Contact dermatitis.

Contact dermatitis (CD) is among the most common inflammatory dermatological conditions and includes allergic CD, photoallergic CD, irritant CD, photoirritant CD (also called phototoxic CD) and protein CD. Occupational CD can be of any type and is the most prevalent occupational skin disease. Each CD type is characterized by different immunological mechanisms and/or requisite exposures. Clinical manifestations of CD vary widely and multiple subtypes may occur simultaneously. The diagnosis relies on clinical presentation, thorough exposure assessment and evaluation with techniques such as patch testing and skin-prick testing. Management is based on patient education, avoidance strategies of specific substances, and topical treatments; in severe or recalcitrant cases, which can negatively affect the quality of life of patients, systemic medications may be needed.

Contact Allergy to Ammonium Persulfate: An Epidemiologic Study of 2138 Consecutive Dermatitis Patients.

Background: Persulfate is an oxidizing agent used for multiple purposes, including bleaching hair, bleaching flour, and as pool/spa water disinfectant. Objective: To identify the prevalence and clinical characteristics of patients allergic to ammonium persulfate (APS) among patients who underwent patch testing in our clinic. Methods: A retrospective chart review of 2138 patients who underwent patch testing at Brigham and Women's hospital in Boston between July 2015 to November 2019. All patients were tested to our standard series including APS 2.5% petrolatum. Given the irritant nature of APS, we included for analysis only patients with 2+ or 3+ reactions. Results: Among 2138 patients, 61 (2.85%) had 2+ or 3+ reactions to APS. In this study, 72% were female. 75% had an atopic diathesis; 56% had 2+ reactions, and 44% had 3+ reactions. Clinical relevance was definite in 11%, probable in 10%, and unknown/possible in 79%. In patients with definite clinical relevance, 6/7 had occupational allergic contact dermatitis: 4 hairdressers, 1 hair salon cleaner, and 1 aquarium worker; 1/7 was bleaching her hair. Conclusion: Prevalence of 2+ or 3+ APS reactions in this single-center study was higher than that reported by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2015-2016, (0.75% vs. 2.85% in our study). APS is an important occupational allergen, and clinicians should be aware of this when treating patients with exposure to APS.

Comparison of Nickel Sulfate 2.5% and Nickel Sulfate 5% for Detecting Nickel Contact Allergy.

BACKGROUND: Nickel is among the most common contact allergens found on patch testing worldwide and, because of its ubiquitous nature in our environment, often has important implications for allergen avoidance strategies. In both North America and Europe, nickel positivity is found in approximately 20% of patients who undergo patch testing. Whereas in North America, nickel sulfate is typically tested at a concentration of 2.5%, in Europe, it is tested at a 5% concentration. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to assess the differences in patch test positivity to nickel sulfate 2.5% and 5%. METHODS: We investigated 205 consecutive patients between September 2017 and February 2018 who were tested to nickel sulfate at concentrations of both 2.5% and 5%. RESULTS: Among the 205 patients tested, 33% were positive (+, ++, or +++) to at least 1 concentration of nickel sulfate, 20% were positive to nickel sulfate 2.5%, and 31% were positive to nickel sulfate 5% (χ1(N = 205) = 16.1, P = 0.0001). Patients were 6.5 times more likely to have a positive reaction to nickel sulfate 5% than 2.5% (odds ratio 95% confidence interval, 2.3-25.6). CONCLUSIONS: Given our findings, we propose an additional evaluation of nickel sulfate 5% as a standard allergen for patch testing in North America.

A case series of dupilumab-treated allergic contact dermatitis patients.

Atopic dermatitis is characterized by skin barrier abnormalities and immune dysregulation with increased TH 2 signaling playing a central role. Investigations of allergic contact dermatitis suggest that certain allergens may also activate particular T cell signatures such as TH 2-dominant responses to fragrance and rubber. We present a case series of patients with allergic contact dermatitis who were successfully treated with dupilumab, a biologic developed for atopic dermatitis that dampens TH 2 signaling. In our cohort of three patients, two had extensive allergic contact dermatitis on their torso and extremities primarily due to textile and rubber allergens. The third was a hairdresser with severe hand dermatitis due to occupational allergens. Two of the three patients had no history of atopic dermatitis during childhood. Each patient experienced at least 90% improvement in body surface area involvement and continues to maintain their clinical response on dupilumab (range 6-13 months). Our hypothesis that dupilumab suppressed contact allergic reactions is supported by the identification of clinically relevant contact allergens on patch testing, acute onset and/or worsening of dermatitis in adulthood, and absence of childhood atopic dermatitis in two cases. Further, larger investigations to understand which factors affect responses of allergic contact dermatitis to dupilumab are warranted.

The Medical Necessity of Comprehensive Patch Testing.

Allergic contact dermatitis is associated with significant disease and economic burden in the United States. To properly manage allergic contact dermatitis, it is important to accurately identify the substance(s) implicated in the dermatitis to prevent disease recurrence. The commercially available T.R.U.E Test (36 allergens) screening panel has been reported to have a conservative hypothetical allergen detection rate of 66.0%, at most. Importantly, these calculations are based on the 78% of patients who had clinically relevant reactions to allergens present on the North American Contact Dermatitis Group screening series (70 allergens), without the use of supplemental allergens. Testing with supplemental allergens beyond a screening series can more fully evaluate an individual's environmental and occupational exposure, which may significantly increase diagnostic accuracy. Comprehensive patch testing with additional allergens in sunscreens, cosmetics, and fragrances, for example, may increase the diagnostic yield as well as the likelihood of achieving a cure if the dermatitis is chronic and recalcitrant.

Survey of Patch Test Business Models in the United States by the American Contact Dermatitis Society.

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) remains a significant burden of disease in the United States. Patch testing is the criterion standard for diagnosing ACD, but its use may be limited by reimbursement challenges. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the current rate of patch test utilization among dermatologists in academic, group, or private practice settings to understand different patch testing business models that address these reimbursement challenges. METHODS: All members of the American Contact Dermatitis Society received an online survey regarding their experiences with patch testing and reimbursement. RESULTS: A "yes" response was received from 28% of survey participants to the question, "Are you or have you been less inclined to administer patch tests or see patients needing patch tests due to challenges with receiving compensation for patch testing?" The most commonly reported barriers include inadequate insurance reimbursement and lack of departmental support. CONCLUSIONS: Compensation challenges to patch testing limit patient access to appropriate diagnosis and management of ACD. This can be addressed through a variety of innovative business models, including raising patch testing caps, negotiating relative value unit compensation, using a fixed salary model with directorship support from the hospital, and raising the percentages of collection reimbursement for physicians.

Benzalkonium Chloride: An Irritant and Sensitizer.

BACKGROUND: Benzalkonium chloride (BAK) is a known irritant, and potentially cross-reacting quaternary ammonium compounds are commonly used as preservatives in personal care products. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to review positive reactions to BAK in 615 patients patch tested for suspected allergic contact dermatitis. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed in 615 patients patch tested from June 2015 to October 2016. All patients were tested to a Modified American Contact Dermatitis Society core series of 70 allergens including BAK (0.1% aqueous). Initial readings were performed at 48 hours with final readings performed between 72 and 168 hours. Results were graded as + (weak: papules and erythema), ++ (strong: papules and edema or vesicles), or +++ (extreme: coalescing vesicles, spreading or bullous reactions). RESULTS: A total of 141 men (23%) and 475 women (77%) were tested (mean age, 49 years). Four hundred thirty-two (70%) were atopic. Of 615 patients, 198 (32%) tested positive to BAK, and 64 (10%) had ++ or +++ reactions at their final reading. On average, BAK-positive patients were using at least 1 product containing BAK or possible cross-reactors. CONCLUSIONS: Widespread exposure to irritants in dermatitis patients can predispose to sensitization. Products containing BAK or potential cross-reactors should be used carefully in patients with compromised skin barriers.

Handwashing and Ebola virus disease outbreaks: A randomized comparison of soap, hand sanitizer, and 0.05% chlorine solutions on the inactivation and removal of model organisms Phi6 and E. coli from hands and persistence in rinse water.

To prevent Ebola transmission, frequent handwashing is recommended in Ebola Treatment Units and communities. However, little is known about which handwashing protocol is most efficacious. We evaluated six handwashing protocols (soap and water, alcohol-based hand sanitizer (ABHS), and 0.05% sodium dichloroisocyanurate, high-test hypochlorite, and stabilized and non-stabilized sodium hypochlorite solutions) for 1) efficacy of handwashing on the removal and inactivation of non-pathogenic model organisms and, 2) persistence of organisms in rinse water. Model organisms E. coli and bacteriophage Phi6 were used to evaluate handwashing with and without organic load added to simulate bodily fluids. Hands were inoculated with test organisms, washed, and rinsed using a glove juice method to retrieve remaining organisms. Impact was estimated by comparing the log reduction in organisms after handwashing to the log reduction without handwashing. Rinse water was collected to test for persistence of organisms. Handwashing resulted in a 1.94-3.01 log reduction in E. coli concentration without, and 2.18-3.34 with, soil load; and a 2.44-3.06 log reduction in Phi6 without, and 2.71-3.69 with, soil load. HTH performed most consistently well, with significantly greater log reductions than other handwashing protocols in three models. However, the magnitude of handwashing efficacy differences was small, suggesting protocols are similarly efficacious. Rinse water demonstrated a 0.28-4.77 log reduction in remaining E. coli without, and 0.21-4.49 with, soil load and a 1.26-2.02 log reduction in Phi6 without, and 1.30-2.20 with, soil load. Chlorine resulted in significantly less persistence of E. coli in both conditions and Phi6 without soil load in rinse water (p<0.001). Thus, chlorine-based methods may offer a benefit of reducing persistence in rinse water. We recommend responders use the most practical handwashing method to ensure hand hygiene in Ebola contexts, considering the potential benefit of chlorine-based methods in rinse water persistence.

Stoma care products represent a common and previously underreported source of peristomal contact dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Peristomal dermatitis is a common complication for the >700 000 patients in the United States with an ostomy. The role of stoma skin care products in peristomal dermatitis is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate stoma skin care products as a cause of peristomal dermatitis. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients with peristomal dermatitis at four academic hospitals from January 2010 to March 2014 was performed. Patient demographics, clinical information and use test and patch test results were documented. RESULTS: Eighteen patients identified as having peristomal dermatitis were tested. Twelve of these had peristomal contact dermatitis. We identified numerous stoma skin care products as triggers of irritant and/or allergic contact dermatitis. The most common stoma skin care product used and/or involved in dermatitis was Cavilon™ No Sting Barrier Film. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support a paradigm shift whereby healthcare workers treating patients with peristomal dermatitis, which is currently considered to be a reaction mainly to bodily fluids, must consider those products used to protect the skin as potential triggers for this disease. Therefore, patients with peristomal dermatitis should be tested with their stoma skin care agents to determine the need for removal or change of these products. Additionally, full ingredient labelling by manufacturers would help identify new allergens and irritants.

Seeking Clearer Recommendations for Hand Hygiene in Communities Facing Ebola: A Randomized Trial Investigating the Impact of Six Handwashing Methods on Skin Irritation and Dermatitis.

To prevent disease transmission, 0.05% chlorine solution is commonly recommended for handwashing in Ebola Treatment Units. In the 2014 West Africa outbreak this recommendation was widely extended to community settings, although many organizations recommend soap and hand sanitizer over chlorine. To evaluate skin irritation caused by frequent handwashing that may increase transmission risk in Ebola-affected communities, we conducted a randomized trial with 91 subjects who washed their hands 10 times a day for 28 days. Subjects used soap and water, sanitizer, or one of four chlorine solutions used by Ebola responders (calcium hypochlorite (HTH), sodium dichloroisocyanurate (NaDCC), and generated or pH-stabilized sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)). Outcomes were self-reported hand feel, irritation as measured by the Hand Eczema Score Index (HECSI) (range 0-360), signs of transmission risk (e.g., cracking), and dermatitis diagnosis. All groups experienced statistically significant increases in HECSI score. Subjects using sanitizer had the smallest increases, followed by higher pH chlorine solutions (HTH and stabilized NaOCl), and soap and water. The greatest increases were among neutral pH chlorine solutions (NaDCC and generated NaOCl). Signs of irritation related to higher transmission risk were observed most frequently in subjects using soap and least frequently by those using sanitizer or HTH. Despite these irritation increases, all methods represented minor changes in HECSI score. Average HECSI score was only 9.10 at endline (range 1-33) and 4% (4/91) of subjects were diagnosed with dermatitis, one each in four groups. Each handwashing method has benefits and drawbacks: soap is widely available and inexpensive, but requires water and does not inactivate the virus; sanitizer is easy-to use and effective but expensive and unacceptable to many communities, and chlorine is easy-to-use but difficult to produce properly and distribute. Overall, we recommend Ebola responders and communities use whichever handwashing method(s) are most acceptable, available, and sustainable for community handwashing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Registry ISRCTN89815514.

Patch Testing for Evaluation of Hypersensitivity to Implanted Metal Devices: A Perspective From the American Contact Dermatitis Society.

The American Contact Dermatitis Society recognizes the interest in the evaluation and management of metal hypersensitivity reactions. Given the paucity of robust evidence with which to guide our practices, we provide reasonable evidence and expert opinion-based guidelines for clinicians with regard to metal hypersensitivity reaction testing and patient management. Routine preoperative evaluation in individuals with no history of adverse cutaneous reactions to metals or history of previous implant-related adverse events is not necessary. Patients with a clear self-reported history of metal reactions should be evaluated by patch testing before device implant. Patch testing is only 1 element in the assessment of causation in those with postimplantation morbidity. Metal exposure from the implanted device can cause sensitization, but a positive metal test does not prove symptom causality. The decision to replace an implanted device must include an assessment of all clinical factors and a thorough risk-benefit analysis by the treating physician(s) and patient.