Is a specific eyelid patch test series useful? Results of a French prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Eyelids are frequent sites of contact dermatitis. No prospective study focused on eyelid allergic contact dermatitis (EACD) has yet been published, and this topic has never been studied in French patients. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate the usefulness of an eyelid series in French patients patch tested because of EACD, and to describe these patients. METHODS: We prospectively analysed standardized data for all patients referred to our departments between September 2014 and August 2016 for patch testing for suspected EACD as the main reason. All patients were patch tested with an eyelid series, the European baseline series (EBS), the French additional series, and their personal products. Patch testing with additional series and repeated open application tests (ROATs) or open tests were performed if necessary. A standardized assessment of the relevance was used, and the analysis of the results was focused on patients having positive test results with a current certain relevance. RESULTS: Two-hundred and sixty-four patients (238 women and 26 men) were included. Three-hundred and twenty-two tests gave positive results in 167 patients, 84 of whom had currently relevant reactions: 56 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the EBS, 16 had currently relevant positive test reactions to their personal products, 8 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the French additional series, and 4 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the eyelid series. Sixty-seven per cent of all relevant cases were related to cosmetic products. The most frequent allergens with current relevance were methylisothiazolinone (10.2%), fragrance mix I (3%), nickel (2.7%), hydroxyperoxides of linalool (2.7%) and limonene (2.3%), and Myroxylon pereirae (2.3%). Current atopic dermatitis was found in 9.5% of patients. The duration of dermatitis was shorter (23.2 vs 34.2 months; P = .035) in patients with currently relevant test reactions. The percentage of currently relevant tests remained the same when atopic patients or dermatitis localized only on the eyelids were taken into account. CONCLUSION: In French patients, testing for EACD with the extended baseline series and personal products, also including ROATs and use tests, appears to be adequate, considering the currently relevant positive test reactions. The regular addition of an eyelid series does not seem to be necessary.

Immediate Hypersensitivity to Contrast Agents: The French 5-year CIRTACI Study.

BACKGROUND: Iodinated and gadolinium-based contrast media (ICM; GBCM) induce immediate hypersensitivity (IH) reactions. Differentiating allergic from non-allergic IH is crucial; allergy contraindicates the culprit agent for life. We studied frequency of allergic IH among ICM or GBCM reactors. METHODS: Patients were recruited in 31 hospitals between 2005 and 2009. Clinical symptoms, plasma histamine and tryptase concentrations and skin tests were recorded. Allergic IH was diagnosed by intradermal tests (IDT) with the culprit CM diluted 1:10, "potentially allergic" IH by positive IDT with pure CM, and non-allergic IH by negative IDT. FINDINGS: Among 245 skin-tested patients (ICM = 209; GBCM = 36), allergic IH to ICM was identified in 41 (19.6%) and to GBCM in 10 (27.8%). Skin cross-reactivity was observed in 11 patients with ICM (26.8%) and 5 with GBCM (50%). Allergy frequency increased with clinical severity and histamine and tryptase concentrations (p < 0.0001). Cardiovascular signs were strongly associated with allergy. Non-allergic IH was observed in 152 patients (62%) (ICM:134; GBCM:18). Severity grade was lower (p < 0.0001) and reaction delay longer (11.6 vs 5.6 min; p < 0.001). Potentially allergic IH was diagnosed in 42 patients (17.1%) (ICM:34; GBCM:8). The delay, severity grade, and mediator release were intermediate between the two other groups. INTERPRETATION: Allergic IH accounted for < 10% of cutaneous reactions, and > 50% of life-threatening ones. GBCM and ICM triggered comparable IH reactions in frequency and severity. Cross-reactivity was frequent, especially for GBCM. We propose considering skin testing with pure contrast agent, as it is more sensitive than the usual 1:10 dilution criteria.

Airborne allergic contact dermatitis caused by isothiazolinones in water-based paints: a retrospective study of 44 cases.

BACKGROUND: Airborne allergic contact dermatitis caused by paints containing isothiazolinones has been recognized as a health hazard. OBJECTIVES: To collect epidemiological, clinical and patch test data on airborne allergic contact dermatitis caused by isothiazolinone-containing paints in France and Belgium. METHODS: A descriptive, retrospective study was initiated by the Dermatology and Allergy Group of the French Society of Dermatology, including methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/methylisothiazolinone (MI)- and/or MI-sensitized patients who developed airborne allergic contact dermatitis following exposure to isothiazolinone-containing paint. RESULTS: Forty-four cases were identified, with mostly non-occupational exposure (79.5%). Of the patients, 22.5% of also had mucosal symptoms. In several cases, the dermatitis required systemic corticosteroids (27.3%), hospitalization (9.1%), and/or sick leave (20.5%). A median delay of 5.5 weeks was necessary to enable patients to enter a freshly painted room without a flare-up of their dermatitis. Approximately one-fifth of the patients knew that they were allergic to MI and/or MCI/MI before the exposure to paints occurred. CONCLUSION: Our series confirms that airborne allergic contact dermatitis caused by paints containing isothiazolinones is not rare, and may be severe and long-lasting. Better regulation of isothiazolinone concentrations in paints, and their adequate labelling, is urgently needed.

Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions with Antimalarials and Allergological Skin Tests.

BACKGROUND: Currently used antimalarial drugs (AM) are hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, which are prescribed for many autoimmune disorders. The value of skin tests on cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADR) with AM remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this retrospective study is to know whether skin tests for AM are useful and how to manage the recovery of AM therapy in these patients. METHODS: All patients referred for suspected CADR secondary to AM between 2001 and 2014 in eight French dermatology centers were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: We report herein a retrospective series of 20 patients with CADR and AM involvement. Skin tests, performed in 14/20 patients, were negative in all cases. Six patients had an oral provocation test with recurrence of CADR in 1 case. CONCLUSION: We encourage dermatologists to perform oral provocation tests in nonsevere CADR in order to allow AM rechallenge at progressive doses.

The European Standard Series and its additions: are they of any use in 2013?

This study has two purposes:--to know whether the European standard series is still the key reference when it comes to contact dermatitis, i.e., are its components still the most frequently involved allergens in contact dermatitis nowadays?--to assess the results of the European standard series among French and Belgian dermatologists/allergists as, so far, most of them have failed to provide statistical data within the European community of allergists/dermatologists. 18 participants from 2 dermatology and allergy centres in Belgium and 11 centres in France collected their results from 3,073 patients tested in 2011. They assessed the relevance of some tests as well as that of the standard series and additional series to establish an etiological diagnosis of contact dermatitis. These results, together with the history of the European standard series, have shown that some allergens are obsolete and that others should be included in a new standard series for which we are making a few suggestions.