Search

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: 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: 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]