Search

Background: Fragrance chemicals constitute the second most frequent cause of contact allergy in Spain. There are no data available concerning the individual fragrances that are most frequently involved. Objectives: To describe the diagnostic contribution provided by specific fragrance series to the results obtained with baseline series fragrance markers by correlating the results of both series. Materials and methods: We performed a 5‐year retrospective study of fragrance marker‐positive patients tested with specific fragrance series in 23 Spanish centres. We collected the demographic and clinical characteristics, and compared the results of patch tests obtained from different suppliers. Results: Of 19 588 patients patch tested with the Spanish baseline series, 1590 (8.1%) reacted positively to a fragrance marker. Of these, 1013 (63.7%) were patch tested with a fragrance series, and 664 patients reacted positively to at least one individual fragrance other than hydroxyisohexyl 3‐cyclohexene carboxaldehyde. Geraniol was the most frequent allergen. Positive reactions to substances not included in fragrance mix (FM) I or FM II were found in 230 patients. Of the 436 FM I‐positive patients and the 419 FM II‐positive patients, 184 (42%) and 64 (39.1%), respectively, had no positive reactions to fragrance series. In the case of FM I, negative results were more common when individual fragrances were patch tested at low concentrations. Conclusions: We recommend patch testing all patients positive for any fragrance marker with a specific fragrance series. The correlation between the results of baseline series and fragrance series could be improved by increasing the concentrations of individual fragrances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Limonene and linalool are common fragrance terpenes widely used in cosmetic, household and hygiene products. Their primary oxidation products formed after air exposure, the hydroperoxides, have been recognized as important contact haptens. Objectives To investigate the prevalence of contact allergy to hydroperoxides of limonene (Lim-OOHs) and hydroperoxides of linalool (Lin-OOHs) in Spain, and to define the optimal concentration for screening in consecutive patients. Methods Three different concentrations of Lim-OOHs (0.1%, 0.2% and 0.3% pet.) and Lin-OOHs (0.25%, 0.5% and 1.0% pet.) were simultaneously tested in 3639 consecutive patients at 22 departments of dermatology in Spain. Results Lim-OOHs at 0.1%, 0.2% and 0.3% yielded positive patch test reactions in 1.4%, 3.4% and 5.1% of the tested patients, respectively; and Lin-OOHs at 0.25%, 0.5% and 1.0% yielded positive reactions in 1.3%, 2.9% and 4.9% of the tested patients, respectively. Few irritant (1.5-1.9%) and doubtful reactions (0.4-0.5%) to both terpene hydroperoxides were registered at the highest concentrations tested. Conclusions Lim-OOHs and Lin-OOHs can be considered as common causes of contact allergy, and their inclusion in an extended baseline patch test series therefore seems to be appropriate. The patch test preparations of Lim-OOHs 0.3% pet. and Lin-OOHs 1.0% pet. are useful tools for screening of contact sensitization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite emerging evidence and advances in the management of atopic dermatitis there a lack of consensus regarding the diagnostic criteria, therapeutic approach, method to assess severity, and patient follow-up for this condition. An expert consensus study was conducted to provide recommendations on the management of patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. The study used Delphi-like methodology based on a literature review, a summary of the scientific evidence, and a 2-round survey. The agreement of 60 panellists on 21 statements was evaluated. Consensus was predefined as ≥80% agreement of all respondents. In the first round 6 statements reached consensus. Unanimous consensus was achieved regarding therapeutic goals and patient satisfaction (maintained in the long term and periodic goals reassessment recommended every 3–6 months). In the second round, half of the statements reached consensus, all related to patient follow-up, treatment goals, and atopic comorbidities. The statements that did not reach consensus were related to diagnosis (biomarkers, allergy, and food testing) and starting patients on conventional systemic treatment rather than advanced treatment. The study assessed expert opinion regarding a variety of topics related to the clinical approach to patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, in order to provide guidance on the diagnosis and management of patients with atopic dermatitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Atopic dermatitis is a chronic skin condition for which a range of systemic treatments have recently been approved. A treat-to-target strategy has been developed previously alongside an algorithm to guide the management of patients with atopic dermatitis. Here, we review the strategy and algorithm in the context of the evolving therapeutic landscape, and identify areas for further refinement and development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) of the feet accounts for approximately 10% of all patch tested patients. Objective: To study the clinical profile of patients with feet dermatitis and relevant contact allergens in Spain over a 10‐year period. Methods: Retrospective observational study of patients with suspected ACD from the GEIDAC (Spanish Research Group on Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy) baseline series from eight hospitals in Spain between 2004 and 2014. The clinical data collected from each patient were age, sex, occupation, history of atopic dermatitis, and eczema location. Results: A total of 450 cases clinically presented dermatitis affecting the feet; of these, 41% of were males and 5.6% were suspected to be of occupational origin. As much as 47% were diagnosed with ACD, 20% with atopic dermatitis/dyshidrotic eczema, and 5% with psoriasis. The "feet group" included statistically significantly more females in the age range of 21 to 60 years. The most frequent relevant contact allergens were potassium dichromate, cobalt(II) chloride, p‐tert‐butylphenol formaldehyde resin, mercapto mix, and mercaptobenzothiazole. Conclusions: ACD is the most frequent clinical diagnosis of feet dermatitis in our series. The most frequent allergens are similar to those published in other series of foot ACD in Europe and the trend has not changed in the studied decade. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case report of a 19-year-old woman who was tattooed 3 months before showing allergy. Topics discussed include allergic reaction to tattoo inks having pigment yellow 65, skin biopsy revealing a thickened epidermis with hyperkeratosis, and process of haptenization found to be the main reason of the allergic reaction.

Background Contact allergy to fragrances is common, and impairs quality of life, particularly in young women. Objective To provide current results on the prevalences of sensitization to fragrance allergens used as markers in the baseline series of most European countries. Methods Data of patients consecutively patch tested between 2009 and 2012 in 12 European countries with fragrance allergens contained in the baseline series were collected by the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies network and descriptively analysed. Four departments used the TRUE Test® system. Results The 'basic markers' were tested on 51 477 [fragrance mix II ( FM II)] to 57 123 [ Myroxylon pereirae, balsam of Peru] patients, and yielded positive reactions as follows: fragrance mix I 6.9%, Myroxylon pereirae 5.4%, FM II 3.8%, colophonium 2.6%, and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde 1.7%, with some regional differences. Prevalences with TRUE Test® allergens were lower. Additional fragrances were tested on 3643 (trimethylbenzenepropanol) to 14 071 (oil of turpentine) patients, and yielded between 2.6% ( Cananga odorata) and 0.7% (trimethylbenzenepropanol) positive reactions. Conclusions Contact allergy to fragrances is common throughout Europe, with regional variation probably being explained by patch test technique, and differences in exposure and referral patterns. The current basic markers of fragrance sensitivity in the baseline series should be supplemented with additional fragrance allergens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case study of a 38-year-old woman presented with widespread eczematous lesions on sun-exposed areas occurring some hours after she had been sunbathing during the summer. Topics include the final diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis was made which was caused by cetearyl isononanoate, which was present in both the Avène sunscreen and the Nivea cream.

The article presents a case study of a 30-year-old female office worker who was reported to have a 1-year history of erythematous and scaly lesions on the palms of the hands. The female was reported to suffer from atopic dermatitis during childhood. She was diagnosed with protein contact dermatitis (PCD), which primarily affects the hands and is often occupational, particularly in patients working as food handlers.

The article presents a case study of a 62-year-old woman with generalized maculopapular exanthema, without mucosal involvement. The patient was diagnosed with acutaneous drug eruption caused by the spiramycin contained in Rhodogil® using patch testing. She was administered with oral corticosteroids leading to the resolution of the skin rashes.