Search

Background: Epoxy resin (ER) is a common cause of occupational allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), but contact urticaria from ER is very rare., Methods and Results: A plastic-product worker first developed ACD from diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A (DGEBA) epoxy resin, and subsequent exposure resulted half a year later in contact urticaria: first with edema of the lips and eyelids, and later an urticarial reaction on the upper chest, with strong swelling of the eyelids and tightness of the throat. The diagnosis was based on a positive skin prick test to his "own" ER compound, a positive prick test reaction to DGEBA, and a positive skin provocation test with the ER compound and DGEBA. The contact urticaria test reaction was strongly aggravated when the allergen was wiped off with an alcohol solution, apparently because the solution enhanced the penetration of the allergen., Conclusions: Our case is of interest, first, because contact urticaria from ER is very rare, and second, because this is the second report in which a strongly intensified contact urticaria reaction was provoked by an alcohol solution. We suggest that if the contact urticaria provocation test with low-molecular-weight chemicals is negative, a contact urticaria provocation test with alcohol (CUPTA) should be performed.

Background: We report on IgE-mediated asthma, rhinoconjunctivitis, and contact urticaria to two Liliaceae plants, tulip and Easter lily (Lilium longiflorum), diagnosed in a floral shop worker., Methods: Occupational asthma was diagnosed according to patient history, PEF monitoring, and a work-simulating provocation test. Flower-specific IgE was studied, and RAST inhibition tests were performed., Results: Skin prick testing showed positive reactions to tulip, Easter lily, and chrysanthemum. Total IgE was 180 kU/I, and specific IgE to tulip was 2.6 and to Easter lily 6.5 kU/I. In the RAST-inhibition test, no cross-reactivity was found. Occupational asthma was diagnosed by peak flow monitoring at work and at home, as well as specific inhalation challenge with Easter lily, with an immediate 18% reduction in PEF. In addition, contact urticaria and conjunctivitis were diagnosed. After a 9-year follow-up without exposure to lilies, the skin prick tests to L. longiflorum and tulip were still positive, but the specific IgE had disappeared., Conclusions: A case of IgE-mediated occupational asthma, rhinoconjunctivitis, and contact urticaria caused by L. longiflorum and tulip is presented. RAST inhibition tests indicated concomitant sensitization to the two Liliaceae plants.

Data on occupational contact urticaria (protein contact dermatitis included) in Finland during 1990-1994 were analyzed. Altogether 815 cases were reported to the Finnish Register of Occupational Diseases during this period, compared with 1944 cases of occupational allergic contact dermatitis. Accordingly, the total number of occupational allergic contact dermatoses was 2759, 29.5% being contact urticaria and 70.5% being allergic contact dermatitis. Occupational contact urticaria was much more common in women (70%) than in men (30%). The 6 most common causes of contact urticaria were (1) cow dander (362 cases = 44.4%), (2) natural rubber latex (193 cases = 23.7%), (3) flour, grains and feed (92 cases = 11.3%), (4) handling of foodstuffs (25 cases = 3.1%), (5) industrial enzymes (14 cases = 1.7%) and (6) decorative plants (13 cases = 1.6%). The occupations with the highest numbers of occupational contact urticaria were farmers (341 cases), domestic animal attendants (61), bakers (53), nurses (42), chefs (40) and dental assistants (28). The ranking list of the most common occupations with occupational contact urticaria per 100,000 employed workers was as follows: (1) bakers (140.5 cases per 100,000 employed persons), (2) preparers of processed food, (3) dental assistants, (4) veterinary surgeons, (5) domestic animal attendants, (6) farmers and silviculturalists, (7) chefs, cooks and cold buffet managers, (8) dairy workers, (9) horticultural supervisors, (10) laboratory technicians and radiographers, (11) physicians, (12) butchers and sausage makers, (13) laboratory assistants, (14) dentists and (15) nurses (21.2 cases per 100,000 employed person). Low-molecular-weight chemicals caused very few cases of occupational contact urticaria, the most common being 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (5 cases). To summarize, occupational contact urticaria forms a large group of occupational contact dermatoses, and dermatologists need to be able to diagnose IgE-mediated immediate skin allergic diseases.

Polyfunctional aziridine (PFA) is increasingly used as a water-based cross-linker in 2-component paints, paint primers, lacquers, topcoats and other protective coatings. The cross-linker (PFA hardener) is made by reacting multifunctional acrylic monomer with a highly reactive aziridine compound. During 1992-1993, we came across 2 patients with allergic patch test reactions provoked by PFA hardener. One of the patients was a parquet layer, and the other a printer. Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) was diagnosed by positive allergic patch test reactions to PFA hardener in a dilution series in pet.:0.3%-1% gave ++ to allergic reactions in both patients, whereas 0.1% gave a weak (+) or questionable reaction (?+), respectively. The methacrylate patch test series was negative in both patients, although gas chromatography/mass spectrometry analysis showed that PFA hardener contained 0.3% of trimethylolpropane triacrylate (TMPTA), a multifunctional acrylic monomer. One of the patients also had symptoms of contact urticaria, and a prick test with PFA hardener (1% aq.) induced a histamine-sized prick test reaction. The positive reactions with the PFA hardener and the negative reactions with the starting chemicals and additives in PFA, namely acrylates, propyleneimine and dimethylethanolamine, indicate that PFA caused ACD. This is in accordance with our previous observations, but differs from the reports of others, whose patients had been sensitized to acrylates present as remnants in the PFA hardener. As test substance, 0.5% PFA hardener in pet. is recommended for patch testing. Testing should be performed in patients with contact dermatitis if exposure to PFA has occurred. Skin prick tests may be of help to detect contact urticaria.

Acid anhydrides are low-molecular-weight chemicals known to cause respiratory irritancy and allergy. Skin allergy has on rare occasions been reported. 2 workers contracted hives and itching on uncovered skin after 2 months exposure to methyltetrahydrophthalic anhydride (MTHPA) and methylhexahydrophthalic anhydride (MHHPA), to which they had airborne exposure. Later, the patients also developed conjunctivitis, rhinitis, sore throat, cough or asthma. In addition to MTHPA, 1 worker was also exposed to unsaturated polyester resin (UP). Both patients' immediate allergy to MTHPA and MHHPA was verified by positive prick tests to MTHPA and MHHPA, conjugated with human serum albumin (HSA), and positive radioallergosorbent tests (RASTs) to these anhydrides. On prick testing, both patients also reacted to a phthalic anhydride (PA)-HSA-conjugate and 1 of the patients to UP-HSA-conjugate. Specific immediate allergy to UP was shown by RAST. RAST inhibition with MTHPA, MHHPA and UP-resin conjugates confirmed IgE-mediated allergy and cross-reactivity between anhydrides. Our patients had developed airborne contact urticaria caused by phthalic anhydrides, in addition to respiratory allergy. Phthalic anhydride contained in the UP resin was possibly responsible for the immediate reaction of the skin.

A 27-year-old woman had for 2 years performed manual grinding of metal castings that contained nickel. She had previously had allergic contact dermatitis from nickel but started to get contact urticaria, rhinitis and asthmatic attacks at work. The symptoms disappeared at weekends and on holiday. Scratch chamber tests, open tests, specific IgE determinations (RAST), and RAST-inhibition test indicated that she had developed an IgE-mediated allergy to nickel; the bronchial provocation reaction with NiSO4 was, however, a late one. Patch tests confirmed her allergic contact dermatitis to be caused by nickel. This is the first patient, to the best of our knowledge, reported to have developed allergic contact dermatitis, allergic contact urticaria, rhinitis and asthma from nickel.

An urticarial reaction associated with high fever developed in a welder on four occasions while he was welding steel profiles filled with polyurethane. The fumes emitted during pyrolysis of polyurethane and inhaled by the patient probably caused the urticarial reaction. Provocation tests with two pyrolysis products, 4,4-diphenylmethane diisocyanate and 4,4-diaminophenylmethane, were negative. This case demonstrates the difficulty in detecting the cause of urticaria induced by airborne chemicals.

Skin and respiratory symptoms developed within 2 months of exposure in a patient involved in the commercial production of shiitake mushrooms. A diagnosis of contact urticaria and allergic contact dermatitis from shiitake mushrooms was confirmed by prick and patch tests. The respiratory symptoms, their timing, the presence of precipitating IgG antibodies to shiitake spores and increased amounts of inflammatory cells and T lymphocytes in bronchoalveolar lavage indicated allergic alveolitis (mushroom worker's disease). A generalized exanthem developed in a second patient after eating raw shiitake mushrooms. Reactions to prick and patch tests with shiitake mushrooms were negative. The skin eruption in this patient corresponded to the previously reported shiitake-induced toxicodermia.

Type I (immediate) and type IV (delayed) allergic reactions to castor bean developed in a stockroom worker in a coffee roasting plant. The exceptionally strong contact urticarial patch rest reaction persisted for more than 48 hours and was therefore called "long-lasting contact urticaria." Light and electron microscopic observations indicated that eosinophils and mast cells were activated and participated in patch test reactions, which include both type I and type IV allergic reactions. Although patch testing is an absolute prerequisite for an accurate diagnosis of delayed allergy, it should be stressed that skin tests should not be performed with castor bean because of its toxicity and potential danger.

A unique urticarial type I patch-test reaction to castor bean that persisted for more than 48 hours and was followed by a delayed type IV reaction is described. Immunohistochemical and electron microscopic observations indicated involvement of eosinophils and IgE receptors on Langerhans' cells. The authors present a scheme for the role of Langerhans' cells in skin allergy.

Four cases of contact urticaria from rubber gloves are presented in detail. Three of the four patients, including two atopics had present or previous hand dermatitis. The causative gloves were made of natural rubber. Interestingly, one patient also reacted to her synthetic nitrile rubber gloves which the distributor had sold her as plastic gloves, and explanation for this case is discussed. Contact urticaria should be taken into consideration when there is recalcitrant hand dermatitis in spite of regular use of polymeric protective gloves. Manufacturers should give more accurate and reliable information on the composition of the glove materials to distributors and consumers.

Over a ten-year period (1974-1983) 542 cases of allergic occupational contact dermatitis were diagnosed in our clinic. Epoxy resins caused 71 cases (13.1%) of occupational allergic contact dermatitis (CD), and three cases (0.6%) of irritant CD. One contact urticaria was caused by an epoxy resin hardener, methyl hexahydrophthalic anhydride. Epicutaneous testing with standard epoxy resin 1% in pet. (mainly oligomer of molecular weight 340) produced allergic reactions in all the patients with allergic CD with the exception of three. These three patients had allergic reactions only to their own resins. Testing the 71 patients of allergic CD with epoxy hardeners produced allergic reactions in 19 (26.8%). None of the patients had separate delayed contact allergy to epoxy hardeners without simultaneous contact allergy to standard epoxy resin.

The number and nature of allergic occupational glove dermatoses were analysed. 542 cases of allergic contact dermatosis were diagnosed during 1974-1983. Amongst these, 68 (12.5%) were caused by rubber or plastic gloves. 2 patients had contact urticaria due to rubber gloves. Gloves were the main cause of occupational allergic rubber eczema, inducing 63 (58.3%) of 108 rubber eczema cases. 38 of them had positive reactions to rubber chemicals and glove material, 14 to glove material only, and 11 to rubber chemicals. 5 cases of allergic eczema from plastic gloves were diagnosed, all due to polyvinyl chloride (PVC). 2 cases of contact urticaria from natural rubber gloves were diagnosed by a provocation test. Epicutaneous testing with material of natural rubber gloves and rubber chemicals was negative. The present study shows that allergy to rubber gloves is usual, while allergy to plastic gloves is rare. Thus, plastic gloves should be used, when possible. Patch testing with protective gloves should always be used when patients develop prolonged hand dermatitis and where the possibility of glove eczema exists.

Background: Occupational contact urticaria (CU) from plants is often reported, but it is less often attributed to decorative houseplants. We present an atopic gardener and caretaker of plants who developed CU when occupationally exposed to weeping fig, spathe flower, and yucca. Methods: Sensitization was evaluated by skin prick tests (SPT) and analyses for IgE antibodies. Results: SPT were positive to all three plants, and IgE antibodies were found to weeping fig and spathe flower. SPT were also performed with several decorative houseplants in more than 600 patients. Positive SPT was found to weeping fig (12%), African milk tree (8.3%), yucca (5.8%), Chinese rose (4.7%), massangana (4.6%), bird's nest fern (3.2%), and spathe flower (3.2%). Conclusions: Our study indicates that SPT and tests for IgE antibody are useful in detecting occupational CU caused by houseplants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]