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.

Con el progresivo control de la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2, los miembros del Grupo Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea (GEIDAC) realizan una propuesta sobre cuáles van a ser los requisitos, las limitaciones y los condicionantes para reanudar el servicio en las unidades de dermatitis de contacto en un escenario en el que se presume la persistencia del virus, con episodios ocasionales o estacionales de exacerbación. Se aconseja ajustar el número de pruebas epicutáneas (PE) a las posibilidades de cada centro y la revisión de los casos en lista de espera para priorizar a los pacientes en función de la gravedad y la urgencia. Se ofrecerán, si es factible, métodos telemáticos para los documentos relativos a las PE (información, pautas, documentos de consentimiento informado). De estar disponible, puede ofrecerse la opción de realizar una primera visita telemática. Igualmente, en pacientes seleccionados puede llevarse a cabo una televisita en las visitas de lectura a través de imágenes realizadas por el paciente o mediante una videovisita que permita visualizar el resultado de la exploración. Estas acciones permitirán reducir el número de visitas presenciales, aunque no el tiempo dedicado y asignado al facultativo para los actos médicos. Todas estas recomendaciones son sugerencias y se adaptarán a los requisitos y a las posibilidades de cada centro sanitario.

SummaryBackground Corticosteroids are among the most commonly used topical drugs. Contact allergy to these exists, but can be easily missed. Corticosteroid screening markers have been included in the baseline series with the aim of detecting most of the sensitized patients. Objectives To assess the prevalence of contact allergy to topical corticosteroids in Spain and examine the usefulness of corticosteroid markers to detect contact allergy to corticosteroids. Methods In total, 3699 patients referred to 20 dermatology departments across Spain for patch testing with the baseline series, including budesonide and tixocortol pivalate, were also tested with six supplementary corticosteroids (methylprednisolone aceponate, mometasone furoate, prednicarbate, clobetasol propionate, betamethasone 17-valerate, and betamethasone 17,21-dipropionate). Additionally, 2547 (68.8%) patients were tested with hydrocortisone 17-butyrate. Results Fifty-four patients showed positive reactions to at least one of all tested corticosteroids (1.46%). Thirty-nine (1.05%) reacted to at least one of the additionally tested corticosteroids; among these, 24 of 39 (61.5%) did not react to any of the corticosteroid allergy screening markers tested. Conclusions More than half of the patients who were allergic to the additionally tested corticosteroids were not detected with the corticosteroid allergy markers. An update of the corticosteroid allergy screening markers is encouraged, with consideration of group 3 corticosteroids.

Background. Corticosteroids are among the most commonly used topical drugs. Contact allergy to these exists, but can be easily missed. Corticosteroid screening markers have been included in the baseline series with the aim of detecting most of the sensitized patients. Objectives. To assess the prevalence of contact allergy to topical corticosteroids in Spain and examine the usefulness of corticosteroid markers to detect contact allergy to corticosteroids. Methods. In total, 3699 patients referred to 20 dermatology departments across Spain for patch testing with the baseline series, including budesonide and tixocortol pivalate, were also tested with six supplementary corticosteroids (methylprednisolone aceponate, mometasone furoate, prednicarbate, clobetasol propionate, betamethasone 17-valerate, and betamethasone 17,21-dipropionate). Additionally, 2547 (68.8%) patients were tested with hydrocortisone 17-butyrate. Results. Fifty-four patients showed positive reactions to at least one of all tested corticosteroids (1.46%). Thirty-nine (1.05%) reacted to at least one of the additionally tested corticosteroids; among these, 24 of 39 (61.5%) did not react to any of the corticosteroid allergy screening markers tested. Conclusions. More than half of the patients who were allergic to the additionally tested corticosteroids were not detected with the corticosteroid allergy markers. An update of the corticosteroid allergy screening markers is encouraged, with consideration of group 3 corticosteroids.

BACKGROUND: Limonene and linalool are common fragrance terpenes widely used in cosmetic, household and hygiene products. Their primary oxidation products formed after air exposure, the hydroperoxides, have been recognized as important contact haptens. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of contact allergy to hydroperoxides of limonene (Lim-OOHs) and hydroperoxides of linalool (Lin-OOHs) in Spain, and to define the optimal concentration for screening in consecutive patients. METHODS: Three different concentrations of Lim-OOHs (0.1%, 0.2% and 0.3% pet.) and Lin-OOHs (0.25%, 0.5% and 1.0% pet.) were simultaneously tested in 3639 consecutive patients at 22 departments of dermatology in Spain. RESULTS: Lim-OOHs at 0.1%, 0.2% and 0.3% yielded positive patch test reactions in 1.4%, 3.4% and 5.1% of the tested patients, respectively; and Lin-OOHs at 0.25%, 0.5% and 1.0% yielded positive reactions in 1.3%, 2.9% and 4.9% of the tested patients, respectively. Few irritant (1.5-1.9%) and doubtful reactions (0.4-0.5%) to both terpene hydroperoxides were registered at the highest concentrations tested. CONCLUSIONS: Lim-OOHs and Lin-OOHs can be considered as common causes of contact allergy, and their inclusion in an extended baseline patch test series therefore seems to be appropriate. The patch test preparations of Lim-OOHs 0.3% pet. and Lin-OOHs 1.0% pet. are useful tools for screening of contact sensitization.

Limonene and linalool are common fragrance terpenes widely used in cosmetic, household and hygiene products. Their primary oxidation products formed after air exposure, the hydroperoxides, have been recognized as important contact haptens.

Objective To develop a self-administered short questionnaire to assess patient satisfaction with medical treatment for hand eczema (dermatitis) with good psychometric properties. Method The content of the questionnaire was determined on the basis of clinical consultation with groups of patients, from studying the existing instruments, and from discussions with a panel of seven experts. A first draft version containing 38 items organised in six dimensions was tested on a pilot sample of patients to assess its legibility. The extended version was then tested on a sample of 217 patients of both genders enrolled at 18 hospitals representative of the national distribution. The questionnaire was supplied together with the Morisky-Green compliance questionnaire, the health-related quality of life (HRQL) SF-12 questionnaire, and a visual analogue scale (VAS) of perceived health status to assess concurrent validity. The dimensionality was reduced by means of exploratory factor analysis, and reliability was evaluated on the basis of internal consistency and two halves reliability estimates. Item discriminant capability and questionnaire discriminant validity with respect to known groups of patients (by gender, principal diagnosis, age, disease severity and treatment) were also assessed. Results The reduction and validation sample was composed of 54% women and 46% men, of various educational levels with an average age of 43 years (SD = 13.7). Of those who responded, 26% were diagnosed with hyperkeratotic dermatitis of the palms and 27% of the fingertips, and 47% with recurring palmar dyshidrotic eczema. The questionnaire was shortened to a version containing 17 items grouped in six dimensions: effectiveness, convenience, impact on HRQL, medical follow-up, side effects, and general opinion. Cronbach's alpha coefficient reached a value of 0.9. The dimensions showed different degrees of correlation, and the scores had a normal distribution with an average of 58.4 points (SD = 18.01). Treatment satisfaction scores attained correlations between 0.003 and 0.222 with the HRQL measures, and showed higher correlations with the effectiveness (r = 0.41) and tolerability (0.22) measures, but very low correlation with compliance (r = 0.015). Significant differences were observed between some diagnoses and treatments. Conclusions The shortened questionnaire proved to have good psychometric properties, providing excellent reliability, satisfactorily reproducing the proposed structure and supplying evidence of validity.

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 Espanol de Investigacion en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutanea. 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.

BACKGROUND Continual analyses of patch test results with the European baseline series (EBS) serve both contact allergy surveillance and auditing the value of included allergens. OBJECTIVES To present results of current EBS patch testing, obtained in 53 departments in 13 European countries during 2019 and 2020. METHODS Anonymised or pseudonymised individual data, and partly aggregated data on demographic/clinical characteristics and patch test rest results with the EBS were prospectively collected and centrally pooled and analysed. RESULTS In 2019 and 2020, 22581 patients were patch tested with the EBS. Sensitization to nickel remained most common (19.8 (19.2-20.4)% positivity (95% confidence interval)). Fragrance mix I and Myroxylon pereirae yielded very similar results with 6.80 (6.43-7.19)% and 6.62 (6.25-7.00)% positivity, respectively. Formaldehyde at 2% aq. yielded almost one percentage point more positive reactions than 1% concentration (2.49 (2.16-2.85)% vs. 1.59 (1.33-1.88)); methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) and MI alone up to around 5% positives. Among the new additions, propolis was most commonly positive (3.48 (3.16-3.82)%), followed by 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2.32 (2.0-2.68)%). CONCLUSIONS Ongoing surveillance on the prevalence of contact sensitization contributes to an up-to-date baseline series containing the most frequent and/or relevant contact sensitizers for routine patch testing in Europe. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.