Search

Objective: The aim of this study was to identify which types of skin reactions are associated with slime toys and which of their ingredients are most frequently involved in cases of poisoning. Data source: Between January and July 2021, articles were selected using PubMed, SciELO, and LILACS databases. The following descriptors were used: (dermatitis OR rash OR eczema OR inflammation) AND slime. Inclusion criteria were articles available in full, in either Portuguese, English, or Spanish, published between January 2000 and July 31, 2021, and articles reporting cases of contact dermatitis or eczema potentially or directly attributed to slime toys. Articles not meeting these criteria and duplicate texts in the databases were excluded. Data synthesis: In total, 65 publications were identified, of which 16 were included in this review. This resulted in a total of 22 children (2 males, 20 females), aged between 4 and 13 years, who were reportedly intoxicated by slime toys, most of these being linked to homemade preparations. Studies reported the occurrence of contact or allergic dermatitis on hands, fingers, nails, forearms, and cheeks. The most allergenic and/or irritant ingredients included liquid detergent and soap. Additionally, patch tests identified positive reactions to methylisothiazolinone and methylchloroisothiazolinone, the preservatives used by chemical industries on preparation of glue, soap, detergents, etc. Conclusions: Although slime toys might be important for improving motor development and parental relationships, homemade slime toy recipes include several allergenic and irritant ingredients which might be exposed to vulnerable children and cause intoxications. Therefore, homemade slime toys preparations should be used cautiously and under the supervision of adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Propolis is a lipophilic resin extracted from plants by bees. The purpose of this case report was to show the importance of this substance as cause of allergic contact cheilitis. A 21-year-old female patient complained of pruritic perioral eczema for 5 years. In the past months it also affected the neck. After diagnosing contact dermatitis, she was submitted to a patch test with a Latin American baseline series. The result was strongly positive for propolis (++) and weakly positive for perfume mix I (+). After the test, the patient revealed she had been using propolis drops, per oris, for 10 years. The worsening of the condition was due to increased dose, aiming "to improve immunity", during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The contact allergy to propolis might be increasing due to the widespread use of natural products. Propolis is a sensitizer to be considered in patients with long-lasting cheilitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) is a chronic and relapsing disease of the palms and soles, which tends to be difficult to treat. Classically it was described as a subtype of psoriasis. Nowadays it is regarded as a separate entity, although plaque-type psoriasis affects concomitantly many patients with PPP. A link between allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and PPP has been described, and the former may encompass a potential to perpetuate the latter. Hereby we report two cases of difficult to treat plantar pustulosis. Underneath the dermatosis's refractive nature was an allergic sensitization to potassium dichromate and cobalt chloride. Leather shoes and leather insoles were commonly worn, and both allergens are employed by the leather industry. Clinical remission was achieved in both cases with allergen eviction. Patch testing must be considered in cases of PPP without response to treatment. If relevant sensitization is found, allergen eviction measures are mandatory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]