Sensitization to textile dyes in Spain: Epidemiological situation (2019-2022).

BACKGROUND: Current frequency and features for positivity to textile dye mix (TDM) in Spain are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To study the frequency, clinical features and simultaneous positivity between TDM, para-phenylenediamine (PPD) and specific disperse dyes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed all consecutive patients patch-tested with TDM from the Spanish Contact Dermatitis Registry (REIDAC), from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2022. Within this group, we studied all selected patients patch-tested with a textile dye series. RESULTS: Out of 6128 patients analysed, 3.3% were positive to the TDM and in 34% of them, the sensitization was considered currently relevant. TDM positivity was associated with working as a hairdresser/beautician and scalp, neck/trunk and arm/forearm dermatitis. From TDM-positive patients, 57% were positive to PPD. One hundred and sixty-four patients were patch-tested with the textile dye series. Disperse Orange 3 was the most frequent positive dye (16%). One of every six cases positive to any dye from the textile dye series would have been missed if patch-tested with the TDM alone. CONCLUSIONS: Positivity to TDM is common in Spain and often associated with PPD sensitization. TDM is a valuable marker of disperse dyes allergy that should be part of the Spanish and European standard series.

Sensitization to isothiazolinones in the Spanish Contact Dermatitis Registry (REIDAC): 2019-2021 epidemiological situation.

BACKGROUND: Current frequency and risk factors for sensitization to methylisothiazolinone (MI), methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI), benzisothiazolinone (BIT) and octylisothiazolinone (OIT) in Spain are not well known. OBJECTIVES: To study the frequency of sensitization, risk factors and simultaneous sensitization between the four isothiazolinones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed all 2019-2021 consecutive patients patch-tested with MI (0.2% aq.), MCI/MI (0.02% aq.), BIT (0.1% pet.) and OIT (0.1% pet) within the Spanish Contact Dermatitis Registry (REIDAC). RESULTS: A total of 2511 patients were analysed. Frequencies of sensitization were: any isothiazolinone 15.7%, MI 6.8%, MCI/MI 4.8%, BIT 3.5% and OIT 0.5%. MI and MCI/MI sensitization was associated with being occupationally active, hand dermatitis, detergents and age over 40. BIT sensitization was associated with leg dermatitis and age over 40. About one in nine MI-positive patients were positive to BIT, whereas one in five BIT-positive patients were positive to MI. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitization to MI, MCI/MI and BIT is still common in Spain, while sensitization to OIT is rare. Currently, sensitization to MI and MCI/MI seems to be occupationally related. Although its origin is unknown, sensitization to BIT is more frequent in patients aged over 40 years. Simultaneous sensitization between MI and BIT is uncommon.

Comorbidity identification and referral in atopic dermatitis: a consensus document.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is associated with different comorbidities. OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based and practical recommendations for comorbidity detection in patients with AD in daily practice. METHODS: We employed a modified RAND/UCLA methodology, including a systematic literature review (SLR). A group of six experts on AD was established. We conducted a comprehensive search strategy on Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to June 2020. The selection criteria included studies with AD patients with any comorbidity reporting data on comorbidity prevalence, burden, and management. The included studies quality was assessed. The SLR results were discussed in a nominal group meeting, and several recommendations were generated. The recommendation agreement grade was tested on additional experts through a Delphi process. RESULTS: The recommendations cover the following issues: (1) Which comorbidities should be investigated at the first and subsequent visits; (2) how and when should comorbidities be investigated (screening); (3) how should patients with specific comorbidities be referred to confirm their diagnosis and initiate management; (4) specific recommendations to ensure an integral care approach for AD patients with any comorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations seek to guide dermatologists, patients, and other stakeholders in regard to early comorbidity identification and AD patient referral to improve decision-making.

Manejo de la urticaria en urgencias: recomendaciones de un grupo multidisciplinar de expertos / Managing urticaria in the emergency department: recommendations of a multidisciplinary expert panel

La urticaria y el angioedema ocasionan consultas frecuentes en los servicios de urgencias. Por ello, es importante que sean diagnosticados y tratados correctamente en este nivel asistencial y ofrecer un tratamiento y unas pautas de derivación adecuados para evitar visitas adicionales. Un grupo de expertos en dermatología y en medicina de urgencias y emergencias ha revisado las principales guías y publicaciones, y ha desarrollado y consensuado una herramienta práctica para el abordaje de la urticaria, el angioedema y la anafilaxia en urgencias. Presentamos una guía de manejo, un algoritmo basado en el diagnóstico diferencial, un algoritmo terapéutico y unas recomendaciones de derivación de los pacientes. La implementación de esta guía, avalada por la Sociedad Española de Dermatología (AEDV) y la Sociedad Española de Medicina de Urgencias y Emergencias (SEMES), permitirá optimizar el manejo de los pacientes con urticaria y angioedema en urgencias, y mejorará la interrelación con otros servicios. (AU)

Urticaria and angioedema account for many visits to emergency departments. It is important to diagnose and treat them properly at this level of care and to suggest treatments and guidance that can make additional visits unnecessary. A panel of experts in dermatology and emergency medicine reviewed the main guidelines and publications on urticaria and angioedema. The panel then developed and reached consensus on practical approaches and tools for managing urticaria, angioedema, and anaphylaxis in the emergency department. The resulting statement is a guide to management, with algorithms for differential diagnosis and treatment and recommendations for patient referral. Implementing these guidelines, which are supported by the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (AEDV) and the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine (SEMES) will facilitate optimal management of emergency department patients with urticaria and angioedema as well as improve interdepartmental relations. (AU)

Managing urticaria in the emergency department: recommendations of a multidisciplinary expert panel. / Manejo de la urticaria en urgencias: recomendaciones de un grupo multidisciplinar de expertos.

Urticaria and angioedema account for many visits to emergency departments. It is important to diagnose and treat them properly at this level of care and to suggest treatments and guidance that can make additional visits unnecessary. A panel of experts in dermatology and emergency medicine reviewed the main guidelines and publications on urticaria and angioedema. The panel then developed and reached consensus on practical approaches and tools for managing urticaria, angioedema, and anaphylaxis in the emergency department. The resulting statement is a guide to management, with algorithms for differential diagnosis and treatment and recommendations for patient referral. Implementing these guidelines, which are supported by the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (AEDV) and the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine (SEMES) will facilitate optimal management of emergency department patients with urticaria and angioedema as well as improve interdepartmental relations.

La urticaria y el angioedema ocasionan consultas frecuentes en los servicios de urgencias. Por ello, es importante que sean diagnosticados y tratados correctamente en este nivel asistencial y ofrecer un tratamiento y unas pautas de derivación adecuados para evitar visitas adicionales. Un grupo de expertos en dermatología y en medicina de urgencias y emergencias ha revisado las principales guías y publicaciones, y ha desarrollado y consensuado una herramienta práctica para el abordaje de la urticaria, el angioedema y la anafilaxia en urgencias. Presentamos una guía de manejo, un algoritmo basado en el diagnóstico diferencial, un algoritmo terapéutico y unas recomendaciones de derivación de los pacientes. La implementación de esta guía, avalada por la Sociedad Española de Dermatología (AEDV) y la Sociedad Española de Medicina de Urgencias y Emergencias (SEMES), permitirá optimizar el manejo de los pacientes con urticaria y angioedema en urgencias, y mejorará la interrelación con otros servicios.

Candidate Allergens for Inclusion in the Spanish Standard Series Based on Data from the Spanish Contact Dermatitis Registry. / Alérgenos candidatos para ser incluidos en la serie estándar española a partir de los datos del Registro Español de Dermatitis de Contacto.

BACKGROUND: Standard patch test series must be updated using objective data on allergen sensitization. The Spanish standard series was last updated in 2016 and the European series in 2019, and the inclusion of several emerging allergens needs to be evaluated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational, multicenter study of consecutive patients from the registry of the Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC) who were patch tested in 2019 and 2020 with linalool hydroperoxide, limonene hydroperoxide, 2-hydroxyethyl-methacrylate, benzisothiazolinone, octylisothiazolinone, textile dye mix (TDM), sodium metabisulfite, propolis, bronopol, Compositae mix II, diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, decyl glucoside, and lauryl glucoside. RESULTS: We analyzed data for 4654 patients tested with diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, and bronopol, and 1890 tested with the other allergens. The values for the MOAHLFA index components were 30% for male, 18% for occupational dermatitis, 15% for atopic dermatitis, 29% for hand, 6.5% for leg, 23% for face, and 68% for age > 40 years. Sensitization rates above 1% were observed for 7 allergens: linalool hydroperoxide, 2-hydroxyethyl-methacrylate, benzisothiazolinone, limonene hydroperoxide, TDM, sodium metabisulfite, and propolis. Three allergens had a current relevance rate of over 1%: linalool hydroperoxide, 2-hydroxyethyl-methacrylat, and limonene hydroperoxide. Benzisothiazolinone and TDM had a relevance rate of between 0.9% and 1%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that 7 new allergens should be considered when extending the Spanish standard patch test series. The data from our series could be helpful for guiding the next extension of the European baseline series.

Should methyldibromo glutaronitrile continue to be used in the European baseline Series? A REIDAC national cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Methyldibromo glutaronitrile (MDBGN) was one of the most frequent and relevant allergens found in patch testing at the beginning of this century. In 2008, this preservative was banned from cosmetics in Europe and ever since the prevalence of contact allergy to MDBGN has progressively decreased. Despite that gradual decline, MDBGN is still patch-tested in most baseline series. This study assessed the frequency of MDBGN sensitization, epidemiological characteristics of allergic patients, and the relevance of positive patch tests in a nationwide Spanish registry (REIDAC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated consecutively patch-tested patients in all participating centres. Using these data, we calculated the proportion of patients with positive patch tests to MDBGN from June 2018 to June 2020 and evaluated the relevance of the positive patch tests. RESULTS: One hundred and fourteen out of 5072 (2.24 %) tested patients were sensitized to MDBGN. Clinical current relevance was confirmed in only one case. CONCLUSION: Although the frequency of contact allergy to MDBGN remains high, no clinical significance was found in most of these patients (5072 tests needed to obtain one relevant positive result). The clinical usefulness of this allergen seems weak and its continued inclusion in the European baseline series is questionable.

Allergic contact dermatitis caused by (meth)acrylates in long-lasting nail polish - are we facing a new epidemic in the beauty industry?

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by (meth)acrylates has been described both in occupational and in non-occupational settings. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical patterns, the most frequent allergens and the prognosis in patients sensitized to (meth)acrylates in long-lasting nail polish. METHODS: The files of patients with ACD caused by (meth)acrylates in long-lasting nail polish diagnosed between January 2013 and June 2016 in four dermatology departments in Spain were reviewed. Patients were followed up by telephone interview. RESULTS: Overall, 2353 patients were patch tested. Forty-three (1.82%) were diagnosed with ACD caused by (meth)acrylates in long-lasting nail polish during that period; all were female, and all had hand dermatitis. Patients were mostly less than 40 years old (72.1%), non-atopic (95.4%) and had an occupational cause of their dermatitis (93%), which developed ∼10.1 months after they had started to use this technique. The most frequent positive allergens were: 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, and tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate. Eight of the 22 interviewed patients were able to improve their working technique and used 4H® protective material (fingerstalls/gloves). CONCLUSIONS: Long-lasting nail polishes have become widespread, and it is a matter of concern that we may be facing a new epidemic of ACD caused by these. Policies regulating their use are urgently needed.

Guía clínica de urticaria en Atención Primaria / Clinical guidelines for urticaria in Primary Care

No disponible

Omalizumab: what benefits should we expect?

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a skin disease characterised by wheal appearance, swelling, itching, and painful skin. Omalizumab has been used for CSU treatment demonstrating good efficacy. To investigate the efficacy and safety of omalizumab treatment in CSU patients in real-life practice. A retrospective analysis was performed on 38 patients suffering from CSU who received 300 mg of omalizumab every four weeks. After omalizumab treatment, 68.4% of patients showed a complete response (UAS7 = 0). All the patients were able to stop treatment with corticosteroids, cyclosporine, and anti-leukotrienes, and only 39.5% of patients remained on anti-histamines. Omalizumab treatment led to a 96% and 65% decrease in emergency room and primary health care visits, respectively, as well as a reduction in the direct costs associated with the disease. No omalizumab-related adverse events were reported. Omalizumab exhibits good efficacy in alleviating the symptoms of CSU, leads to a decrease in concomitant medication use, restores patients' quality of life, and has economic benefits by reducing disease-related health care costs.