Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Contact Dermatitis ; 85(3): 274-284, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33837533

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Data regarding teledermatology for patch testing are limited. OBJECTIVES: Compare patch test readings and final interpretation by two in-person dermatologists (IPDs) with eight teledermatologists (TDs). METHODS: Patch tested patients had photographs taken of 70 screening series of allergens at 48 hours and second readings. Eight TDs reviewed photos and graded reactions (negative, irritant, doubtful, +, ++, +++) at 48 hours and second readings; in addition, they coded a final interpretation (allergic, indeterminant, irritant, negative) for each reaction. TDs rated overall image quality and confidence level for each patient and patch test reaction, respectively. Percentage of TD-IPD agreement based on clinical significance (success, indeterminate, and failure) was calculated. Primary outcome was agreement at the second reading. RESULTS: Data were available for 99, 101, and 66 participants at 48 hours, second reading, and final interpretation, respectively. Pooled failure (+/++/+++ vs negative) at second reading was 13.6% (range 7.9%-20.4%). Pooled failure at 48 hours and final interpretation was 5.4% (range 2.9%-6.8%) and 24.6% (range 10.2%-36.8%), respectively. Confidence in readings was statistically correlated with quality of images and disagreement. CONCLUSION: For patch testing, teledermatology has significant limitations including clinically significant pooled failure percentages of 13.6% for second readings and 24.6% for final interpretation.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Irritant/diagnosis , Observer Variation , Patch Tests/methods , Patch Tests/standards , Remote Consultation , Allergens/administration & dosage , Clinical Competence , Dermatologists/psychology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Office Visits , Photography/standards , Self Concept
2.
Dermatitis ; 30(2): 129-134, 2019.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30829801

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding the prevalence and concentration of isothiazolinone preservatives in consumer adhesives. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and concentration of 5 specific isothiazolinones (methylisothiazolinone [MI], methylchloroisothiazolinone [MCI], benzisothiazolinone [BIT], butyl BIT, and octylisothiazolinone) in US adhesives. METHODS: Thirty-eight consumer adhesives were analyzed using ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatographic-mass spectrometry. Fisher exact tests were used to test for isothiazolinone content and: 1) glue format (2) application purpose and 3) extraction method. RESULTS: Nineteen adhesives (50%) had at least 1 isothiazolinone, and 15 contained 2 isothiazolinones. Frequencies and concentrations were as follows: MI (44.7%; 4-133 ppm), MCI (31.6%; 7-27 ppm), BIT (15.8%; 10-86 ppm), and octylisothiazolinone (2.6%; 1 ppm). Butyl BIT was not detected in any of the adhesives. Format (stick vs liquid) was not statistically associated with isothiazolinone presence. At least half of adhesives in the following application purposes had at least 1 isothiazolinone: shoe, craft, fabric, and school. All-purpose glues had a statistically significant lower concentration of MI and MCI, whereas craft glues were associated with higher concentrations of MI and MCI. Compared with other glues, fabric adhesives were associated with a higher risk of containing BIT. CONCLUSIONS: Half of the tested adhesives contained at least 1 isothiazolinone. Methylisothiazolinone and MCI were the most common. Consumers and dermatologists should be aware of adhesives as a source of isothiazolinones.


Subject(s)
Adhesives/chemistry , Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid/methods , Preservatives, Pharmaceutical/analysis , Tandem Mass Spectrometry/methods , Thiazoles/analysis , United States
4.
Dermatitis ; 29(6): 332-338, 2018.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30346324

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is limited information regarding isothiazolinone content in residential wall paints in the United States. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of 5 isothiazolinones-methylisothiazolinone (MI), methylchloroisothiazolinone, benzisothiazolinone (BIT), butyl BIT, and octylisothiazolinone-in US residential wall paints. METHODS: Forty-seven paints were obtained from retailers in Minneapolis/St Paul, Minnesota. Paint samples were assessed for the presence of the 5 isothiazolinones using high-performance liquid chromatographic-mass spectrometry. RESULTS: At least 1 isothiazolinone was detected in all 47 paints. However, no paint contained butyl BIT, and only 1 paint had octylisothiazolinone. The MI and BIT were found in 96% and 94% of the paints, respectively. Methylisothiazolinone ranged in concentration from 17 to 358 ppm, whereas BIT varied from 29 to 1111 ppm. Methylchloroisothiazolinone was found solely in oil-based paints. Isothiazolinones were declared in 15% of Safety Data Sheets but did not correlate with high-performance liquid chromatographic-mass spectrometry. One "preservative-free" paint had BIT at 71.5 ppm. Paint sheen was not statistically associated with BIT or MI concentrations. Unpigmented paints and paints with volatile organic compound claims had significantly lower concentrations of MI, but not BIT. CONCLUSIONS: All paints contained at least 1 isothiazolinone. Methylisothiazolinone and BIT were the most common. Safety Data Sheets are insufficient for ascertaining isothiazolinone content in US paints.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents/analysis , Paint , Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid , Mass Spectrometry , Material Safety Data Sheets , Thiazoles/analysis , Volatile Organic Compounds
5.
Dermatitis ; 29(2): 66-76, 2018.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29494385

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Rubber accelerators play a significant role in glove-related occupational contact dermatitis, especially among health care workers. Currently, there is limited information readily available outlining the accelerators used in specific medical examination and surgical gloves. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to ascertain the accelerators used in medical examination and surgical gloves for major glove manufacturers within the United States. METHODS: An initial Internet-based search was performed to establish relevant manufacturers and product lines, with subsequent inquiry with each corresponding company regarding accelerators used in each medical and surgical glove line. RESULTS: Eleven glove manufacturers were identified and contacted. Responses were obtained from all manufacturers, but because of legal limitations, changes in product lines, or inability to supply necessary data, only 8 companies were able to be included in the final analysis, totaling data for 190 gloves. Carbamates were the most common accelerator, used in 90.5% (172/190) of gloves, whereas thiurams were used in only 11 gloves (5.8%). Eight companies surveyed are now advertising and offering touted accelerator-free gloves. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerators are used in most examination and surgical gloves; however, manufacturers are now expanding their product offerings to include accelerator-free options.


Subject(s)
Benzothiazoles/adverse effects , Carbamates , Gloves, Surgical , Rubber/chemistry , Thiram , Carbamates/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Gloves, Surgical/adverse effects , Guanidines/adverse effects , Hand Dermatoses/etiology , Health Care Sector , Humans , Thiram/adverse effects , United States
6.
Dermatitis ; 29(1): 32-42, 2018.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29256904

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is limited information regarding contact dermatitis (CD) associated with skin cleansers (SCs). OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of allergic patch test (APT) reactions and irritant CD (ICD) associated with SCs. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis was performed using North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 2000-2014. RESULTS: Of 32,945 tested patients, 1069 (3.24%) had either APT reaction or ICD associated with SCs. Of these, 692 (64.7%) had APT reaction only, 350 (32.7%) had ICD only, and 27 (2.5%) had both. Individuals with APT reaction and/or ICD were more likely to have occupationally related skin disease (relative risk [RR] = 3.8 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 3.3-4.5] for APT reaction and 10.0 [95% CI = 8.2-12.2] for ICD, respectively, P < 0.0001). As compared with those without APT reaction to SC, individuals with APT reaction had significantly higher frequencies of hand (RR = 2.4 [95% CI = 2.1-2.7]) and arm dermatitis (RR = 1.3 [95% CI = 1.1-1.6], P ≤ 0.001). Irritant CD was strongly associated with hand dermatitis (RR = 6.2 [95% CI = 5.2-7.3], P < 0.0001). More than 50 allergens were associated with SCs including quaternium-15 (11.2%), cocamidopropyl betaine (9.5%), methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (8.4%), coconut diethanolamide (7.9%), fragrance mix I (7.7%), Myroxylon pereirae (5.9%), 4-chloro-3,5-xylenol (5.8%), amidoamine (5.5%), and formaldehyde (4.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Many allergens, especially preservatives and surfactants, were associated with SCs. Most cases involved the hands and were occupationally related.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Contact/epidemiology , Detergents/adverse effects , Adult , Allergens/adverse effects , Cross-Sectional Studies , Databases, Factual , Dermatitis, Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , North America/epidemiology , Patch Tests , Prevalence , Retrospective Studies
7.
Dermatitis ; 28(4): 284-287, 2017.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28719475

ABSTRACT

A 33-year-old woman presented to our clinic for suspected photoallergic contact dermatitis with a recent episode of severe, vesicular dermatitis involving exposed skin and correlating with relocation to a new home. Biopsy results showed spongiotic and lichenoid dermatitis with eosinophils. Patch test results showed a very strong (+++) reaction to methylisothiazolinone (MI), mild (+) reaction to MI/methylchloroisothiazolinone, and no reaction to benzisothiazolinone. These allergens were found in several personal products. However, the patient was suspicious of 4 wall paints recently used in her home. Semiopen patch tests to 3 Behr interior paints showed positive results. Nine controls showed negative results. High-performance liquid chromatography demonstrated MI and benzisothiazolinone in all 4 paints at concentrations ranging from 50 to 100 ppm and 290 to 340 ppm, respectively. Although MI has been reported to cause occupational airborne contact dermatitis in European household painters, to our knowledge, this is the first documented case of paint-related MI allergy in the United States.


Subject(s)
Allergens/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Photoallergic/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Photoallergic/etiology , Paint/adverse effects , Thiazoles/adverse effects , Adult , Allergens/analysis , Female , Humans , Paint/analysis , Patch Tests/methods , Thiazoles/analysis
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...