Search

Background: Hydroperoxides of limonene (Lim‐OOHs) and linalool (Lin‐OOHs) are potent contact sensitizers. Objectives: To investigate the prevalence of positive patch test (PT) reactions to Lim‐OOHs and Lin‐OOHs in consecutive patients, their demographic factors and concomitant reactions. Methods: Between 7/2018 and 12/2020, Lim‐OOHs 0.3% pet. and Lin‐OOHs 1% pet. were patch tested in 5511 consecutive patients. We assessed PT reactivity and analysed data from patients with either positive or negative PTs to Lim‐OOHs and Lin‐OOHs. Results: Positive PT results to Lim‐OOHs (n = 170, 3.1%) and Lin‐OOHs (n = 483, 8.8%) were frequent. Most of the positive reactions were weak (LimOOHs n = 134/LinOOHs n = 429), and even more frequently, doubtful (n = 252/n = 578) or irritant reactions (n = 81/n = 178) were documented. PT reactivity to Lim‐OOHs and Lin‐OOHs was increased in patients with irritant reactions to sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS). The proportion of leg dermatitis and concomitant positive reactions to fragrances and essential oils was increased in patients with reactivity to these hydroperoxides. Conclusion: The observed reaction pattern suggests that both test preparations display an irritant potential with an increased risk of false positive reactions. Preparations should be chemically monitored in order to reduce irritancy. Mindful interpretation of PT results and aimed patch testing of lower concentrations is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2019, a number of allergens (haptens), henceforth, "the audit allergens," were considered as potential additions to the European Baseline Series (EBS), namely, sodium metabisulfite, 2‐bromo‐2‐nitropropane‐1,3‐diol, diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, Compositae mix II (2.5% or 5% pet), linalool hydroperoxides (lin‐OOH), limonene hydroperoxides (lim‐OOH), benzisothiazolinone (BIT), octylisothiazolinone (OIT), decyl glucoside, and lauryl glucoside; Evernia furfuracea (tree moss), was additionally tested by some departments as well. Objectives: To collect further data on patch test reactivity and clinical relevance of the audit allergens in consecutive patients across Europe. Methods: Patch test data covering the audit allergens in 2019 and 2020 were collected by those departments of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies testing these, as well as further collaborators from the EBS working group of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD), and the Spanish Grupo Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea. As patch test outcome, reactions between day (D) 3 and D5 were considered. Results: Altogether n = 12 403 patients were tested with any of the audit allergen. Positive reactions were most common to lin‐OOH 1% pet. (8.74% [95%CI: 8.14–9.37%]), followed by lin‐OOH 0.5% pet., and lim‐OOH 0.3% pet (5.41% [95% CI: 4.95–5.89%]). Beyond these terpene hydroperoxides, BIT 0.1% pet. was the second most common allergen with 4.72% (95% CI: 4.2–5.28%), followed by sodium metabisulfite 1% pet. (3.75% [95%CI: 3.32–4.23%]) and Compositae mix 5% pet. (2.31% [95% CI: 1.84–2.87%]). For some allergens, clinical relevance was frequently difficult to ascertain. Conclusions: Despite many positive patch test reactions, it remains controversial whether lin‐ and lim‐OOH should be tested routinely, while at least the two preservatives BIT and sodium metabisulfite appear suitable. The present results are a basis for further discussion and ultimately decision on their implementation into routine testing among the ESCD members. Highlights: Twelve preservatives, fragrances, and emulsifiers were evaluated as potential additions to the European Baseline Series (EBS)The highest prevalences of positive reactions were to linalool hydroperoxides 1% pet. or 0.5% pet. and limonene hydroperoxides 0.3% pet. Benzisothiazolinone 0.1% pet. was positive in 4.7%, followed by sodium metabisulfite 1% pet. (3.8%) and Compositae mix 5% pet. (2.3%).The results are a basis for further discussion and ultimately a decision on their implementation into routine testing among the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD) members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In about half of the patients reacting positive to fragrance mix I (FM I), breakdown testing remains negative. This raises the question of whether the reaction to FM I is false‐positive, or the breakdown test is false‐negative. Objectives: To identify characteristics and sensitization patterns of patients positive to FM I, but not to its fragrance constituents. Patients and Methods: Retrospective analysis of data from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) between 2005 and 2019. Three patient groups were defined according to their reaction pattern: Group I, FM I positive and ≥1 single fragrance positive in the breakdown test (n = 1912); Group II, FM I positive and breakdown test negative (n = 1318); Group III, FM I negative (n = 19 790). Results: Regarding the pattern of concomitant reactions to other fragrances, Group II had an intermediate position between Group I and Group III. In other respects (age and sex distribution, frequency of sensitization to non‐fragrance baseline series allergens), Group II rather resembled Group I. Conclusions: Not every positive reaction to FM I in patients with negative breakdown tests is false‐positive. There may be false‐negative reactions to the single fragrance components when patch tested at 1% pet. Raising patch concentrations of some single fragrances is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical surveillance of the prevalence of contact allergy in consecutively patch tested patients is a proven instrument to continually assess the importance of contact allergens (haptens) assembled in a baseline series. Objectives: To present current results from the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies, including 13 countries represented by 1 to 11 departments. Methods: Anonymized or pseudonymized patch test and clinical data from various data capture systems used locally or nationally as transferred to the Erlangen data centre were pooled and descriptively analysed after quality control. Results: In the 4 years (2015‐2018), data from 51 914 patients patch tested with the European baseline series (EBS) of contact allergens were analysed. Contact allergy to nickel was most frequent (17.6% positive), followed by contact allergy to fragrance mix I (6.9%), methylisothiazolinone (MI; 6.2%), and Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru; 5.8%). Conclusions: While the prevalence of MI contact allergy decreased substantially following regulatory intervention, the persistently high levels of allergy to metals, fragrances, other preservatives, and rubber chemicals point to problems needing further research and, potentially, preventive efforts. Results with national additions to the baseline series provide important information on substances possibly to be considered for inclusion in the EBS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies on patch testing with workplace materials and evaluation of current occupational relevance of positive patch test reactions are scarce in patients with occupational dermatitis (OD). Objectives: To identify frequent sensitizations with occupational relevance and to determine the value of patch testing with workplace materials in OD patients. Patients and Methods: Results and clinical data of 654 patients with suspected OD patch tested between 2013 and 2017 were analysed. Results: Occupational allergic contact dermatitis was diagnosed in 113 (17.3%) patients. Mechanics had the widest range of occupational sensitizations. Sensitization to epoxy resin was rated occupationally relevant in almost all handicraft trades. Among positive patch test reactions to workplace products, those to water‐based metal working fluids and leave‐on cosmetic products were most frequent. Despite frequent testing, protective gloves only rarely elicited positive reactions. Preservatives and rubber compounds were most frequently identified as currently occupationally relevant. Conclusions: Rubber allergy is occupationally relevant especially in healthcare workers and cleaners. Generally, preservatives including formaldehyde releasers are important allergens in OD patients. Leave‐on cosmetic products must not be forgotten as allergen sources. Patch testing both workplace materials and standardized test preparations has a complementary value and is beneficial for the diagnostic work‐up of OD patients. Highlights: Patch testing of workplace materials and standardized test preparations has a complementary value in the diagnostic work‐up of occupational dermatitis patients.Mechanics should be patch tested in a broad fashion, including rubber, metal working fluids, epoxy resin systems, and leave‐on products.Epoxy resin systems exhibit current occupational relevance in almost all high‐risk professions of the handicraft sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sensitization to methylisothiazolinone (MI) has seen an exceptional epidemic, mainly attributed to its use in cosmetics. Objectives: To trace the epidemic of MI allergy (2009–2018), and to analyze a possible change of patients' characteristics. Methods: Informationsverbund Dermatologischer Kliniken‐data of patients patch tested between 2009 and 2018 with MI (0.05% aq.) were analyzed concerning anamnestic items and sensitization frequencies. Results: Overall, 4.9% reacted positive to MI. Comparing sensitization to MI in three periods (2009, 2013/14, and 2017/18), there was an increase to 7% in 2013 and a decrease to 3.4% in 2018. The MOAHLFA Index (M=Men, O=Occupational Dermatitis, A=Atopic Dermatitis, L=Leg Dermatitis, F=Face Dermatitis, A= Age > 40) for the period 2013/14 is characterized by a lower proportion of occupational dermatitis and a higher proportion of face dermatitis. The period 2017/18 is characterized by increases of occupational dermatitis and hand dermatitis, and a decrease of face dermatitis. Painters, personal care workers, and hairdressers were particularly affected. Sensitization in hairdressers and personal care workers (mostly cosmeticians) decreased after the peak in 2013/14, whereas sensitization to MI in painters continued to increase. Conclusions: After an unprecedented epidemic of MI allergy, mainly caused by its use in cosmetics, the continuous use of MI in industrial applications, for example, paints, and subsequent sensitization remain a matter of concern. Highlights: After an epidemic of MI allergy mainly caused by its use in cosmetics, the continuous use of MI in industrial applications, for example, paints, and subsequent sensitization remain a matter of concern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case study of 55-year-old White non-atopic metalworker with the medical history of work-related hand eczema. It notes the allergic contact dermatitis caused by the emulsifying agent 2-Amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP), which is used in metalworking fluids (MWF), and AMP used in cosmetics like hair dyes.

The article presents the case study of 31-year-old non-atopic toolmaker being exposed to a concentrated solution with an oligomeric reaction product, with diphenylmethane and tripropyleneglycol. It states that the patient wore protective gloves and goggles, his right forearm and face that were contaminated. It focuses application of topical corticosteroids in the affected are.

The article discusses research which patch tested didecyldimethylammonium chloride (DDAC) in patients with suspected contact sensitization to surface or instrument disinfectants after observing a case of a geriatric nurse with airborne occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by DDAC. Topics covered include the clinical relevance of patch testing, test concentrations which shows strong and weak positive reactions, and ideal concentrations for suspected allergic contact dermatitis.

The article offers information on a study related to the concentration of povidone-iodine in patch test. Topics discussed include use of povidone-iodine (PVP-I) as a skin disinfectant in wound care and preparation for surgery; medical examination of suspected allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by antiseptics; and administration of iodine-containing contrast media.

Background: In 2019, a number of allergens (haptens), henceforth, "the audit allergens," were considered as potential additions to the European Baseline Series (EBS), namely, sodium metabisulfite, 2‐bromo‐2‐nitropropane‐1,3‐diol, diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, Compositae mix II (2.5% or 5% pet), linalool hydroperoxides (lin‐OOH), limonene hydroperoxides (lim‐OOH), benzisothiazolinone (BIT), octylisothiazolinone (OIT), decyl glucoside, and lauryl glucoside; Evernia furfuracea (tree moss), was additionally tested by some departments as well. Objectives: To collect further data on patch test reactivity and clinical relevance of the audit allergens in consecutive patients across Europe. Methods: Patch test data covering the audit allergens in 2019 and 2020 were collected by those departments of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies testing these, as well as further collaborators from the EBS working group of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD), and the Spanish Grupo Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea. As patch test outcome, reactions between day (D) 3 and D5 were considered. Results: Altogether n = 12 403 patients were tested with any of the audit allergen. Positive reactions were most common to lin‐OOH 1% pet. (8.74% [95%CI: 8.14–9.37%]), followed by lin‐OOH 0.5% pet., and lim‐OOH 0.3% pet (5.41% [95% CI: 4.95–5.89%]). Beyond these terpene hydroperoxides, BIT 0.1% pet. was the second most common allergen with 4.72% (95% CI: 4.2–5.28%), followed by sodium metabisulfite 1% pet. (3.75% [95%CI: 3.32–4.23%]) and Compositae mix 5% pet. (2.31% [95% CI: 1.84–2.87%]). For some allergens, clinical relevance was frequently difficult to ascertain. Conclusions: Despite many positive patch test reactions, it remains controversial whether lin‐ and lim‐OOH should be tested routinely, while at least the two preservatives BIT and sodium metabisulfite appear suitable. The present results are a basis for further discussion and ultimately decision on their implementation into routine testing among the ESCD members. Highlights: Twelve preservatives, fragrances, and emulsifiers were evaluated as potential additions to the European Baseline Series (EBS)The highest prevalences of positive reactions were to linalool hydroperoxides 1% pet. or 0.5% pet. and limonene hydroperoxides 0.3% pet. Benzisothiazolinone 0.1% pet. was positive in 4.7%, followed by sodium metabisulfite 1% pet. (3.8%) and Compositae mix 5% pet. (2.3%).The results are a basis for further discussion and ultimately a decision on their implementation into routine testing among the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD) members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]