Occupational allergic contact dermatitis in a 2-year follow-up study: how well does the patient remember the result of patch testing?

Need for new strategies to improve the recall and avoidance rates of contact allergens: A retrospective cohort study from Turkey

BACKGROUND

Previous studies reported a low-to-moderate benefit from patch testing regarding allergen recall and avoidance.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the allergen recall and avoidance rates of patients with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in Turkey.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study based on a phone questionnaire of 465 patients diagnosed with ACD from major allergen groups, that is, metals, preservatives, rubber, fragrances (ubiquitous allergens) and hair dye/black henna, topical drug and resins (nonubiquitous allergens), at our tertiary referral centre between 1996 and 2018.

RESULTS

Among 176 responders, allergen groups were remembered better (53.4%) than the individual allergens (36.9%). Age <40 years and keeping the allergy pass had a significantly positive impact on the recall rate of methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone and nickel, particularly non-occupational nickel allergy from metal jewellery in females, respectively. Exacerbations of ACD (56.3%) were mainly due to reexposures to ubiquitous allergens. 42.9% of patients with occupational ACD changed or quit their job, most of them being construction workers and hairdressers, showing a high share (83.3%) of benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall rates of allergen recall and avoidance were moderate. New strategies are needed to improve the recall and avoidance rates of contact allergens, such as increased use of allergy pass, smartphone applications and legal precautions.

Patch testing: Uses, systems, risks/benefits, and its role in managing the patient with contact dermatitis

Patch testing is the gold standard diagnostic tool for cell-mediated type IV hypersensitivity reactions like allergic contact dermatitis. Sensitized individuals have primed antigen-specific T lymphocytes that cause a reaction when antigens are applied to the skin owing to prior sensitization. Patch testing can be used in the adult and pediatric populations, but it is contraindicated in patients with a known history of severe allergic reactions to suspected allergens, generalized active dermatitis, or extensive eczema. Patch test systems can be a comprehensive panel (70-80 allergens), but they can also be targeted and limited to a more common allergen series (35 allergens). The decision for allergen selection should be based on an accurate patient history, physical examination, and availability of allergens. Measurement and interpretation of the test results requires training and experience, as well as consideration of relevance and clinical history. Patch testing is generally considered safe with just a few known complications: excited skin syndrome, active sensitization, and rarely anaphylaxis or other cutaneous complications. Appropriately pretesting patient education can help to mitigate some of these complications. Based on patch testing results, patients should be educated regarding proper allergen avoidance measures to resolve symptoms of allergic contact dermatitis.

Quality of life measurement in occupational skin diseases. Position paper of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Forces on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes and Occupational Skin Disease

The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) has started the 'Healthy Skin @ Work' campaign aimed to raise awareness among the public and EU authorities on the frequency and impact of occupational skin diseases (OSDs). The EADV Task Forces (TFs) on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes (QoL/PO) and on OSD present their mutual position statement on QoL assessment in OSDs. The EADV TFs recommend the use of the DLQI as a dermatology-specific instrument and SF-36 as a generic instrument in health-related (HR) QoL studies on OSDs. The OSD-specific questionnaire, LIOD, is not recommended for general use in its present form because of its three months recall period. The EADV TFs discourage the use of non-validated and of non-validated modifications of previously validated HRQoL instruments. The EADV TFs wish to encourage research into: the HRQoL impact of OSDs other than occupational contact dermatitis and hand eczema; comparisons between the effects of different treatments and other interventions on HRQoL in OSDs; and into the HRQoL impairment of patients with OSDs from different countries, and with different provoking factors, to predict if the results of successful therapeutic and educational interventions may be generalized across countries and between occupations.

Intervention study to evaluate the importance of information given to patients with contact allergy: a randomized, investigator-blinded clinical trial

BACKGROUND

In contact dermatitis, it is crucial to understand and remember the outcome of patch testing. Unfortunately, many patients do not remember the results of their patch tests.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to evaluate the effects of an intervention programme in which extensive information on specific contact allergy was provided, in individuals with positive patch test reactions.

METHODS

The study was designed as a randomized, investigator-blinded clinical trial. Participants with positive test reactions were randomized into two groups that received either standard information according to clinical routine or standard information and a reminder letter. Knowledge of contact allergies was evaluated using questionnaires 12 months after inclusion.

RESULTS

There were 184 adults included in the trial and the response rate at 1-year follow-up was 78% (143 of 184). Sixty-five per cent (45 of 69) in the intervention group and 54% (40 of 74) in the control group reported the correct name of the allergen (P = 0·23). Participants with several - as opposed to few - positive patch test reactions had difficulty in remembering the correct names of the allergens (P = 0·001). Moreover, the type of allergy had an influence on their ability to remember the name of the allergen correctly and their ability to make changes in lifestyle.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention performed did not significantly affect the participants' ability to remember their contact allergy. To achieve better knowledge and changes in lifestyle, efforts to inform should concentrate on individuals with several positive patch test reactions, those with particular allergens, individuals over 60 years of age, and - concerning changes in lifestyle - males.

Contact Allergy: A Review of Current Problems from a Clinical Perspective

Contact allergy is common, affecting 27% of the general population in Europe. Original publications, including case reports, published since 2016 (inclusive) were identified with the aim of collating a full review of current problems in the field. To this end, a literature search employing methods of systematic reviewing was performed in the Medline^® and Web of Science™ databases on 28 January 2018, using the search terms (“contact sensitization” or “contact allergy”). Of 446 non-duplicate publications identified by above search, 147 were excluded based on scrutiny of title, abstract and key words. Of the remaining 299 examined in full text, 291 were deemed appropriate for inclusion, and main findings were summarised in topic sections. In conclusion, diverse sources of exposures to chemicals of widely-differing types and structures, continue to induce sensitisation in man and may result in allergic contact dermatitis. Many of the chemicals are “evergreen” but others are “newcomers”. Vigilance and proper investigation (patch testing) are required to detect and inform of the presence of these haptens to which our populations remain exposed.

Analysis of Dental Professionals' and Dental Students' Care for their Skin

Objectives

To determine prevalence of undesirable, work-related skin lesions and their localizations in dental professionals and students, and to collect data about diagnostic procedures they undergo and skin care they take when these lesions occur.

Subjects and methods

Our research included 444 respondents (dentists, dental assistants, dental technicians, dental students) who filled out a questionnaire. They were asked to specify if they had observed any lesions on their skin and where; if they had undergone any treatments and in what way; if they had undergone any allergy tests; and if they had taken any protective measures.

Results

Of all the respondents that took part in the survey, 249 (56.1%) reported undesirable skin reactions commonly on their hands and fingers (96%). Before our survey, only 15% of them had seen a dermatologist, while 33% had undergone allergy tests (without a dermatologists’ clinical examination). Also, 45% of them sometimes used soaps for sensitive skin and the majority (61%) of them used protective hand creams 1-2 times per day.

Conclusion

Although a large number of dental professionals and students have noticed work-related skin lesions, only some of them sought dermatologists’ professional help and most of them did not take care of their skin adequately when those lesions occurred. According to the results of this study, it is necessary to take additional preventive measures to increase dental professionals’ and students’ awareness of occupational dermatoses and adequate skin care.