Allergic contact dermatitis in adults with and without atopic dermatitis: Evaluation of the Spanish Contact Dermatitis Registry (REIDAC).

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) are inflammatory skin conditions whose association is not clearly defined. OBJECTIVES: To identify differences in ACD profile between patients with and without AD among those referred for patch testing. Additionally, to determine the prevalence of sensitisation to standard Spanish contact allergens in both groups. METHODS: We analysed two groups (AD and non-AD) within the Spanish Registry of Research in Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (REIDAC). Contact allergy, clinical relevance and epidemiological data were compared between them. RESULTS: A total of 5055 patients were included. Among them, 23% (1168) had a history or final diagnosis of AD. At least one positive reaction was seen in 468 (40%) of AD patients and 1864 (48%) of non-AD patients. In both groups, the most common positive reactions were to nickel sulphate, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone and cobalt chloride. Age-adjusted OR for sensitisation to nickel sulphate was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.61-0.86), indicating a decreased likelihood of sensitisation in AD patients compared to non-AD individuals. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find an increased presence of ACD in patients with AD referred for patch testing, exhibiting similar profiles to non-AD population, except for a negative relationship between AD and sensitisation to nickel sulphate.

Standard and Expanded Series Patch Testing Update by the Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC). / Actualización de la batería estándar y batería ampliada de pruebas alérgicas de contacto por el Grupo Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea (GEIDAC).

After the meeting held by the Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC) back in October 2021, changes were suggested to the Spanish standard series patch testing. Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2% pet.), textile dye mixt (6.6% pet.), linalool hydroperoxide (1% pet.), and limonene hydroperoxide (0.3% pet.) were, then, added to the series that agreed upon in 2016. Ethyldiamine and phenoxyethanol were excluded. Methyldibromoglutaronitrile, the mixture of sesquiterpene lactones, and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene (Lyral) were alo added to the extended Spanish series of 2022.

Epidemiological, Clinical, and Allergic Profile of Psoriatic Patients. Evaluation of the Spanish Registry of Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (REIDAC). / Perfil epidemiológico, clínico y alérgico en pacientes con psoriasis. Evaluación del Registro Español de Dermatitis de Contacto (REIDAC).

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory dermatosis whose clinical and topographic distribution requires differential diagnosis, or the possible association with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), requiring patch testing (PT) as part of the diagnostic procedure. OBJECTIVES: To describe the epidemiological, clinical, and allergic profile of patients with a primary or secondary diagnosis of psoriasis undergoing PT and compare them with patients with a diagnosis of ACD at the end of the diagnostic process. METHODS: Cross-sectional study with data from REIDAC from 2018 through 2023 of selected patients with a diagnosis of psoriasis and/or ACD. RESULTS: A total of 11 502 patients were included, 513 of whom had been diagnosed with primary or secondary psoriasis, 3640 with ACD, and 108 with both diseases. Men were more predominant in the groups of patients with psoriasis, psoriasis+ACD, and lesions were more predominantly seen in the hands with little association with atopic factors vs the ACD group. The rate of positivity in PT to the 2022 Spanish battery of allergens was lower in the group with psoriasis only in 27% of the patients. The most common allergens found in the psoriasis group were also the most common ones found in the overall ACD population. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 36.2% of psoriatic patients tested positive in PT to the 2022 Spanish battery of allergens, which proved that this association is not uncommon. Overall, psoriatic patients had a higher mean age, were more predominantly men, and showed more hand involvement.

Four-year Epidemiological Surveillance of the Spanish Registry of Research in Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy: Current Situation and Trends. / Vigilancia epidemiológica en los últimos 4 años del Registro Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea: situación actual y tendencias.

BACKGROUND: The epidemiological surveillance of contact dermatitis is one of the objectives of the Spanish Registry of Research in Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy. Knowing whether the prevalence of positive tests to the different allergens changes over time is important for this monitoring process. OBJECTIVES: To describe the various temporary trends in allergen positivity in the GEIDAC standard series from 2018 through December 31, 2022. METHODS: This was a multicenter, observational trial of consecutive patients analyzed via patch tests as part of the study of possible allergic contact dermatitises collected prospectively within the Spanish Registry of Research in Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy. The data was analyzed using 2 statistical tests: one homogeneity test (to describe the changes seen over time) and one trend test (to see whether the changes described followed a linear trend). RESULTS: A total of 11327 patients were included in the study. Overall, the allergens associated with a highest sensitization were nickel sulfate, methylisothiazolinone, cobalt chloride, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, and fragrance mix i. A statistically significant decrease was found in the percentage of methylisothiazolinone positive tests across the study years with an orderly trend. CONCLUSIONS: Although various changes were seen in the sensitizations trends to several allergens of the standard testing, it became obvious that a high sensitization to nickel, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone and fragrances mix i remained. Only a significant downward trend was seen for methylisothiazolinone.

Contact Allergy to Shellac. Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study With Data From the Spanish Registry of Research in Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (REIDAC) / Alergia de contacto a shellac. Estudio transversal retrospectivo con datos del Registro Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea (REIDAC)

Introduction Shellac is a known allergen present mainly in cosmetics used on the eyelids and lips, although new sources of exposure have recently been described. Our objective was to assess the use of shellac as a contact allergen in Spain and the clinical profile of patients allergic to shellac. Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study included patients patch tested for shellac between 2018 and 2021 from the Spanish Registry of Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (REIDAC). Results A total of 980 patients were patch tested for shellac (20% in ethanol), and 37 (3.77%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.58–3.97%) showed positive results. Most of these patients were tested for shellac due to a suspicion of cosmetic contact dermatitis. Seven patients with present relevance were found, five with relation to cosmetics, and the other two with an occupational background of food handling. The reaction index for shellac was 0.51 and the positivity ratio was 67.56% (95% CI, 52.48–82.65%). Conclusions Shellac appears to be a prevalent allergen in patients with suspected contact dermatitis related with cosmetics or foodstuff. However, further studies are needed to validate its use in other patients (AU)

El shellac es un alérgeno conocido por su presencia en cosméticos para labios y párpados, aunque en los últimos años se han descrito nuevas fuentes de exposición. El objetivo de nuestro trabajo fue evaluar cómo se está usando el shellac, como alérgeno de contacto en España, y las características clínicas de los pacientes alérgicos al shellac. Métodos Se realizó un estudio retrospectivo transversal con los pacientes incluidos en el Registro Español de Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea en los que se realizaron pruebas epicutáneas con shellac desde 2018 a 2021. Resultados El shellac (20% en etanol) fue usado en 980 pacientes, con resultados positivos en 37 de ellos (3,77%; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 2,58-3,97%). La mayoría de estos pacientes realizaron las pruebas epicutáneas por una sospecha de dermatitis de contacto por cosméticos. Se encontraron 7 pacientes con una relevancia presente, 5 de ellos en relación con el uso de cosméticos, y los otros 2 fueron dermatitis de contacto ocupacionales en el contexto de la manipulación de alimentos. El índice de reacción para el shellac fue del 0,51% y la ratio de positividad del 67,56% (IC 95%: 52,48-82,65%). Conclusiones El shellac parece un alérgeno frecuente en los pacientes con sospecha de dermatitis de contacto por cosméticos o alimentos. Sin embargo, se necesitan más estudios para validar su uso en otros pacientes (AU)

[Artículo traducido] Alergia de contacto a shellac. Estudio transversal retrospectivo con datos del Registro Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea (REIDAC) / Contact Allergy to Shellac. Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study With Data From the Spanish Registry of Research in Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (REIDAC)

El shellac es un alérgeno conocido por su presencia en cosméticos para labios y párpados, aunque en los últimos años se han descrito nuevas fuentes de exposición. El objetivo de nuestro trabajo fue evaluar cómo se está usando el shellac, como alérgeno de contacto en España, y las características clínicas de los pacientes alérgicos al shellac. Métodos Se realizó un estudio retrospectivo transversal con los pacientes incluidos en el Registro Español de Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea en los que se realizaron pruebas epicutáneas con shellac desde 2018 a 2021. Resultados El shellac (20% en etanol) fue usado en 980 pacientes, con resultados positivos en 37 de ellos (3,77%; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 2,58-3,97%). La mayoría de estos pacientes realizaron las pruebas epicutáneas por una sospecha de dermatitis de contacto por cosméticos. Se encontraron 7 pacientes con una relevancia presente, 5 de ellos en relación con el uso de cosméticos, y los otros 2 fueron dermatitis de contacto ocupacionales en el contexto de la manipulación de alimentos. El índice de reacción para el shellac fue del 0,51% y la ratio de positividad del 67,56% (IC 95%: 52,48-82,65%). Conclusiones El shellac parece un alérgeno frecuente en los pacientes con sospecha de dermatitis de contacto por cosméticos o alimentos. Sin embargo, se necesitan más estudios para validar su uso en otros pacientes (AU)

Introduction Shellac is a known allergen present mainly in cosmetics used on the eyelids and lips, although new sources of exposure have recently been described. Our objective was to assess the use of shellac as a contact allergen in Spain and the clinical profile of patients allergic to shellac. Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study included patients patch tested for shellac between 2018 and 2021 from the Spanish Registry of Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (REIDAC). Results A total of 980 patients were patch tested for shellac (20% in ethanol), and 37 (3.77%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.58–3.97%) showed positive results. Most of these patients were tested for shellac due to a suspicion of cosmetic contact dermatitis. Seven patients with present relevance were found, five with relation to cosmetics, and the other two with an occupational background of food handling. The reaction index for shellac was 0.51 and the positivity ratio was 67.56% (95% CI, 52.48–82.65%). Conclusions Shellac appears to be a prevalent allergen in patients with suspected contact dermatitis related with cosmetics or foodstuff. However, further studies are needed to validate its use in other patients (AU)

Contact Allergy to Shellac. Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study With Data From the Spanish Registry of Research in Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (REIDAC). / [Artículo traducido] Alergia de contacto a shellac. Estudio transversal retrospectivo con datos del Registro Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea (REIDAC).

INTRODUCTION: Shellac is a known allergen present mainly in cosmetics used on the eyelids and lips, although new sources of exposure have recently been described. Our objective was to assess the use of shellac as a contact allergen in Spain and the clinical profile of patients allergic to shellac. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study included patients patch tested for shellac between 2018 and 2021 from the Spanish Registry of Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (REIDAC). RESULTS: A total of 980 patients were patch tested for shellac (20% in ethanol), and 37 (3.77%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.58-3.97%) showed positive results. Most of these patients were tested for shellac due to a suspicion of cosmetic contact dermatitis. Seven patients with present relevance were found, five with relation to cosmetics, and the other two with an occupational background of food handling. The reaction index for shellac was 0.51 and the positivity ratio was 67.56% (95% CI, 52.48-82.65%). CONCLUSIONS: Shellac appears to be a prevalent allergen in patients with suspected contact dermatitis related with cosmetics or foodstuff. However, further studies are needed to validate its use in other patients.

Contact Allergy to Shellac. Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study With Data From the Spanish Registry of Research in Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (REIDAC).

INTRODUCTION: Shellac is a known allergen present mainly in cosmetics used on the eyelids and lips, although new sources of exposure have recently been described. Our objective was to assess the use of shellac as a contact allergen in Spain and the clinical profile of patients allergic to shellac. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study included patients patch tested for shellac between 2018 and 2021 from the Spanish Registry of Contact Dermatitis and Cutaneous Allergy (REIDAC). RESULTS: A total of 980 patients were patch tested for shellac (20% in ethanol), and 37 (3.77%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.58-3.97%) showed positive results. Most of these patients were tested for shellac due to a suspicion of cosmetic contact dermatitis. Seven patients with present relevance were found, five with relation to cosmetics, and the other two with an occupational background of food handling. The reaction index for shellac was 0.51 and the positivity ratio was 67.56% (95% CI, 52.48-82.65%). CONCLUSIONS: Shellac appears to be a prevalent allergen in patients with suspected contact dermatitis related with cosmetics or foodstuff. However, further studies are needed to validate its use in other patients.

Epidemiological, Clinical, and Allergy Profile of Patients With Atopic Dermatitis and Hand Eczema: Evaluation of the Spanish Contact Dermatitis Registry (REIDAC). / Perfil epidemiológico, clínico, y alérgico en pacientes con dermatitis atópica y dermatitis de las manos. Evaluación del Registro Español de Dermatitis de Contacto (REIDAC).

BACKGROUND: Hand eczema is common in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), but few studies have described the characteristics of these patients in large, representative populations from different geographic regions and occupational settings. OBJECTIVE: To describe the epidemiological, clinical, and allergy profile of patients with hand eczema who underwent patch testing and compare patients with and without AD. METHODS: Analysis of data from the Spanish Contact Dermatitis Registry, a multicenter registry of patients who undergo patch testing in Spain. RESULTS: We included 1466 patients with hand eczema who were patch tested between January 2018 and June 2020. Those with AD were younger and had had symptoms for longer before testing. They were also more likely to have been exposed to occupational triggers (38% vs 53% for patients without AD). The only profession for which significant differences were found was hairdressing. The most common allergens were nickel sulfate, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, cobalt chloride, potassium dichromate, fragrance mixes I and II, and formaldehyde. The most common diagnoses were allergic contact dermatitis (24% vs 31% in patients with and without AD, P=.0224) and irritant contact dermatitis (18% and 35% respectively, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: AD is common in patients with predominant hand eczema who undergo patch testing. Patients with hand eczema and AD have different clinical and epidemiological characteristics to hand eczema patients in general and their final diagnosis following patch testing is also different.

Perfil epidemiológico, clínico, y alérgico en pacientes con dermatitis atópica y dermatitis de las manos. Evaluación del Registro Español de Dermatitis de Contacto (REIDAC) / Epidemiological, Clinical, and Allergy Profile of Patients With Atopic Dermatitis and Hand Eczema: Evaluation of the Spanish Contact Dermatitis Registry (REIDAC)

Background: Hand eczema is common in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), but few studies have described the characteristics of these patients in large, representative populations from different geographic regions and occupational settings. Objective: To describe the epidemiological, clinical, and allergy profile of patients with hand eczema who underwent patch testing and compare patients with and without AD. Methods: Analysis of data from the Spanish Contact Dermatitis Registry, a multicenter registry of patients who undergo patch testing in Spain. Results: We included 1466 patients with hand eczema who were patch tested between January 2018 and June 2020. Those with AD were younger and had had symptoms for longer before testing. They were also more likely to have been exposed to occupational triggers (38% vs 53% for patients without AD). The only profession for which significant differences were found was hairdressing. The most common allergens were nickel sulfate, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, cobalt chloride, potassium dichromate, fragrance mixes I and II, and formaldehyde. The most common diagnoses were allergic contact dermatitis (24% vs 31% in patients with and without AD, P=.0224) and irritant contact dermatitis (18% and 35% respectively, P<.001). Conclusions: AD is common in patients with predominant hand eczema who undergo patch testing. Patients with hand eczema and AD have different clinical and epidemiological characteristics to hand eczema patients in general and their final diagnosis following patch testing is also different (AU)

Antecedentes: La dermatitis de las manos (DM) es frecuente en los pacientes con dermatitis atópica (DA). Pocos estudios describen las características de estos pacientes a partir de poblaciones amplias y representativas de ámbitos geográficos y laborales diferentes. Objetivos: Describir el perfil epidemiológico, clínico y alérgico de los pacientes con DM a los que se realizan pruebas epicutáneas, comparando los pacientes con DA con los pacientes sin DA. Métodos. El estudio se ha realizado a partir de los datos del REIDAC, un registro multicéntrico nacional de pacientes a los que se realizan pruebas epicutaneas. Resultados: Se incluyeron 1466 pacientes parcheados por DM desde enero de 2018 hasta junio de 2020. Los pacientes con DA fueron más jóvenes y con una duración de los síntomas mayor. Los antecedentes ocupacionales como desencadenantes se registraron en menor medida que en los pacientes no atópicos (38 vs 53%). La única profesión en la que se encontraron diferencias significativas fue la peluquería. Los alérgenos más detectados fueron el sulfato de níquel, la metilcloroisotiazolinona/metilisotiazolinona, el cloruro de cobalto, el dicromato potásico, mezcla de fragancias I y II, y el formaldehido. Los diagnósticos más frecuentes fueron dermatitis alérgica de contacto (DAC); 24% en atópicos vs 31% en no atópicos (p 0.0224) y el eccema de contacto irritativo; 18% atópicos vs 35% no atópicos (p<0.001). Conclusiones: La DA es frecuente en los pacientes parcheados con afectación predominante de las manos. Existen diferencias clínicas, epidemiológicas y de diagnóstico final de estos pacientes con respecto al conjunto de pacientes con DM (AU)

[Translated article] Epidemiological, Clinical, and Allergy Profile of Patients With Atopic Dermatitis and Hand Eczema: Evaluation of the Spanish Contact Dermatitis Registry (REIDAC) / Perfil epidemiológico, clínico, y alérgico en pacientes con dermatitis atópica y dermatitis de las manos. Evaluación del Registro Español de Dermatitis de Contacto (REIDAC)

Antecedentes: La dermatitis de las manos (DM) es frecuente en los pacientes con dermatitis atópica (DA). Pocos estudios describen las características de estos pacientes a partir de poblaciones amplias y representativas de ámbitos geográficos y laborales diferentes. Objetivos: Describir el perfil epidemiológico, clínico y alérgico de los pacientes con DM a los que se realizan pruebas epicutáneas, comparando los pacientes con DA con los pacientes sin DA. Métodos. El estudio se ha realizado a partir de los datos del REIDAC, un registro multicéntrico nacional de pacientes a los que se realizan pruebas epicutaneas. Resultados: Se incluyeron 1466 pacientes parcheados por DM desde enero de 2018 hasta junio de 2020. Los pacientes con DA fueron más jóvenes y con una duración de los síntomas mayor. Los antecedentes ocupacionales como desencadenantes se registraron en menor medida que en los pacientes no atópicos (38 vs 53%). La única profesión en la que se encontraron diferencias significativas fue la peluquería. Los alérgenos más detectados fueron el sulfato de níquel, la metilcloroisotiazolinona/metilisotiazolinona, el cloruro de cobalto, el dicromato potásico, mezcla de fragancias I y II, y el formaldehido. Los diagnósticos más frecuentes fueron dermatitis alérgica de contacto (DAC); 24% en atópicos vs 31% en no atópicos (p 0.0224) y el eccema de contacto irritativo; 18% atópicos vs 35% no atópicos (p<0.001). Conclusiones: La DA es frecuente en los pacientes parcheados con afectación predominante de las manos. Existen diferencias clínicas, epidemiológicas y de diagnóstico final de estos pacientes con respecto al conjunto de pacientes con DM (AU)

Background: Hand eczema is common in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), but few studies have described the characteristics of these patients in large, representative populations from different geographic regions and occupational settings. Objective: To describe the epidemiological, clinical, and allergy profile of patients with hand eczema who underwent patch testing and compare patients with and without AD. Methods: Analysis of data from the Spanish Contact Dermatitis Registry, a multicenter registry of patients who undergo patch testing in Spain. Results: We included 1466 patients with hand eczema who were patch tested between January 2018 and June 2020. Those with AD were younger and had had symptoms for longer before testing. They were also more likely to have been exposed to occupational triggers (38% vs 53% for patients without AD). The only profession for which significant differences were found was hairdressing. The most common allergens were nickel sulfate, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, cobalt chloride, potassium dichromate, fragrance mixes I and II, and formaldehyde. The most common diagnoses were allergic contact dermatitis (24% vs 31% in patients with and without AD, P=.0224) and irritant contact dermatitis (18% and 35% respectively, P<.001). Conclusions: AD is common in patients with predominant hand eczema who undergo patch testing. Patients with hand eczema and AD have different clinical and epidemiological characteristics to hand eczema patients in general and their final diagnosis following patch testing is also different (AU)

Recomendaciones del Grupo Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea (GEIDAC) de la AEDV en relación con la realización de pruebas epicutáneas durante la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) / Patch Testing During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recommendations of the AEDV's Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC)

Con el progresivo control de la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2, los miembros del Grupo Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea (GEIDAC) realizan una propuesta sobre cuáles van a ser los requisitos, las limitaciones y los condicionantes para reanudar el servicio en las unidades de dermatitis de contacto en un escenario en el que se presume la persistencia del virus, con episodios ocasionales o estacionales de exacerbación. Se aconseja ajustar el número de pruebas epicutáneas (PE) a las posibilidades de cada centro y la revisión de los casos en lista de espera para priorizar a los pacientes en función de la gravedad y la urgencia. Se ofrecerán, si es factible, métodos telemáticos para los documentos relativos a las PE (información, pautas, documentos de consentimiento informado). De estar disponible, puede ofrecerse la opción de realizar una primera visita telemática. Igualmente, en pacientes seleccionados puede llevarse a cabo una televisita en las visitas de lectura a través de imágenes realizadas por el paciente o mediante una videovisita que permita visualizar el resultado de la exploración. Estas acciones permitirán reducir el número de visitas presenciales, aunque no el tiempo dedicado y asignado al facultativo para los actos médicos. Todas estas recomendaciones son sugerencias y se adaptarán a los requisitos y a las posibilidades de cada centro sanitario

As the COVID-19 pandemic gradually comes under control, the members of the Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC) have drawn up a proposed list of the requirements, limitations, and conditioning factors affecting the resumption of work in contact dermatitis units. The assumption is that the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is still circulating and that occasional or seasonal outbreaks will occur. They recommend that the first step should be to assess how many patch tests each clinic can handle and review the waiting list to prioritize cases according to disease severity and urgency. Digital technologies can, where possible, be used to send and receive the documentation necessary for the patch test (information, instructions, informed consent, etc.). If the necessary infrastructure is available, patients can be offered the option of a remote initial consultation. Likewise, in selected cases, the patch test results can be read in a virtual visit using photographs taken by the patient or a video visit can be scheduled to allow the physician to evaluate the site of application remotely. These measures will reduce the number of face-to-face visits required, but will not affect the time spent on each case, which must be scheduled in the normal manner. All of these recommendations are suggestions and should be adapted to the needs and possibilities of each health centre

Patch Testing During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recommendations of the AEDV's Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC). / Recomendaciones del Grupo Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea (GEIDAC) de la AEDV en relación con la realización de pruebas epicutáneas durante la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19).

As the COVID-19 pandemic gradually comes under control, the members of the Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC) have drawn up a proposed list of the requirements, limitations, and conditioning factors affecting the resumption of work in contact dermatitis units. The assumption is that the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus2 is still circulating and that occasional or seasonal outbreaks will occur. They recommend that the first step should be to assess how many patch tests each clinic can handle and review the waiting list to prioritize cases according to disease severity and urgency. Digital technologies can, where possible, be used to send and receive the documentation necessary for the patch test (information, instructions, informed consent, etc.). If the necessary infrastructure is available, patients can be offered the option of a remote initial consultation. Likewise, in selected cases, the patch test results can be read in a virtual visit using photographs taken by the patient or a video visit can be scheduled to allow the physician to evaluate the site of application remotely. These measures will reduce the number of face-to-face visits required, but will not affect the time spent on each case, which must be scheduled in the normal manner. All of these recommendations are suggestions and should be adapted to the needs and possibilities of each health centre.

¿Sigue siendo la parafenilendiamina un alérgeno de contacto prevalente en España? / Is p-Phenylenediamine Still a Prevalent Contact Allergen in Spain?

OBJETIVOS: El objetivo del trabajo es mostrar la tendencia de la sensibilización de contacto entre los años 2004 y 2014 tras la regulación de su concentración en cosméticos en el año 2009 e investigar los factores de riesgo de la alergia de contacto a la parafenilendiamina. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: El diseño del estudio fue observacional retrospectivo e incluyó a pacientes con sospecha de alergia de contacto parcheados con la serie estándar del Grupo Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea durante los años 2004 a 2014, en 8 hospitales terciarios españoles. En las pruebas epicutáneas estaba incluida la parafenilendiamina al 1% en vaselina o 0,073 mg/cm2 en el TRUE-test(R). El estudio estadístico se realizó siguiendo las recomendaciones internacionales del análisis de los datos en alergia de contacto. RESULTADOS: Un total de 386 (4,1%) pacientes de los 9.341 incluidos fueron positivos a la parafenilendiamina, cuya tendencia empezó a decrecer en los primeros años (2004-2007) y a partir de ahí se mantuvo en torno al 4%. Los factores de riesgo para el desarrollo de una alergia de contacto a la parafenilendiamina fueron el sexo, la edad por encima de los 40 años, la polisensibilización y la profesión, entre las que destacan los trabajadores de la peluquería, los trabajadores de la goma y el plástico CONCLUSIONES: La alergia de contacto a la parafenilendiamina sigue siendo elevada en pacientes con eccema de contacto. Los factores de riesgo que predisponen a la alergia de contacto a la PPD coinciden con los que han sido publicados previamente

OBJECTIVES: To analyze trends in the prevalence of contact sensitization to p-phenylenediamine between 2004 and 2014, taking into consideration that the concentration of this product in cosmetics was regulated in 2009. To explore risk factors for contact allergy to p-phenylenediamine. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study of patients suspected of having contact dermatitis from allergy to p-phenylenediamine during the years between 2004 and 2015 in 8 tertiary level hospitals. The patients underwent patch testing (TRUE-test) with the standard series of the Spanish Research Group on Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergies. This series included p-phenylenediamine 1%. We followed international recommendations for the statistical analysis of data related to contact allergies. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-six out of 9341 patients (4.1%) had positive reactions to p-phenylenediamine. The prevalence tended to decrease in the early years (2004-2007) and then leveled off at around 4%. Risk factors for developing contact dermatitis from p-phenylenediamine were sex, age over 40 years, multiple sensitivities, and profession, notably workers in hair salons and those who handle rubber and plastics. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of p-phenylenediamine allergy remains high among patients with contact eczema. Risk factors for p-phenylenediamine contact allergy are consistent with previous reports

Is p-Phenylenediamine Still a Prevalent Contact Allergen in Spain? / ¿Sigue siendo la parafenilendiamina un alérgeno de contacto prevalente en España?

OBJECTIVES: To analyze trends in the prevalence of contact sensitization to p-phenylenediamine between 2004 and 2014, taking into consideration that the concentration of this product in cosmetics was regulated in 2009. To explore risk factors for contact allergy to p-phenylenediamine. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study of patients suspected of having contact dermatitis from allergy to p-phenylenediamine during the years between 2004 and 2015 in 8 tertiary level hospitals. The patients underwent patch testing (TRUE-test) with the standard series of the Spanish Research Group on Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergies. This series included p-phenylenediamine 1%. We followed international recommendations for the statistical analysis of data related to contact allergies. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-six out of 9341 patients (4.1%) had positive reactions to p-phenylenediamine. The prevalence tended to decrease in the early years (2004-2007) and then leveled off at around 4%. Risk factors for developing contact dermatitis from p-phenylenediamine were sex, age over 40 years, multiple sensitivities, and profession, notably workers in hair salons and those who handle rubber and plastics. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of p-phenylenediamine allergy remains high among patients with contact eczema. Risk factors for p-phenylenediamine contact allergy are consistent with previous reports.

[Differential effects of diabetes education programs by levels of HbA1c and the presence of chronic complications in patients with type 1 diabetes]. / Efectos diferenciales de los programas de educación en diabetes según los niveles de HbA1c y la presencia de complicaciones crónicas en el paciente ti.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes Education Programs (DEP) that improve metabolic control are applied to a wide variety of patient types. The aim is to test whether DEPs work differently depending on the patient profile. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six type 1 diabetics participated. They were divided into four groups according to their haemoglobin levels (range: 7-13 %) and into two groups according to the presence or absence of complications. The ECODI scale for assessing diabetes knowledge and the Frequency of Self-Care scale were completed by all patients. RESULTS: The results showed that HbA1c decreased after the DEP, with some areas of self-care also improving. There were no changes, however, to diet or exercise. CONCLUSIONS: DEP appear to work better in patients with worse control and with complications, suggesting that they have a certain role to play in prevention. Their lack of impact on diet or exercise, would suggest that the DEPs require improvement to include psychological strategies that motivate lasting lifestyle changes.