Search

Background: Irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) is caused by the acute locally toxic effect of a strong irritant, or the cumulative exposure to various weaker physical and/or chemical irritants. Objectives: To describe the characteristics of patients with ICD in the population patch tested in the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA; www.essca-dc.org) database. Methods: Data collected by the ESSCA in consecutively patch tested patients from January 2009 to December 2018 were analyzed. Results: Of the 68 072 patients, 8702 were diagnosed with ICD (without concomitant allergic contact dermatitis [ACD]). Hand and face were the most reported anatomical sites, and 45.7% of the ICD was occupational ICD (OICD). The highest proportions of OICD were found in metal turners, bakers, pastry cooks, and confectionery makers. Among patients diagnosed with ICD, 45% were found sensitized with no relevance for the current disease. Conclusions: The hands were mainly involved in OICD also in the subgroup of patients with contact dermatitis, in whom relevant contact sensitization had been ruled out, emphasizing the need for limiting irritant exposures. However, in difficult-to-treat contact dermatitis, unrecognized contact allergy, or unrecognized clinical relevance of identified allergies owing to incomplete or wrong product ingredient information must always be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of disinfectants is part of the everyday life of people, especially in the medical profession. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the use of disinfectants continues to increase and is of fundamental importance in infection control. Objectives: To determine the frequency of sensitization and the value of patch testing to didecyldimethylammonium chloride (DDAC) and the alcohols ethanol, 1-propanol, and isopropanol. Methods: Clinical patch test data of 145 patients with suspected contact allergy to disinfectants were retrospective analysed. Results: Among the 145 patients patch tested with the different alcohols, only one nurse was detected with a possible allergy to 1-propanol. Additional patch testing in 84 patients with DDAC 0.05% resulted in five patients with weakly positive reactions only, without clinical relevance. Patch testing with DDAC 0.03% showed no positive reactions at all on day 3 readings. Conclusions: DDAC and alcohols are rarely responsible for allergic contact dermatitis. The accused products of the patients should be checked for other allergens and further additives with skin-irritating properties. Individual susceptibility and mishandling of the disinfectants should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background and objectives: Convolutional neural networks (CNN) have proven dermatologist‐level performance in skin lesion classification. Prior to a broader clinical application, an assessment of limitations is crucial. Therefore, the influence of a dark tubular periphery in dermatoscopic images (also called dark corner artefact [DCA]) on the diagnostic performance of a market‐approved CNN for skin lesion classification was investigated. Patients and methods: A prospective image set of 233 skin lesions (60 malignant, 173 benign) without DCA (control‐set) was modified to show small, medium or large DCA. All 932 images were analyzed by a market‐approved CNN (Moleanalyzer‐Pro®, FotoFinder Systems), providing malignancy scores (range 0–1) with the cut‐off > 0.5 indicating malignancy. Results: In the control‐set the CNN achieved a sensitivity of 90.0 % (79.9 % – 95.3 %), a specificity of 96.5 % (92.6 % – 98.4 %), and an area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristics (ROC) of 0.961 (0.932 – 0.989). Comparable diagnostic performance was observed in the DCAsmall‐set and DCAmedium‐set. Conversely, in the DCAlarge‐set significantly increased malignancy scores triggered a significantly decreased specificity (87.9 % [82.2 % – 91.9 %], P < 0.001), non‐significantly increased sensitivity (96.7 % [88.6 % – 99.1 %]) and unchanged ROC‐AUC of 0.962 (0.935 – 0.989). Conclusions: Convolutional neural network classification was robust in images with small and medium DCA, but impaired in images with large DCA. Physicians should be aware of this limitation when submitting images to CNN classification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Zusammenfassung: Hintergrund und Ziele: Systeme künstlicher Intelligenz (durch „deep learning" faltende neuronale Netzwerke; engl. convolutional neural networks, CNN) erreichen inzwischen bei der Klassifikation von Hautläsionen vergleichbar gute Ergebnisse wie Dermatologen. Allerdings müssen die Limitationen solcher Systeme vor flächendeckendem klinischem Einsatz bekannt sein. Daher haben wir den Einfluss des „dunklen Rand‐Artefakts" (engl. dark corner artefact; DCA) in dermatoskopischen Bildern auf die diagnostische Leistung eines CNN mit Marktzulassung zur Klassifikation von Hautläsionen untersucht. Patienten und Methoden: Ein Datensatz aus 233 Bildern von Hautläsionen (60 maligne und 173 benigne) ohne DCA (Kontrolle) wurde digital so modifiziert, dass kleine, mittlere oder große DCA zu sehen waren. Alle 932 Bilder wurden dann mittels CNN mit Marktzulassung (Moleanalyzer‐Pro®, FotoFinder Systems) auf Malignitätsscores hin analysiert. Das Spektrum reichte von 0–1; ein Score von > 0,5 wurde als maligne klassifiziert. Ergebnisse: In der Kontrollserie ohne DCA erreichte das CNN eine Sensitivität von 90,0 % (79,9 %–95,3 %), eine Spezifität von 96,5 % (92,6 %–98,4 %) sowie eine Fläche unter der Kurve (AUC, area under the curve) der „receiver operating characteristic" (ROC) von 0,961 (0,932–0,989). In den Datensätzen mit kleinen beziehungsweise mittleren DCA war die diagnostische Leistung vergleichbar. In den Bildersätzen mit großen DCA wurden allerdings signifikant höhere Malignitätsscores erzielt. Dies führte zu einer signifikant verminderten Spezifität (87,9 % [82,2 %–91,9 %], P < 0,001) sowie einer nicht signifikant erhöhten Sensitivität (96,7 % [88,6 %–99,1 %]). Die ROC‐AUC blieb mit 0,962 (0,935–0,989) unverändert. Schlussfolgerungen: Die Klassifizierung mittels des CNN war bei dermatoskopischen Bildern mit kleinen oder mittleren DCA nicht beeinträchtigt, das System zeigte jedoch Schwächen bei großen DCA. Wenn Ärzte solche Bilder zur Klassifikation mittels CNN einreichen, sollten sie sich dieser Grenzen der Technologie bewusst sein. [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: Allergy evaluation by patch testing with povidone‐iodine (PVP‐I) or iodine remains challenging, because current patch test preparations frequently lead to false‐positive or irritant skin reactions. Objectives: To investigate different preparations for iodine patch tests and to assess their clinical relevance with repeated open application tests (ROATs). Methods: We monocentrically analyzed 95 patients with suspected allergy to disinfectants in retrospect who underwent parallel iodine patch testing with four preparations: PVP‐I 2% aq., 5% aq., 10% aq., and iodine 0.5% pet. Results: In 27 of 95 patients (28.4%), we found positive reactions to one of the four test preparations. After ROATs in 22 of these 27 positively tested individuals, only one patient was diagnosed with iodine allergy. In contrast, 31 of 95 patients (32.6%) showed irritant or questionable patch test reactions on day 2 (D2) and/or D3 and/or D7 to one or more test preparations. Testing with PVP‐I 2% aq. resulted in the lowest number of doubtful skin reactions while detecting the single allergic patient. Conclusion: PVP‐I 2% aq. was found to be the optimal patch test preparation. In general, iodine allergy appears to be substantially overestimated, and positive patch test responses to iodine should prompt an urgent ROAT for confirmation before diagnosing iodine allergy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Summary: Background: The association of atopic dermatitis (AD) and allergic contact dermatitis has been a matter of considerable uncertainty. Study results range from lack of any association to increased sensitization for multiple allergens, but fail to identify consistent allergen associations. Objective: We studied a large patch test cohort of patients stratified by their atopic skin diathesis using the Erlangen Atopy Score (EAS), independent of active skin disease. Methods: Retrospective multi‐center data analysis from five departments of dermatology in Germany with 4,509 patients. Patients were grouped as "no atopic skin diathesis" (n = 2,165) and "atopic skin diathesis" (n = 1,743), according to EAS. Results: Significantly more individuals with atopic skin diathesis showed at least one positive patch test reaction to the baseline series compared to individuals without atopic skin diathesis (49.1 % vs. 38.3 %). In logistic regression analyses, atopic skin diathesis was associated with a significantly higher risk of sensitization to methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (OR 2.383) and methylisothiazolinone (OR 1.891), thiuram mix (OR 1.614), as well as nickel (OR 1.530), cobalt (OR 1.683), and chromium (OR 2.089). Conclusions: Atopic skin diathesis proved to be the most important intrinsic risk factor for contact sensitization to few, specific allergens. Past or present AD was a less relevant variable. [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]

Summary: Background: Sensitization rates to aeroallergens are rising worldwide. The prevalence is increasing, especially in Western countries. We aimed to investigate (1) sensitization rates and (2) cross‐sensitization patterns in skin prick tests (SPTs) for the most relevant inhaled allergens in central Germany over 20 years, adjusted for regional pollen counts. Patients and Methods: This monocentric study evaluated SPTs for tree pollen, grass pollen and house dust mites (HDMs) in 4,315 patients (including children) with suspected airway allergies, from 1998–2017. Results: Sensitization rates to almost all aeroallergens have increased significantly over time, without relevant changes in regional pollen counts. Current sensitization rates in all our symptomatic patients were highest for grass (55.3 %) and rye pollen (59.6 %), with most pronounced increases in HDM sensitization over time (from 37.8 % to the current figure of 50.1 %). However, a low but consistent proportion of tree‐sensitized patients (3.6–7.8 %) showed isolated positive SPTs to alder and/or hazel pollen without sensitization to birch pollen. Conclusions: We demonstrate a significant rise in the total number of sensitized patients as well as increases in cross‐sensitization between closely related allergens. Individuals with unusual mono‐sensitization profiles to common inhaled allergens should be studied in more detail, since these patients are currently excluded from clinical trials for allergen immunotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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: Metalworkers are exposed to a variety of contact allergens by handling tools, metals, metalworking fluids (MWFs), oils and greases, rubber materials, and so on. Most large‐scale reports on contact allergy due to MWFs are more than 10‐years‐old, and there are only few studies on contact allergy in mechanics and other metal workers not exposed to MWFs. Objectives: To describe a current spectrum of contact sensitization in metalworkers with occupational dermatitis (OD). Patients and Methods: Retrospective analysis of patch test data collected by the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK; 2010–2018), stratifying for 804 cutting metalworkers, 2197 mechanics, and 355 other metalworkers. Results: Cutting metalworkers were most frequently sensitized to monoethanolamine (12.6%), colophonium/abietic acid (11.4%) and formaldehyde releasers (up to 8.5%) from the MWF series, and formaldehyde (4.6%) and iodopropynyl butylcarbamate (4.6%) from the baseline series. Sensitization among mechanics and other metalworkers indicates possible occupational exposure to MWFs, glues, and resins, although this may not be expected from their job titles. Conclusions: The spectrum of MWF contact allergens remained largely unchanged during the last years. Taking a comprehensive occupational history is indispensable in order to not miss relevant allergen exposures. Highlights: There have been largely no significant changes in the spectrum of contact sensitizations in cutting metalworkers with occupational dermatitis (OD); leading allergens are monoethanolamine, resin acids, formaldehyde (releasers), and iodopropynyl butylcarbamate.Mechanics and other metalworkers may be occupationally exposed to metalworking fluids, glues, and resins, although this may not be expected from their job titles.Two formaldehyde releasers—Bioban P1487 and Bioban CS 1135—are outdated, and should no longer be patch tested in a metalworking fluid series. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We report two patients with contact allergy to diclofenac and subsequent tolerance in oral challenge tests. Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) after topically applied diclofenac1,2 and type IV reactions after oral intake are rarely reported.3 To date, no study exists on possible oral tolerance in patients with contact allergy to topical diclofenac. Keywords: allergic contact dermatitis; case report; diclofenac; systemic tolerance EN allergic contact dermatitis case report diclofenac systemic tolerance 41 43 3 12/17/21 20220101 NES 220101 Diclofenac (CAS 15307-86-5) is a widely used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). [Extracted from the article]

Keywords: allergic contact dermatitis; clinical epidemiology; commerce; contact sensitization; export; import; propolis; trade EN allergic contact dermatitis clinical epidemiology commerce contact sensitization export import propolis trade 722 724 3 11/18/21 20211201 NES 211201 Propolis is a natural product that consists of more than 100 compounds and shows great compositional variation depending on its origin.1 The most common poplar-type propolis is produced by honeybees in China, Europe, and North America, and is characterized by several caffeates as major allergens.2 The Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) and others recently observed increasing rates of propolis sensitization.3,4 We aimed to identify causes of increasing sensitization to propolis using IVDK and German trade data. Since 2016, increased import and decreased export of propolis to and from Germany, respectively, probably indicate increased propolis use and exposure, which most likely explains the upward trend of propolis sensitization. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Summary: COVID‐19, caused by the coronavirus SARS‐CoV‐2, has become pandemic. A further level of complexity opens up as soon as we look at diseases whose pathogenesis and therapy involve different immunological signaling pathways, which are potentially affected by COVID‐19. Medical treatments must often be reassessed and questioned in connection with this infection. This article summarizes the current knowledge of COVID‐19 in the light of major dermatological and allergological diseases. It identifies medical areas lacking sufficient data and draws conclusions for the management of our patients during the pandemic. We focus on common chronic inflammatory skin diseases with complex immunological pathogenesis: psoriasis, eczema including atopic dermatitis, type I allergies, autoimmune blistering and inflammatory connective tissue diseases, vasculitis, and skin cancers. Since several other inflammatory skin diseases display related or comparable immunological reactions, clustering of the various inflammatory dermatoses into different disease patterns may help with therapeutic decisions. Thus, following these patterns of skin inflammation, our review may supply treatment recommendations and thoughtful considerations for disease management even beyond the most frequent diseases discussed here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Summary: The COVID‐19 pandemic caused by SARS‐CoV‐2 has far‐reaching direct and indirect medical consequences. These include both the course and treatment of diseases. It is becoming increasingly clear that infections with SARS‐CoV‐2 can cause considerable immunological alterations, which particularly also affect pathogenetically and/or therapeutically relevant factors. Against this background we summarize here the current state of knowledge on the interaction of SARS‐CoV‐2/COVID‐19 with mediators of the acute phase of inflammation (TNF, IL‐1, IL‐6), type 1 and type 17 immune responses (IL‐12, IL‐23, IL‐17, IL‐36), type 2 immune reactions (IL‐4, IL‐13, IL‐5, IL‐31, IgE), B‐cell immunity, checkpoint regulators (PD‐1, PD‐L1, CTLA4), and orally druggable signaling pathways (JAK, PDE4, calcineurin). In addition, we discuss in this context non‐specific immune modulation by glucocorticosteroids, methotrexate, antimalarial drugs, azathioprine, dapsone, mycophenolate mofetil and fumaric acid esters, as well as neutrophil granulocyte‐mediated innate immune mechanisms. From these recent findings we derive possible implications for the therapeutic modulation of said immunological mechanisms in connection with SARS‐CoV‐2/COVID‐19. Although, of course, the greatest care should be taken with patients with immunologically mediated diseases or immunomodulating therapies, it appears that many treatments can also be carried out during the COVID‐19 pandemic; some even appear to alleviate COVID‐19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Metal work apprentices (MWAs) frequently develop work‐related hand eczema (HE). Objectives: To evaluate the effect of health education on incidence of work‐related HE in MWAs and to assess confounding factors. Materials/methods: In a prospective controlled intervention study, 131 MWAs received educational training on prevention of HE, whereas 172 MWAs and 118 office work apprentices served as controls. At baseline and during three yearly follow‐ups, questionnaires were completed and hands were examined. Saliva samples were collected for assessment of filaggrin (FLG) null mutations and an explorative genome‐wide association study (GWAS), and levels of various cytokines were assessed from stratum corneum samples. Results: The 2‐year and 3‐year incidence of HE in the metalwork control group was 20.9% and 32.6%, respectively, which was significantly higher than in the intervention group (odds ratio [OR] 2.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31 to 5.28, P <.01 and OR 3.47, 95% CI 1.88 to 6.40, P <.0001). The knowledge score was higher in unaffected MWAs (P <.05). Other factors significantly associated with developing HE in MWAs were smoking cigarettes (P <.01) and FLG mutations (P <.001). No significant associations were found regarding epidermal cytokine levels and GWAS. Conclusions: Health education is effective in primary prevention of HE in MWAs. Individual factors should be considered in targeted counseling. [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]

Summary: The diagnosis of cutaneous mycobacterial infections may be challenging. Owing to the broad spectrum of their clinical presentations, mycobacterioses have to be considered as differential diagnoses to many inflammatory dermatoses. Diagnostic measures comprise histology including special staining, cultures and molecular microbiological examinations as well as the detection of cellular immune reactions of the patient by means of interferon‐γ release assays and skin testing. Clinicians should know the appropriate use and combination of procedures to diagnose mycobacterioses quickly and correctly and to avoid costs and delays caused by unnecessary examinations. This mini review summarizes advantages, limitations, and pitfalls of diagnostic methods for mycobacterial skin infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]