Fieke M. Rosenberg, Robert F. Ofenloch, Peter J. van der Most, Harold Snieder, Marie L. A. Schuttelaar
Background
Hair dyes are widely used in daily life. However, data on self-reported adverse skin reactions are scarce.
Objectives
To estimate the proportion of lifetime hair dye use and self-reported adverse skin reactions in the Dutch general population, and to investigate the association between (adverse skin reactions to) hair dye use and contact allergy-related factors.
Methods
This cross-sectional study collected questionnaire-derived data from the Lifelines cohort. Logistic regression analyses were conducted between (adverse skin reactions to) hair dye use and black henna tattoo use, reactions to henna tattoos, patch testing, hand eczema and an occupation as hairdresser or beautician.
Results
The proportion of hair dye use was 63.1% of 70 987 participants, of which 6.8% experienced adverse skin reactions, mostly mild (77.7%). Hair dye users and those with skin reactions were both positively associated (p < 0.05) with female sex, middle-age, (positive) patch test results and hairdresser or beautician occupations. Hair dye users were more likely to have had henna tattoos, and those with reactions to hair dye were more likely to have had reactions to henna tattoos.
Conclusions
Hair dye use is prevalent among the Dutch general population and frequently causes adverse skin reactions, especially in females who had black henna tattoos.
{"title":"Insights into hair dye use and self-reported adverse skin reactions in the Dutch general population: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study","authors":"Fieke M. Rosenberg, Robert F. Ofenloch, Peter J. van der Most, Harold Snieder, Marie L. A. Schuttelaar","doi":"10.1111/cod.14703","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.14703","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Hair dyes are widely used in daily life. However, data on self-reported adverse skin reactions are scarce.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To estimate the proportion of lifetime hair dye use and self-reported adverse skin reactions in the Dutch general population, and to investigate the association between (adverse skin reactions to) hair dye use and contact allergy-related factors.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This cross-sectional study collected questionnaire-derived data from the Lifelines cohort. Logistic regression analyses were conducted between (adverse skin reactions to) hair dye use and black henna tattoo use, reactions to henna tattoos, patch testing, hand eczema and an occupation as hairdresser or beautician.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The proportion of hair dye use was 63.1% of 70 987 participants, of which 6.8% experienced adverse skin reactions, mostly mild (77.7%). Hair dye users and those with skin reactions were both positively associated (<i>p</i> < 0.05) with female sex, middle-age, (positive) patch test results and hairdresser or beautician occupations. Hair dye users were more likely to have had henna tattoos, and those with reactions to hair dye were more likely to have had reactions to henna tattoos.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Hair dye use is prevalent among the Dutch general population and frequently causes adverse skin reactions, especially in females who had black henna tattoos.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"92 3","pages":"224-233"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cod.14703","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142364714","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Christoffer Kursawe Larsen, Anders Boutrup Funch, Helen Vaher, Rebecca Kitt Davidson Lohmann, Mia Hamilton Jee, Jakob F. B. Schwensen, Claus Zachariae, Cecilia Svedman, Ola Bergendorff, Charlotte Menné Bonefeld, Jeanne D. Johansen
Background
Rubber accelerators are used in the vulcanization of rubber. However, rubber accelerators for example tetraethylthiuram disulfide (TETD) and zinc diethyldithiocarbamate (ZDEC) may cause contact allergy. Concomitant reactions between ZDEC and TETD have been observed in patients which could be explained by co- or cross-reactivity.
Objectives
To investigate cross-reactivity between TETD and ZDEC and vice versa.
Methods
Groups of mice were sensitized with TETD or ZDEC based on reported EC3-values. Proliferation of lymphocytes were measured on day 5. To test cross-reactivity, mice were sensitized and challenged 3 weeks later with TETD or ZDEC. The inflammatory response was measured by changes in ear thickness and the proliferative response in CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in the submandibular and cervical draining lymph nodes.
Results
Sensitization of mice with doses of ZDEC 3%, TETD 5.6% or TETD 16.2% induced significant increased ear thickness and proliferation of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. Challenge with ZDEC or TETD in these groups induced significant increased ear thickness. Challenge with ZDEC in mice sensitized to TETD 5.6% or TETD 16.2% induced significant increased proliferation of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells.
Conclusions
We show cross-reactivity between TETD and ZDEC. Patients sensitized to TETD or ZDEC should avoid exposure to both ZDEC and TETD.
{"title":"Cross-reactivity between thiuram disulfides and dithiocarbamates. A study of TETD and ZDEC using mouse models","authors":"Christoffer Kursawe Larsen, Anders Boutrup Funch, Helen Vaher, Rebecca Kitt Davidson Lohmann, Mia Hamilton Jee, Jakob F. B. Schwensen, Claus Zachariae, Cecilia Svedman, Ola Bergendorff, Charlotte Menné Bonefeld, Jeanne D. Johansen","doi":"10.1111/cod.14706","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.14706","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Rubber accelerators are used in the vulcanization of rubber. However, rubber accelerators for example tetraethylthiuram disulfide (TETD) and zinc diethyldithiocarbamate (ZDEC) may cause contact allergy. Concomitant reactions between ZDEC and TETD have been observed in patients which could be explained by co- or cross-reactivity.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To investigate cross-reactivity between TETD and ZDEC and vice versa.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Groups of mice were sensitized with TETD or ZDEC based on reported EC3-values. Proliferation of lymphocytes were measured on day 5. To test cross-reactivity, mice were sensitized and challenged 3 weeks later with TETD or ZDEC. The inflammatory response was measured by changes in ear thickness and the proliferative response in CD4<sup>+</sup> and CD8<sup>+</sup> T cells in the submandibular and cervical draining lymph nodes.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Sensitization of mice with doses of ZDEC 3%, TETD 5.6% or TETD 16.2% induced significant increased ear thickness and proliferation of CD4<sup>+</sup> and CD8<sup>+</sup> T cells. Challenge with ZDEC or TETD in these groups induced significant increased ear thickness. Challenge with ZDEC in mice sensitized to TETD 5.6% or TETD 16.2% induced significant increased proliferation of CD4<sup>+</sup> and CD8<sup>+</sup> T cells.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We show cross-reactivity between TETD and ZDEC. Patients sensitized to TETD or ZDEC should avoid exposure to both ZDEC and TETD.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"92 2","pages":"137-144"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11710922/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142343035","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mikkel Bak Jensen, Christoffer Kursawe Larsen, Daniel Isufi, Farzad Seyed-Alinaghi, Malin G. Ahlström, Charlotte G. Mortz, Jeanne D. Johansen
Gold contact allergy is diagnosed by patch testing using gold chloride or gold sodium thiosulfate. These tests often show high positivity rates, but a direct correlation with dermatitis from everyday gold exposure is rare. The aim of this study was to investigate and estimate the current prevalence of gold contact allergy in dermatitis patients. We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for studies reporting the prevalence of gold contact allergy in dermatitis patients and published between January 2010 and May 2024. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed, and pooled proportions were calculated using random effects models. Sixteen studies with 14 887 dermatitis patients were included. The pooled prevalence of gold contact allergy was 14.1% (95% confidence intervals: 9.5%–19.4%) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 98.3%). High positivity rates with limited clinical relevance highlight the need for cautious interpretation. Even within the same country, studies find different prevalence rates. Standardized testing protocols and further research are needed to better understand and manage this allergy.
{"title":"Prevalence of contact allergy to gold in dermatitis patients from 2010 to 2024: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Mikkel Bak Jensen, Christoffer Kursawe Larsen, Daniel Isufi, Farzad Seyed-Alinaghi, Malin G. Ahlström, Charlotte G. Mortz, Jeanne D. Johansen","doi":"10.1111/cod.14707","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.14707","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Gold contact allergy is diagnosed by patch testing using gold chloride or gold sodium thiosulfate. These tests often show high positivity rates, but a direct correlation with dermatitis from everyday gold exposure is rare. The aim of this study was to investigate and estimate the current prevalence of gold contact allergy in dermatitis patients. We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for studies reporting the prevalence of gold contact allergy in dermatitis patients and published between January 2010 and May 2024. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed, and pooled proportions were calculated using random effects models. Sixteen studies with 14 887 dermatitis patients were included. The pooled prevalence of gold contact allergy was 14.1% (95% confidence intervals: 9.5%–19.4%) with significant heterogeneity (<i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 98.3%). High positivity rates with limited clinical relevance highlight the need for cautious interpretation. Even within the same country, studies find different prevalence rates. Standardized testing protocols and further research are needed to better understand and manage this allergy.</p>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"91 6","pages":"451-458"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cod.14707","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142343037","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
V. Marmgren, M. Mowitz, E. Zimerson, M. Hindsén, M. Bruze
Objective
Photoallergic reactions due to topical ketoprofen are common. As some simultaneous contact allergies have been described in the literature, we aimed to get an overview of the pattern of reactivity towards common allergens in the baseline series in ketoprofen-photoallergic individuals.
Methods
Using our database, we found 94 patients with photocontact allergy to ketoprofen diagnosed during 1999–2018. Approximately 12 800 patients patch tested with the baseline series during the same time frame served as controls. Data on patch testing with the baseline series of 518 individuals belonging to the general population were obtained from an earlier study, and a comparison of allergy rates was made with the ketoprofen group.
Results
Contact allergy to fragrance mix I and Myroxylon pereirae was overrepresented among patients with photocontact allergy to ketoprofen (42.3% vs. 6.6% and 47.9% vs. 6.6%, p < 0.001, respectively). Significant overrepresentation was also shown for 4-tert-butylphenolformaldehyde resin (PTBP-F-R), phenol formaldehyde resin (PFR-2), black rubber mix, budesonide (all p < 0.001), and fragrance mix II (p = 0.02). The pattern was similar, but with lower significance levels for fragrance mix II and budesonide, regardless of whether or not the individuals had been photopatch tested because of a suspected photoallergic contact dermatitis from ketoprofen.
Conclusion
Contact allergy to fragrance mix I, Myroxylon pereirae, black rubber mix, PFR-2, PTBP-FR, and to a somewhat lower extent, to fragrance mix II and budesonide, is common in individuals photoallergic to ketoprofen. It remains to be seen whether sensitisation to ketoprofen leads to simultaneous sensitisation to a number of other, chemically non-related, substances.
{"title":"Surprising results of patch testing with the baseline series in patients with photocontact allergy to ketoprofen","authors":"V. Marmgren, M. Mowitz, E. Zimerson, M. Hindsén, M. Bruze","doi":"10.1111/cod.14696","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.14696","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Photoallergic reactions due to topical ketoprofen are common. As some simultaneous contact allergies have been described in the literature, we aimed to get an overview of the pattern of reactivity towards common allergens in the baseline series in ketoprofen-photoallergic individuals.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Using our database, we found 94 patients with photocontact allergy to ketoprofen diagnosed during 1999–2018. Approximately 12 800 patients patch tested with the baseline series during the same time frame served as controls. Data on patch testing with the baseline series of 518 individuals belonging to the general population were obtained from an earlier study, and a comparison of allergy rates was made with the ketoprofen group.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Contact allergy to fragrance mix I and <i>Myroxylon pereirae</i> was overrepresented among patients with photocontact allergy to ketoprofen (42.3% vs. 6.6% and 47.9% vs. 6.6%, <i>p</i> < 0.001, respectively). Significant overrepresentation was also shown for 4-tert-butylphenolformaldehyde resin (PTBP-F-R), phenol formaldehyde resin (PFR-2), black rubber mix, budesonide (all <i>p</i> < 0.001), and fragrance mix II (<i>p</i> = 0.02). The pattern was similar, but with lower significance levels for fragrance mix II and budesonide, regardless of whether or not the individuals had been photopatch tested because of a suspected photoallergic contact dermatitis from ketoprofen.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Contact allergy to fragrance mix I, <i>Myroxylon pereirae</i>, black rubber mix, PFR-2, PTBP-FR, and to a somewhat lower extent, to fragrance mix II and budesonide, is common in individuals photoallergic to ketoprofen. It remains to be seen whether sensitisation to ketoprofen leads to simultaneous sensitisation to a number of other, chemically non-related, substances.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"91 6","pages":"474-484"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cod.14696","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142343038","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
S. Schubert, S. Forkel, C. Apfelbacher, M. Beigi, K. Siewert, K. Hartmann
{"title":"Patch testing sodium tetrachloropalladate is a better means to detect palladium sensitisation then palladium chloride—Results of a clinical–epidemiological study of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) from 2003 to 2022","authors":"S. Schubert, S. Forkel, C. Apfelbacher, M. Beigi, K. Siewert, K. Hartmann","doi":"10.1111/cod.14695","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.14695","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"91 6","pages":"533-535"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142343036","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Marjolein J. Brands, Laura Loman, Tamara T. Lund, Esben M. Flachs, Ute Bültmann, Marie L. A. Schuttelaar
Background
Studies on wet work and hand eczema (HE) frequently rely solely on self-reports regarding wet work.
Objectives
To assess the association between wet work and moderate-to-very-severe HE, within the Dutch general population, by using a (sex-specific) job exposure matrix (JEM).
Methods
Within the Lifelines Cohort Study, participants with self-reported moderate-to-very-severe HE at worst in the past year were linked to data from the Danish (sex-specific) wet work JEM, a tool that links occupations with wet work indices (including duration and probability of glove use, wet hands and total wet work for at least 2 and 4 h/working day).
Results
In total, 56 978 (41.9%) participants were included. The multivariate binary logistic regression analyses showed significant associations between all facets of wet work and moderate-to-very-severe HE. When using the sex-specific JEM, significant associations were found in females, but not in males.
Conclusions
This study is the first to use a wet work-specific JEM in a general population sample, and found positive associations between wet work and HE. The sex-specific findings should be interpreted with caution, due to limitations inherent in using a JEM, and should be further explored with observational studies, with a focus on duration, frequency, and exposure type.
{"title":"The association between wet work and hand eczema in the Dutch general population: Application of a job exposure matrix to the lifelines cohort study","authors":"Marjolein J. Brands, Laura Loman, Tamara T. Lund, Esben M. Flachs, Ute Bültmann, Marie L. A. Schuttelaar","doi":"10.1111/cod.14687","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.14687","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Studies on wet work and hand eczema (HE) frequently rely solely on self-reports regarding wet work.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To assess the association between wet work and moderate-to-very-severe HE, within the Dutch general population, by using a (sex-specific) job exposure matrix (JEM).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Within the Lifelines Cohort Study, participants with self-reported moderate-to-very-severe HE at worst in the past year were linked to data from the Danish (sex-specific) wet work JEM, a tool that links occupations with wet work indices (including duration and probability of glove use, wet hands and total wet work for at least 2 and 4 h/working day).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In total, 56 978 (41.9%) participants were included. The multivariate binary logistic regression analyses showed significant associations between all facets of wet work and moderate-to-very-severe HE. When using the sex-specific JEM, significant associations were found in females, but not in males.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study is the first to use a wet work-specific JEM in a general population sample, and found positive associations between wet work and HE. The sex-specific findings should be interpreted with caution, due to limitations inherent in using a JEM, and should be further explored with observational studies, with a focus on duration, frequency, and exposure type.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"92 1","pages":"31-40"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11669559/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142307288","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>Methoxypropylamino cyclohexenylidene ethoxyethylcyanoacetate (MCE) is a new UVA1 filter utilised in sunscreen formulations. We report a case of an allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by MCE.</p><p>A 59-year-old woman with a history of atopic dermatitis presented with chronic and severe facial dermatitis persisting for 1 year. Initially, she was treated with topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors leading to partial improvement. Physical examination revealed well-demarcated infiltrated erythematous plaques on the face (Figure 1). A biopsy was performed, and histological examination showed a slight epidermal spongiosis associated with a moderate perivascular and perifollicular infiltrate composed of lymphocytes and histiocytes in the superficial dermis with many vascular ectasia. We concluded the diagnosis of mixed facial dermatitis, comprising atopic dermatitis/ACD and rosacea induced by chronic use of topical corticosteroids. Topical corticosteroids were discontinued, and treatment with topical calcineurin inhibitors was continued. A treatment with doxycycline was initiated. However, the patient continued to present flares of her dermatitis.</p><p>Patch tests were first performed with the European baseline series, preservatives, emulsifiers, corticosteroids and personal products. Patch test materials were supplied by Chemotechnique Diagnostics Vellinge, Sweden. At the readings at 48 and 96 h, the patch tests showed positive results (++) for her sunscreen (Anthelios UVMUNE 400 SPF 50+ from LaRoche-Posay, France). Photopatch tests were also performed with the European baseline series (Chemotechnique Diagnostics Vellinge, Sweden) and the Antelios sunscreen. The results were positive for Anthelios (++) both before and after exposure to 5 J/cm<sup>2</sup> of UVA, with a final reading at 96 h, confirming the diagnosis of contact allergic dermatitis to the sunscreen. We completed the patch tests with different components of this product provided by LaRoche-Posay and the test was positive for MCE 1% 50 aqua (aq)/50 alcool (alc) (++) at 48 and 96 h (Figure 2). To ensure that MCE was not an irritant, we patch-tested this UV filter on 12 healthy atopic controls, and the readings at 48 and 96 h were negative. Discontinuing the sunscreen resulted in the resolution of the lesions within approximately 1 week.</p><p>The use of sunscreen with effective UVA and UVB protection is essential for preventing sun-induced skin damage and cancer.</p><p>Sunscreens efficiently filtrate UVB, UVA2 and UVA1 up to 370 nm radiations. However, it is known that UVA1 (340–400 nm) have a higher potential of penetrating and producing harmful skin damage. Until recently, there was a lack of absorption in the 370–400 nm wavelength range. MCE is a new UVA1 filter with an absorption peak at 385 nm and a coverage ranging between 360 and 400 nm.<span><sup>1</sup></span> In 2020, the European Commission approved the use of MCE as a UV filter, following the conclusions of
{"title":"Severe allergic contact dermatitis caused by methoxypropylamino cyclohexenylidene ethoxyethylcyanoacetate","authors":"Audrey Loretan, Federica Bertone, Sebastien Menzinger, Pierre Piletta, Yassaman Alipour Tehrany","doi":"10.1111/cod.14700","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.14700","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Methoxypropylamino cyclohexenylidene ethoxyethylcyanoacetate (MCE) is a new UVA1 filter utilised in sunscreen formulations. We report a case of an allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by MCE.</p><p>A 59-year-old woman with a history of atopic dermatitis presented with chronic and severe facial dermatitis persisting for 1 year. Initially, she was treated with topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors leading to partial improvement. Physical examination revealed well-demarcated infiltrated erythematous plaques on the face (Figure 1). A biopsy was performed, and histological examination showed a slight epidermal spongiosis associated with a moderate perivascular and perifollicular infiltrate composed of lymphocytes and histiocytes in the superficial dermis with many vascular ectasia. We concluded the diagnosis of mixed facial dermatitis, comprising atopic dermatitis/ACD and rosacea induced by chronic use of topical corticosteroids. Topical corticosteroids were discontinued, and treatment with topical calcineurin inhibitors was continued. A treatment with doxycycline was initiated. However, the patient continued to present flares of her dermatitis.</p><p>Patch tests were first performed with the European baseline series, preservatives, emulsifiers, corticosteroids and personal products. Patch test materials were supplied by Chemotechnique Diagnostics Vellinge, Sweden. At the readings at 48 and 96 h, the patch tests showed positive results (++) for her sunscreen (Anthelios UVMUNE 400 SPF 50+ from LaRoche-Posay, France). Photopatch tests were also performed with the European baseline series (Chemotechnique Diagnostics Vellinge, Sweden) and the Antelios sunscreen. The results were positive for Anthelios (++) both before and after exposure to 5 J/cm<sup>2</sup> of UVA, with a final reading at 96 h, confirming the diagnosis of contact allergic dermatitis to the sunscreen. We completed the patch tests with different components of this product provided by LaRoche-Posay and the test was positive for MCE 1% 50 aqua (aq)/50 alcool (alc) (++) at 48 and 96 h (Figure 2). To ensure that MCE was not an irritant, we patch-tested this UV filter on 12 healthy atopic controls, and the readings at 48 and 96 h were negative. Discontinuing the sunscreen resulted in the resolution of the lesions within approximately 1 week.</p><p>The use of sunscreen with effective UVA and UVB protection is essential for preventing sun-induced skin damage and cancer.</p><p>Sunscreens efficiently filtrate UVB, UVA2 and UVA1 up to 370 nm radiations. However, it is known that UVA1 (340–400 nm) have a higher potential of penetrating and producing harmful skin damage. Until recently, there was a lack of absorption in the 370–400 nm wavelength range. MCE is a new UVA1 filter with an absorption peak at 385 nm and a coverage ranging between 360 and 400 nm.<span><sup>1</sup></span> In 2020, the European Commission approved the use of MCE as a UV filter, following the conclusions of ","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"92 1","pages":"80-81"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11669565/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142281526","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The number of commercially available plant allergens/extracts is limited and therefore patch testing with fresh/dried plant material may be a necessary supplement in diagnosing plant allergy.
Objectives
To evaluate the usefulness of patch testing with plants “as is” compared to patch testing with commercial and in-house produced plant test materials and to report on species eliciting positive patch test reactions.
Patients/Materials/Methods
Consecutive eczema patients, who were patch tested between January 2019 and December 2023 and who had at least one positive reaction to a plant allergen and/or extract and/or plant “as is” were included in the study.
Results
A total 57 out of 1893 patients tested (3%) were sensitised to plants. Compositae plants were the most frequent sensitizers, followed by tomato, tulipalin A, falcarinol, and Philodendron plants. In 12 patients (21%), the diagnosis was based on patch testing with fresh plants only. Occupational sensitization occurred in 32%. Other sensitizers included Hydrangea, Pelargonium zonale, and Monstera.
Conclusions
A large minority of plant-sensitised patients would have been undiagnosed without patch testing with plants “as is.” Most of the culprit plants were known sensitizers, but not commercially available, and these and new species taken into cultivation makes patch testing with fresh plants unavoidable and worthwhile.
{"title":"The value of patch testing with plants “as is” in diagnosing plant sensitization","authors":"Evy Paulsen, Charlotte G. Mortz","doi":"10.1111/cod.14680","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.14680","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The number of commercially available plant allergens/extracts is limited and therefore patch testing with fresh/dried plant material may be a necessary supplement in diagnosing plant allergy.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To evaluate the usefulness of patch testing with plants “as is” compared to patch testing with commercial and in-house produced plant test materials and to report on species eliciting positive patch test reactions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Patients/Materials/Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Consecutive eczema patients, who were patch tested between January 2019 and December 2023 and who had at least one positive reaction to a plant allergen and/or extract and/or plant “as is” were included in the study.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total 57 out of 1893 patients tested (3%) were sensitised to plants. Compositae plants were the most frequent sensitizers, followed by tomato, tulipalin A, falcarinol, and <i>Philodendron</i> plants. In 12 patients (21%), the diagnosis was based on patch testing with fresh plants only. Occupational sensitization occurred in 32%. Other sensitizers included <i>Hydrangea</i>, <i>Pelargonium zonale</i>, and <i>Monstera</i>.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A large minority of plant-sensitised patients would have been undiagnosed without patch testing with plants “as is.” Most of the culprit plants were known sensitizers, but not commercially available, and these and new species taken into cultivation makes patch testing with fresh plants unavoidable and worthwhile.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"91 6","pages":"459-464"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142250278","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号