Facial Dermatitis in Male Patients Referred for Patch Testing: Retrospective Analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 1994 to 2016

Importance

Facial dermatitis in women is well characterized. However, recent shifts in the men's grooming industry may have important implications for male facial dermatitis.

Objective

To characterize male patients with facial dermatitis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A 22-year retrospective cross-sectional analysis (1994-2016) of North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) data, including 50 507 patients who underwent patch testing by a group of dermatology board-certified patch test experts at multiple centers was carried out. Facial dermatitis was defined as involvement of the eyes, eyelids, lips, nose, or face (not otherwise specified).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was to compare characteristics (including demographics and allergens) between male patients with facial dermatitis (MFD) and those without facial dermatitis (MNoFD) using statistical analysis (relative risk, CIs). Secondary outcomes included sources of allergic and irritant contact dermatitis and, for occupationally related cases, specific occupations and industries in MFD.

Results

Overall, 1332 male patients (8.0%) were included in the MFD group and 13 732 male patients (82.0%) were included in MNoFD. The mean (SD) age of participants was 47 (17.2) years in the MFD group and 50 (17.6) years in the MNoFD group. The most common facial sites were face (not otherwise specified, 817 [48.9%]), eyelids (392 [23.5%]), and lips (210 [12.6%]). Participants in the MFD group were significantly younger than MNoFD (mean age, 47 vs 50 years; P < .001). Those in the MFD group were less likely to be white (relative risk [RR], 0.92; 95% CI, -0.90 to 0.95) or have occupationally related skin disease (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, -0.42 to 0.58; P < .001) than MNoFD. The most common allergens that were associated with clinically relevant reactions among MFD included methylisothiazolinone (n = 113; 9.9%), fragrance mix I (n = 27; 8.5%), and balsam of Peru (n = 90; 6.8%). Compared with MNoFD, MFD were more likely to react to use of dimethylaminopropylamine (RR, 2.49; 95% CI, -1.42 to 4.37]) and paraphenylenediamine (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, -1.00 to 2.04; P < .001). Overall, 60.5% of NACDG allergen sources were personal care products.

Conclusions and Relevance

Although many allergens were similar in both groups, MFD were more likely to react to use of dimethylaminopropylamine and paraphenylenediamine, presumably owing to their higher prevalence in hair products. Most sources of allergic and irritant contact dermatitis in MFD were personal care products. This study provides insight into the risks and exposures of the increasing number of grooming products used by male dermatology patients. This will enable clinicians to better identify male patients who would benefit from patch testing and treat those with facial dermatitis.

Evaluation of Patch Test Findings in Patients With Anogenital Dermatitis

Importance

Contact dermatitis in the anogenital area is associated with sleep disturbance and dyspareunia and can profoundly affect quality of life. The literature on anogenital contact dermatitis and culprit allergens is limited. The last large-scale study on common, relevant allergens in patients with anogenital dermatitis was published in 2008.

Objectives

To characterize patients with anogenital dermatitis referred for patch testing by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, to identify common allergens, and to explore sex-associated differences between anogenital dermatitis and allergens.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis was conducted of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group database among 28 481 patients who underwent patch testing from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2016, at outpatient referral clinics in the United States and Canada.

Exposure

Patch testing for allergens.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Currently relevant allergic patch test reactions in patients with anogenital dermatitis.

Results

Of 28 481 patients tested during the study period, 832 patients (336 men and 496 women; mean [SD] age, 50.1 [26.5] years) had anogenital involvement and 449 patients (177 men and 272 women; mean [SD] age, 49.6 [17.4] years) had anogenital dermatitis only. Compared with those without anogenital involvement, there were significantly more male patients in the group with anogenital dermatitis (177 [39.4%] vs 8857 of 27 649 [32.0%]; relative risk, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.14-1.66; P < .001). In the group with anogenital involvement, female patients were significantly less likely than male patients to have allergic contact dermatitis as a final diagnosis (130 [47.8%] vs 107 [60.5%]; relative risk, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.94; P = .01), whereas a final diagnosis of other dermatoses (eg, lichen planus, lichen sclerosus, or lichen simplex chronicus) was more frequent for female patients than for male patients (67 [24.6%] vs 28 [15.8%]; relative risk, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.02-2.31; P = .03). Of the 449 patients in the group with anogenital involvement only, 227 (50.6%) had 1 or more relevant reaction with patch testing. Allergens that were statistically significantly more common in patients with anogenital involvement compared with those without anogenital involvement included medicaments such as dibucaine (10 of 250 patients tested [4.0%] vs 32 of 17 494 patients tested [0.2%]; relative risk, 22.74; 95% CI, 11.05-46.78; P < .001) and preservatives such as methylchloroisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone (30 of 449 patients tested [6.7%] vs 1143 of 27 599 patients tested [4.1%]; relative risk, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.14-2.41; P = .008). A total of 152 patients met the definition for anogenital allergic contact dermatitis, which is defined as anogenital involvement only, allergic contact dermatitis as the only diagnosis, and 1 or more positive reaction of current clinical relevance.

Conclusions and Relevance

For patients with anogenital involvement only who were referred for patch testing, male patients were more likely to have allergic contact dermatitis, whereas female patients were more likely to have other dermatoses. Common allergens or sources consisted of those likely to contact the anogenital area. For individuals with anogenital involvement suspected of having allergic contact dermatitis, reactions to preservatives, fragrances, medications (particularly topical anesthetics), and topical corticosteroids should be tested.

Acute haemodialysis during the Armenian earthquake disaster

On the 7 December 1988 an earthquake struck a densely populated region in northern Armenia. Up to 50,000 people were killed and many thousands were seriously injured. At least 385 of these casualties developed acute renal failure secondary to crush syndrome and required dialysis. The Armenian renal unit at Yerevan, in common with units elsewhere, was already overstretched to cope with the dialysis requirements of their patients with chronic renal failure before the earthquake. Most of the patients requiring dialysis were transferred to other hospitals in the USSR but 120 patients remained in Yerevan, the majority at the regional renal unit, overwhelming the resources. We assisted by taking a team of dialysis personnel, equipped with portable haemodialysis machines, to Yerevan. We performed 57 haemodialysis sessions and treated 15 patients, 13 of whom ultimately survived. Valuable lessons were learnt about the medical management of disasters abroad.

Dialysis for acute renal failure due to crush injuries after the Armenian earthquake

Images