Search

Patch testing is the only clinically applicable diagnostic method for Type IV allergy. The availability of Type IV patch test (PT) allergens in Europe, however, is currently scarce. This severely compromises adequate diagnostics of contact allergy, leading to serious consequences for the affected patients. Against this background, the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD) has created a task force (TF) (i) to explore the current availability of PT substances in different member states, (ii) to highlight some of the unique characteristics of Type IV vs. other allergens and (iii) to suggest ways forward to promote and ensure availability of high‐quality patch testing substances for the diagnosis of Type IV allergies throughout Europe. The suggestions of the TF on how to improve the availability of PT allergens are supported by the ESCD, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, and the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology and intend to provide potential means to resolve the present medical crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Olanedine solution is a new antiseptic, and several cases of allergic contact dermatitis caused by the agent were reported in 2018; however, these cases were diagnosed based on positive results in 2‐day closed patch testing of Olanedine solution "as is." Objectives: To present another case of Olanedine‐induced allergic contact dermatitis and to analyze the optimal patch‐testing method for this condition. Methods: A 34‐year‐old Japanese female patient and 25 healthy control subjects were patch tested using wet filter paper, which had been treated with 15 μL Olanedine solution, and dried filter paper, which had been treated with 15 μL Olanedine solution and then dried. Results: The patient and all of the control subjects exhibited false‐positive reactions due to irritation in the 2‐day closed patch tests with wet filter paper containing Olanedine solution "as is." The tests with dried filter paper produced a positive reaction on day 7 in the patient, and negative reactions in all control subjects. Conclusions: It is preferable to perform 2‐day closed patch tests using filter paper with the test solution "as is," which had been dried before application in order to correctly diagnose antiseptic‐induced allergic contact dermatitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: case report; colophonium; contact dermatitis; lips; paper napkin; rosin; sanitary pad EN case report colophonium contact dermatitis lips paper napkin rosin sanitary pad 377 379 3 08/16/21 20210901 NES 210901 Colophonium (CAS no. 85026-55-7), which is also called rosin (CAS no. 8050-09-7), is a common allergen used in adhesives, glazing of paper products, construction and industrial products, surface coatings, and other products. Case report, colophonium, contact dermatitis, lips, paper napkin, rosin, sanitary pad Resin acids are divided into abietic acids (abietic acid, palustric acid, levopimaric acid, and dehydroabietic acid) and pimaric acids (pimaric acid, isopimaric acid, and sandala pimaric acid).1 The positivity rate for the colophonium patch test in the Japanese baseline series from 1994 to 2018 ranged from 1.5% to 3.2%.2 Contact dermatitis on the hands caused by colophonium in paper has been reported.3,4 This is the first case of contact dermatitis on the lips caused by colophonium in disposable paper napkins. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Finn Chambers AQUA (FCA) is a development of the Finn Chambers (FC) test system in which the test chambers are mounted on a moisture‐resistant adhesive patch. FCA has pre‐fixed filter papers. Because the use of FCA does not require any extra taping or use of separate filter papers, a change from FC to FCA chambers may be beneficial for both patients and patch test technicians. Objectives: To investigate whether there are any differences regarding detection of contact allergy when simultaneous patch testing is performed with FC and FCA. Materials and Methods: Results from 434 dermatitis patients simultaneously tested with 10 allergens in both FC and FCA were evaluated. Results: There were no significant differences regarding detection of positive reactions between the two test systems. There were significantly more doubtful reactions to methylisothiazolinone, fragrance mix I and hydroperoxides of linalool when testing with FCA. We only observed significantly more doubtful reactions in FC regarding nickel(II)sulfate. Irritant reactions to formaldehyde were also significantly more common when using FCA. Conclusion: The FC and FCA had good agreement in detection of positive reactions. However, the results including doubtful and irritant reactions justify further research regarding optimization of the dose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Bisphenol (BP‐)A is a chemical used in Europe to produce polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resin or as colour developer in thermal paper. Due to its toxicity, BPA presence was restricted by European regulations. Therefore, substitute chemicals are replacing BPA. Objective: To assess the allergenic sensitizing potential of 27 substitutes to BPA used in the industry. Methods: The expression of two costimulatory molecules and six cytokines were analysed by flow cytometry in mouse bone marrow‐derived dendritic cells (BMDCs) exposed to the chemicals. Results: All substances except one induced overexpression of at least one receptor and were thus identified as having allergenic sensitizing potential. Based on the BMDC model, they were classified as extreme (1 out of 27), strong (20 out of 27) and moderate (5 out of 27) sensitizers. BPA was classified as a moderate sensitizer and BPF was the only substitute classified as a non‐sensitizer. The more potent substitutes induced more than 2‐fold secretion of CCL3, CCL4 and/or CCL5 by dendritic cells. Conclusion: Most of the BPA substitutes tested in this study have an allergenic sensitizing potential; 24 of them being more potent than BPA itself. Only BPE, BPF and 2,4‐BPS appeared to be weaker sensitizers than BPA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case study of a small case series of frictional dermatitis caused by occupational paper and cardboard. The patients were diagnosed with primary hand eczema characterized by initial skin dryness, scaling, and fissures. The article also discusses history of atopic dermatitis, occupational hyperkeratoses, and disease susceptibility of shoemakers.

In this paper, we explain why late-appearing patch test reactions to carvone followed by a positive retest within 3 days, do not need to be equivalent with active sensitization. Late-appearing patch test reactions to carvone do not need to be signs of active sensitization Keywords: allergic contact dermatitis; CAS 6485-40-1; contact allergy; delayed hypersensitivity; dilutions; mint-tasting flavor; retest EN allergic contact dermatitis CAS 6485-40-1 contact allergy delayed hypersensitivity dilutions mint-tasting flavor retest 207 209 3 08/04/23 20230901 NES 230901 A controlled and randomized use test with l-carvone in a toothpaste on individuals with or without contact allergy to carvone was performed.[1] One week before the use test, a patch test with l-carvone was performed in 37 volunteers. [Extracted from the article]

Keywords: adhesive; allergic contact dermatitis; case report; Finn Chambers AQUA; modified colophonium; patch test Allergic reactions to traditional Finn Chambers are mainly caused by contact allergy to aluminium, and, in most cases, are verified by positive patch test reactions to aluminium salts.[[1], [6], [11]] Our two cases, however, had negative test results with aluminium chloride hexahydrate, making aluminium contact allergy unlikely. In one report, a diagnosis of aluminium contact allergy was made; however, aluminium salts were not tested. Adhesive, allergic contact dermatitis, case report, Finn Chambers AQUA, modified colophonium, patch test. [Extracted from the article]

DISCUSSION Contact allergy to IPBC has increased gradually over time in the United States and Europe and we present the first Australian data for contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis. Iodopropynyl butylcarbamate (IPBC) is a broad-spectrum preservative initially used in wood and paint products and now increasingly used in consumer products including cosmetics, moisturizers, shampoos, baby products, powders, paper, alcohol rubs, and wet wipes.1,2 In 1996 the US Food and Drug Administration reported that IPBC was used in 122 cosmetic products which increased to 942 by 2013.3,4 Increasing rates of contact allergy have been reported over the last 20 years from Europe and the United States,2 but there have been no studies from Australia. This contrasts with a previous study finding it to cause mainly occupational hand dermatitis in males.7 In another study, IPBC contact allergy was also reported to household detergents, but this was not evident in our study.8 These differences are likely to be due to the variation of exposure in the patients. [Extracted from the article]

Allergic contact dermatitis, occupational allergic contact dermatitis, occupational dermatitis, patch test, isobornyl acrylate Two decades of occupational (meth)acrylate patch test results and focus on isobornyl acrylate. Keywords: allergic contact dermatitis; isobornyl acrylate; occupational allergic contact dermatitis; occupational dermatitis, patch test EN allergic contact dermatitis isobornyl acrylate occupational allergic contact dermatitis occupational dermatitis, patch test 352 354 3 04/07/21 20210501 NES 210501 Isobornyl acrylate (IBOA), is a photopolymerizable acrylate monomer that is used in various industrial products such as UV-cured coatings, sealants, glues, adhesives, paints, and inks.1,2 Here we report a case of occupational allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to IBOA. [Extracted from the article]

A list of reviewers for the research articles is presented which includes Olivier Aerts, Marie Baeck, and Tove Agner.

Acrylates are acrylic resin monomers known to be potent allergens.[1] In recent years, an epidemic of contact dermatitis has been described in relation to the use of acrylates in nail cosmetics, especially semi-permanent enamels,[2] but acrylates can also be found in other cosmetic products such as eyelash fixers[3] or hair prostheses.[[4]] In addition, these patients may have lesions resulting from other sources of exposure to acrylates,[2] such as wound dressings or tape. As acrylates are emerging allergens, which are increasingly being used in cosmetics and medical devices, it seems advisable to add an acrylate allergy marker to the European standard battery, as some authors have already recommended.[9]. [Extracted from the article]

Multicentre patch test studies ( MPTSs) can contribute useful information for diagnostic and preventive measures. The aim of the present paper is to propose how to perform high-quality MPTSs. To this end, factors of significance for the patch test result are discussed with regard to the standardization and calibration of high-quality MPTSs. The 16 factors discussed are scored 0, 1, 2, or 3, depending on the relative importance of a particular factor for the patch test result. The total score of an MPTS allows it to be ranked as having doubtful, acceptable, high or excellent quality. A total score of 30 is possible. Depending on the total score the MPTSs are grouped into those with a doubtful, acceptable, high, and excellent quality. In conclusion, high-quality MPTSs can be performed and are facilitated if a guideline and check list are followed when the study is being planned. The scoring enables the calculation of a total score, which can be used for quality ranking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: case report, COVID-19, mala beads, nerolidol, patch testing, virtual, volatile EN case report, COVID-19, mala beads, nerolidol, patch testing, virtual, volatile 527 528 2 11/26/20 20201201 NES 201201 During the COVID-19 pandemic, attendance at hospital for diagnostic patch test investigations has proven challenging. We report a case of severe dermatitis where allergic contact dermatitis was diagnosed through "virtual" patch testing. An extended European patch test series was sent to the patient, whose partner applied the patches using allergens and IQ Chambers from Chemotechnique Diagnostics (Vellinge, Sweden). [Extracted from the article]

Keywords: allergic contact dermatitis; case report; drometrizole; genital dermatitis; sanitary pads; Tinuvin P EN allergic contact dermatitis case report drometrizole genital dermatitis sanitary pads Tinuvin P 518 519 2 11/26/20 20201201 NES 201201 Drometrizole is an ultraviolet absorber that is used in cosmetics and occasional plastic and rubber items, which is associated with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Taking into account the strength of our patient's reaction to both drometrizole and her own sanitary pads as well as the follow-up information from our patient and her product supplier, we believe it is very likely that drometrizole caused her dermatitis. [Extracted from the article]

Keywords: allergic contact dermatitis; case report; nail lacquer; onychomadesis; tioconazole EN allergic contact dermatitis case report nail lacquer onychomadesis tioconazole 242 243 2 03/23/20 20200401 NES 200401 Onychomadesis is the proximal separation of the nail plate from the matrix, caused by a temporary arrest of nail growth.[1] Common aetiological factors include nail trauma, systemic drugs, infections, and some autoimmune diseases.[1] To the best of our knowledge, only 1 case of an association between onychomadesis and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) has been reported in the literature.[2] We describe 3 cases of onychomadesis associated with ACD, caused by tioconazole contained in a nail lacquer. The most recent paper in this field describes a series of 8 cases of ACD to tioconazole nail solutions.[5] Generally, most published cases of allergy to topical tioconazole were related to the use of medicated nail solutions, but onychomadesis was never described in these patients. [Extracted from the article]

Keywords: allergic contact dermatitis; case report; colophonium; illustration; intermittent pneumatic compression device; patient safety EN allergic contact dermatitis case report colophonium illustration intermittent pneumatic compression device patient safety 244 245 2 03/23/20 20200401 NES 200401 Intermittent pneumatic compression devices (IPCDs) are used for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in high-risk surgical patients.[1] Correct application of the device to the lower legs is very important, and illustrations that clearly outline the correct technique are beneficial. Allergic contact dermatitis, case report, colophonium, illustration, intermittent pneumatic compression device, patient safety. [Extracted from the article]

Yet, a cross-reactivity between thyme and fragrances is commonly described, as confirmed by our results.[11] In view of the widespread use of thyme in several products, physicians must be aware of its sensitizing potential even if further studies are required to identify the culprit allergen. 4 Martínez-González MC, Goday Buján JJ, Martínez Gómez W, Fonseca Capdevila E. Concomitant allergic contact dermatitis due to Rosmarinus officinalis (rosemary) and Thymus vulgaris (thyme). [Extracted from the article]

Moreover, contact dermatitis from diapers due to rubber chemicals (mercaptobenzothiazole) or glues such as PTBFR has been reported. 6 Belhadjali H, Giordano-Labadie F, Rance F, Bazex J. "Lucky Luke" contact dermatitis from diapers: a new allergen?. [Extracted from the article]

Typical habitats of these insects are libraries, bookshops, and stores of paper[2]: for these reasons, I Psocoptera i species have been popularly named booklice. It was also observed that 20% of patients with nasobronchial allergy had strong sensitivity to I Psocoptera i species, with high levels of total IgE and IgE specific for I Psocoptera i species. Immunoblot analysis showed 67-kDa, 59-kDa, 43-kDa and 27-kDa proteins to be major allergens of I Psocoptera i species.[2] Literature data on clinical manifestations caused by I Psocoptera i species are very scarce. [Extracted from the article]

Keywords: allergic contact dermatitis; case report; colophonium; Cupressus sempervirens; Italian cypress; Mediterranean cypress; plant; resin; rosin EN allergic contact dermatitis case report colophonium Cupressus sempervirens Italian cypress Mediterranean cypress plant resin rosin 33 35 3 06/19/20 20200701 NES 200701 CASE REPORT A 56-year-old non atopic woman with a history of cutaneous reactions to adhesive bandages not further investigated was referred for evaluation of linear, erythematous and edematous lesions on the right side of her neck (Figure A). Footnotes 1 A case of contact dermatitis due to I Cupressus sempervirens i resin is hereby reported, highlighting a possible cross-reaction with colophonium/rosin from pine tree. Allergic contact dermatitis, case report, colophonium, Cupressus sempervirens, Italian cypress, Mediterranean cypress, plant, resin, rosin. [Extracted from the article]

Background Allergic reactions to resol-type phenol formaldehyde resin [phenol formaldehyde resin 2 ( PFR2)] are relatively common. It has been suggested that PFR2 should be included in baseline series. However, a recent international study found clinical relevance in only 25% of patients. Objectives To report the results of screening with PFR2 over a 5-year period (2012-2016), and to study the clinical relevance of allergic reactions to PFR2 over a 15-year period (2002-2016). Methods At the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, PFR2 was added to the baseline series in 2012. We had previously tested PFR2 in the plastic and glue series. We searched the patch test files for patients with allergic reactions to PFR2, and analysed their patch test results, occupation, exposure, and diagnosis. Results During the screening period of 5 years, a total of 10 (1.6%) patients reacted positively to PFR2. Seven of these had occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by phenol formaldehyde resin ( PFR). In 3 patients, we found no exposure to PFR. Over the preceding 10 years, the clinical relevance of 10 additional allergic reactions to PFR2 was similarly high. Conclusions In an occupational dermatology clinic, 70% of PFR2 reactions were clinically relevant. Further studies in general dermatology clinics are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Response to: Clinical relevance of p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin (PTBP-FR) contact allergy among general dermatology patients We read with great interest the paper by Lintu et al, entitled "Clinical relevance of I p i - I tert i -butylphenol-formaldehyde resin (PTBP-FR) contact allergy among general dermatology patients", presenting the decreasing prevalence and relevance of I p i - I tert i -butylphenol-formaldehyde resin (PTBP-FR) patch test reactions in Finnish dermatology patients.1 As the authors mention, PTBP-FR allergic contact dermatitis was indeed identified in shoe glue in the 1950s, but this complex resin is not uniformly allergenic. Concentration variability of potent allergens of p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin (PTBP-FR) in patch test preparations and commercially available PTBP-FR. [Extracted from the article]

The article presents the case study of a fourth-month-old bab girl with skin problems in the diaper area. The patient's history is discussed who was healthy, normally developed, and checked regularly by a paediatrician. The patient was diagnosed with diaper dermatitis which disappeared when her mother started using cotton cloth diapers on her.

The article presents a case study of a 31-year-old atopic male with eczematous dermatitis in both hands. Topics include the hand disease which was caused by benzisothiazolinone in printing ink and liquid soap; the reported cases of skin diseases that are mostly caused by direct skin contact and the patch test using the European baseline, oil and acrylates series.