American Journal of Contact Dermatitis最新文献

Background: Veterinarians are exposed to a range of skin irritants and allergens, yet few studies have addressed the occurrence of dermatoses among veterinarians. Objectives: The goals of this study were to determine the frequency of noninfectious hand and forearm dermatoses among Kansas veterinarians, to estimate the role of occupational exposures in the aggravation of such dermatoses, to determine the frequency and nature of infectious dermatoses among veterinarians, and to investigate patterns of glove use. The secondary goals of this study were to collect information about the impact of skin disease on the lives and careers of veterinarians and to provide physicians with a practical approach to the treatment of veterinarians with dermatoses. Methods: A questionnaire was mailed to all members of the Kansas Veterinary Medical Association. Results: The response rate was 60%. Twenty-four of respondents reported noninfectious, recurrent/persistent hand or forearm dermatoses; 66% were work related. Large animal veterinarians (P = .026) and atopics (P = .009) were more likely than their counterparts to attribute their dermatoses to work-related factors. Thirty-eight percent of respondents had contracted at least one infectious skin disease from an animal. Veterinarians who never or rarely use gloves during obstetric procedures were more likely to report work-related dermatoses (odds ratio, 4.25; 1.78 [lt ] OR [lt ] 10.07; P [lt ] .001) than those who use gloves. Conclusion: Veterinarians are affected frequently by infectious and noninfectious dermatoses. Improvement of barrier protection habits during obstetric procedures would likely reduce the frequency of occupational dermatoses among veterinarians.

Background: In spite of sporadic data pointing at the role of textile dyes as important contact allergens, only few studies have addressed the issue of the frequency of sensitization to textile dyes in populations of consecutive patients. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of sensitization to disperse dyes, to investigate cross reactivity between azo dyes and para-amino compounds, to describe azo-dye[ndash ]positive patients, and to study the correlation between clinical aspects and sensitization to different disperse dyes. Methods: From January 1996 to December 2000, 6,478 consecutive patients were tested with 7 textile dyes: Disperse Blue 124, Disperse Blue 106, Disperse Red 1, Disperse Yellow 3, Disperse Orange 3 (DO3), para-aminoazobenzene (PAAB), and para-dimethylaminoazobenzene (PDAAB). Results: Of the above, 437 patients were allergic. The most common sensitizers were Disperse Blue (DB) dyes and Disperse Orange 3. Both the clinical aspect and the localization of the lesions were unusual in a fair percentage of cases, especially in DB-positive subjects. Involvement of skin folds was observed in 27% of disperse dye[ndash ]positive patients, mainly comprising DB-sensitive women. Cross-reactivity between azo-dyes and paraphenylenediamine (PPD) was frequent in DO3-, PAAB-, and PDAAB-positive subjects, but not in DB-allergic ones. Moreover, cross reactions between DB106 and DB124 were observed in 59% of DB106- and/or DB124-positive patients. Conclusions: The frequency of disperse dye allergy is higher than generally estimated. Further studies, using routine diagnostic testing with disperse dyes, are needed to investigate whether this increasing trend is present outside of Europe.

A review of the literature of reported cases of contact dermatitis to a variety of natural herbal extracts is Presented. Natural extracts are commonly used ingredients in many cosmetic preparations and homeopathic remedies. Although the term natural botanical extracts inherently purports to have beneficial and benign properties, these extracts can cause adverse reactions in individuals. As such, dermatologists should be cognizant of these agents as possible sources of allergenicity in patients presenting with contact dermatitis.

Background: Sodium metasilicate (SMS) is a key ingredient for a number of industrial and consumer products. Although little is known about potential for this chemical to cause allergic reactions, a similar silicate compound, sodium silicate, was reported to elicit IgE-mediated contact urticaria. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential for sodium metasilicate to elicit an allergic response in female BALB/c mice after dermal exposure. Methods: The primary irritancy assay (IA), local lymph node assay (LLNA), and a mouse ear swelling test (MEST) were used to evaluate the hypersensitivity response elicited by SMS exposure. An evaluation of lymph node subpopulations, cytokine mRNA expression, and serum IgE levels was also conducted. Results: SMS caused significant dermal irritation at concentrations [ge ]6% and an allergic response after mice were sensitized with 4% SMS then challenged with 6% SMS in the MEST. Lymph node cell proliferation was not observed in the LLNA after treatment with SMS (2% to 6% SMS). Increases in lymph node cellularity, the percentage of B cells, and the expression of certain cytokine mRNAs were observed in mice treated with SMS. Changes in the concentration of serum IgE after SMS treatment, however, were not observed. Conclusions: SMS appears to elicit a chemical hypersensitivity response in mice, as indicated by the MEST, but not by the LLNA. Increases in auricular lymph node cellularity, the percentage of B cells, and certain cytokine mRNAs support classifying SMS as a weak chemical allergen.

Objective: The study's objective was 2-fold: first, to evaluate the potential cross-reactivity between Bis-A epoxy resins and epoxy acrylates and second, to study the cross reactivity between Bis-A epoxy resins and newer Bis-F epoxy resins in patients with allergic contact dermatitis to epoxy resins and had positive patch test to the standard epoxy resin based on bisphenol A. Methods: Forty-one patients were patch tested to 23 chemicals including epoxy acrylates, Bis-A epoxy resins, and Bis-F epoxy resins, as well as reactive diluents and nonbisphenol epoxy resins. Questions concerning exposure to epoxy resins, occupational history, and problems with dental work were completed. Results: All patients included in the study had positive reactions to the standard Bis-A epoxy resin. Twenty percent (8 of 41) of the patients reacted to at least one of the epoxy acrylates; the most common reaction was to Bis-GMA. Five of 8 patients who reacted to the epoxy acrylates had dental work, but only one patient had problems from her dental work. Six of 8 patients (75%) who reacted to epoxy resins and epoxy acrylates did not react to aliphatic acrylates. Thirty-two percent (13 of 41) reacted to tosylamide epoxy resin, and none reacted to triglycidyl isocyanurate resin. In addition, all patients (100%) had positive reactions to at least one of the Bis-F epoxy resins that were tested. Conclusions: Most patients with sensitivity to Bis-A epoxy resins do not cross-react with epoxy acrylates. Patients with positive patch test reactions to epoxy acrylates used in dentistry usually do not have symptoms from their dental work. To our knowledge, this is the largest series of patients with sensitivity to the standard Bis-A epoxy resin that have been patch tested with the more recently introduced Bis-F epoxy resins. There is significant cross-reactivity between Bis-A and Bis-F epoxy resins, which can be explained by their structural similarity.

Background: Epicutaneous patch tests represent a practical and objective method that help in the etiologic diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. The technique of patch test application is an important factor in obtaining good results. Objectives: The aims of this study were (1) to determine whether the substances that form the test battery interfere with the patch test result and (2) to establish a rule for positioning the substances during patch test application. Methods: Two hundred patients were studied. The standard patch test battery was applied in 3 versions. The original, with the substances applied in alphabetical order was called version 1 (V1) and tested on the left back in all patients In 100 patients, on the right side, the same substances were tested but applied at different positions, avoiding the proximity of elements with a tendency to cross reaction and/or cosensitizing. This version of the battery was named version 2 (V2). Another 100 patients had V1 applied to the left back, and, on the right side, the version 3 of the battery (V3) was applied, consisting of the same allergens but placed close to those with a tendency for cross reaction and/or cosensitization. Results: In the group V1-V2, 163 results were positive in V1 and 124 in V2, with the difference being statistically significant (P [lt ] .05). In the group V1-V3, 134 results were positive in V1 and 207 in V3, with the difference also being significant (P [lt ] .005). The substances with the largest number of positive results, when tested close to other elements with a tendency for chemical affinity, were parabens, fragrance-mix, thimerosal, balsam of Peru, potassium dichromate, cobalt chloride, mercapto mix, and propylene glycol. Conclusions: (1) The substances of a patch test battery eliciting positive responses may interfere with test positivity to neighboring substances. (2) In addition to the already established techniques, the position of the substances forming the test battery needs to be determined; substances with a tendency to cross reaction or cosensitizing substances should be tested distant from one another, thus preventing the occurrence of false-positive results.