P56Occupational protein contact dermatitis from shiitake mushrooms

Case report:  A 54‐year‐old woman, with no family or personal history of atopy, developed skin symptoms and cough after she had been cultivating shiitake mushrooms for 12 months. The patient reported dermatitis on the backs of her hands, fingers and on her wrists, after 1 or 2 days of being in contact with shiitake mushrooms. The skin lesions and cough disappeared entirely during the holidays. Result: Prick tests to common inhalant allergens, molds and flours were negative, with the exception of D. farinae (3 mm). The prick‐to‐prick test was positive for shiitake gill (3 mm), shiitake stalk (3 mm) and dry shiitake (8 mm ps). The histamine wheal was 5–7 mm. Control prick tests with shiitake on 5 nonexposed subjects were negative. An open test was performed with shiitake on the flexor side of the upper arm. Within 20 minutes a positive reaction appeared comprising two wheals and flare reactions. Patch test with shiitake gave a strong toxic reaction in 2 days, which continued to diminish on days 3 and 4. Conclusion: Contact urticaria is the clinical skin symptom of immediate allergy, but repeated exposure may lead to protein contact dermatitis. However, our patient has not had urticaria symptoms from shiitake, although the prick‐to‐prick and open tests were positive. To our knowledge, this is the first report of protein contact dermatitis from shiitake in a patient with a positive immediate skin reaction and negative patch test result.     

Specific immunoglobulin E in patients with immediate persulfate hypersensitivity

Persulfate salts may cause contact urticaria, allergic and irritant contact dermatitis, rhinitis and asthma. The mechanism of the immediate reactions has been unclear. Positive prick test, skin application and nasal and bronchial provocations identify immediate allergy. There is only 1 previous report of specific binding of immunoglobulin E (IgE) to ammonium persulfate demonstrated by radioallergosorbent test (RAST). In the present study, fresh 2% ammonium and potassium persulfate solutions were used for prick testing. Patients with positive prick tests were further evaluated with open skin application, immunospot and RAST. Prick testing with persulfate salts was performed in a total of 138 patients. 7 patients had a positive reaction to at least 1 persulfate salt. 6 of the patients had had skin symptoms, urticaria, eczema or angioedema, because of contact with hair bleaches. Open application on healthy skin was performed in 4 patients, and 3 out of them had urticarial reactions. The sera of 5 patients were investigated with immunospot and RAST. On immunospot, specific binding of IgE to human serum albumin (HSA)-conjugated ammonium and potassium persulfate was found in 2 patients. 1 immunospot-positive patient also had a positive RAST to ammonium persulfate-HSA conjugate. The mechanism of immediate hypersensitivity to persulfates thus seems to be IgE-mediated at least in some patients.     

Occupational protein contact dermatitis

Occupational contact dermatitis is generally caused by haptens but can also be induced by proteins causing mainly immunological contact urticaria (ICU); chronic hand eczema in the context of protein contact dermatitis (PCD). In a monocentric retrospective study, from our database, only 31 (0.41%) of patients with contact dermatitis had positive skin tests with proteins: 22 had occupational PCD, 3 had non-occupational PCD, 5 occupational ICU and 1 cook had a neutrophilic fixed food eruption (NFFE) due to fish. From these results and analysis of literature, the characteristics of PCD can be summarized as follows. It is a chronic eczematous dermatitis, possibly exacerbated by work, suggestive if associated with inflammatory perionyxix and immediate erythema with pruritis, to be investigated when the patient resumes work after a period of interruption. Prick tests with the suspected protein-containing material are essential, as patch tests have negative results. In case of multisensitisation revealed by prick tests, it is advisable to analyse IgE against recombinant allergens. A history of atopy, found in 56 to 68% of the patients, has to be checked for. Most of the cases are observed among food-handlers but PCD can also be due to non-edible plants, latex, hydrolysed proteins or animal proteins. Occupational exposure to proteins can thus lead to the development of ICU. Reflecting hypersensitivity to very lowconcentrations of allergens, investigating ICU therefore requires caution and prick tests should be performed with a diluted form of the causative protein-containing product. Causes are food, especially fruit peel, non-edible plants, cosmetic products, latex, animals.     

Occupational protein contact dermatitis and paronychia from natural rubber latex

Protein contact dermatitis (PCD) is a chronic recurrent dermatitis caused by contact with a proteinaceous material. PCD may also present as paronychia. Here a case of PCD and paronychia from natural rubber latex (NRL) is presented. The correct diagnosis would not have been established if prick testing with NRL had not been performed. This case shows that contact allergy presenting as dermatitis may occur despite negative patch test results. PCD from NRL may be relatively common, although very few cases have been published. This is probably due to the fact that the term contact urticaria is so closely connected to NRL that automatically all cases of type I allergy to NRL are considered contact urticaria, although the clinical picture is a dermatitis, i.e. PCD.     

Simultaneous occurrence of immediate and delayed allergy as a cause of contact dermatitis

Four patients with occupational contact dermatitis to Lactuca sativa had cross-sensitivity to Cichorium endivia. One of the patients also had contact urticaria to Lactuca and Cichorium, and another reacted positively to scratch tests with these plants as a sign of immediate allergy. In two cases such immediate allergy was considered the cause of a vesicular, intense itching eruption within a few minutes of contact with fresh leaves of Lactuca on previously eczematous skin. The severe chronic dermatitis of the hands of these patients is ascribed to combined delayed and immediate allergy.     

Allergic contact dermatitis from natural rubber latex in atopic dermatitis and the risk of later Type I allergy

The aims of the study were to assess whether contact dermatitis in children could be due to a delayed hypersensitivity reaction to natural rubber latex (NRL) and to define risk factors for later occurrence of Type I hypersensitivity to this allergen. Among 1800 children investigated for contact dermatitis, 55 were referred on suspicion of rubber allergy and had patch tests to NRL, as well as prick tests and blood tests for specific immunoglobulin E (IgE). A 2-year follow-up was then carried out. Delayed hypersensitivity to NRL was confirmed in 32 children. Patch testing with NRL proved to be positive, and clinical improvement confirmed the diagnosis and relevance of patch tests. 30 of these 32 patients had associated atopic dermatitis (AD). Prick tests and blood tests for specific IgE to latex were negative at the time of diagnosis. A 2-year follow-up showed that 10 of 27 patients presenting initially with a positive patch test without associated Type I sensitization later developed immediate hypersensitivity. Children with AD are at high risk for allergy to NRL protein. Exclusion of this allergen should be strongly advised in atopics because of the dual risk of dermatitis and later evolution into severe Type I hypersensitivity.     

Occupational food-related hand dermatoses seen over a 10-year period

Background. Protein contact dermatitis was originally defined in 1976 by Hjorth and Roed‐Petersen as a distinct kind of dermatitis seen in patients with occupational food contact. Even though occupational skin diseases are frequent in Denmark, little attention has been paid to protein contact dermatitis, and the frequency is unknown. Objectives. To evaluate the frequency of occupational food‐related hand dermatoses and test results in patients occupationally exposed to foods. Materials and Methods. This was a retrospective study based on examinations, including skin prick testing and patch testing, performed at the Department of Dermato‐Allergology, Gentofte University Hospital, Denmark between 2001 and 2010. Results. Of all patients (n = 372), 57.0% had irritant contact dermatitis, 22.0% had protein contact dermatitis, 2.4% had contact urticaria, and 1.8% had allergic contact dermatitis. A suggestion for diagnostic criteria is presented. Frequent risk occupations were cooking in restaurants, baking, and kitchen work. Substantially more patients reacted in skin prick testing with fresh foods than with food extracts. Conclusion. Protein contact dermatitis is a frequent disorder among patients who professionally handle foods, and should be considered to be a distinct clinical entity. When diagnosing protein contact dermatitis and in other food‐related skin prick testing procedures, it is important to include fresh foods.     

Lactase-induced occupational protein contact dermatitis and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

Enzymes are high-molecular-weight proteins and highly sensitizing occupational allergens used widely in industrial processes. Lactase has been described to cause work-related respiratory and conjunctival immunoglobulin (Ig)-E-mediated sensitizations in workers in the pharmaceutical industry. In these previous reports, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis or asthma was confirmed with prick tests but not by challenge tests. Lactase previously has not been described as a cause of immediate or delayed contact skin reaction. Furthermore, there are no previous reports of lactase-specific IgE. We report a case of protein contact dermatitis and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis from occupational exposure to lactase in a pharmaceutical worker. The patient exhibited strong positive responses to lactase in prick tests. In an open application test, lactase elicited whealing, and in patch testing, lactase elicited an eczematous reaction. Serum lactase-specific IgE antibodies were demonstrated in immunospot and radioallergosorbent test assays, and lactase-IgE-binding fractions and their specificities were examined in immunoblot and immunoblot inhibition assays. The chamber challenge test was performed to detect the association between lactase sensitization and rhinoconjunctival symptoms. Our results have confirmed the previous observations that lactase can induce occupational IgE-mediated respiratory and conjunctival sensitizations, but they show that contact skin reactions caused by lactase may also occur.     

Allergic contact dermatitis from natural latex.

BACKGROUND: Reports on natural latex allergy have increased steadily during the last 10 years. Latex allergy generally refers to a type 1 reaction to natural rubber latex (NRL) proteins with clinical manifestations ranging from contact urticaria to asthma and anaphylaxis. Previous United States studies on NRL allergy largely have been reported by allergists with little detailed information on hand eczema, contact allergy, or on outcome. The present study was performed from March 1998 to November 1999 with the aim of finding out the prevalence of type IV hypersensitivity to latex in patients with suspected rubber allergy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 167 patients with hand eczema and contact with rubber products underwent patch testing with the standard screening and rubber components (test series Deutsche Kontaktallergiegruppe), and NRL pure provided by Regent (liquid high ammonia 0.7% NRL, accelerator, and preservative-free latex) between March 1998 and November 1999. The charts of all NRL positive patients are reported with the results of history, prick, patch tests, total IgE, specific IgE to latex (FEIA) test and follow-up data (after 6 months). RESULTS: Four patients (3 men) showed positive patch test results to NRL. One of these patients also reacted to the rubber chemical tetraethylthiuram monosulfide, and another one of these patients revealed a type 1 reaction to NRL, diagnosed by positive reaction to prick test. The other 3 patients with patch test reactions to NRL had negative reactions to prick tests to NRL extracts after 20 minutes. All 4 patients had a positive delayed prick test reaction to NRL. Latex FEIA test result was negative in all 4 patients. The contact eczema healed after elimination of the latex gloves and medical latex devices in all patients. Furthermore, 10 of the 167 patch testing patients (6%) were positive for tetramethylthiuram monosulfide 1%. CONCLUSION: In the present study with 167 patients, the prevalence of type IV hypersensitivity to latex was 2.4%. We recommend that the patch test with NRL as well as with rubber additives should be performed in patients of suspected contact dermatitis caused by rubber products.     

Nitric oxide participates in prick test and irritant patch test reactions in human skin

Abstract The aim of this study was to investigate the involvement of nitric oxide (NO) in the modulation of immediate and delayed immunological and nonimmunological reactions in human skin. The NO donor nitroglycerin, 0.1 μg, and the NO synthase inhibitor, N ^G-nitro-l-arginine (l-NAME), 0.1 μg, were injected intracutaneously prior to provocation tests. The following provocation tests were carried out: 8 patients with pollen allergy to birch were provoked by a prick test with the allergen and the volume of the weals was measured; 20 patients with allergy to nickel were provoked with nickel sulfate epicutaneously; and 26 healthy volunteers were provoked with tuberculin (causing delayed immunologic reaction), benzalkonium chloride (irritant contact dermatitis), UV radiation or benzoic acid (nonimmunological contact urticaria). The test reactions were evaluated by planimetry. l-NAME inhibited irritant contact dermatitis (P = 0.020) but augmented immediate immunological reactions (prick test) (P = 0.016). The other test reactions remained unchanged. Nitroglycerin did not affect any of the reactions significantly. The results suggest that NO is involved in immediate immunological reactions and irritant contact dermatitis. Received: 26 June 2000 / Revised: 8 September 2000 / Accepted: 23 November 2000     

Atopy patch test reaction to airborne allergens in the diagnosis of atopic dermatitis

The aim of the study was to evaluate the possible use of atopy patch test in the diagnosis of atopic dermatitis and to characterize an optimal standardized system for atopy patch test in terms of allergen concentrations and time of allergen exposure. The study included 36 patients with atopic dermatitis and IgE-mediated airborne allergy. Patients presented positive results of skin prick tests and serum antigen specific IgE against house dust mite allergens and/or selected grass pollen allergens. Control groups consisted either of patients with allergic rhinitis (control group 1) or healthy volunteers with no signs or symptoms of atopy (control group 2). Allergologic diagnostic workup consisted of skin prick test, serum antigen specific IgE and total IgE evaluation, atopy patch test with selected airborne allergens of different concentrations (0.1xSPT, 1xSPT and 10xSPT), time of allergen exposure (8, 24 and 48 h), and readings of the results (8, 24, 48 and 72 h). Positive results of atopy patch test with airborne allergens were obtained in 47.2% of atopic dermatitis patients and none of control subjects. Contact reaction itself and the intensity of reaction were demonstrated to correlate with allergen concentration and time of allergen exposure on atopy patch test. The dose and time response analysis showed the optimal concentration of allergens for atopy patch test to be 10xSPT, 500000 SBE/ml, and optimal evaluation time 24 and 48 h of allergen application. There was no correlation between atopy patch test results and mean serum concentrations of total or antigen specific IgE. Atopy patch test results did not correlate with localization of skin lesions, severity and extensiveness of skin inflammation. A significantly higher contact reactivity to airborne allergens was recorded in the group of atopic dermatitis patients with polyvalent allergy in comparison with atopic dermatitis patients allergic to only one aeroallergen. It is concluded that atopy patch test is the only provocation test currently available with clinical relevance for contact IgE-mediated sensitization in atopic dermatitis patients. Using petrolatum as a vehicle, allergen concentration of 500000 SBE/ml and evaluation time of 24 and 48 h of allergen application may lead to improved atopy patch test results.     

Investigation of reactions to dental materials

Patients undergoing dental treatment can be exposed to a wide range of potential allergens, but adverse events seem infrequent. Patients with symptoms or signs of stomatitis, burning, tingling, cheilitis, oral lichenoid lesions, lip and facial swelling may relate their problems to dental treatment or to the use of dental products. Investigation for immediate type or delayed type hypersensitivity is indicated using patch testing, prick testing and blood tests for allergen-specific IgE. The main allergic reactions found in patients include contact allergy to metals, cosmetics, food additives, flavours and acrylates, and immediate type allergy to latex. Adverse reactions following the administration of local anaesthetics are seen in about 0.5% of cases, but immediate type allergy to these agents is rare. In dental staff, occupationally related problems are common and usually take the form of hand or facial dermatitis or respiratory disease. The most common allergic reactions in dental staff are immediate type allergy to latex, and contact allergy to rubber additives, fragrances, acrylates and formaldehyde. Occupational irritant problems causing hand dermatitis are probably more common in dental personnel than is dermatitis caused by contact allergy. Patch testing and tests for immediate type allergy are useful investigative methods in the investigation of patients who present with oral or facial symptoms possibly related to dental treatments and are also beneficial in dental personnel who present with hand or facial dermatitis or respiratory symptoms.     

Most common inhalant allergens in atopic dermatitis, atopic dermatitis/allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis/bronchial asthma patients: a five-year retrospective study

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic relapsing inflammatory skin disease with a distinctive clinical appearance and distribution. Around 85% of patients have positive immediate skin reaction or specific IgE to different airborne allergens that are in association with respiratory allergy. The aim of this retrospective, open and uncontrolled study was to identify the most common inhalant allergens in AD patients, AD/allergic rhinitis patients, and AD/bronchial asthma patients by skin prick test per year during the 2001-2005 period.     

Symptoms of immediate chlorhexidine hypersensitivity in patients with a positive prick test

There are numerous reports of anaphylaxis from chlorhexidine in surgical operations and other medical procedures, usually due to its application to wounds or mucous membranes. We wanted to analyse the clinical data of patients with a positive chlorhexidine prick test and perform some additional testing. We studied the case records of the patients with a positive chlorhexidine prick test and performed an open application test and tests for specific IgE. We found 33 patients with a positive prick test. 10 of them had had severe symptoms from chlorhexidine, and 11 had had only mild local symptoms. The size of the prick test reaction was mainly in line with the strength of the severest symptoms. Small 3- to 4-mm reactions were usually without obvious clinical relevance. Specific IgE could be demonstrated in 6 patients out of 14 tested by the ImmunoCAP method. Besides severe attacks, patients with a positive prick test often have milder local symptoms, such as exacerbation of dermatitis. Local symptoms from chlorhexidine-containing products may precede severe attacks. We recommend a prick test to be performed routinely when symptoms during medical interventional procedures, e.g. local and general anaesthesia, are investigated.     

Occupational contact urticaria caused by cyclic acid anhydrides

Background:  Cyclic acid anhydrides often cause allergic respiratory diseases, but contact urticaria because of these anhydrides has been considered rare.
Objective:  We describe 21 patients diagnosed with occupational contact urticaria at the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health during the period 1990–2006.
Method:  Prick test with human serum albumin (HSA)–acid anhydride conjugates, determination of specific immunoglobulin E (IgE), and open application were used in the diagnosis.
Results:  The majority of the patients worked in the manufacture of electrical machines and were exposed to an epoxy hardener containing methyl hexahydrophthalic anhydride. The largest prick test reaction was often noted for the acid anhydride the patient had been exposed to. The specific IgE results were mostly in line with the prick test reactions. Phthalic anhydride IgE was determined in 20 patients and was found positive in 19 patients. In open application, a positive test result often required the use of the undiluted hardener.
Conclusions:  Contact urticaria may be more common than previously believed. Prick tests with HSA–acid anhydride conjugates were a useful test method for detecting immediate sensitization to acid anhydrides. The determination of the specific IgE gave almost equal results. The open application test often had to be performed with the undiluted anhydride product to obtain a positive test result.     

Prevalence of evaluation for latex allergy and association with practice characteristics in United States dermatologists: results of a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Natural rubber latex allergy is a potentially life-threatening, immunoglobin E (IgE) mediated reaction. Despite great strides in identification of high-risk groups, methods for diagnosis remain limited in the United States and most evaluations are performed by allergists. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of evaluation for latex allergy and association with practice characteristics in United States dermatologists. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of one third of United States Fellows of the American Academy of Dermatology. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 43%. Of responding dermatologists, 17% stated that they evaluate patients for latex allergy, most commonly with a radioallergosorbent (RAST) or use test. Only 3.6% stated that they perform prick or scratch tests for latex allergy in their office, and most of these dermatologists (86%) prepare their own latex prick test solutions. Evaluation for latex allergy was significantly associated with patch testing, photopatch testing, an interest in contact dermatitis, and number of contact dermatitis books owned, but not with number of years in practice. CONCLUSIONS: Most United States dermatologists do not evaluate patients for latex allergy, most likely because of lack of available antigens and because methods for diagnosing latex allergy are not familiar to most dermatologists.     

Latex allergy among construction workers

To assess the incidence of latex allergy in construction workers, we studied all the 230 construction workers who attended our clinic between 1996 and 2000. In the 54 (23.5%) patients who reported any kind of intolerance to rubber gloves or boots, we performed both patch testing with the TRUE Test standard series and a rubber series and prick testing for latex. Latex-specific IgE levels were measured when prick testing was positive. 16 patients (7.0%) had a positive prick test to latex, of whom 14 had allergic contact urticaria from latex (ACUL). All of these 14 patients (6.1%) showed 1 or more positive reactions to the True Test series, which included 1 or more rubber chemicals in 9 of them. The level of specific Ig E to latex was greater than 0.35 kU/L in 15 of the 16 patients. In conclusion, our data suggest that the incidence of latex allergic contact urticaria among construction workers may be as high as that among health care workers. Most of these construction workers with Type I latex hypersensitivity had a concurrent Type IV hypersensitivity to chromate or rubber chemicals, presenting as occupational allergic contact dermatitis, which could have facilitated sensitization to latex.     

43例季节性接触性皮炎皮肤试验研究

为探索季节性接触性皮炎病因及发病机理.我们对43例季节性接触性皮炎(季节组)患者进行花粉抗原斑贴试验等一系列皮肤试验研究,并设62例变态反应性接触性皮炎(非季节组)及50例健康组为对照。结果,季节组血清总IgE水平及阳性率、花粉抗原特异性IgE阳性率、花粉点刺及斑试阳性率均明显高于非季节组及健康组,特异性IgE与花粉抗原点刺及斑试反应间均有明显的相关性和较高的符合率。表明季节性接触性皮炎发病与花粉抗原诱导的IgE介导的迟缓相反应有关。     

Facial dermatitis, contact urticaria, rhinoconjunctivitis, and asthma induced by potato.

BACKGROUND: Potato contains multiple heat-labile proteins which can induce immediate hypersensitivity reactions. Rhino-conjunctivitis, asthma, contact urticaria and protein contact dermatitis have been described in association with potato exposure. OBJECTIVE: A patient with possible airborne facial dermatitis to potato is described. RESULTS: A middle-aged atopic housewife with pre-existent atopic dermatitis suffered from rhino-conjunctivitis, asthma, and contact urticaria when pealing raw potatoes, but her main complaint was intense, treatment-resistant dermatitis of the face. The investigations showed a positive prick test, a positive patch test, and positive specific serum IgE to raw potato. Potato avoidance led not only to the resolution of the immediate symptoms, but also of the facial dermatitis, suggesting she had dermatitis due to this vegetable. CONCLUSIONS: Potato may induce contact dermatitis with positive immediate and delayed hypersensitivity tests.     

Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from spices

About 1000 patients were investigated at our clinic during 1991 for occupational skin disease. and 5 had occupational allergic contact dermatitis from spices. The patients were chefs, or kitchen, coffee room, and restaurant workers. All patients had hand (or finger) dermatitis. The causative spices were: garlic, cinnamon, ginger, allspice and clove, The same patients also had allergic patch test reactions to foods: tomato, lettuce and carrot. Paprika elicited a weak allergic patch test reaction in 2 patients. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from spices is relatively rare, but needs to be taken into consideration in patients who have hand dermatitis, and work with spices and foods, Patch testing with spices as is useful, but testing with dilutions in pet, may be needed to confirm that the patch test reactions are allergic. Patients also need to be prick tested with spices and foods.