Search

Resumen: Antecedentes: En España, aunque el Ministerio de Sanidad elabora el informe de posicionamiento terapéutico (IPT) y las condiciones de reembolso de los fármacos, las Comunidades Autónomas (CC. AA.) gestionan los servicios de salud y deciden sobre las condiciones de prescripción en su ámbito territorial. El objetivo del estudio EQUIDAD fue describir los condicionantes para la prescripción de los nuevos fármacos en Dermatología en las CC. AA. y sus posibles diferencias. Material y métodos: Estudio transversal realizado en abril-mayo del 2023. Dos dermatólogos con responsabilidades directivas de cada Comunidad Autónoma (C. A.) informaron sobre los condicionantes autonómicos y locales en la prescripción de los fármacos cuyo IPT para el tratamiento de enfermedades dermatológicas fue publicado en los años 2016-2022. Los datos fueron recogidos mediante un cuestionario online. Resultados: Un total de 33 investigadores de 17 CC. AA. participaron en el estudio. Se observaron inequidades entre CC. AA. para el acceso a los nuevos fármacos. Existieron condicionantes autonómicos adicionales al IPT en psoriasis en el 64,7% de las CC. AA., siendo este porcentaje menor en dermatitis atópica (35,3%) o melanoma (11,8%). El más frecuente fue el requisito de un orden de prescripción previo para el uso del fármaco. En algunas CC. AA. se detectaron además variaciones y condicionantes locales (diferencias entre centros de una misma C. A.). Conclusiones: Existe una multiplicidad de criterios tanto a nivel autonómico como local que añade restricciones adicionales a las establecidas por los IPT y que plantean una situación de inequidad entre los pacientes y los profesionales de las diferentes CC. AA. en el acceso a los nuevos fármacos. Abstract: Background: Although the Spanish Ministry of Health prepares national therapeutic positioning reports (TPRs) and drug reimbursement policies, each of the country's 17 autonomous communities (ACs) is responsible for health care services and prescription requirements in its territory. The aim of the EQUIDAD study was to describe and explore potential differences in prescription requirements for new dermatology drugs across the autonomous communities. Material and methods: Cross-sectional study conducted in April and May, 2023. Two dermatologists with management responsibilities from each autonomous community reported on territorial and more local prescription requirements for drugs covered by national TPRs issued between 2016 and 2022. Results: Thirty-three researchers from 17 autonomous communities participated. The data submitted revealed between-community inequities in access to new drugs. Overall, 64.7% of the regions imposed additional prescription requirements to those mentioned in the TPRs for psoriasis. This percentage was lower for atopic dermatitis (35.3%) and melanoma (11.8%). The most common requirement for accessing a new drug was a previous prescription for another drug. Differences and additional requirements were also detected atthe local level (i.e., differences between hospitals within the same autonomous community). Conclusions: Spain's autonomous communities have multiple regional and local prescription requirements that are not aligned with national TPR recommendations. These differences result in inequitable access to new drugs for both patients and practitioners across Spain.

Background: Although the Spanish Ministry of Health prepares national therapeutic positioning reports (TPRs) and drug reimbursement policies, each of the country's 17 autonomous communities (ACs) is responsible for health care services and prescription requirements in its territory. The aim of the EQUIDAD study was to describe and explore potential differences in prescription requirements for new dermatology drugs across the autonomous communities. Material and methods: Cross-sectional study conducted in April and May, 2023. Two dermatologists with management responsibilities from each autonomous community reported on territorial and more local prescription requirements for drugs covered by national TPRs issued between 2016 and 2022. Results: Thirty-three researchers from 17 autonomous communities participated. The data submitted revealed between-community inequities in access to new drugs. Overall, 64.7% of the regions imposed additional prescription requirements to those mentioned in the TPRs for psoriasis. This percentage was lower for atopic dermatitis (35.3%) and melanoma (11.8%). The most common requirement for accessing a new drug was a previous prescription for another drug. Differences and additional requirements were also detected at the local level (i.e., differences between hospitals within the same autonomous community). Conclusions: Spain's autonomous communities have multiple regional and local prescription requirements that are not aligned with national TPR recommendations. These differences result in inequitable access to new drugs for both patients and practitioners across Spain. Resumen: Antecedentes: En España, aunque el Ministerio de Sanidad elabora el informe de posicionamiento terapéutico (IPT) y las condiciones de reembolso de los fármacos, las Comunidades Autónomas (CC. AA.) gestionan los servicios de salud y deciden sobre las condiciones de prescripción en su ámbito territorial. El objetivo del estudio EQUIDAD fue describir los condicionantes para la prescripción de los nuevos fármacos en Dermatología en las CC. AA. y sus posibles diferencias. Material y métodos: Estudio transversal realizado en abril-mayo del 2023. Dos dermatólogos con responsabilidades directivas de cada Comunidad Autónoma (C. A.) informaron sobre los condicionantes autonómicos y locales en la prescripción de los fármacos cuyo IPT para el tratamiento de enfermedades dermatológicas fue publicado en los años 2016-2022. Los datos fueron recogidos mediante un cuestionario online. Resultados: Un total de 33 investigadores de 17 CC. AA. participaron en el estudio. Se observaron inequidades entre CC. AA. para el acceso a los nuevos fármacos. Existieron condicionantes autonómicos adicionales al IPT en psoriasis en el 64,7% de las CC. AA., siendo este porcentaje menor en dermatitis atópica (35,3%) o melanoma (11,8%). El más frecuente fue el requisito de un orden de prescripción previo para el uso del fármaco. En algunas CC. AA. se detectaron además variaciones y condicionantes locales (diferencias entre centros de una misma C. A.). Conclusiones: Existe una multiplicidad de criterios tanto a nivel autonómico como local que añade restricciones adicionales a las establecidas por los IPT y que plantean una situación de inequidad entre los pacientes y los profesionales de las diferentes CC. AA. en el acceso a los nuevos fármacos.

Introduction: Shellac is a known allergen present mainly in cosmetics used on the eyelids and lips, although new sources of exposure have recently been described. Our objective was to assess the use of shellac as a contact allergen in Spain and the clinical profile of patients allergic to shellac. Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study included patients patch tested for shellac between 2018 and 2021 from the Spanish Registry of Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (REIDAC). Results: A total of 980 patients were patch tested for shellac (20% in ethanol), and 37 (3.77%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.58–3.97%) showed positive results. Most of these patients were tested for shellac due to a suspicion of cosmetic contact dermatitis. Seven patients with present relevance were found, five with relation to cosmetics, and the other two with an occupational background of food handling. The reaction index for shellac was 0.51 and the positivity ratio was 67.56% (95% CI, 52.48–82.65%). Conclusions: Shellac appears to be a prevalent allergen in patients with suspected contact dermatitis related with cosmetics or foodstuff. However, further studies are needed to validate its use in other patients. Resumen: Introducción: El shellac es un alérgeno conocido por su presencia en cosméticos para labios y párpados, aunque en los últimos años se han descrito nuevas fuentes de exposición. El objetivo de nuestro trabajo fue evaluar cómo se está usando el shellac, como alérgeno de contacto en España, y las características clínicas de los pacientes alérgicos al shellac. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio retrospectivo transversal con los pacientes incluidos en el Registro Español de Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea en los que se realizaron pruebas epicutáneas con shellac desde 2018 a 2021. Resultados: El shellac (20% en etanol) fue usado en 980 pacientes, con resultados positivos en 37 de ellos (3,77%; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 2,58-3,97%). La mayoría de estos pacientes realizaron las pruebas epicutáneas por una sospecha de dermatitis de contacto por cosméticos. Se encontraron 7 pacientes con una relevancia presente, 5 de ellos en relación con el uso de cosméticos, y los otros 2 fueron dermatitis de contacto ocupacionales en el contexto de la manipulación de alimentos. El índice de reacción para el shellac fue del 0,51% y la ratio de positividad del 67,56% (IC 95%: 52,48-82,65%). Conclusiones: El shellac parece un alérgeno frecuente en los pacientes con sospecha de dermatitis de contacto por cosméticos o alimentos. Sin embargo, se necesitan más estudios para validar su uso en otros pacientes.

Resumen: Introducción: El shellac es un alérgeno conocido por su presencia en cosméticos para labios y párpados, aunque en los últimos años se han descrito nuevas fuentes de exposición. El objetivo de nuestro trabajo fue evaluar cómo se está usando el shellac, como alérgeno de contacto en España, y las características clínicas de los pacientes alérgicos al shellac. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio retrospectivo transversal con los pacientes incluidos en el Registro Español de Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea en los que se realizaron pruebas epicutáneas con shellac desde 2018 a 2021. Resultados: El shellac (20% en etanol) fue usado en 980 pacientes, con resultados positivos en 37 de ellos (3,77%; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 2,58-3,97%). La mayoría de estos pacientes realizaron las pruebas epicutáneas por una sospecha de dermatitis de contacto por cosméticos. Se encontraron 7 pacientes con una relevancia presente, 5 de ellos en relación con el uso de cosméticos, y los otros 2 fueron dermatitis de contacto ocupacionales en el contexto de la manipulación de alimentos. El índice de reacción para el shellac fue del 0,51% y la ratio de positividad del 67,56% (IC 95%: 52,48-82,65%). Conclusiones: El shellac parece un alérgeno frecuente en los pacientes con sospecha de dermatitis de contacto por cosméticos o alimentos. Sin embargo, se necesitan más estudios para validar su uso en otros pacientes. Abstract: Introduction: Shellac is a known allergen present mainly in cosmetics used on the eyelids and lips, although new sources of exposure have recently been described. Our objective was to assess the use of shellac as a contact allergen in Spain and the clinical profile of patients allergic to shellac. Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study included patients patch tested for shellac between 2018 and 2021 from the Spanish Registry of Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (REIDAC). Results: A total of 980 patients were patch tested for shellac (20% in ethanol), and 37 (3.77%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.58–3.97%) showed positive results. Most of these patients were tested for shellac due to a suspicion of cosmetic contact dermatitis. Seven patients with present relevance were found, five with relation to cosmetics, and the other two with an occupational background of food handling. The reaction index for shellac was 0.51 and the positivity ratio was 67.56% (95% CI, 52.48–82.65%). Conclusions: Shellac appears to be a prevalent allergen in patients with suspected contact dermatitis related with cosmetics or foodstuff. However, further studies are needed to validate its use in other patients.

Resumen: Antecedentes y objetivo: La actualización de las series estándar de pruebas epicutáneas debe basarse en datos objetivos de frecuencia de sensibilización de los alérgenos que componen cada batería. La última renovación de la batería estándar española se realizó en 2016 y de la europea en 2019, quedando pendiente valorar la inclusión de alérgenos emergentes. Material y método: Desarrollamos un estudio observacional, prospectivo y multicéntrico de los pacientes consecutivos del registro del Grupo Español de Investigación en Dermatitis y Alergia Cutánea sometidos a pruebas epicutáneas con hidroperóxido de linalool, hidroperóxido de limoneno, 2-hidroxi-etil-metacrilato, benzisotiazolinona, octilisotiazolinona, mezcla textil, metabisulfito sódico, propóleo, bronopol, mezcla de compuestas II, diazolidinil urea, imidazolidinil urea, decil glucósido y lauril glucósido, durante los años 2019 y 2020. Resultados: Se analizó una muestra de 4.654 pacientes estudiados con diazolidinil urea, imidazolidinil urea y bronopol, y de 1.890 pacientes con el resto de los alérgenos. El índice MOAHLFA fue: M 30%, O 18%, A 15%, H 29%, L 6,5%, F 23%, A 68%. Siete alérgenos mostraron una frecuencia de sensibilización mayor del 1%: hidroperóxido de linalool, 2-hidroxi-etil-metacrilato, benzisotiazolinona, hidroperóxido de limoneno, mezcla textil, metabisulfito sódico y propóleo. Tres alérgenos mostraron una frecuencia de relevancia presente superior al 1%: hidroperóxido de linalool, 2-hidroxi-etil-metacrilato e hidroperóxido de limoneno; para benzisotiazolinona y mezcla textil, esta frecuencia fue de entre el 0,9 y el 1%. Conclusiones: Nuestros resultados indican que debería valorarse la inclusión de siete nuevos alérgenos en la batería estándar española. Estos resultados podrían contribuir a la próxima actualización de la batería basal europea. Abstract: Background: Standard patch test series must be updated using objective data on allergen sensitization. The Spanish standard series was last updated in 2016 and the European series in 2019, and the inclusion of several emerging allergens needs to be evaluated. Material and methods: We conducted a prospective, observational, multicenter study of consecutive patients from the registry of the Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC) who were patch tested in 2019 and 2020 with linalool hydroperoxide, limonene hydroperoxide, 2-hydroxyethyl-methacrylate, benzisothiazolinone, octylisothiazolinone, textile dye mix (TDM), sodium metabisulfite, propolis, bronopol, Compositae mix II, diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, decyl glucoside, and lauryl glucoside. Results: We analyzed data for 4654 patients tested with diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, and bronopol, and 1890 tested with the other allergens. The values for the MOAHLFA index components were 30% for male, 18% for occupational dermatitis, 15% for atopic dermatitis, 29% for hand, 6.5% for leg, 23% for face, and 68% for age > 40 years. Sensitization rates above 1% were observed for 7 allergens: linalool hydroperoxide, 2-hydroxyethyl-methacrylate, benzisothiazolinone, limonene hydroperoxide, TDM, sodium metabisulfite, and propolis. Three allergens had a current relevance rate of over 1%: linalool hydroperoxide, 2-hydroxyethyl-methacrylat, and limonene hydroperoxide. Benzisothiazolinone and TDM had a relevance rate of between 0.9% and 1%. Conclusions: Our results indicate that 7 new allergens should be considered when extending the Spanish standard patch test series. The data from our series could be helpful for guiding the next extension of the European baseline series.

Background: Budesonide and tixocortol pivalate as markers of contact allergy to corticosteroids have been questioned, as they are not able to detect a significant percentage of allergic patients., Objectives: To investigate the potential role of clobetasol propionate in enhancing corticosteroid sensitisation detection., Methods: Between January 2022 and December 2023, patients who attended centres involved in the Spanish Registry of Research in Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy were tested with an extended baseline series that included budesonide, tixocortol pivalate, clobetasol propionate 0.1% in ethanol and 1% in petrolatum., Results: A total of 4338 patients were tested. Twenty-four patients were allergic to budesonide (0.55%, 95% CI: 0.37-0.82); nine patients were allergic to tixocortol pivalate (0.21%, 95% CI: 0.11-0.39); and 23 patients were allergic to clobetasol (0.53%, 95% CI: 0.35-0.79). Only four of those patients allergic to clobetasol were detected by budesonide and one by tixocortol pivalate. No significant differences in the number of positive tests were found between clobetasol in petrolatum or ethanol., Conclusions: In Spain budesonide remains the main corticosteroid allergy marker whereas the role of tixocortol pivalate is questionable. The addition of clobetasol propionate to the Spanish baseline series would improve the ability to detect patients allergic to corticosteroids., (© 2024 The Author(s). Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Current frequency and features for positivity to textile dye mix (TDM) in Spain are unknown., Objectives: To study the frequency, clinical features and simultaneous positivity between TDM, para-phenylenediamine (PPD) and specific disperse dyes., Materials and Methods: We analysed all consecutive patients patch-tested with TDM from the Spanish Contact Dermatitis Registry (REIDAC), from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2022. Within this group, we studied all selected patients patch-tested with a textile dye series., Results: Out of 6128 patients analysed, 3.3% were positive to the TDM and in 34% of them, the sensitization was considered currently relevant. TDM positivity was associated with working as a hairdresser/beautician and scalp, neck/trunk and arm/forearm dermatitis. From TDM-positive patients, 57% were positive to PPD. One hundred and sixty-four patients were patch-tested with the textile dye series. Disperse Orange 3 was the most frequent positive dye (16%). One of every six cases positive to any dye from the textile dye series would have been missed if patch-tested with the TDM alone., Conclusions: Positivity to TDM is common in Spain and often associated with PPD sensitization. TDM is a valuable marker of disperse dyes allergy that should be part of the Spanish and European standard series., (© 2024 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: A global epidemic of allergic contact dermatitis to (meth)acrylates has been described in relation to the widespread use of manicure products., Objectives: To evaluate the frequency of sensitization to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) among consecutively patch tested patients with eczema in Spain; the percentage of current relevance; the MOAHLFA index; and, the potential sources of exposure to (meth)acrylates., Methods: From January 2019 to December 2022, 2-HEMA 2% pet. was prospectively patch tested in 24 REIDAC (Spanish Allergic Contact Dermatitis Registry) centres., Results: Six thousand one hundred thirty-four patients were consecutively patch tested with 2-HEMA 2% pet. 265/6134 (4.3%) were positive. Positive reactions of current relevance were identified to involve 184/265 (69%). The efficiency (number of patch tests needed to detect relevant positive patch test reactions) was 34 (6134/184). The variable 'occupational' was found to be significantly associated with a higher risk for relevant positive reactions to 2-HEMA (OR: 10.9; 95% CI: 8.1-14.9)., Conclusion: (Meth)acrylate sensitization is a prevalent health issue in Spain. 2-HEMA 2% pet. has been identified to be a highly effective (meth)acrylate allergy marker in the GEIDAC baseline series. The responsible authorities should implement policies guaranteeing accurate labelling of industrial, medical, and consumer materials while ensuring the enforcement of said labelling through appropriate legal means., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The epidemiological surveillance of contact dermatitis is one of the objectives of the Spanish Registry of Research in Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy. Knowing whether the prevalence of positive tests to the different allergens changes over time is important for this monitoring process., Objectives: To describe the various temporary trends in allergen positivity in the GEIDAC standard series from 2018 through December 31, 2022., Methods: This was a multicenter, observational trial of consecutive patients analyzed via patch tests as part of the study of possible allergic contact dermatitises collected prospectively within the Spanish Registry of Research in Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy. The data was analyzed using 2 statistical tests: one homogeneity test (to describe the changes seen over time) and one trend test (to see whether the changes described followed a linear trend)., Results: A total of 11327 patients were included in the study. Overall, the allergens associated with a highest sensitization were nickel sulfate, methylisothiazolinone, cobalt chloride, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, and fragrance mix i. A statistically significant decrease was found in the percentage of methylisothiazolinone positive tests across the study years with an orderly trend., Conclusions: Although various changes were seen in the sensitizations trends to several allergens of the standard testing, it became obvious that a high sensitization to nickel, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone and fragrances mix i remained. Only a significant downward trend was seen for methylisothiazolinone., (Copyright © 2023 AEDV. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although the Spanish Ministry of Health prepares national therapeutic positioning reports (TPRs) and drug reimbursement policies, each of the country's 17 autonomous communities (ACs) is responsible for health care services and prescription requirements in its territory. The aim of the EQUIDAD study was to describe and explore potential differences in prescription requirements for new dermatology drugs across the autonomous communities., Material and Methods: Cross-sectional study conducted in April and May, 2023. Two dermatologists with management responsibilities from each autonomous community reported on territorial and more local prescription requirements for drugs covered by national TPRs issued between 2016 and 2022., Results: Thirty-three researchers from 17 autonomous communities participated. The data submitted revealed between-community inequities in access to new drugs. Overall, 64.7% of the regions imposed additional prescription requirements to those mentioned in the TPRs for psoriasis. This percentage was lower for atopic dermatitis (35.3%) and melanoma (11.8%). The most common requirement for accessing a new drug was a previous prescription for another drug. Differences and additional requirements were also detected at the local level (i.e., differences between hospitals within the same autonomous community)., Conclusions: Spain's autonomous communities have multiple regional and local prescription requirements that are not aligned with national TPR recommendations. These differences result in inequitable access to new drugs for both patients and practitioners across Spain., (Copyright © 2023 AEDV. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: Monitoring of adverse events induced by cosmetics performed by health authorities, known as cosmetovigilance, has been relied on the collection of case notifications., Objectives: We aimed to show how a contact dermatitis registry can contribute to the cosmetovigilance of emerging allergens. We used the example of phenylethyl resorcinol, an infrequent allergen with only 6 previous cases reported in Europe and Japan since 2013., Methods: A systematic search in the Spanish Registry of Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (REIDAC) database was performed to identify patients with positive patch test to phenylethyl resorcinol or cosmetics that contains it between June 2018 and January 2023. We collected the main clinical features of these patients and compared them with those of patients recorded in the registry with similar epidemiological features., Results: Thirteen patients with positive patch test to phenylethyl resorcinol were identified. All the patients were women with a mean age of 42 years (range 32-59) and their lesions were mainly in the face., Conclusion: Assessing the importance of infrequent allergens based solely on a case series is difficult. Multicentre registries facilitate the collection of cases and provide appropriate background information for new allergens., (© 2023 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: There is still limited clinical-practice data on specific clinical and patch test features, as well as on allergen clusters in polysensitization (PS)., Objectives: To determine the frequency, relevance, symptoms duration and risk factors in polysensitized patients and to assess possible allergen aggregation., Methods: Prospective multicentric study (January 2019-December 2022) conducted in setting of the Spanish Contact Dermatitis Register (REIDAC). Clinical and patch test data of polysensitized and oligosensitized patients were compared, and risk factors of PS were investigated with logistic multivariate regression. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering and network analysis were used to study allergen aggregation in PS., Results: A total of 10,176 patients were analysed. PS was found in 844 (8.3%). Current relevance was significantly higher in polysensitized patients (p < 0.01). Risk factors for PS were atopic dermatitis (OR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.24-2.02), age (≥60 years vs. ≤24 years, OR: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.25-2.44) and some special locations (legs vs. face OR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.05-2.25, hands vs. face OR: 1.46, 95% CI:1.15-1.85, arms vs. face OR: 1.49, 95% CI:1.01-2.20, trunk vs. face OR: 1.40, 95% CI:1.06-1.85). Cluster and network analyses revealed specific-allergen clusters and significant associations, including allergens belonging to metals group, fragrances and botanicals group, topical drugs group, rubber allergens and biocides., Conclusions: This study confirms that PS is structured by discernible patterns of specific-allergen clusters and reinforces significant allergen associations in PS. Cross-reactivity and/or concomitant sensitization could explain the formation of allergen clusters in PS., (© 2024 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Background: Current frequency and risk factors for sensitization to methylisothiazolinone (MI), methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI), benzisothiazolinone (BIT) and octylisothiazolinone (OIT) in Spain are not well known., Objectives: To study the frequency of sensitization, risk factors and simultaneous sensitization between the four isothiazolinones., Materials and Methods: We analysed all 2019-2021 consecutive patients patch-tested with MI (0.2% aq.), MCI/MI (0.02% aq.), BIT (0.1% pet.) and OIT (0.1% pet) within the Spanish Contact Dermatitis Registry (REIDAC)., Results: A total of 2511 patients were analysed. Frequencies of sensitization were: any isothiazolinone 15.7%, MI 6.8%, MCI/MI 4.8%, BIT 3.5% and OIT 0.5%. MI and MCI/MI sensitization was associated with being occupationally active, hand dermatitis, detergents and age over 40. BIT sensitization was associated with leg dermatitis and age over 40. About one in nine MI-positive patients were positive to BIT, whereas one in five BIT-positive patients were positive to MI., Conclusions: Sensitization to MI, MCI/MI and BIT is still common in Spain, while sensitization to OIT is rare. Currently, sensitization to MI and MCI/MI seems to be occupationally related. Although its origin is unknown, sensitization to BIT is more frequent in patients aged over 40 years. Simultaneous sensitization between MI and BIT is uncommon., (© 2022 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Methyldibromo glutaronitrile (MDBGN) was one of the most frequent and relevant allergens found in patch testing at the beginning of this century. In 2008, this preservative was banned from cosmetics in Europe and ever since the prevalence of contact allergy to MDBGN has progressively decreased. Despite that gradual decline, MDBGN is still patch-tested in most baseline series. This study assessed the frequency of MDBGN sensitization, epidemiological characteristics of allergic patients, and the relevance of positive patch tests in a nationwide Spanish registry (REIDAC)., Patients and Methods: We evaluated consecutively patch-tested patients in all participating centres. Using these data, we calculated the proportion of patients with positive patch tests to MDBGN from June 2018 to June 2020 and evaluated the relevance of the positive patch tests., Results: One hundred and fourteen out of 5072 (2.24 %) tested patients were sensitized to MDBGN. Clinical current relevance was confirmed in only one case., Conclusion: Although the frequency of contact allergy to MDBGN remains high, no clinical significance was found in most of these patients (5072 tests needed to obtain one relevant positive result). The clinical usefulness of this allergen seems weak and its continued inclusion in the European baseline series is questionable., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)