The reactivity of the back revisited. Are there differences in reactivity in different parts of the back?

Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Linalool Hydroperoxides: Pitfalls in the Diagnostic Process-Findings from a Repeated Open Application Test Study

Background: Increasing trends of oxidized linalool contact allergy have been reported. However, the impact of reactivity and dose in eliciting allergic contact Dermatitis caused by linalool hydroperoxides is insufficiently investigated. Objectives: To perform repeated open application tests (ROATs) using the real-world concentrations of linalool hydroperoxides in patients and control participants. Materials and Methods: Patients who previously had a positive (patients) and a negative (controls) patch test reaction to linalool hydroperoxides 1.0% in petrolatum were patch tested with a dilution series of linalool hydroperoxides preparations and asked to perform ROAT twice daily with 3 concentrations of linalool hydroperoxides creams and a negative control cream for 28 days. The creams contain 44, 140, and 440 PPM of linalool hydroperoxides, representing real-world doses reported in consumer products. Results: Of all 47 participants, 31 were linalool hydroperoxides contact allergy patients, and 16 were controls. One patient had a positive ROAT reaction in the area where cream at the highest concentration of linalool hydroperoxides was applied for 28 days. Conclusions: Repeated exposure to creams containing linalool hydroperoxides at real-life concentrations could rarely elicit an allergic reaction on intact skin after 4 weeks.

Patch test results to extracts of synthetic garments in textile dye positive patients

BACKGROUND

Disperse dyes (DDs) are the most prevalent causes of textile-related allergic contact dermatitis and are used for coloring synthetic textile materials based on fibers such as polyester, acrylic, acetate and polyamide. Eight DDs are included in a textile dye mix (TDM) 6.6% petrolatum (pet.) in the European baseline patch test series.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to patch test TDM 6.6% pet. Positive individuals with the extracts of synthetic fiber clothes that do not contain any of the pure DDs present in the TDM 6.6% to study the reactivity pattern.

METHODS

Seventy-three TDM-positive former patients tested between 2012-2017 at the Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology in Malmö, Sweden were invited to join the study, 10 participated. Twenty-four textile items (collected in 9 countries in Europe, Asia and North America in 2012) were extracted in dichloromethane. The TDM 6.6% was patch tested simultaneously with the 24 textile item preparations in petrolatum made from the extracts. Prior to patch testing the participants filled the 7-question questionnaire regarding possible symptoms from textile exposure.

RESULTS

Ten individuals, agreed to join the study. Eight of them reacted to TDM 6.6%. Nine participants reacted to 20 of 24 extracts. One reacted to 19 extracts, another to 14, 3 to 5 extracts, 1 to 4, 1 to 3 extracts and 2 to 2 extracts. One was negative to all tested preparations including TDM 6.6%. The participants mainly reacted to 6 textile extracts. All controls tested negatively to tested extracts. Four individuals of the 10 TDM-allergic individuals previously had had problems after wearing clothes. Four out of the 10 participants had had atopic eczema in childhood. All women had dyed their hair with permanent hair dyes but none of the males.

CONCLUSION

TDM - positive patients react to textile extracts made from synthetic garments, even if they do not contain any of the pure DDs present in TDM 6.6%. More studies are needed to pin-point the culprit haptens in these extracts.

Outbreak of Occupational Allergic Contact Dermatitis from a Smartphone Screen Protector Glue

Background

Sensitization to acrylates is a concern in the occupational/environmental dermatology field.

Objective

To describe an occupational allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) outbreak from a smartphone screen protector glue.

Methods

Thirteen affected workers of a chain store selling phone screen protectors were investigated in five Spanish dermatology departments. The glue datasheet and label were assessed. A chemical analysis of the glue was performed. Based on this, some patients underwent additional testing.

Results

All patients (all female, mean age: 25) had severe fingertip dermatitis.

The datasheet/label indicated that the glue contained isobornyl acrylate (IBOA), a “photoinitiator” and polyurethane oligomer. The company informed us that the ingredients were polyurethane acrylate, “methacrylate” (unspecified), acrylic acid, hydroxyethyl methacrylate, propylmethoxy siloxane, and photoinitiator 184. Isobornyl acrylate (or IBOA) and N,N‐dimethylacrylamide (DMAA) were patch tested in eight and two cases, respectively, with negative results.

A chemical analysis revealed 4‐acryloylmorpholine (ACMO); isobornyl methacrylate (IBMA), and lauryl acrylate in one glue sample. Seven patients were patch tested with dilutions of the identified substances and six of seven were positive for ACMO 0.5% pet.

Conclusion

An outbreak of occupational ACD, likely from ACMO in a glue is described. Further investigations are needed to corroborate the role played by each compound identified in the chemical analyses.

Clinical relevance of positive patch test reactions to lanolin: A ROAT study

Background

Lanolin is often included when patch testing for common contact allergens. The clinical relevance of a positive patch test reaction to lanolin markers is, however, still a subject for debate.

Objectives

To evaluate Amerchol L101 as a marker of lanolin allergy and investigate the clinical impact of lanolin‐containing moisturizers on healthy and damaged skin using the repeated open application test (ROAT).

Methods

Twelve test subjects and 14 controls were patch tested with Amerchol L 101 and additional lanolin markers. Subsequently, a blinded ROAT was performed on the arms of the study participants for 4 weeks. Each participant applied a lanolin‐free cream base and two different lanolin‐containing test creams twice daily on one arm with intact skin and on the other arm with irritant dermatitis, induced by sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS).

Results

Eleven test subjects (92%) had positive patch test reactions to Amerchol L 101 when retested and one test subject (8%) had a doubtful reaction. None of the study participants had any skin reactions to the ROAT on intact skin and all participants healed during the ROAT on damaged skin.

Conclusions

Lanolin‐containing emollients do not cause or worsen existing dermatitis when performing ROAT in volunteers patch test positive to Amerchol L101.

In vivo demonstration of immunologic cross-reactivity to octylisothiazolinone in patients primarily and strongly sensitized to methylisothiazolinone

BACKGROUND

Notwithstanding that concomitant exposure to different isothiazolinone derivatives may result in concomitant sensitization, clinical and animal studies have suggested cross-reactivity between these derivatives, notably between methylisothiazolinone (MI) and octylisothiazolinone (OIT).

OBJECTIVE

To investigate if patients sensitized to MI show cross-reactions to OIT and/or to benzisothiazolinone (BIT) by applying the concept of the re-test method.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From March to October 2019 consecutive patients were patch tested with MI 0.2% aqueous in duplicate at the two lower corners of both shoulder blades. Patients sensitized to MI, but not to OIT 0.1% petrolatum (pet.) nor to BIT 0.1% pet., were re-tested, 2 months later, with the latter two derivatives at the skin sites where the MI reactions had fully disappeared.

RESULTS

Of 116 patients, 15 (13%) were sensitized to MI, eight of these not sensitized to BIT nor to OIT. Of these, seven patients, all (very) strongly sensitized to MI, were re-tested: five patients showed positive patch test reactions to OIT 0.1% pet.; one patient to OIT 0.1% pet. and BIT 0.1% pet.; and one other patient showed no reactions.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that patients primarily and strongly sensitized to MI may show immunologic cross-reactions to OIT, and to a far lesser extent to BIT.

A Retrospective Study of Aimed Patch Testing With Aqueous Nickel Sulfate Hexahydrate at 30% and 15% in Patients With Dermatitis

BACKGROUND

Sometimes, patients with a history of metal intolerance react negatively or doubtfully to nickel at patch testing.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to investigate whether aqueous nickel sulfate hexahydrate at 15% and 30% traces more contact allergy than the nickel preparation in the baseline series at 5%.

METHODS

In the period 1995-2015, more than 800 of 16,059 patients with a negative or doubtful patch test reaction to the petrolatum preparation of nickel at 5% on the day 3 reading were additionally tested with aqueous nickel at 15% and/or 30%.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective study with aimed patch testing with aqueous nickel solutions, significantly more (P < 0.001) contact allergy was obtained as compared with the 5% preparation in petrolatum. The 30% solution was significantly better (P < 0.001) than the 15% solution. To demonstrate that patch testing with nickel at 15% or 30% is better than the present testing with 5% requires simultaneous testing with the 3 nickel preparations.

Does clinical testing support the current guidance definition of prolonged contact for nickel allergy?

Background

The European Chemical Agency (ECHA) definition of prolonged contact was introduced in 2014 and has not been evaluated clinically.

Objectives

To assess whether nickel‐sensitized individuals react on patch testing with high nickel‐releasing metal discs for short and repetitive periods.

Materials and methods

We patch tested 45 nickel‐sensitized individuals double‐blind with 2 different types of high nickel‐releasing discs for 10, 30 and 60 minutes on 3 occasions over a period of 2 weeks, and for 1 longer period. Discs were tested for nickel release.

Results

Nickel release from both discs significantly exceeded the 0.5 μg Ni/cm²/week limit of the EU REACH nickel restriction. However, only 1 individual tested had a largely dose‐dependent allergic reaction.

Conclusions

The majority of nickel‐allergic subjects did not react to nickel discs after 2 hours or after repetitive exposures of up to 30 minutes on 3 occasions over a period of 2 weeks. The length of time needed to cause nickel allergic contact dermatitis in most nickel‐allergic individuals is longer than the ECHA guidance definition. Longer test times are needed to define the time required to cause dermatitis in most nickel‐allergic individuals. As a limitation, the test conditions did not adequately assess real‐life factors such as friction, which is relevant for some uses of nickel.

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.