Contact Dermatitis最新文献

Background: Hand eczema (HE) is a common skin disease with a negative impact on patients' quality of life in occupational and non-occupational settings. Up-to-date, data on HE in Italian patients referred for patch testing are lacking.

Objectives: To characterise the profile in terms of demographics, aetiology and patch test results of Italian patients affected by HE referred for patch testing.

Methods: A retrospective descriptive study on consecutive patients affected by HE who underwent patch testing from 2016 to 2023 in eight dermatology clinics was performed. HE patients were divided into two groups according to the exclusive (HE-only group) and not-exclusive (HE+ group) hand involvement, and compared to patients with eczema localised in body areas other than hands (NHE group).

Results: One thousand five hundred and ninety-seven patients were affected by HE (35.3% males; mean age 42.7 years), 60.2% belonging to the HE-only group and 39.8% to the HE+ group. Occupational dermatitis was diagnosed in 33.2% of HE-only patients, 25.0% of HE+ patients and 5.2% of NHE patients (p < 0.001). HE-only patients presented: Allergic Contact Dermatitis (ACD), Irritant Contact Dermatitis (ICD), atopic HE in 48.1%, 47.5% and 7.1%, respectively; hyperkeratotic palmar, acute recurrent vesicular and nummular clinical subtypes in 52.2%, 43.9% and 11.9%, respectively; relevant positive patch test reactions in 48.1% (nickel sulphate 18.9%, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone 10.6%, methylisothiazolinone 8.6%, p-phenylenediamine 6.0% and potassium dichromate 4.7%).

Conclusions: HE patients, and particularly those with exclusive hand involvement, show a particular profile in terms of demographic and clinical characteristics, etiologies and relevant positive patch test reactions.

Background: Acrylate polymers and cross-polymers (ACPs) are frequently used cosmetic ingredients. The British Society for Cutaneous Allergy (BSCA) and the UK Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association (CTPA) collaborated to investigate the allergenic potential of three commonly-used ACPs.

Objectives: The objective of this study is to determine the prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to three ACPs: glyceryl acrylate/acrylic acid co-polymer, sodium polyacrylate, and acrylates/C10-30 alkyl acrylate cross-polymer (Carbopol®).

Materials and methods: The BSCA prospectively audited data collected from 20 centres in the UK and Ireland between 1st September 2021 and 1st September 2022. Patients with suspected ACD to (meth)acrylates, with facial dermatitis, or consecutive patients, were patch tested to glyceryl acrylate/acrylic acid co-polymer 10% aqueous (aq.) sodium polyacrylate 2% aq., and to acrylates/C10-30 alkyl acrylate cross-polymer 2% aq. (Carbopol®). The frequencies of positive, irritant, and doubtful reactions were recorded.

Results: In total, 1302 patients were patch tested. To glyceryl acrylate/acrylic acid co-polymer, there was one doubtful reaction in a patient allergic to multiple (meth)acrylates, and one irritant. To sodium polyacrylate, there were four irritant reactions, one doubtful, and one positive reaction; in all cases, relevance was unknown and there was no demonstrable (meth)acrylate allergy. There were no reactions to Carbopol®.

Conclusions: Sensitisation to these concentrations of the three tested ACPs is rare. Elicitation of dermatitis in (meth)acrylate-sensitised patients by exposure to these three ACPs appears unlikely.

Background: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from protective gloves is often caused by rubber additives, such as accelerators. However, while accelerator-free rubber gloves are available, they still cause ACD in some individuals.

Objectives: A new allergen, 2-cyаnоethyl dimethyldithiocarbamate, (CEDMC), has recently been identified in accelerator-free gloves, and we here provide a first in vitro characterisation of CEDMC in a dendritic cell (DC)-like cell model along with three reference sensitizer rubber chemicals, consisting of tetraethylthiuram disulfide (TETD) and two xanthogenates.

Methods: Cellular responses after the exposure to the rubber chemicals were assessed using a transcriptomic approach, multiplex cytokine secretion profiling, and flow cytometry to determine DC model activation marker expression and apoptosis induction.

Results: CEDMC and all other sensitizers were classified as strong skin sensitizers with the transcriptomic approach. They all significantly increased IL-8 secretion and exposure to all except one increased CD86 DC activation marker expression. When tested, CEDMC induced apoptosis, however, delayed compared to TETD.

Conclusions: The in vitro data corroborate CEDMC, TETD, and investigated xanthogenates as skin sensitizers. Transcriptomic analyses further reveal unique cellular responses induced by CEDMC, which together with future study can contribute to better understanding of cellular mechanisms underlying the sensitising capacity of rubber chemicals.

Background: 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) was added into the European baseline series (EBS) in 2019. There is limited data regarding the frequency, relevance, and sources of exposure to HEMA.

Objectives: To investigate the frequency and clinical relevance of positive reactions to HEMA in the EBS in Israel, and explore sources of exposure.

Methods: Retrospective cohort study that included all patients who underwent patch testing with the EBS in a tertiary center in Israel between 2020 and 2023. Positive reactions to HEMA were stratified by sex, six age groups, and year of study. Sources of exposure to HEMA as well as occupational data were recorded.

Results: A total of 1671 consecutive patients underwent HEMA patch testing, with 135 (8.1%) showing positive reactions to HEMA (130 females, 5 males). The prevalence in women (11.0%) was significantly higher compared to men (1.0%) (p < 0.001). Stratification by age and sex revealed the highest frequency of HEMA sensitivity of 16.7% among women younger than 30 years of age, with odds ratio of 2.3 (95%CI: 1.6-3.3, p < 0.001) compared to older women. There was an increase in frequency among women between the years 2022 and 2023 when compared to 2020-2021 (OR 1.7, 95%CI: 1.5-2.1, p < 0.01) attributable to COVID-19 pandemic and social restrictions. Among men the frequency fluctuations over the study period and age categories were nonsignificant. 111 (84%) were judged to be of clinical relevance and nail cosmetics was responsible for 95% of them. Of 111 patients with relevant reaction (110 females, 1 males), 20 (18%) had occupational contact dermatitis (18 nails stylists, 2 dentists). Other culprit products included sanitary pads (n = 4), medical adhesives (n = 3), and paints (n = 2).

Conclusion: We report the highest frequency of HEMA sensitivity to date of 8.1%, that was most common among young women and in vast majority of cases was attributable to nail cosmetics. Our findings reflect the popularity of nail cosmetics in Israel as well as the global trend of increasing sensitivity to (meth)acrylates.

Background: Photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD) is a delayed hypersensitivity reaction to allergens only in the presence of ultraviolet radiation in sunlight. Photopatch testing (PhotoPT) is necessary to confirm the diagnosis of PACD. There are few published studies of PhotoPT in North America.

Objective: To summarise the results of patients photopatch tested by members of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG), 2009-2020.

Methods: Retrospective analysis of patient characteristics and PhotoPT results to 32 allergens on the NACDG Photopatch Test Series.

Results: Most of the 454 tested patients were female (70.3%), 21-60 years old (66.7%) and White (66.7%). There were a total of 119 positive photopatch tests. Sunscreen agents comprised 88.2% of those, with benzophenones responsible for over half of them. Final diagnoses included PACD in 17.2%, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in 44.5%, polymorphous light eruption (PMLE) in 18.9% and chronic actinic dermatitis (CAD) in 9.0% of patients.

Conclusions: In 454 patients with suspected photosensitivity referred for photopatch testing in North America, approximately one-fifth had PACD. Sunscreen agents, especially benzophenones, were the most common photoallergens. Other common diagnoses included ACD, PMLE and CAD. Photopatch testing is an important tool for differentiating these conditions.

Background: Propolis was added to the European baseline series (EBS) in 2019.

Objectives: To investigate the frequency and relevance of positive patch tests to propolis in the EBS and to study co-reactivities.

Patients and methods: Retrospective study in patients patch tested between June 2019 and November 2023 in a university hospital in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Results: Of 3134 consecutive patients, 299 (9.5%) had a positive reaction to propolis 10% pet. Only nine reactions (3%) were judged to be clinically relevant. There were significant co-reactivities to Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru), colophonium, fragrance mixes 1 and 2, and to limonene and linalool hydroperoxides. A steep increase in rates of positive reactions to propolis was observed from 2020 to 2023. This was highly likely the result of the replacement of Chinese propolis with Brazilian propolis by the manufacturer.

Conclusions: Positive patch tests for propolis are very frequent in Amsterdam, but only a few of these reactions are relevant. Most are probably (pseudo-)cross-reactions in patients with fragrance allergies. Propolis in the EBS has very limited value for dermatologists and patients in The Netherlands. Changes in patch test materials should be provided to all users to avoid misinterpretation of patch test results.