VEXAS syndrome: A dermatological perspective.

VEXAS (Vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X-linked, autoinflammatory and somatic mutation) syndrome is a genetically defined disorder identified in 2020, describing patients with inflammatory syndromes associated with haematological dysfunction. It is a severe, treatment-resistant condition, with estimated mortality between 40% and 63%. A wide range of cutaneous manifestations have been described. Here, we report on two patients with treatment-resistant neutrophilic dermatosis and myelodysplastic syndrome, who were subsequently diagnosed with VEXAS syndrome. Our cases highlight the need for dermatologists' awareness of this novel condition and to initiate early referral to haematologists for appropriate multidisciplinary care.

Cutaneous reactive angiomatosis associated with erythema ab igne.

We present the case of a 49-year-old man with an 18-month history of an intermittently pruritic red-brown reticulate eruption of the medial legs, with occasional blistering. There were areas of scale, crust and superficial erosions. The patient worked long overnight shifts standing in front of hot machinery wearing shorts, and spent time sitting in front of a heater at home. A clinical diagnosis of erythema ab igne (EAI) was made. This settled with heater avoidance and protection of the legs with long trousers, as well as a topical corticosteroid. Histology showed features of cutaneous reactive angiomatosis, a rare condition with various associations but only previously reported once in association with EAI.

Allergic contact dermatitis to methylisothiazolinone: exposure from baby wipes causing hand dermatitis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) is a preservative used in both cosmetic and industrial settings. In Europe it is allowed to be used in rinse-off cosmetics only because of its propensity to cause allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). No such legislation exists in Australia. In recent years MI without MCI has been used. In August 2010 the first cases of MI causing non-occupational ACD were reported in Europe. The objective here was to present a case series of ACD to MI occurring in the Australian setting. METHODS: : We retrospectively reviewed positive reactions to MI and MCI/MI from the Skin and Cancer Foundation patch test clinical database. MI was added to our baseline test series in January 2011. RESULTS: : In total 653 patients were tested for MI and there were 43 reactions, of which 23 were relevant, based on a history of exposure to MI. Seven were parents of young children with hand dermatitis caused by ACD to MI contained in baby wipes. The remaining patients reacted to MI in shampoos, conditioners, deodorants, moisturisers, a skin cleanser and a facial wipe. Three patients had ACD to MI associated with occupational exposure to hand cleansers. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate for the first time that MI is an emerging, important allergen in both cosmetic and occupational settings in Australia. An important source of exposure was baby wipes, which was predominantly associated with hand dermatitis in parents. We believe that it is important to test for MI, not just MCI/MI, in the baseline series.

Frequency of positive patch test reactions to preservatives: The Australian experience.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Preservatives are important causes of allergic contact dermatitis. The frequency of allergy to preservatives in Australia has been unknown to date. Our objectives are to report the frequency of positive preservative patch test reactions in Australia, comparing them to the published international data, as well as exploring the current regulations in place for preservative use in Australia. METHODS: This was the first retrospective study of patch testing results, aggregated from four patch test clinics in three centres in Melbourne and Sydney. RESULTS: In all, 6845 patients were patch-tested during 1993-2006 and in this period the five most frequent preservative allergens were formaldehyde (4.6%), Euxyl K400 (containing methyldibromo glutaronitrile and phenoxyethanol) (3.3%), quaternium-15 (2.9%), diazolidinyl urea (2.4%), and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (2.3%). These were followed by dimethylol dimethyl DMDM hydantoin (2.1%), chloroacetamide (2.1%) and imidazolidinyl urea (1.9%). The least frequent sensitisers were parabens (1.1%), 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1, 3-diol (0.9%) and benzyl alcohol (0.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Formaldehyde was the most prevalent preservative allergen. Chloroacetamide allergy was more commonly seen in Australia. Parabens, 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol and benzyl alcohol were the least frequent sensitisers. Household products in Australia are not required to list all ingredients preventing sensitised individuals from properly assessing their exposure.

Skin manifestations of systemic disease.

BACKGROUND: Dermatologic complaints are a common reason for presentation to a general practitioner. In some cases, one needs to determine if the complaint may be a manifestation of a more serious underlying systemic disease. OBJECTIVE: This article aims to highlight common dermatologic presentations where further assessment is needed to exclude an underlying systemic disease, to discuss classic cutaneous features of specific systemic diseases, and to outline rare cutaneous paraneoplastic syndromes. DISCUSSION: Skin manifestations of systemic disease are wide, varied, specific and nonspecific. Generalised pruritus and cutaneous vasculitis are more common cutaneous presentations where an underlying systemic disease may be present and will influence management. In certain chronic diseases such as connective tissue disease and chronic liver disease, there are characteristic cutaneous findings. Internal malignancies such as multiple myeloma may present with distinctive cutaneous findings, which need to be recognised to institute a search for the underlying neoplasm. The skin has the potential to provide a window into the patient and aid in the diagnosis of diseases of all organ systems.

The validity and reliability of the occupational contact dermatitis disease severity index.

BACKGROUND: The occupational contact dermatitis disease severity index (ODDI) was designed to assess the severity and importantly the functional disability caused by occupational contact dermatitis (OCD) of the hands in patients attending our occupational dermatology clinic. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the accuracy of the ODDI. PATIENTS/METHODS: Of 205 patients, 95 were assessed as having OCD of the hands. Content validity was assessed by content mapping and expert opinion. Construct validity was examined through comparing the ODDI against global clinical dermatology severity assessment (GCDSA). Intraobserver reliability, interobserver reliability, internal consistency, acceptability and convenience were also assessed. RESULTS: The ODDI was found to have content validity by the experts and was moderately correlated with GCDSA, supporting construct validity (Pearson's r = 0.54; P < or = 0.01). The ODDI was shown to be reliable with substantial agreement for both intraobserver reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.62] and interobserver reliability (ICC = 0.75). Internal consistency within the ODDI was almost perfect (ICC = 0.94-0.99) and user survey showed the ODDI to be acceptable, easy and quick to use. CONCLUSIONS: The ODDI is a valid and reliable instrument to assess the severity and functional limitations caused by OCD, in patients who have had treatment or modified work duties, associated with some improvement of their dermatitis.

Irritant contact dermatitis: a review.

Irritant contact dermatitis is the most common form of contact dermatitis, and yet is often overlooked. Recent progress in understanding the pathogenesis has reignited the interest of clinicians in this area of dermatology. Irritant contact dermatitis is not a homogenous entity, but rather a number of subtypes contributing to different clinical presentations. The diagnosis of irritant contact dermatitis is often clinical, and may only be possible after the exclusion of allergic contact dermatitis with patch testing. There is no readily available diagnostic test. There is an incomplete understanding of the factors which lead to the development of cumulative irritant contact dermatitis and persistent postoccupational dermatitis. We have used the experience from our tertiary referral occupational dermatology clinic to illustrate various aspects of irritant contact dermatitis, and to highlight the difficulty sometimes encountered in making this diagnosis. We believe that increased awareness of the often pivotal role of irritant contact dermatitis, as well as all the other factors contributing to occupational dermatitis, will lead to improvement in outcomes for patients.

Recurrent allergic contact dermatitis due to allergen transfer by sunglasses.

Tea tree oil (Melaleuca oil) is an essential oil, distilled predominantly from the leaves of the Australian plant, Melaleuca alternifolia. This species is unique to Australia and native to New South Wales. Allergic contact dermatitis to tea tree oil is well recognized and is becoming increasingly common in Australia (1, 2).

Simple modification to the punch biopsy technique to minimize handling and crush artefact.

A number of techniques have been described to retrieve the tissue core after punch biopsy. We describe a simple modification to the punch-biopsy technique that minimizes instrumentation, handling and the subsequent risk of crush artefact. Our technique is simple, quick and economical and essentially involves rotation of the punch through 90 degrees then lateral extraction with a degree of upward traction, which usually leaves the tissue core deposited beside the skin defect. At this point it can be easily grasped with a square of gauze or detached if required using scissors or a scalpel blade.

Foot dermatitis caused by the textile dye Basic Red 46 in acrylic blend socks.

17 male subjects are described with foot dermatitis in association with positive patch test reactions to the textile dye Basic Red 46. Chromatographic analysis of the socks of 2 affected patients confirmed the presence of Basic Red 46. Withdrawal of the acrylic blend socks suspected of having been dyed with Basic Red 46 resulted in the improvement of symptoms in 12 of 17 patients (70.6%). However, equivocal or negative patch test results to their own socks were frequently noted in those patients. A highly significant association between the presence of foot dermatitis and a positive Basic Red 46 patch test reaction was noted in 555 patients from a patch test clinic population (P < 0.001). The prevalence of positive patch test reactions to Basic Red 46 was 1.2%. We suggest that patients with foot dermatitis be routinely patch tested for textile dyes. In particular, testing with Basic Red 46 should be considered in those with a history of use of dark-coloured acrylic and/or acrylic blend socks.

Immediate-type latex hypersensitivity in a hairdresser.

Hairdressers commonly develop contact dermatitis caused by either skin irritants or allergens to which they are exposed. Those using latex gloves are also at risk of developing immediate hypersensitivity reactions to latex. We present a hairdresser with hand dermatitis, primarily as a result of immediate-type hypersensitivity to latex causing contact urticaria, diagnosed with radioallergosorbent testing. Only three previous studies have reported latex allergy in hairdressers. This condition needs to be considered as a differential diagnosis in hairdressers presenting with hand dermatitis and a history of wearing either rubber or disposable latex gloves.