Search

Only a few cases of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from chlorphenesin have been reported and since 2015 no new cases have been published. We describe two additional cases of ACD from this preservative in cosmetics observed during late 2021. [...]

Background Skin exposure to chemicals may induce an inflammatory disease known as contact dermatitis (CD). Distinguishing the allergic and irritant forms of CD often proves challenging in the clinic. Methods To characterize the molecular signatures of chemical-induced skin inflammation, we conducted a comprehensive transcriptomic analysis on the skin lesions of 47 patients with positive patch tests to reference contact allergens and nonallergenic irritants. Results A clear segregation was observed between allergen- and irritant-induced gene profiles. Distinct modules pertaining to the epidermal compartment, metabolism, and proliferation were induced by both contact allergens and irritants; whereas only contact allergens prompted strong activation of adaptive immunity, notably of cytotoxic T-cell responses. Our results also confirmed that: (a) unique pathways characterize allergen- and irritant-induced dermatitis; (b) the intensity of the clinical reaction correlates with the magnitude of immune activation. Finally, using a machine-learning approach, we identified and validated several minimal combinations of biomarkers to distinguish contact allergy from irritation. Conclusion These results highlight the value of molecular profiling of chemical-induced skin inflammation for improving the diagnosis of allergic versus irritant contact dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Isobornyl acrylate (IBOA) has recently been identified as one sensitizer in the FreeStyle Libre glucose sensor. Analyses with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) have indicated the presence of N,N-dimethylacrylamide (DMAA) in the sensor. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seven patients were referred for patch testing after developing skin reactions when using FreeStyle Libre. All patients were patch tested with IBOA and DMAA. Two patients were tested with adhesive patches that had been removed from the sensors "as is," and two patients were tested with acetone extracts of materials from the sensor. The extracts were analysed with GC-MS. RESULTS: Six patients reacted to both IBOA and DMAA, and one patient reacted only to DMAA. Positive reactions were also observed in both patients tested with the adhesive patch "as is". One patient reacted to both an extract of the adhesive patch and an extract of the sensor itself. When analysed with GC-MS, IBOA was found in both extracts and DMAA was found in the extract of the sensor. CONCLUSION: Both IBOA and DMAA may be present in adhesives used in medical devices such as glucose sensors or insulin pumps, and should be patch tested when suspected contact allergic reactions to these products are investigated.

BACKGROUND: Patients suffering from drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome caused by first-line antituberculosis drugs often need to be retreated rapidly. Patch tests prior to the reintroduction of antituberculosis drugs are rarely performed. OBJECTIVES: To highlight those drugs most often involved in DRESS caused by antituberculosis drugs, illustrate the potential value of patch tests to identify these culprit(s), and provide insights into how to rapidly retreat these patients. METHODS: A detailed description of the work-up of two illustrative patients, together with a literature review of similar cases, is provided. RESULTS: All first-line antituberculosis drugs may cause DRESS syndrome, but rifampicin and isoniazid are most frequently involved. Patch tests can be performed sooner than usually advised in the context of DRESS syndrome, and potentially with lower test concentrations, but false-negative results are possible. Sequential reintroduction of patch test-negative drugs is feasible, although the dose and order of drugs to be readministered, as well as the use of concomitant systemic corticosteroids, remain a matter of debate. CONCLUSION: Patch tests in the context of DRESS syndrome caused by antituberculosis drugs, despite their shortcomings, may potentially guide rapid retreatment of these patients.

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis caused by leather is common, and several responsible allergens, such as tanning agents, glues, mercaptobenzothiazole derivatives, and dyes, but also antimicrobials and antifungals, are involved. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three female patients were referred to the Departments of Dermatology in a Belgian university hospital following skin reactions caused by leather products (shoes, belt, and car seats). They were patch tested with the European baseline series and samples of suspected leather products, and additionally with 2-(thiocyanomethylthio)benzothiazole (TCMTB), an antifungal agent previously reported to be a contact allergen in footwear. Chromatographic analyses of samples of all the leather materials tested were performed at the Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology in Malmö, Sweden. RESULTS: The patients reacting to the leather samples were shown to be sensitized to TCMTB, the presence of which could be confirmed by chemical analyses of samples obtained from the patients. CONCLUSION: Patch tests with TCMTB should be considered in patients with contact dermatitis caused by leather items.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of allergic contact dermatitis has significantly increased in healthcare workers since the transition from latex to synthetic rubber gloves, with 1,3-diphenylguanidine being identified as the most frequently implicated allergen. OBJECTIVES: To highlight the role of 1,3-diphenylguanidine as the culprit allergen in contact allergies to synthetic rubber gloves, to propose recommendations for patch testing, and to discuss alternatives for sensitized subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patch test data from healthcare workers who developed hand dermatitis after wearing rubber gloves and who reacted positively to glove samples and rubber additives were collected from September 2010 to December 2017 in a Belgian hospital. RESULTS: A total of 44 caregivers were included in this study. Patch tests showed that: (a) 84% of the study population reacted positively to carba mix; (b) 86% reacted positively to 1,3-diphenylguanidine; and (c) 13 (30%) reacted positively to thiuram mix. Half of the subjects reacted positively to gloves containing 1,3-diphenylguanidine, whereas none reacted to accelerator-free gloves. CONCLUSION: The most commonly identified allergen was 1,3-diphenylguanidine, far ahead of thiurams, which were previously described as the most sensitizing accelerators. The use of 1,3-diphenylguanidine-free gloves is recommended. No subject reacted to gloves without accelerators, thus confirming their efficiency among accelerator-sensitized patients. We recommend that 1,3-diphenylguanidine be added to the European baseline series.

BACKGROUND: Most diabetic patients sensitized to FreeStyle Libre react to isobornyl acrylate (IBOA), with a considerable number of them also showing unexpected positive patch test reactions to sesquiterpene lactone (SL) mix (SLM) tested in the baseline series. OBJECTIVES: To compile patch test results of subjects affected, and provide potential explanations for this association. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-three Freestyle Libre-allergic patients were patch tested with IBOA and/or SLM, and several were also patch tested with the components of SLM. Chromatographic analyses were performed on the glucose sensor, IBOA, and the components of SLM. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients reacted positively to the components of SLM, and 11 of 27 patients reacted positively to alantolactone, in particular. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analyses did not detect these chemicals in the different parts of the glucose sensor, or in IBOA. CONCLUSION: Significant co-sensitizations between SLs on the one hand and the glucose sensor FreeStyle Libre and/or isobornyl acrylate on the other hand exist, without evidence of the presence of SLs via GC-MS analysis. Cross-reactions between them seem improbable. As a possible hypothesis, a common precursor for both, such as camphene, may exist.

Allergic contact dermatitis caused by medical devices for diabetes patients has been increasingly described in the literature in the last few years. This article reviews the cases of allergic contact dermatitis caused by insulin pumps and glucose sensors reported since the 1970s, the culprit allergen(s), the results of patch tests and/or chromatographic analysis, and preventive measures.

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis has been described as a type IV reaction caused by antigen-specific T cells. Central roles for CD8+ cytotoxic T cells as effector cells and CD4+ T cells as regulatory cells have been suggested. T helper (Th) 2 and Th1 cytokines have been implicated; however, the nature of the allergen influences the Th response. OBJECTIVE: To determine the types of T cells and cytokines expressed in patients allergic to p-phenylenediamine (PPD). METHODS: Serial skin biopsies of areas with positive patch test reactions in 29 PPD-sensitized patients were collected. T cell markers and cytokine expression were analysed by flow cytometry and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction in both skin and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) of sensitized patients. RESULTS: We observed increased expression of T cell markers and Th2/Th9-associated cytokines in both skin and stimulated PBMCs of PPD-allergic patients. Moreover, interleukin (IL)-9 was mainly produced by Th9 cells, in both skin and PBMCs. Further investigations showed that Il9r-deficient mice were more affected in a PPD contact hypersensitivity model than wild-type mice. CONCLUSION: We did not confirm the preclinical presence of CD8+ T cells. However, the expression of different T cell markers positively correlated with patch test reactions. IL-9 expression was strongly upregulated and directly related to patch test severity. In addition, we showed that IL-9 has an anti-inflammatory role in a mouse model of PPD contact hypersensitivity.

We herein report the case of a 3-year-old girl with atypical congenital right upper limb lymphedema who developed an angiosarcoma. Only a few cases have been reported following congenital form of lymphedema and only 4 in such a young child. We also summarize all cases of angiosarcoma associated with congenital lymphedema reported in the literature.