American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series: 2017 Update

Deciphering trends in replacing preservatives in cosmetics intended for infants and sensitive population

The present study aims to investigate the current trends in replacing conventional preservatives with multifunctional ingredients with antimicrobial properties for preservation of cosmetics for infants or sensitive population, to decrease their potential for contact dermatitis. We first reviewed the labels of cosmetics purchased from the Chinese market for conventional preservatives and multifunctional ingredients with antimicrobial properties, of which the actual contents were further quantified by chromatographic methods. We identified 7 traditional preservatives (phenoxyethanol, benzoic acid (salts), methylparaben, benzyl alcohol, sorbic acid (salts), propylparaben, and methylisothiazolinone), and 11 alternative ingredients with antimicrobial activities (ethylhexylglycerin, butylene glycol, caprylyl glycol, propylene glycol, 1,2-hexanediol, p-anisic acid, hydroxyacetophenone, pentylene glycol, decylene glycol, caprylhydroxamic acid, and aminomethyl propanol) in descending order of prevalence. The contents of all identified preservatives and ingredients were either below regulatory limits or in the range that is generally regarded to be safe. Further challenge with microorganisms indicated irrespective of the composition of preservation systems, product preservation could be compromised under test conditions. We conclude that multifunctional ingredients with antimicrobial properties in cosmetics have the potential to completely replace or significantly reduce the use of traditional preservatives while retaining comparative preservative efficacy. Future attentions may need to be shifted to the safety of those multifunctional ingredients with antimicrobial properties.

Rate of Patch Testing Induced Anaphylaxis

Background: Although allergic contact dermatitis is a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, type I hypersensitivity reactions, such as anaphylaxis, have been reported during patch testing. Objective: The aim of this study was to identify reported cases of anaphylaxis from patch testing and estimate its rate. Methods: A literature review was conducted on PubMed to identify previously reported cases of anaphylaxis after patch testing and suspected allergens. In addition, a survey was distributed to expert patch testing dermatologists to determine the rate of anaphylaxis after patch testing. Results: Three anaphylaxis cases due to patch testing were found in the literature. Twenty-seven of 36 expert patch testers completed the survey for a 75% response rate. These dermatologists have tested an estimated 201,720 patients in their combined careers. From them, 2 cases of patch test anaphylaxis were reported. The rate of anaphylaxis from patch testing was calculated to be 1 in 100,860 tests among our cohort. Conclusions: Patch testing induced anaphylaxis is rare and may be more likely in patients with a history of anaphylaxis. Although rare, dermatologists should have a management plan in place.

Contact Dermatitis in the Surgical Patient: A Focus on Wound Closure Materials

ABSTRACT

Irritant and allergic contact dermatitis from wound closure materials can occur in patients after surgical procedures. The resulting inflammation from contact dermatitis can compromise wound healing, mimic surgical site infections, and result in wound dehiscence. Components of wound closure material, such as antibiotic coatings, dyes, sterilizing compounds, or the material itself, have been implicated as contact allergens. This article provides the latest overview of the components of 3 major forms of wound closure materials-sutures, staples, and tissue adhesives-associated with contact dermatitis, discusses their cross-reactivity, and provides diagnostic and treatment guidelines.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of sodium benzoate (Protural®) for weaned piglets for the renewal of its authorisation and the extension of use to other growing Suidae (Taminco Finland Oy)

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Protural® (sodium benzoate) when used as a zootechnical additive in feed for weaned piglets and other growing Suidae at 4,000 mg/kg feedingstuff. Protural® consists of sodium benzoate without any carrier materials and is currently authorised for use in weaned piglets. This opinion concerns the renewal of the authorisation of Protural® for weaned piglets and the evaluation of the new use in other growing Suidae. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Protural® is safe under the current conditions of authorisation for the target species, consumers of products from animals fed the additive and the environment. Protural® was not considered as irritant to skin and eyes but a skin sensitiser. Based on dusting potential data, the FEEDAP Panel considered that the powder formulation of the additive represented a risk by inhalation. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of Protural® in the context of the renewal of the authorisation for weaned piglets. The efficacy data previously evaluated allowed the FEEDAP Panel to conclude that the additive has the potential to be efficacious at the level of 4,000 mg/kg feedingstuff in other growing Suidae. A conclusion cannot be reached for the efficacy in pigs for fattening.

Characterization of Tattoo Aftercare Products: Allergenic Ingredients and Marketing Claims

BACKGROUND

Common recommendations for tattoo aftercare to ensure proper healing include application of topical products. Little is known about tattoo aftercare products.

METHODS

Tattoo aftercare products were identified from a previous study and a search on Amazon.com using the phrase "tattoo aftercare." Duplicates and products without complete ingredient lists were excluded. Marketing claims were tabulated. All ingredients were entered in Excel and grouped according to Contact Allergen Management Program categories. Comparison of ingredients to North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) screening and American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) Core allergens was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 84 tattoo aftercare products from 52 distinct brands were found. Forty-eight distinctive market claims were identified; the use of "natural ingredient(s)" (42.9%) was most common. There were 4 to 28 ingredients per product (mean = 11.8 ± 5.5) with a total of 369 distinct ingredients listed. Products contained an average of 7.9 ± 3.9 ACDS Core allergens per product and 7.0 ± 3.7 NACDG allergens per product. Most common allergens included fragrance/botanicals (n = 529), vitamin E derivatives (n = 43), and vitamin B5 derivatives (n = 11).

CONCLUSIONS

This review of 84 products found that tattoo aftercare products contain an average of 8 ACDS Core and 7 NACDG allergens. Clinicians should be aware of potential allergens in tattoo aftercare products.

Trends in preservative allergy: Benzisothiazolinone emerges from the pack

BACKGROUND

Preservatives are used widely in cosmetic, household, and industrial products to prevent microbial growth and spoiling of the products. There has been a recent epidemic of contact allergy to methylisothiazolinone (MI).

OBJECTIVES

To establish emerging trends in preservative contact allergy as MI is replaced.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study on consecutively patch-tested patients at our center from January 2011 to December 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 7846 consecutively patch-tested patients were included who were patch tested between January 2011 and December 2019. The prevalence of allergy to MI fell from a peak of 9.39% in 2013 to 1.98% in 2019. MI/methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) followed a similar trend, with a peak prevalence of 7.85% in 2014 and falling to 1.39% in 2018. The prevalence of contact allergy to benzisothiazolinone (BIT) has increased steadily increased in 2014 from 0.26% (confidence interval [CI] 0.03-0.93) to 3.42% (CI 2.43-4.66) in 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show a significant increase in the prevalence of contact allergy to BIT over the last 6 years, probably as a consequence of increased use in household products. It is essential to continue to look for emerging trends in contact allergy to enable prompt preventative measures to be taken.

Patch Test Clinic Start-up: From Basics to Pearls

Allergic contact dermatitis is a prevalent burdensome condition affecting millions of Americans. Patch testing, the criterion-standard allergic contact dermatitis diagnostic tool, is underused by US dermatologists. Incorporating patch testing into modern dermatology practices is achievable with utilization of accurate resources and sustainable support. This review focuses on the basics of patch testing and provides practical pearls to assist novice providers in establishing a contact dermatitis specialty practice.

Contact dermatitis: An important consideration in leg ulcers

The prevalence of chronic wounds is increasing with the aging population, with 1% to 2% of the worldwide population experiencing leg ulcers and positive patch tests reported in up to 75% of this population. With the introduction of modern dressings and compression therapies, clinicians should be cognizant of the potential risk of contact dermatitis in patients with leg ulcers. Contact dermatitis (both allergic and irritant) to wound products may present as maceration, pain, and overall impaired wound healing. Herein, we review the literature on contact dermatitis to wound-care products.

Epidemics of Dermatitis

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) remains a globally prevalent disease for both children and adults. The silent ACD epidemic continues to be fueled by the introduction of novel allergens in industrial and household products and the continued presence of known allergens. In 1997, Allan Dillarstone noted a sinusoidal pattern to epidemics when allergenic preservatives were replaced by alternative chemicals within the market, which then similarly increased in allergenicity. A call for public health vigilance and prevention initiatives is needed to intervene in the ACD epidemic.

Men's Facial Moisturizers in the Metrosexual Era

BACKGROUND

Manufacturers are increasingly branding personal care products (PCPs) specifically for men.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to characterize ingredients and claims of facial moisturizers marketed to men.

METHODS

Men's facial moisturizers from 7 different online retailers were identified in June-September 2018. Ingredients were grouped and identified per the Ingredient Database of the Personal Care Products Council. Potential allergens were identified using the 2017 American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) Core Allergen Series and 2017-2018 North American Contact Dermatitis Group Screening Series.

RESULTS

Sixty-five men's facial moisturizers were identified with a total of 1930 ingredients. On average, there were 12 ACDS Core and 9 North American Contact Dermatitis Group Screening allergens per product. A total of 70.8% of products contained between 6 and 15 ACDS Core allergens. The most notable allergens were fragrances (present in 98.5% of products), propylene glycol/derivatives (32.3%), parabens (29.2%), and alkyl glucosides (26.2%). Interestingly, less than 10% of products contained the most common allergenic preservatives in PCPs: formaldehyde releasers and methylisothiazolinone.

CONCLUSIONS

Men's facial moisturizers commonly contain fragrances, emulsifiers, and glucosides but relatively few allergenic preservatives. This may reflect changes in modern PCP preservation. These findings are important for modern dermatologists to be aware, especially in a new era of male skincare.

Seven Common Allergen Groups Causing Eyelid Dermatitis: Education and Avoidance Strategies

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.

What Is New in Occupational Allergic Contact Dermatitis in the Year of the COVID Pandemic?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article aims to summarize some recent trends in occupational allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), including dermatitis related to pandemic-level personal protective equipment in healthcare workers, hazards patients may experience when working from home, and occupational perspectives on the recent American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) allergens of the year and ACDS Core Allergen Series updates.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent ACDS Allergens of the Year may be particularly relevant to healthcare workers, including isobornyl acrylate, which is present in glucose sensors and propylene glycol present in hand cleansers and disinfectants. Lavender, limonene, and linalool, all of which are new additions to the ACDS Core Allergen Series, have been reported as causes for occupational ACD in massage therapists and aromatherapists. Isothiazolinone allergy continues to rise in both consumer and occupational settings. Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a wave of occupational ACD in healthcare workers to personal protective equipment, and revealed new potential allergens for individuals working from home. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis continues to exert a significant occupational disease burden. Remaining aware of the current trends in allergens may allow for earlier recognition, diagnosis, and treatment, subsequently helping our patients to work in healthier and safer environments.

Machine-learning-driven biomarker discovery for the discrimination between allergic and irritant contact dermatitis

Contact dermatitis tremendously impacts the quality of life of suffering patients. Currently, diagnostic regimes rely on allergy testing, exposure specification, and follow-up visits; however, distinguishing the clinical phenotype of irritant and allergic contact dermatitis remains challenging. Employing integrative transcriptomic analysis and machine-learning approaches, we aimed to decipher disease-related signature genes to find suitable sets of biomarkers. A total of 89 positive patch-test reaction biopsies against four contact allergens and two irritants were analyzed via microarray. Coexpression network analysis and Random Forest classification were used to discover potential biomarkers and selected biomarker models were validated in an independent patient group. Differential gene-expression analysis identified major gene-expression changes depending on the stimulus. Random Forest classification identified CD47, BATF, FASLG, RGS16, SYNPO, SELE, PTPN7, WARS, PRC1, EXO1, RRM2, PBK, RAD54L, KIFC1, SPC25, PKMYT, HISTH1A, TPX2, DLGAP5, TPX2, CH25H, and IL37 as potential biomarkers to distinguish allergic and irritant contact dermatitis in human skin. Validation experiments and prediction performances on external testing datasets demonstrated potential applicability of the identified biomarker models in the clinic. Capitalizing on this knowledge, novel diagnostic tools can be developed to guide clinical diagnosis of contact allergies.

Allergen Content of Best-Selling Ethnic Versus Nonethnic Shampoos, Conditioners, and Styling Products

BACKGROUND

Hair products are a potential cause of allergic contact dermatitis. There are limited data on the allergen content of ethnic hair products.

OBJECTIVE

To identify allergens unique to ethnic hair products (shampoos, conditioners, styling products) and provide a resource for low allergen hair care products for patients with ethnic hair types.

METHODS

The top 100 best-selling shampoos, conditioners, and styling products for ethnic and nonethnic hair products were determined from 3 major online retailers (Walmart, Target, Walgreens). Allergen was defined as presence on the 2017 American Contact Dermatitis Society Core 80 allergen list.

RESULTS

The 2017 American Contact Dermatitis Society Core 80 allergens were tabulated for ethnic and nonethnic shampoos, conditioners, and styling products. A list of low-allergen shampoos, conditioners, and styling products was identified. Fragrance was the most common allergen for ethnic shampoos, conditioners, and styling products. Other notable allergens included methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, formaldehyde releasers, cetyl steryl alcohol, tocopherol, decyl glucoside, sodium benzoate, and phenoxyethanol.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies important differences in allergens found in products marketed for ethnic hair compared with those marketed for nonethnic hair.

Contact Dermatitis From Gum Mastic (Pistacia lentiscus) and Gum Storax (Liquidambar styraciflua) in Mastisol-Allergic Patients

BACKGROUND

Mastisol Liquid Adhesive is widely used on the skin, especially after surgical procedures. It contains gum mastic, gum storax, methyl salicylate, and ethanol.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of the study were to review our experience patch testing patients allergic to Mastisol and to assess coreacting substances.

METHODS

We identified 18 patients who were allergic to Mastisol. Most of these had a history of postoperative or cardiac electrode dermatitis and underwent patch testing with multiple surgically related substances, including ingredients of Mastisol, compound tincture of benzoin, and fragrance-related ingredients and botanicals.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Among Mastisol-allergic patients, 13 (72%) of 18 were allergic to gum mastic, whereas 7 (44%) of 16 were allergic to gum storax. There was frequent coreactivity with various fragrance-related materials, including Majantol, Styrax benzoin, Myroxylon balsamum, Myroxylon pereirae, propolis, and others. Two gum mastic-allergic patients had positive patch tests with hydroperoxides of linalool and several other linalool-containing essential oils. As gum mastic contains linalool, it may explain some gum mastic reactions. Among patients without a history of postoperative contact dermatitis, 1 (0.4%) of 250 was patch test positive for gum mastic. This patient had allergic contact dermatitis from fragrances, so the gum mastic reaction was likely a true-positive relevant reaction.

American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series: 2020 Update

The American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen series was introduced in 2013 and updated in 2017. Changes in our recommended allergens are again necessary, taking into account data from the American Contact Dermatitis Society's Contact Allergen Management Program top 100 allergens from 2018. For the updated series, we removed methyldibromoglutaronitrile and added new haptens: Lyral, Limonene, Linalool, carmine, benzyl salicylate, disperse yellow 3, jasmine, peppermint, pramoxine, shellac, and lauryl polyglucose (glucosides). These additional allergens should increase the yield of relevant positive reactions for our patients.

Allergens in Medical Hand Skin Cleansers

Health care workers may be at risk of occupational allergic contact dermatitis because of their frequent exposure to medical hand skin cleansers. We identified American Contact Dermatitis Society Core 80 Allergens found in medical hand skin cleansers (waterless skin soaps, water-needed skin soaps, and skin disinfectants) in the United States and developed a list of "low-allergen" medical hand skin cleansers. Waterless skin soaps most commonly contained fragrance, tocopherol, and sodium benzoate. Top allergens in water-needed skin soaps included fragrance, chloroxylenol, propylene glycol, and cocamidopropyl betaine. The most common allergens identified in skin disinfectants were chlorhexidine, cocamide diethanolamine, and fragrance. We identified 11 waterless skin soaps that were free of American Contact Dermatitis Society Core 80 Allergens. Low-allergen products were also identified for water-needed skin soaps (2 products) and skin disinfectants (4 products). This information is accurate as of the date of publication; product availability and ingredients may change over time.

Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Operating Room Scrubs and Disinfectants

BACKGROUND

Both surgical personnel and patients undergoing procedures are exposed regularly to different antiseptic chemicals in various forms. Little is known about the ingredients in these antiseptics and the risk these products may provoke allergic contact dermatitis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to identify and characterize common allergens in surgical scrubs and patient surgical cleansers that health care workers and surgical patients may encounter in the perioperative period.

METHODS

DailyMed website was searched using numerous terms for surgical disinfectants. Products used for health care worker handwashing/scrubbing or patient surgical cleansing/disinfecting were included. Each product's ingredients were recorded; those found on the 2017 American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) Core Allergen Series were noted from each product.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 1940 products were identified, of which 267 were included in the analysis. A total of 66.3% contained iodine, 25.8% contained chlorhexidine digluconate, and 2.6% contained chloroxylenol. Within the group analyzed, 1586 ingredients were identified. Of these, 241 were ACDS Core Series allergens. Most products contained a single ACDS allergen. There were significant differences in allergens based on product type and active ingredient, with iodine-containing products having the fewest number of allergens. The most common ACDS allergens found were cocamide diethanolamide (22.5%), fragrance (21.7%), lanolin (19.5%), propylene glycol (6.7%), alkyl glucosides (6.0%), and sorbic acid derivatives (5.6%).

Utilization, cost, and provider trends in patch testing among Medicare beneficiaries in the United States from 2012 to 2017

BACKGROUND

Patch testing is the best diagnostic test for allergic contact dermatitis. However, there is presently a lack of data on the test's geographic availability and the characteristics of the providers offering this test across the United States.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the geographic variation in the availability of patch testing for the Medicare population and to characterize the temporal trends of patch testing cost, use, and provider specialty from 2012 to 2017.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data from 2012 to 2017.

RESULTS

As of 2017, patch testing was available in 20.3% of metropolitan counties and in 1.1% of nonmetropolitan counties. From 2012 to 2017 in metropolitan regions, the number of beneficiaries tested by dermatologists grew by an average annual growth rate of 1.84%, whereas those tested by allergists grew by an average annual growth rate of 20.31%. Most providers that averaged use of 80 or more patches per beneficiary were dermatologists (76.3%).

LIMITATIONS

Analysis was restricted to Medicare Part B claims; data were unavailable on individuals with commercial insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the increase in patch testing utilization from 2012 to 2017 has been in metropolitan regions. Although growth was especially prominent among allergists in metropolitan counties, the majority of providers performing comprehensive patch testing were dermatologists.

Burning Mouth Syndrome and Contact Dermatitis

: Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is a condition that remains a diagnostic challenge and is frequently difficult to treat. Rather than being a singular entity, more recent research has suggested that the diagnosis of BMS encompasses a family of syndromes. Of this family, type 3 has been identified as being related to contact dermatitis. Although this subtype has been most commonly associated with dental allergens, several food, cosmetic, and pharmaceutical products have also been identified as allergens related to the onset of BMS. Failure to identify these allergens prevents timely diagnosis and initiation of treatment for patients with BMS related to contact dermatitis. This article identifies the allergens most relevant to this type 3 and describes the commercially available allergy panels needed to ensure that all relevant allergens are included during patch testing. This study also describes approaches to diagnosis of BMS and discusses approaches to treatment based on subtypes of the condition.

Allergic Contact Dermatitis

Allergic contact dermatitis is common, resulting in considerable morbidity. Diagnosis is based on a thorough history, physical examination, and patch testing. Several commercially available panels of patch testing are currently used. Allergens are found in a wide variety of daily products, occupational exposures, and foods. The mainstay of treatment is avoidance of the allergen, and databases like Contact Allergen Management Program and Contact Allergen Replacement Database help patients to select products that do not contain allergens to which they are sensitized. Topical corticosteroids can be used to treat exacerbations, but should be avoided in long-term treatment.

Recommendation to include hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate in the British baseline patch test series

BACKGROUND

(Meth)acrylates are potent sensitizers and a common cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). The frequency of (meth)acrylate ACD has increased with soaring demand for acrylic nails. A preliminary audit has suggested a significant rate of positive patch tests to (meth)acrylates using aimed testing in patients providing a clear history of exposure. To date, (meth)acrylates have not been routinely tested in the baseline patch test series in the U.K. and Europe.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether inclusion of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) 2% in petrolatum (pet.) in the baseline series detects cases of treatable (meth)acrylate ACD.

METHODS

During 2016-2017, 15 U.K. dermatology centres included 2-HEMA in the extended baseline patch test series. Patients with a history of (meth)acrylate exposure, or who tested positive to 2-HEMA, were selectively tested with a short series of eight (meth)acrylate allergens.

RESULTS

In total 5920 patients were consecutively patch tested with the baseline series, of whom 669 were also tested with the (meth)acrylate series. Overall, 102 of 5920 (1·7%) tested positive to 2-HEMA and 140 (2·4%) to at least one (meth)acrylate. Had 2-HEMA been excluded from the baseline series, (meth)acrylate allergy would have been missed in 36 of 5920 (0·6% of all patients). The top (meth)acrylates eliciting a positive reaction were 2-HEMA (n = 102, 1·7%), 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate (n = 61, 1·0%) and 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (n = 57, 1·0%).

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend that 2-HEMA 2% pet. be added to the British baseline patch test series. We also suggest a standardized short (meth)acrylate series, which is likely to detect most cases of (meth)acrylate allergy.

North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2015-2016

BACKGROUND

Patch testing is an important diagnostic tool for the assessment of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).

OBJECTIVE

This study documents the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) patch testing results from January 1, 2015, to February 28, 2017.

METHODS

At 13 centers in North America, patients were tested in a standardized manner with a screening series of 70 allergens. Data were manually verified and entered into a central database. Descriptive frequencies were calculated, and trends were analyzed using χ test.

RESULTS

A total of 5597 patients were tested. There were 3725 patients (66.6%) who had at least 1 positive reaction, and 2798 patients (50.2%) were ultimately determined to have a primary diagnosis of ACD. A total of 572 patients (10.2%) had occupationally related skin disease. There were 10,983 positive allergic reactions. Nickel remained the most commonly detected allergen (17.5%). Methylisothiazolinone, which was added to the screening series for the 2013-2014 cycle, had the second highest positive reaction rate of allergens tested (13.4%). Compared with the previous reporting periods (2013-2014) and (2005-2014), positive reaction rates for the top 35 screening allergens statistically increased for only 1 allergen: hydroxyethyl methacrylate (3.4%; risk ratios, 1.24 [confidence interval, 1.00-1.54] and 1.46 [confidence interval, 1.23-1.73]). Three newly added allergen preparations-ammonium persulfate (1.7%), chlorhexidine (0.8%), and hydroquinone (0.3%)-all had a reaction rate of less than 2%. Twenty-three percent of the tested patients had at least 1 relevant allergic reaction to an allergen not on the NACDG series; 12% of these were occupationally related. T.R.U.E. Test (SmartPractice Denmark, Hillerød, Denmark) would have hypothetically missed one quarter to almost 40% of reactions detected by the NACDG screening series.

CONCLUSIONS

These results confirm that the epidemic of sensitivity to methylisothiazolinone has continued in North America. Patch testing with allergens beyond a screening tray is necessary for a complete evaluation of occupational and nonoccupational ACD.

Experience in patch testing: A 6-year retrospective review from a single academic allergy practice

BACKGROUND

Patch testing is the "gold standard" to identify culprit allergen(s) causing allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), but there are limited studies of patch testing from allergy practice settings.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to explore patch test findings in a large academic allergy practice, including patch testing results, history of atopy, location of dermatitis, and referral source. We also wanted to determine whether patch testing using an extended panel, such as the North American screening series, compared with a limited series, such as the Thin-Layer Rapid-Use Epicutaneous (T.R.U.E.) Test, increased the sensitivity.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients referred for patch testing over a 6-year period.

RESULTS

A total of 585 patients (mean age 48.7 years, 71.6 % female) underwent patch testing over the 6-year period, of which 369 (63%) had a positive test. Of those who tested positive, 202 (55%) reported a history of atopy. The extremities were the most commonly involved site, followed by the head/neck and trunk. The 5 most common positive allergens were nickel sulfate, gold sodium thiosulfate, methylchloroisothiazolinone, thimerosal, and bacitracin. Three hundred fourteen (53.6%) patients were positive to at least 1 allergen on TRUE testing. Extended screening series identified an additional 10.8% of patients with positive tests who were negative to T.R.U.E. test allergens.

CONCLUSION

Patch testing is a valuable diagnostic tool for the practicing allergist and provides early identification of culprit allergens in ACD. Performing an extended screening series such as the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) or supplemental panel of allergens increased sensitivity when compared with a limited series.

Retrospective review of insurance coverage for patch testing

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data on the burden of insurance limitations for patients undergoing patch testing.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the burden of insurance limitations and its impact on differences in management and execution of patch testing.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on patients with a diagnosis of contact dermatitis (International Classification of Disease [ICD], Ninth Edition, code ICD 692) who received patch testing (Current Procedural Terminology code 95044) at the George Washington Medical Faculty Associates Dermatology Clinic between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2017. Variables including allergen limitations were compared between government-sponsored insurance and private insurance providers (eg, Insurers A, B, C, and D).

RESULTS

A total of 371 records were identified. Government-sponsored insurance patients encountered allergen limitations more frequently than private insurance patients (86.8% vs 14.2%, P < .0001). Insurer C and D patients were least likely to encounter allergen limitations (1.2% vs 0%, P < .0001) and were tested to the most allergens (mean = 146 vs 152, P < .0001). Insurer A patients had the least allergens tested among those privately insured.

CONCLUSION

Considering modification of insurance policies to allow patch testing with a larger number of allergens without restrictions is needed, with the goal of improving quality of life of these patients while saving costs from chronic use of topical corticosteroids.

Cutaneous Adverse Effects of Diabetes Mellitus Medications and Medical Devices: A Review

Diabetes mellitus is one of the most prevalent chronic diseases in the USA. If uncontrolled, diabetes can lead to devastating complications. Diabetes medications and medical devices largely contribute to the significant financial expense that the disease inflicts on affected individuals and society. Alongside significant economic burden, there are numerous cutaneous adverse effects associated with diabetes medications and medical devices. Despite the large and increasing number of individuals living with diabetes and the wide use of the related medications and medical devices, there is limited literature that comprehensively documents their cutaneous adverse effects. These cutaneous adverse effects are significant as they can worsen glycemic control, increase disease distress, and may increase risk of associated complications. Thus, it is important that providers can recognize these cutaneous adverse effects, identify the culprit agents, and can properly manage them. In this article, we provide a critical review of the cutaneous adverse effects of medications and devices used in the management of diabetes and provide insight into risk factors and prevention and an overview of therapeutic management. An emphasis is placed on clinical recognition and treatment for use of the medical providers who, regardless of practice setting, will treat patients with diabetes.