Search

Purpose of Review: This article aims to summarize some recent trends in occupational allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), including dermatitis related to pandemic-level personal protective equipment in healthcare workers, hazards patients may experience when working from home, and occupational perspectives on the recent American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) allergens of the year and ACDS Core Allergen Series updates., Recent Findings: Recent ACDS Allergens of the Year may be particularly relevant to healthcare workers, including isobornyl acrylate, which is present in glucose sensors and propylene glycol present in hand cleansers and disinfectants. Lavender, limonene, and linalool, all of which are new additions to the ACDS Core Allergen Series, have been reported as causes for occupational ACD in massage therapists and aromatherapists. Isothiazolinone allergy continues to rise in both consumer and occupational settings. Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a wave of occupational ACD in healthcare workers to personal protective equipment, and revealed new potential allergens for individuals working from home. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis continues to exert a significant occupational disease burden. Remaining aware of the current trends in allergens may allow for earlier recognition, diagnosis, and treatment, subsequently helping our patients to work in healthier and safer environments.

We describe an unusual case of phytophototoxicity induced by an herbal plant, Ruta graveolens, from the Rutaceae family. This common herb, also called rue, can be found throughout rural settings in the United States. When psoralens from rue come in contact with human skin that is subsequently exposed to ultraviolet A light, an impressive photoirritant reaction can occur. This report both clarifies the distinguishing features of photoirritant reactions versus photoallergic reactions and reviews the pathophysiology and clinical presentation of phytophotodermatitis. R. graveolens can be associated with an impressive photoirritant reaction and should not be used as an insect repellent.

From July 1996 through June 1998, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group evaluated 318 patients for suspected contact dermatitis by patch testing simultaneously with Finn Chambers and the T.R.U.E. Test allergen system. Discrepancies between the two systems were found in some of the results, particularly with fragrance and rubber allergens. These results suggest that positive reactions to fragrance, thiuram, and carba mix allergens may be missed if the T.R.U.E. Test is used alone.

Objective: To determine the prevalence of allergic reactions to gold among patients tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) from 1996 to 1998., Methods: This is a prospective analysis of patch test results from the 12 centers that comprise the NACDG. Gold was tested as gold sodium thiosulfate (0.5% in petrolatum [pet]), along with 49 other screening allergens, in patients presenting with possible contact dermatitis., Results: Of 4,101 patients tested, 388 (9.5%) had a positive patch test result to gold. Women accounted for 62.8% of the subjects tested and 90.2% of patients positive to gold (P < .0001). The most common sites of dermatitis in gold-allergic patients were the hands (29.6%), face (19.3%), and eyelids (7.5%). Nickel and cobalt allergies, respectively, also were present in 33.5% and 18.3% of gold allergic individuals, as compared with 14.2% and 9.0% of the total population. Gold was the only positive reaction in 15.2% of the 388 patients., Conclusion: Gold is a more common allergen than previously reported and might cause facial and eyelid dermatitis. Hypersensitivity to gold is statistically linked to female gender and to allergic reactions to nickel and cobalt., (Copyright 2001 by W.B. Saunders Company)

Phototesting and photopatch testing are among the most important tests in the evaluation of photodermatoses, yet their use has been restricted to specialized centers. To assist clinicians interested in conducting these procedures and in updating their techniques, we asked 4 experts to comment on these tests in the context of diagnostic approach to the photosensitive patient. A list of photoallergens and a protocol for their use is provided.

Background: Allergic contact dermatitis is a significant cause of cutaneous disease affecting many individuals. Patch testing, when used properly, often provides support for the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis., Objective: This article reports patch testing results from July 1, 1994, to June 30, 1996, by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG)., Methods: Patients evaluated in our patch test clinics were tested with the same screening series of allergens by the use of a standardized patch testing technique. The data from these patients were recorded on a standard computer entry form and analyzed., Results: Forty-nine allergens were tested on 3120 patients. Budesonide was added to the series in July 1995 and tested on 1678 patients. Of these patients, 66.5% had positive allergic patch test reactions, and 57% had at least one allergic reaction that was felt to be clinically relevant to the present or past dermatitis. The 20 screening allergens commercially available to United States dermatologists in the Allergen Patch Test Kit, accounted for only 54.1% of the patients with positive allergic reactions. The additional 30 allergens on the NACDG screening series accounted for 47% of patients with positive allergic reactions. Had the Allergen Patch Test Kit alone been used, 12.4% of all patients tested may have had their disease misclassified as a nonallergic disorder, and an additional 34.4% of all tested patients would not have had their allergies fully defined. Among those patients with positive responses to the supplemental allergens, 81% of the responses were of present or past relevance. The 12 most frequent contact allergens were nickel sulfate, fragrance mix, thimerosal, quaternium-15, neomycin sulfate, formaldehyde, bacitracin, thiuram mix, balsam of Peru, cobalt chloride, para-phenylenediamine, and carba mix. The present relevance varied with the specific allergen from 10.7% (thimerosal) to 85.7% (quaternium-15). Among newer allergens, methyldibromoglutaronitrile/phenoxyethanol (cosmetic preservative) caused positive allergic reactions in 2% of the patients; tixocortol-21-pivalate and budesonide (corticosteroids), in 2.0% and 1.1% of the patients, respectively; and ethylene urea/melamine formaldehyde mix (textile resin), in 5% of the patients., Conclusion: The usefulness of patch testing is enhanced with the number of allergens tested, because allergens not found on the commercially available screening series in the United States frequently give relevant allergic reactions.

Responses to patch test substances may occur contemporaneously. Such simultaneous reactions may reflect concomitant sensitization to 2 dissimilar allergens to which concurrent exposure has taken place (e.g., ethylenediamine dihydrochloride and neomycin). It may occur when the individual has been exposed to only 1 of the substances and exhibits a response to other substances of similar chemical structure (i.e., cross-sensitization such as between para-phenylenediamine and benzocaine). Such simultaneous responses may also be chance occurrences, reflecting multiple sensitization or the result of altered response due to the "angry back syndrome". This investigation established that such concurrence of response is not uncommon and adds further documentation to the literature of these associations in patch test responses.