Search

Gonococcal urethritis (GU) is the second most common sexually transmitted infection (STI). Epidemiologic studies of the situation of GU reinfection and its related risk factors among patients with a history of GU in Thailand remain somewhat limited. A hospital-based retrospective cohort study was conducted between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2020 to determine the incidence and risk factors of GU reinfection among male patients visiting in Royal Thai Army (RTA) Hospitals. A total of 2,465 male patients presenting a history of GU was included in this study. In all, 147 (6.0%; 95% CI 5.1–6.9) male patients presented GU reinfection, representing an incidence rate of 1.3 (95% CI 1.1–1.5) per 100 person-years. The independent risk factors for GU reinfection were age $$\ge$$ ≥ 3 (AHR 5.6; 95% CI 2.7–11.6), and participants residing in the north (AHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.3–7.5) and northeast regions (AHR 2.1; 95% CI 1.1–3.9). Incidence of GU reinfection among male patients visiting RTA Hospitals was significantly high among younger aged patients, especially in the north and northeast regions. Multiple sex partners played a major role in GU reinfection. Effective STI prevention programs should be provided to alleviate reinfection and its complications.

Systemic contact dermatitis (SCD) is a condition occurring in previously sensitized individuals after systemic re‐exposure to the same or cross‐reacting substance. Pigmented systemic contact dermatitis after intake of cobalt containing diet has never been reported., Systemic pigmented contact dermatitis following cobalamin ingestion.

Background Allergic reaction to topical drugs varies depending on use and availability of topical drugs and self-medication. Objective We aimed to determine the incidence of contact dermatitis to topical medicaments among patients referred for patch testing. Methods All patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis were patch tested with standard and medicament series. The characterization was performed according to the MOAHLFA index. Results 59/215 (27.4%) patients had positive reactions to at least 1 medicament but only 13/59 (22.0%) had a relevant history. The 3 most common positive medicaments were framycetin 23/215 (10.7%), miconazole 22/215 (10.2%), and econazole 17/215 (7.9%). Among those positive to medicament, face was the most common location 22/59 (37.3%). 39/215 (18.1%) had more than 2 co-positive standard allergens and showed significant higher rate of topical medicament sensitization. The contributing factors of medicament allergy were the history of suspected allergens in personal care products (OR = 2.09, P = 0.038), topical drugs (OR = 2.93, P = 0.002), topical treatment (OR = 2.47, P = 0.011), and history of drug allergy (OR = 1.78, P = 0.023). Conclusions The study showed a high rate of medicament sensitization especially antibiotic and antifungal drugs. The incidence of positive medicament patch test result was associated with facial dermatitis. Polysensitization and history of previous exposure, either as treatment or overusing of drugs, significantly associated with medicament positive patients. This study supports the inclusion of medicaments within the standard series of patch test.

Several authors have commented upon the skills of detection required in making a diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. Here, we emphasise the search for clues in a systematic manner. We describe four stages as part of a systematic method for diagnosing allergic contact dermatitis. Firstly, elimination (or inclusion) of non-allergic diagnoses. Secondly, perception: the pre-patch test diagnosis and the 'three scenarios' principle. Thirdly, detection: optimising the sensitivity of the patch test process. Fourthly, deduction: diagnosing allergic contact dermatitis by associating the dermatitis with the allergen exposure. We further compare and contrast the pre-patch test history and examination with the markedly different one ('microhistory' and 'microexamination') used after patch testing. The importance of knowledge of contact dermatitis literature is emphasised with a review of recent publications. Finally, we also highlight the use of contact allergy profiling as an investigative tool in the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis.

The International Contact Dermatitis Research Group proposes a classification for the clinical presentation of contact allergy. The classification is based primarily on the mode of clinical presentation. The categories are direct exposure/contact dermatitis, mimicking or exacerbation of preexisting eczema, multifactorial dermatitis including allergic contact dermatitis, by proxy, mimicking angioedema, airborne contact dermatitis, photo-induced contact dermatitis, systemic contact dermatitis, noneczematous contact dermatitis, contact urticaria, protein contact dermatitis, respiratory/mucosal symptoms, oral contact dermatitis, erythroderma/exfoliative dermatitis, minor forms of presentation, and extracutaneous manifestations.