Search

Background: While Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) colonization has been thoroughly studied in atopic dermatitis (AD), where S. aureus is related to flares and considered a trigger factor, S. aureus colonization in hand eczema (HE) has only been sparsely studied. Objectives: To examine the 1‐week prevalence of S. aureus colonization in HE patients, and its association with severity, HE subtype, AD, and nasal S. aureus colonization compared with healthy controls. Methods: In a case‐control study of 50 adult HE patients and 50 healthy controls, bacterial swabs from lesional skin (patients only), non‐lesional skin (dorsal hand), and the nasal cavity were sampled for culturing of S. aureus on days 1, 3, 5 and 8. Participants were characterized by demographics, AD, HE subtype, filaggrin gene mutation status, and HE severity. Results: Twenty‐seven HE patients (54%) were colonized with S. aureus on the hand compared to one control (2%) (P <.01). Nasal S. aureus colonization was found in 72% of patients and 22% of controls (P <.01). For patients, S. aureus colonization on the hands was associated with an atopic HE subtype and HE severity (P =.01 and P <.01, respectively). Conclusions: Both hand and nasal S. aureus colonization were highly prevalent among HE‐patients and may have an impact on the persistence of HE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Initially after tattooing, the skin barrier function is broken. However, the long‐term impact of clinically healed tattoos on this has never been studied. The aim was to investigate the long‐term effect on the skin barrier function in normal tattoos and examples of tattoos with chronic inflammatory complication. Methods: Participants were recruited from the "Tattoo clinic" of the Dermatological Department on Bispebjerg Hospital in Denmark, where patients with complicated tattoo reactions are treated. Transepidermal water loss (TEWL), conductance, capacitance, and pH were measured in tattooed skin with regional control measurements in normal non‐tattooed skin. Natural moisturizing factor (NMF) was measured in collected tape strips. Results: Twenty six individuals with 28 tattoos were included, that is, 23 normal tattoos without any pathologic reaction and 5 tattoos with chronic inflammatory complications. No significant differences were found in tattooed versus non‐tattooed skin with respect to TEWL (median values 6.6 vs 7.2 g/m2/h), conductance (76 vs 78 a.u.), pH (5.94 vs 5.79), and NMF (0.58 vs 0.59 mmol/g protein). Capacitance (64 vs 57 a.u.) was higher in tattooed skin compared to non‐tattooed skin (P = 0.006). Similar results were found in tattoos with inflammatory reactions. Conclusion: Overall, skin tattoos do not affect the long‐term skin barrier function markedly. The skin capacitance was, however, affected in tattooed skin areas compared to non‐tattooed skin areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contact sensitization is common and affects up to 20% of the general population. The clinical manifestation of contact sensitization is allergic contact dermatitis. This is a clinical expression that is sometimes difficult to distinguish from other types of dermatitis, for example irritant and atopic dermatitis. Several studies have examined the pathogenesis and severity of allergic contact dermatitis by measuring the absence or presence of various biomarkers. In this review, we provide a non-systematic overview of biomarkers that have been studied in allergic contact dermatitis. These include genetic variations and mutations, inflammatory mediators, alarmins, proteases, immunoproteomics, lipids, natural moisturizing factors, tight junctions, and antimicrobial peptides. We conclude that, despite the enormous amount of data, convincing specific biomarkers for allergic contact dermatitis are yet to be described. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Wet work tasks are the most common exposures leading to occupational irritant contact dermatitis. Use of liquid-proof gloves is recommended when performing wet work, however, gloves may also contribute to impairment of the skin barrier and development of irritant contact dermatitis. The aim of this study is to review the literature on the effects of glove occlusion on skin barrier function. The PubMed database was searched up to 1 February 2015 for articles on the association between glove occlusion and skin barrier function, including human studies only and in English. Only experimental studies including assessment of the skin barrier function were included in the data analysis. Thirteen articles were identified, 8 with focus on occlusion alone, 7 with focus on occlusion in combination with irritant exposure (some overlapping), and 2 field studies. In conclusion, data from the literature showed that the negative effect of occlusion in itself is limited, and that only extensive and long-term occlusion will cause barrier impairment. However, studies investigating combined effect of occlusion and exposure to soaps/detergents indicate that occlusion significantly enhances the skin barrier damage caused by detergents/soaps in a dose-response fashion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this review is to present findings on expression of antimicrobial peptides ( AMPs) in atopic dermatitis ( AD) skin, focusing only on in vivo studies, and to discuss differences in results obtained using various skin sampling techniques and different methodology for analysis of AMPs. The review also includes a discussion of the effect of frequently used treatments on AMP expression. Many studies have shown a reduced level of AMPs in lesional AD skin when compared to psoriatic skin, explaining the high frequency of AD-related infections. Interestingly, however, non-lesional AD skin has shown the same upregulation of AMPs after barrier disruption as non-lesional psoriatic skin. Various methods have been used to analyse AMP expression in the skin, and when comparing these methods, differences are revealed in AMP expression depending on the method used for sampling and analysis. Comparisons indicate that analyses of mRNA levels of AMPs may find greater differences in expression than analyses of protein levels. Few studies evaluate the effect of topical treatments on the expression of AMPs, and these indicate an inhibition of AMP expression, particularly after use of corticosteroids. AMPs are important components of the skin as a defense against infections, and despite much research, the clinical importance of the effect of common treatments, including systemic treatments for AD and the interplay between AMPs and the skin microbiome, is still largely unknown. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]