Oral food challenge in children with contact urticaria in reaction to cow's milk.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between the occurrence of contact urticaria in reaction to cow's milk in infants and the diagnosis of cow's milk allergy (CMA) established by supervised oral food challenge. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we identified 184 children who had undergone 221 oral food challenge (OFC) at a CMA reference center between July 2015 and August 2019. Of these, 23 (12.5%) had a history of contact urticaria to cow's milk and underwent a total of 30 OFC. Baked cow's milk OFC were excluded, and 21 children were included in the study. All data from clinical history and allergy tests (serum-specific IgE dosages and skin prick test [SPT] with reconstituted cow's milk formula) were recorded on standardized forms. The challenge was conducted with reconstituted cow's milk formula in increasing volumes every 15-20 min. RESULTS: 24 OFC were performed; 13/24 (54.2%) for diagnostic purpose and 11/24 (45.8%) to evaluate cow's milk tolerance. Allergy tests were positive in 14 patients (87.5%). Positive oral challenge outcomes were identified in 7/24. One patient had a late flare of atopic dermatitis and five children presented with immediate urticaria (two generalized urticaria and three perioral urticaria). The median papule diameter was 6.5 mm in patients with a positive OFC and 3.75 mm in the negative group (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The occurrence of contact urticaria might be the only manifestation among infants sensitized to cow's milk with tolerance to oral ingestion. Reactions due to oral challenge were related to a larger wheal diameter on the SPT.

Oral food challenge in children with contact urticaria in reaction to cow’s milk

Objective: To evaluate the relationship between the occurrence of contact urticaria in reaction to cow’s milk in infants and the diagnosis of cow’s milk allergy (CMA) established by supervised oral food challenge. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we identified 184 children who had undergone 221 oral food challenge (OFC) at a CMA reference center between July 2015 and August 2019. Of these, 23 (12.5%) had a history of contact urticaria to cow’s milk and underwent a total of 30 OFC. Baked cow’s milk OFC were excluded, and 21 children were included in the study. All data from clinical history and allergy tests (serum-specific IgE dosages and skin prick test [SPT] with reconstituted cow’s milk formula) were recorded on standardized forms. The challenge was conducted with reconstituted cow’s milk formula in increasing volumes every 15–20 min. Results: 24 OFC were performed; 13/24 (54.2%) for diagnostic purpose and 11/24 (45.8%) to evaluate cow’s milk tolerance. Allergy tests were positive in 14 patients (87.5%). Positive oral challenge outcomes were identified in 7/24. One patient had a late flare of atopic dermatitis and five children presented with immediate urticaria (two generalized urticaria and three perioral urticaria). The median papule diameter was 6.5 mm in patients with a positive OFC and 3.75 mm in the negative group (P = 0.02). Conclusion: The occurrence of contact urticaria might be the only manifestation among infants sensitized to cow’s milk with tolerance to oral ingestion. Reactions due to oral challenge were related to a larger wheal diameter on the SPT (AU)

Prevalence of work-related skin symptoms and associated factors among tertiary hospital workers exposed to cleaning agents in Southern Africa.

INTRODUCTION: Working with cleaning products is associated with occupational contact dermatitis in health workers (HWs), but information on predictors for these outcomes is limited. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the prevalence of work-related skin symptoms (WRSS) and associated factors in HWs exposed to cleaning agents in two Southern African tertiary hospitals. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 697 HWs used an interviewer-administered questionnaire and assessed for atopy using Phadiatop. RESULTS: HWs' median age was 42 years, 77.0% were female and 42.5% were atopic. The prevalence of WRSS in the last 12 months was 14.8%, 12.3% had probable contact dermatitis (PCD) and 3.2% had probable contact urticaria (PCU). Technicians (ORadj 3.91) and tasks involving cleaning and disinfection of skin wounds (ORadj 1.98) were associated with WRSS in the past year. Factors associated with PCD included sterilizing instruments, disinfecting skin before procedures and use of wound adhesives. Factors associated with PCU included specimen preparation using formalin, medical instrument sterilization tasks, and skin/wound cleaning and disinfection. Appropriate glove use when performing patients' skin/wound care was protective against WRSS. CONCLUSIONS: Tasks involving cleaning and disinfecting patients' skin and wounds were associated with WRSS in HWs, especially when performed without gloves.

Contact allergy investigations in healthcare workers with face mask-related skin disease.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of face masks has increased among healthcare workers (HCWs). Questionnaire studies have shown a high frequency of self-reported facial adverse skin reactions. Case reports have been published on face mask-induced allergic contact dermatitis and urticaria. OBJECTIVES: To describe the results of the contact allergy investigations in consecutive HCWs investigated for skin reactions to face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic and the results of the chemical investigations of face masks supplied by the hospital. METHODS: Participants were patch tested with baseline series and chemicals previously reported in face masks not included in the baseline series. Face mask(s) brought by the HCW were tested as is and/or in acetone extract. Chemical analyses were performed on nine different face masks for potential allergens. RESULTS: Fifty-eight HCWs were investigated. No contact allergies were found to the face mask(s) tested. Eczema was the most common type of skin reaction, followed by an acneiform reaction. Colophonium-related substances were found in one respirator and 2,6-di-t-butyl-4-methylphenol (BHT) were found in two respirators. CONCLUSION: Based on this report, contact allergies to face masks is uncommon. Patch test with colophonium-related substances and BHT should be considered when investigating adverse skin reactions to face masks.

Myricetin alleviated immunologic contact urticaria and mast cell degranulation via the PI3K/Akt/NF-κB pathway.

Immunologic contact urticaria (ICU) is characterized by the wheal and flare reaction from direct contact with a chemical or protein agent, which involves a type I hypersensitivity mediated by allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE). Myricetin (Myr), a bioactive flavonoid, exhibits antiinflammatory activities. Our results showed that treatment with Myr could alleviate ICU symptoms, including a decrease in the number of wheals and scratching, and inhibit ear swelling in the IgE/DNFB-induced mice. The serum level of IgE, histamine, interleukin (IL)-4, TNF-α, and MCP-1 were reduced in Myr-treated mice. Myr also attenuated mast cells (MCs) degranulation and H-PGDS, TSLP, IL-33, PI3K, Akt, and NF-κB mRNA levels in ICU model. The IgE-mediated anaphylaxis mouse models demonstrated anti-allergic effects of Myr. In vitro analysis showed that Myr reduced IgE-induced calcium (Ca2+ ) influx, suppressed degranulation, and chemokine release in LAD2 cells (human primary mast cells). Myr can significantly inhibited PLCγ1, Akt, NF-κB, and p38 phosphorylation. In conclusion, the study demonstrated that Myr alleviate ICU symptoms and inhibit mast cell activation via PI3K/Akt/NF-κB signal pathway.

Occupational asthma, rhinitis and contact urticaria in a salmon-processing worker.

We report a case of occupational allergy to salmon combining allergic asthma, allergic rhinitis and allergic contact urticaria in a 59-year-old salmon-processing worker. Parvalbumin is the most common allergen, but indeed sensitisation to tropomyosin, preservatives and spices could occur.

Discrepancies in the management of acquired cold contact urticaria: Results of a French-speaking urticaria experts questionnaire survey.

Acquired cold contact urticaria (ACU) is a putatively serious condition, because of the risk of anaphylactic shock whenever patients are massively exposed to cold atmosphere/water, raising the question of the prescription of an "emergency kit" with oral antihistamines and epinephrine auto-injector. We performed an online survey to evaluate how French-speaking urticaria experts manage ACU. According to the 2016 consensus recommendations on chronic inducible urticarias, all the participants perform at least 1 of the available provocation tests and 84.2%, 77.8%, and 88.9% prescribe on-label use of second generation anti-H1 antihistamines (2GAH1) as a first line treatment, updosed 2GAH1 as a second line treatment, and omalizumab as a third line treatment, respectively. Interestingly, 44.4% of the practitioners always prescribe a continuous background treatment, versus 11.1% prescribing only on-demand therapy. Also, 11.7% of participants always prescribe an epinephrine auto-injector, 70.6% sometimes do, and 17.6% never do. Finally, 89.5% authorize swimming under strict conditions but 36.8% and 68.4% contra-indicate other water sports and occupational cold exposure, respectively.

Skin symptoms in veterinary assistant staff and veterinarians: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Veterinary assistants and veterinarians are at an increased risk of developing an occupational skin disease, for example, irritant/allergic contact dermatitis, contact urticaria and hand eczema (HE). OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate the prevalence of skin problems and the influence of predisposing factors especially among veterinary assistants. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study among veterinary assistant staff (n = 103) and veterinarians (n = 19). A questionnaire, specific IgE determination and photographs of hands were evaluated for skin symptoms. Logistic regression models assessed predisposing factors. RESULTS: Over 50% (n = 62/122) of our study population reported hand eczema (HE) in the last 12 months (1-year prevalence). Twenty-seven subjects reported redness and contact urticaria directly after animal contact, 35 had a positive history of allergic contact dermatitis. HE was associated with (i) increased frequency of hand washing (11-15 times per day; OR 4.15, confidence interval [CI] 95% 1.18-14.6, p = 0.027, univariate model) and (ii) unprotected contact to fluids and tensides >5 times per day (OR 4.56, CI 95% 1.53-13.6, multivariate model). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a high prevalence of self-reported HE among staff in veterinary practices. Excessive hand washing, unprotected contact with irritants and long-term glove use should be avoided.

Occupational contact urticaria to cannabis sativa.

Cannabis allergy is not commonly reported, perhaps due to the legal status of cannabis use and the difficulties of obtaining permission to test it. We report 3 cases of work-related cannabis allergy with features suggestive of a dermatitis, rather than a contact urticaria. Only prick tests were able to confirm the diagnosis. Identification of the cause of the rash was essential to direct work re-deployment.