Search

Background Objectives Methods Results Conclusions Rubber gloves contain rubber accelerators that may cause contact allergy. The content of sensitising rubber accelerators in contemporary rubber gloves is not well known.Identify and quantify the content of rubber accelerators in disposable rubber gloves.Fifty‐one gloves of 49 different brands were collected. Forty‐eight of the gloves were disposable and three re‐usable. The gloves were analysed for their content of sensitising rubber accelerators, that is, zinc dithiocarbamates, thiurams, thiazoles/benzothiazoles, diphenylguanidine, and thioureas by high‐performance liquid chromatography.Rubber accelerators were identified in 43/48 (90%) of the disposable gloves. In total, 39 gloves contained zinc dibutyldithiocarbamate (ZDBC) (0.18–1.96 mg/g), 34 zinc diethyldithiocarbamate (ZDEC) (0.032–2.78 mg/g), three zinc dibenzyldithiocarbamate (0.65–1.4 mg/g), one zinc dimethyldithiocarbamate (0.23 mg/g), and one 1,3‐diphenylguanidine (0.21 mg/g). 2‐cyanoethyl dimethyldithiocarbamate (CEDMC) was identified in three gloves (<0.052 mg/g). The one glove labelled as accelerator free contained ZDBC (1.07 mg/g). Only few glove packages had the specific content of rubber accelerators labelled.The most frequent rubber accelerators in rubber gloves are ZDEC and ZDBC. Accelerator‐free gloves may contain rubber accelerators. Full labelling of rubber gloves is needed and producers should be sure not to falsely claim that the rubber gloves are free of rubber accelerators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Objectives Methods Results Conclusions Rubber accelerators are used in the vulcanization of rubber. However, rubber accelerators for example tetraethylthiuram disulfide (TETD) and zinc diethyldithiocarbamate (ZDEC) may cause contact allergy. Concomitant reactions between ZDEC and TETD have been observed in patients which could be explained by co‐ or cross‐reactivity.To investigate cross‐reactivity between TETD and ZDEC and vice versa.Groups of mice were sensitized with TETD or ZDEC based on reported EC3‐values. Proliferation of lymphocytes were measured on day 5. To test cross‐reactivity, mice were sensitized and challenged 3 weeks later with TETD or ZDEC. The inflammatory response was measured by changes in ear thickness and the proliferative response in CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in the submandibular and cervical draining lymph nodes.Sensitization of mice with doses of ZDEC 3%, TETD 5.6% or TETD 16.2% induced significant increased ear thickness and proliferation of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. Challenge with ZDEC or TETD in these groups induced significant increased ear thickness. Challenge with ZDEC in mice sensitized to TETD 5.6% or TETD 16.2% induced significant increased proliferation of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells.We show cross‐reactivity between TETD and ZDEC. Patients sensitized to TETD or ZDEC should avoid exposure to both ZDEC and TETD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gold contact allergy is diagnosed by patch testing using gold chloride or gold sodium thiosulfate. These tests often show high positivity rates, but a direct correlation with dermatitis from everyday gold exposure is rare. The aim of this study was to investigate and estimate the current prevalence of gold contact allergy in dermatitis patients. We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for studies reporting the prevalence of gold contact allergy in dermatitis patients and published between January 2010 and May 2024. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed, and pooled proportions were calculated using random effects models. Sixteen studies with 14 887 dermatitis patients were included. The pooled prevalence of gold contact allergy was 14.1% (95% confidence intervals: 9.5%–19.4%) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 98.3%). High positivity rates with limited clinical relevance highlight the need for cautious interpretation. Even within the same country, studies find different prevalence rates. Standardized testing protocols and further research are needed to better understand and manage this allergy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Neomycin is an aminoglycoside antibiotic that may cause contact allergy. It was withdrawn as a medicine for human use in Denmark in October 2009 but is still found in some vaccines. Objectives: To identify time trends in contact allergy to neomycin in the period from 2000 to 2023. Methods: A cross‐section study of patients ≥18 years consecutively patch‐tested with neomycin sulfate (20% in pet.) at Gentofte Hospital, Denmark, during the period 2000–2023 was conducted. Results: The overall prevalence of contact allergy to neomycin was 1.4%. The prevalence was significantly lower in the period '2010–2023' (1.2%) than in '2000–2009' (1.8%) (p < 0.005). Contact allergy to neomycin was significantly positively associated with facial dermatitis and age >40 years, and significantly negatively associated with occupational dermatitis and hand dermatitis. No changes in sex, occupational dermatitis, atopic dermatitis, hand dermatitis, leg dermatitis, facial dermatitis, or age > 40/≤40 (the MOAHLFA‐index) were identified when comparing neomycin contact allergic‐patients in the two periods '2010–2023' and '2001–2009'. Conclusion: Neomycin is a rare cause of contact allergy in Denmark with a significantly lower prevalence following its withdrawal as a medicinal product for human use in Denmark in 2009. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rubber accelerators are used in the production of rubber gloves and may cause contact allergy. Objectives: To estimate long‐term trend and prevalence of contact allergy to rubber accelerators for a 30‐year period in Denmark, high‐risk occupations, and exposures. Methods: Data from all patients with contact dermatitis consecutively patch tested at the department of Skin and Allergy Gentofte hospital with the rubber accelerators from the European baseline series (EBS) from 1990 to 2019, were analysed. Further, patients under suspicion of rubber accelerator contact allergy were additionally patch‐tested with rubber accelerators from the specialised rubber series from 2005 to 2019 and these were additional extracted. Results: The overall prevalence of contact allergy to one or more of the rubber accelerators from the EBS series was 2.7% with a significant decline in the first 12‐years, followed by a stable frequency in the past 18‐years. Associations with occupational contact dermatitis, hand dermatitis, and leg/foot dermatitis were found. Wet‐work occupations were most often affected and gloves the most frequent exposure. Conclusions: Contact allergy to one or more of the rubber accelerators from the EBS is frequent and has been unchanged for several decades, which calls for prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses a study conducted at Gentofte Hospital in Denmark on contact allergy to textile dye mix (TDM) in eczema patients. The study analyzed historical data from 2015 to 2023 and found that the overall prevalence of contact allergy to TDM was 2.3%. There was no significant trend in the prevalence of contact allergy to TDM over the study period. The study also found that leg eczema was significantly associated with contact allergy to TDM. The most prevalent dye causing contact allergy in TDM allergic patients was Disperse Orange 3 (DO 3), and there were concomitant reactions between DO 3 and another allergen called PPD. The authors suggest excluding DO 3 from TDM and introducing a new version of TDM without DO 3. However, they also propose temporarily including DO 3 in supplementary standard series for better surveillance. [Extracted from the article]