be nonsensitizing, based on the results of a quantitative risk assessment or similar methodology; however, at no point should concentrations exceed 7.5 ppm in leave-on products or 15 ppm in rinse-off products.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - James G Marks
- Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety Former Member
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
38
|
Contact Dermatitis Associated With Musical Instruments: North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 2001-2018. Dermatitis 2021; 32:e156-e158. [PMID: 34190699 DOI: 10.1097/der.0000000000000758] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
39
|
Abstract
Patch test frequency data have been extensively published by research groups, such as the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group, North American Contact Dermatitis Group, Dermato-Allergology Study and Research Group, and European Environmental Contact Dermatitis Research Group. As this knowledge accumulation is widely applied in clinical and public health settings, we describe confounding factors to consider when using such data for medical policy considerations. These concepts can also be used in individual reports of new allergens or series of cases. Some of these confounders may have been reported in current literature (until October 2020), whereas others have not been mentioned/considered in most group publications.
Collapse
|
40
|
Brown C, Yu J. Pediatric Allergic Contact Dermatitis. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am 2021; 41:393-408. [PMID: 34225896 DOI: 10.1016/j.iac.2021.04.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) affects up to 20% of adults and children, although children are infrequently patch tested. Available data suggest that children and adults, with or without atopic dermatitis, have the same prevalence of ACD. Patch testing is the gold standard for evaluation of ACD. The Pediatric Baseline Series was recently published by expert consensus for use in pediatric patch testing, with additional allergens tested as guided by history. This article examines methods of patch testing and up-to-date data on pediatric ACD. The top allergens are reviewed, and avoidance strategies are discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christen Brown
- Tulane University School of Medicine, 1430 Tulane Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA
| | - JiaDe Yu
- Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Barakat L, Dereure O, Raison-Peyron N. A police case: Finding propylene glycol guilty as culprit allergen. Contact Dermatitis 2021; 85:475-476. [PMID: 33993509 DOI: 10.1111/cod.13900] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2021] [Revised: 05/12/2021] [Accepted: 05/13/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Leyla Barakat
- Department of Dermatology, Montpellier University Hospital and Montpellier University, Montpellier, France
| | - Olivier Dereure
- Department of Dermatology, Montpellier University Hospital and Montpellier University, Montpellier, France
| | - Nadia Raison-Peyron
- Department of Dermatology, Montpellier University Hospital and Montpellier University, Montpellier, France
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Silverberg JI, Hou A, DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Maibach HI, Atwater AR, Belsito DV, Zug KA, Taylor JS, Sasseville D, Fransway AF, DeLeo VA, Pratt MD, Reeder MJ, Fowler JF, Zirwas MJ, Marks JG, Dunnick CA, Houle MC. Prevalence and trend of allergen sensitization in patients referred for patch testing with a final diagnosis of psoriasis: North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 2001-2016. Contact Dermatitis 2021; 85:435-445. [PMID: 33931870 DOI: 10.1111/cod.13877] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2021] [Revised: 04/19/2021] [Accepted: 04/21/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Little is known about the relationship between psoriasis and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). OBJECTIVE To examine the associations with ACD, related clinical characteristics, and common positive and clinically relevant allergens of patients with a final diagnosis of psoriasis who were referred for patch testing. METHODS Retrospective analysis of 38 723 patients from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group. RESULTS Patients with a final diagnosis of psoriasis had lower proportions of ACD than those without psoriasis (32.7% vs 57.8%). In multivariable logistic regression models, psoriasis was inversely associated with female sex, Black or Asian race, and history of atopic dermatitis and hay fever. Patients with a final diagnosis of psoriasis were less likely to have one or more positive allergic patch-test reactions or to have a current clinically relevant patch-test reaction to the majority of the most commonly positive and/or relevant allergens. The most clinically relevant allergens included nickel sulfate, methylisothiazolinone, and fragrance mix I. CONCLUSION Approximately one-third of patients who were referred for patch testing with a final diagnosis of psoriasis were also diagnosed with ACD. In select patients with suspected psoriasis who also have a clinical presentation suggestive of ACD, patch testing may be helpful.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan I Silverberg
- Department of Dermatology, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Alexander Hou
- Department of Dermatology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Joel G DeKoven
- Division of Dermatology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Erin M Warshaw
- Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.,Department of Dermatology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.,Department of Dermatology, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Howard I Maibach
- Department of Dermatology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Amber R Atwater
- Department of Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Donald V Belsito
- Department of Dermatology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Kathryn A Zug
- Department of Dermatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA
| | - James S Taylor
- Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Denis Sasseville
- Division of Dermatology, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | | | - Vincent A DeLeo
- Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Melanie D Pratt
- Division of Dermatology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Margo J Reeder
- Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Joseph F Fowler
- Division of Dermatology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA
| | - Matthew J Zirwas
- Department of Dermatology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - James G Marks
- Department of Dermatology, Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Cory A Dunnick
- Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA.,Department of Dermatology, Rocky Mountain Regional Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado, USA
| | - Marie-Claude Houle
- Division of Dermatology, CHU de Quebec, Laval University, Quebec, Quebec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Abstract
Contact dermatitis (CD) is commonly encountered in the pediatric population. Allergic and irritant are the two forms of CD and both cause significant clinical problems in children, but they are often underrecognized. The skin lesions in CD may be polymorphic and closely mimic other common pediatric skin diseases. The diagnosis usually requires patch testing after obtaining a detailed history and performing a physical examination. Metals, fragrances, and certain preservatives are the most common causative agents in children. This article discusses the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of this common skin condition in the pediatric population. [Pediatr Ann. 2021(5):e198-e205.].
Collapse
|
44
|
|
45
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES Carvone, a flavoring agent, may cause allergic contact dermatitis. This study summarizes patch test reactions to carvone in patients tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2009 to 2018. METHODS This was a retrospective analysis of patients positive to carvone (5% petrolatum). Demographics were compared with those of patients who were negative. Other analyses included reaction strength, clinical relevance, coreactivity with other fragrance/flavor allergens, and exposure sources. RESULTS Of 24,124 patients tested to carvone, 188 (0.78%) were positive. As compared with carvone-negative patients, carvone-positive patients were significantly more likely older than 40 years (P = 0.0284). Women (76.1%) and/or facial involvement (33.0%) were common in the carvone-positive group but not statistically different from carvone-negative patients; 73.3% (n = 138) of the reactions were currently relevant. Relevant sources were personal care products (46.3%, n = 87) and food (14.3%, n = 27). Coreactivity with other fragrance/flavor markers was present in 60.6% of carvone-positive patients, most commonly fragrance mix I (34.6%), balsam of Peru (24.5%), and cinnamic aldehyde (15.4%). CONCLUSIONS Ten-year prevalence of carvone sensitivity was 0.78%. Most carvone-positive patients were female, were older than 40 years, and/or had facial dermatitis. Personal care products were the most common source. Two-fifths of carvone reactions would have been missed by relying on other fragrance/flavoring allergens.
Collapse
|
46
|
Huang CX, Yiannias JA, Killian JM, Shen JF. Seven Common Allergen Groups Causing Eyelid Dermatitis: Education and Avoidance Strategies. Clin Ophthalmol 2021; 15:1477-1490. [PMID: 33880007 PMCID: PMC8052120 DOI: 10.2147/opth.s297754] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2020] [Accepted: 02/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective Eyelid dermatitis is most commonly attributed to allergic response. This retrospective clinical study identifies common allergens with eyelid involvement and addresses a literary gap by providing a clear approach for effective management of periorbital allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) recurrence. Methods Charts of 215 patients diagnosed with periorbital dermatitis who were patch tested with Mayo Clinic Standard Series, Extended Standard Series, and personal products from 2013 to 2017 were examined. Positive reaction rates for patients with eyelid involvement were compared to those without. Findings were also compared to North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) 2013–2014 and Mayo Clinic Contact Dermatitis Group (MCCDG) 2011–2015 general patch test populations. Results The 215 patients showed more common allergy to shellac, benzalkonium chloride, acrylates, and surfactants than the NACDG and MCCDG study populations. Periorbital ACD allergen groups eliciting the highest positive reaction rates were, in descending order: metals, shellac, preservatives, topical antibiotics, fragrances, acrylates, and surfactants. Of the corticosteroids, only tixocortol pivalate (the screening agent for prednisolone and fluorometholone) and budesonide elicited positive reactions. Conclusion The top seven eyelid ACD allergen groups were identified. Avoidance of these allergens can be straightforward, with initial empiric counseling and free, online allergen avoidance programs. Patients who are unresponsive to avoidance should undergo patch testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Jill M Killian
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Joanne F Shen
- Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Warshaw EM, Shaver RL, Atwater AR, Maibach HI, Sasseville D, Reeder MJ, DeKoven JG, Taylor JS, Belsito DV, Silverberg JI, Zug KA, Fowler JF, Pratt MD, Fransway AF, DeLeo VA, Houle MC, Dunnick CA. Contact dermatitis in music professionals referred for patch testing: North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1996-2018. Contact Dermatitis 2021; 85:359-362. [PMID: 33783009 DOI: 10.1111/cod.13849] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/18/2021] [Revised: 03/23/2021] [Accepted: 03/25/2021] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Erin M Warshaw
- Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.,Department of Dermatology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.,Department of Dermatology, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Rob L Shaver
- Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.,Department of Dermatology, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.,School of Medicine, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Amber R Atwater
- Department of Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Howard I Maibach
- Department of Dermatology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Denis Sasseville
- Division of Dermatology, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Margo J Reeder
- Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Joel G DeKoven
- Division of Dermatology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - James S Taylor
- Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Donald V Belsito
- Department of Dermatology, Columbia University Irving Medical School, New York, New York, USA
| | - Jonathan I Silverberg
- Department of Dermatology, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Kathryn A Zug
- Department of Dermatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA
| | - Joseph F Fowler
- Division of Dermatology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA
| | - Melanie D Pratt
- Division of Dermatology, University of Ottawa, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Anthony F Fransway
- Department of Dermatology, Associates in Dermatology, Fort Myers, Florida, USA
| | - Vincent A DeLeo
- Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Marie-Claude Houle
- Division of Dermatology, CHU de Québec, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
| | - Cory A Dunnick
- Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Atwater AR, Petty AJ, Liu B, Green CL, Silverberg JI, DeKoven JG, Belsito DV, Reeder MJ, Sasseville D, Taylor JS, Maibach HI, Zirwas MJ, Marks JG, Zug KA, Fowler JF, Pratt MD, DeLeo VA, Warshaw EM. Contact dermatitis associated with preservatives: Retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1994 through 2016. J Am Acad Dermatol 2021; 84:965-976. [PMID: 33579596 PMCID: PMC8087451 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.07.059] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2020] [Revised: 06/28/2020] [Accepted: 07/05/2020] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Preservatives are often necessary components of commercial products. Large-scale North American studies on preservative allergy are limited. OBJECTIVE To evaluate demographics, positive patch test reactions (PPTRs), clinical relevance, and trends for preservatives tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group. METHODS We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch testing results of preservatives from 1994 through 2016. RESULTS A total of 50,799 patients were tested; 11,338 (22.3%) had a PPTR to at least 1 preservative. The most frequent reactions were to methylisothiazolinone 0.2% aqueous (aq) (12.2%), formaldehyde 2% aq (7.8%), formaldehyde 1% aq (7.8%), quaternium-15 2% petrolatum (pet) (7.7%), and methyldibromo glutaronitrile/phenoxyethanol 2% pet (5.1%). Paraben mix 12% pet (1%), iodopropynyl butylcarbamate 0.1% pet (0.4%), benzyl alcohol 1% pet (0.3%), and phenoxyethanol 1% pet (0.2%) had the lowest PPTRs. Linear regression analysis of preservatives tested showed that only methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone 0.01% aq (parameter estimate, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.17-0.66; P < .005) had a significant increase in PPTRs over time. LIMITATIONS Collected variables are dependent on clinical judgment. Results may be prone to referral selection bias. CONCLUSIONS This large North American study provides insight on preservative PPTRs and trends from 1994 through 2016.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amber Reck Atwater
- Department of Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
| | - Amy J Petty
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Beiyu Liu
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Cynthia L Green
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Jonathan I Silverberg
- Department of Dermatology, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC
| | - Joel G DeKoven
- Division of Dermatology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Donald V Belsito
- Department of Dermatology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Margo J Reeder
- Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Denis Sasseville
- Division of Dermatology, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal General Hospital, Montréal, Canada
| | - James S Taylor
- Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Howard I Maibach
- Department of Dermatology, University of California Medical School, San Francisco, California
| | - Matthew J Zirwas
- Probity Medical Research, Dermatologists of the Central States, Columbus, Ohio
| | - James G Marks
- Department of Dermatology, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania
| | - Kathryn A Zug
- Department of Dermatology, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Joseph F Fowler
- Division of Dermatology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky
| | - Melanie D Pratt
- Division of Dermatology, University of Ottawa, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Vincent A DeLeo
- Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Erin M Warshaw
- Department of Dermatology, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Department of Dermatology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Silverberg JI, Hou A, Warshaw EM, DeKoven JG, Maibach HI, Belsito DV, Taylor JS, Zug KA, Sasseville D, Fransway AF, DeLeo VA, Pratt MD, Reeder MJ, Fowler JF, Zirwas MJ, Marks JG, Atwater AR. Prevalence and Trend of Allergen Sensitization in Adults and Children with Atopic Dermatitis Referred for Patch Testing, North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 2001-2016. THE JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY-IN PRACTICE 2021; 9:2853-2866.e14. [PMID: 33781959 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2021.03.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2021] [Revised: 03/12/2021] [Accepted: 03/15/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The association between atopic dermatitis (AD) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is controversial. OBJECTIVE To analyze the prevalence, reaction strength, and trends of the most commonly positive and relevant allergens in patients with AD referred for patch testing. METHODS This was a retrospective analysis of 38,482 patients from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2001 to 2016. RESULTS Most adults (56.0%) and children (52.8%) with a history of AD had a final diagnosis of ACD. Adults (66.5% vs 65.6%; χ2, P = .1459) and children (61.4% vs 62.3%, P = .7074) with or without a history of AD had similar proportions of one or more allergic patch test reactions. Adults with a history of AD had a greater number of allergic patch test positive reactions than those without it (2.0 ± 2.4 vs 1.9 ± 2.3; t test, P < .0001), whereas children did not (1.5 ± 1.8 vs 1.4 ± 1.6; P = .3839). Nickel sulfate, methylisothiazolinone, formaldehyde, fragrance mix I, sodium gold thiosulfate, and thimerosal were the most common allergens in adults and children with a history of AD. In multivariable logistic regression models, adults with versus without a history of AD had increased odds of reacting to 10 of the top 25 North American Contact Dermatitis Group screening allergens. Most allergens had similar strengths of reaction in adults or children with and without a history of AD or a current AD diagnosis; cobalt, fragrance mix I, and propylene glycol had weaker reactions. In multivariable logistic regression, adults with versus without an AD history had increased odds of relevance for 10 of the 25 most currently relevant allergens, whereas children with an AD history did not have increased relevance for any specific allergens. CONCLUSIONS Most patients referred for patch testing with AD history had a final diagnosis of ACD. Patients with AD history had a similar likelihood of having a positive patch test reaction as those without an AD history. Adults with an AD history had a higher number of positive patch test reactions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan I Silverberg
- Department of Dermatology, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC.
| | - Alexander Hou
- Department of Dermatology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill
| | - Erin M Warshaw
- Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minn; Department of Dermatology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn; Department of Dermatology, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minn
| | - Joel G DeKoven
- Division of Dermatology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Howard I Maibach
- Department of Dermatology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif
| | | | - James S Taylor
- Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Kathryn A Zug
- Department of Dermatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH
| | - Denis Sasseville
- Division of Dermatology, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | | | - Vincent A DeLeo
- Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, Calif
| | - Melanie D Pratt
- Division of Dermatology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Margo J Reeder
- Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wis
| | - Joseph F Fowler
- Division of Dermatology University of Louisville, Louisville, Ky
| | - Matthew J Zirwas
- Department of Dermatology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
| | - James G Marks
- Department of Dermatology, Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pa
| | - Amber R Atwater
- Department of Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
DeKoven JG, DeKoven BM, Warshaw EM, Mathias CGT, Taylor JS, Sasseville D, Belsito DV, Fowler JF, Pratt MD, Zug KA, Maibach HI, DeLeo VA, Silverberg JI, Atwater AR, Reeder MJ, Holness DL. Occupational contact dermatitis: Retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 2001 to 2016. J Am Acad Dermatol 2021; 86:782-790. [PMID: 33753252 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.03.042] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/02/2021] [Revised: 03/02/2021] [Accepted: 03/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patch testing is an important diagnostic tool for suspected allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in occupational settings. OBJECTIVE Provide an overview of occupational skin disease (OSD) and an analysis of occupational ACD in North American patients undergoing patch testing between 2001and 2016. METHODS Patients with OSD were analyzed for frequency of allergic reactions to a screening series of allergens, occupational relevance, location of skin disease, and exposure sources. Demographic, occupation, and industry information were recorded. RESULTS Of 38,614 patients evaluated, 4471 (11.6%) had OSD, of whom 3150 (70.5%) had ACD. The most common occupationally related allergens included rubber accelerators, preservatives, and bisphenol A epoxy resin. Hands (75.8%), arms (30.0%), and face (15.9%) were common sites of dermatitis. The occupations most affected were service workers and machine operators. LIMITATIONS Our cohort may not reflect the general working population. CONCLUSION This study identified common occupational allergens, exposure sources, and occupations/industries at risk. This information may help the clinician evaluate and manage patients with occupational contact dermatitis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joel G DeKoven
- Division of Occupational Medicine, Department of Medicine, St Michael's Hospital, Unity Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
| | - Benjamin M DeKoven
- Division of Occupational Medicine, Department of Medicine, St Michael's Hospital, Unity Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Erin M Warshaw
- Department of Dermatology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | | | - James S Taylor
- Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Denis Sasseville
- Division of Dermatology, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Donald V Belsito
- Department of Dermatology, Columbia University Irving Medical School, New York, New York
| | - Joseph F Fowler
- Division of Dermatology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky
| | - Melanie D Pratt
- Division of Dermatology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Kathryn A Zug
- Department of Dermatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Howard I Maibach
- Department of Dermatology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Vincent A DeLeo
- Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California
| | - Jonathan I Silverberg
- Department of Dermatology, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC
| | - Amber R Atwater
- Department of Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Margo J Reeder
- Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - D Linn Holness
- Division of Occupational Medicine, Department of Medicine, St Michael's Hospital, Unity Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|