Atypical diaper dermatitis: contact allergy to mercapto compounds

We present a case of allergic contact dermatitis in an 18-month-old boy caused by type-IV allergy to mercapto mix and mercaptobenzothiazole as components of the elastic border of diapers. Allergic contact dermatitis should be included in the differential diagnosis of diaper dermatitis, especially in difficult-to-treat cases or atypical clinical presentation.     

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.     

Textile dermatitis in patients with contact sensitization in Israel: a 4-year prospective study

BACKGROUND: The exact incidence of textile dermatitis is unknown because of the lack of controlled epidemiological studies. Nevertheless, the increasing frequency of contact dermatitis to clothing has been demonstrated, thus indicating the importance of further investigations in this field. OBJECTIVE: To analyse the results from a 4-year prospective study of the clinical and aetiological features of contact dermatitis to textiles in Israel. We also aimed to assess the frequency and relevance of sensitization to textile dyes and resins in these patients. METHODS: Six hundred and forty-four patients (441 female and 203 male), referred for the investigation of contact dermatitis, and suspected of having textile allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), were studied. All patients were patch tested with the standard series (TRUE Tests), textile colour and finish series (TCFS) clothing extracts and pieces of garment in some cases. Readings were performed on days 2, 3 and in many patients also on day 7. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients (12.9%) had an allergic reactions to a dye and/or resin allergen. Of them, 43 (51.8%) had positive patch tests to the textile dye allergens, 28 (33.7%) to the formaldehyde and textile finish resins and 12 (14.4%) to allergens from both groups. The highest incidence of sensitization from the dye group allergens was due to Disperse Blue (DB) 124 (30.6%), DB 106 (27.0%) and DB 85 (8.1%) and from the resin group to melamine formaldehyde and ethyleneurea melamine formaldehyde (20.7% each) and urea formaldehyde (18.3%). Present relevance of the patch tests was found in 81.4% of the cases. Concomitant sensitization with allergens from the standard series included nickel sulphate, potassium dichromate, formaldehyde, rubber additives and others. Although chronic dermatitis was the typical clinical presentation, less frequent forms such as purpuric, hyperpigmented and papulopustular lesions and atypical forms such as erythema multiforme-like, nummular-like lesions, lichenification and erythrodermia were observed in 24.4% of the cases. The atypical manifestations were provoked by sensitization to dye allergens and never to resins. Along with the typical distribution in areas of friction on the trunk and extremities, less frequent areas including the hands, face, genital area and the soles were affected too. CONCLUSIONS: In view of the increasing frequency of contact dermatitis to clothing, the clinical assessment should include awareness of the classical as well as the unusual and atypical clinical forms and locations of ACD to textiles, for they are not infrequent. Although dyes and among them DB 106 and DB 124 are the most frequent allergens inducing textile dermatitis, concomitant testing with allergens from the textile dyes and resin groups is recommended when investigating patients with textile dermatitis.     

Allergic contact dermatitis from oleyl alcohol in Elidel cream

We report an atopic dermatitis patient with recurrent hand dermatitis who developed a severe allergic contact dermatitis from the use of Elidel cream. Diagnostic patch tests showed an isolated contact allergy to the emulsifier oleyl alcohol present in the product. Pimecrolimus appeared to have had an aggravating effect on the dermatitis in spite of its immunosuppressive effects. The initial clinical appearance of the patient's widespread dermatitis was atypical with resemblance to subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Even though emulsifiers are widely used in topical products, contact allergic reactions to these are relatively uncommon.     

Vulvar dermatoses--irritant and allergic contact dermatitis of the vulva

Irritant and allergic contact dermatitis are commonly seen in patients complaining about itching, burning and irritation in the vulvar area. Irritation often precedes allergic sensitization. Clinically, irritant and allergic contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish. Diagnosis is made by history, clinical investigation and patch testing. Recommended patch test series are the standard series, a medicament series, the patient's own topical medicaments, popular remedies and other suspected products. A skin biopsy may be useful to establish the diagnosis of contact dermatitis, but it is usually not helpful for the differential diagnosis between irritant and allergic dermatitis.     

Occupational contact dermatitis in the pharmaceutical industry

Occupation-induced skin reactions are not infrequently observed in the pharmaceutical industry. Workers may come in contact with irritant substances and also with chemically reactive intermediates or drugs that may be potential sensitizers. The skin lesions can be located at the site of contact, usually the hands, although airborne reactions on exposed and even nonexposed areas (eg, by particles trapped under clothing) are not uncommon. Generalized reactions may occur due to inhalation or transcutaneous absorption. An accidental exposure to a highly allergenic compound may cause a chemical burn, followed by primary sensitization and allergic contact dermatitis. The pharmaceutical contact allergens belong to many different pharmacologic classes. If several cases of contact dermatitis occur in multiple individuals in the same company, then the working conditions are implicated and should be changed to prevent their recurrence. Measures to be taken include dust control, installation of closed filter equipment, and keeping the workers informed about the potential risks associated with the manipulation of the chemicals.     

Polyurethane toilet seat contact dermatitis

Polyurethane chemicals are produced by the reaction of isocyanates and they may cause allergic contact dermatitis or precipitate asthma attacks. Contact dermatitis to polyurethane toilet seat has not been reported before. Herein we present a case of allergic contact dermatitis to polyurethane toilet seat.     

Hand dermatitis as an unsuspected presentation of textile dye contact sensitivity

The aim of this study was to evaluate disperse dye sensitization in patients with hand dermatitis. From January 1996 to December 2000, we identified 130 patients with hand dermatitis reacting to one of the 7 dyes included in our standard series. In 82 subjects the dermatitis was localized to the hands alone, whereas 48 patients had lesions both on the hands and on other skin sites. Disperse Blue dyes, and Disperse Orange 3 were the most common sensitizers. Among the 13 subjects allergic to disperse dyes alone, we found 3 cases of occupational allergic contact dermatitis, 1 child with atopic dermatitis worsening after the use of synthetic fibre garments, 4 subjects affected by clothing dermatitis, and 5 individuals occupationally exposed to irritants with a dermatitis involving the hands alone. In the latter, the hands may represent a 'locus minoris resistentiae', and both induction and elicitation of contact sensitization could be caused by impaired barrier function at a skin site repeatedly exposed to sensitizing garments.     

Allergic contact dermatitis

Contact dermatitis is an inflammatory skin condition induced by exposure to an environmental agent. Eczema and dermatitis are used synonymously to denote a polymorphous pattern of skin inflammation characterized at least in its acute phase by erythema, vesiculation and pruritus. Substances responsible for contact dermatitis after single or multiple exposures are non protein chemicals, i.e. haptens, that induce skin inflammation through activation of innate skin immunity (irritant contact dermatitis) or both innate and acquired specific immunity (allergic contact dermatitis). The present review will focus on allergic contact dermatitis, a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction, which is mediated by hapten-specific T cells. Recent advances in the pathophysiology of ACD have shown that the occurrence of ACD, as well as its magnitude and duration, is controlled by the opposite functions of CD8 effector T cells and CD4 regulatory T cells. From these studies ACD can be considered as a breakdown of cutaneous immune tolerance to haptens.     

Allergic contact dermatitis

Allergic contact dermatitis is a frequent inflammatory skin disease. The suspected diagnosis is based on clinical symptoms, a plausible contact to allergens and a suitable history of dermatitis. Differential diagnoses should be considered only after careful exclusion of any causal contact sensitization. Hence, careful diagnosis by patch testing is of great importance. Modifications of the standardized test procedure are the strip patch test and the repeated open application test. The interpretation of the SLS (sodium lauryl sulfate) patch test as well as testing with the patients' own products and working materials are potential sources of error. Accurate patch test reading is affected in particular by the experience and individual factors of the examiner. Therefore, a high degree of standardization and continuous quality control is necessary and may be supported by use of an online patch test reading course made available by the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group. A critical relevance assessment of allergic patch test reactions helps to avoid relapses and the consideration of differential diagnoses. Any allergic test reaction should be documented in an allergy ID card including the INCI name, if appropriate. The diagnostics of allergic contact dermatitis is endangered by a seriously reduced financing of patch testing by the German statutory health insurances. Restrictive regulations by the German Drug Law block the approval of new contact allergens for routine patch testing. Beside the consistent avoidance of allergen contact, temporary use of systemic and topical corticosteroids is the therapy of first choice.     

Purpuric contact dermatitis in patients with allergic reaction to textile dyes and resins

BACKGROUND: Purpuric lesions have been described as an uncommon manifestation of allergic contact dermatitis in individual case reports. OBJECTIVE: We describe a series of patients who developed purpuric allergic contact dermatitis to textile dyes and resins in their personal clothing. Our purpose was to study the patients clinically and histopathologically and to define the most frequent allergens, which cause purpuric allergic contact dermatitis. METHODS: One hundred and three patients were clinically evaluated and tested with the Textile Color & Finish Series (TCFS) (Chemotechnique Diagnostics) and Standard Series (TRUE Tests) because of suspected allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to clothing. The patients with clinical features of purpura as presenting sign of ACD were studied. Biopsies from the purpuric lesions were performed in three patients. RESULTS: Thirty of the 103 patients (29.1%) had positive reaction to an allergen from the TCFS. Clinically purpuric ACD was observed in 8.7% of all the cases studied (n = 9 of 103). Nine of the 30 patch-positive patients to the TCFS (30%) demonstrated purpuric macules, papules and patches. Patch testing of the nine patients with purpuric contact dermatitis, with the TCFS, resulted in 26 positive patch test results. The major causative allergens were the following: Disperse Blue 106 and Disperse Blue 124 in 26.9% each, Disperse Blue 85 in 11.5%, and ethyleneurea melamine formaldehyde in 7.7%. Positive patch tests were observed to dimethylol dihydroxyethyleneurea, dimethylol propyleneurea, tetramethylol acetylenediurea, urea formaldehyde, melamine formaldehyde, Disperse Red 17, and Basic Red 46 3.8% in each. Purpuric patch test reaction was observed in five cases. The patch test results had present relevance in all the cases. Lesional biopsies demonstrated acanthosis, spongiosis and parakeratosis. The blood vessels were dilated, without signs of vasculitis. The inflammatory infiltrate was composed of lymphocytes and erythrocytes. The extravasated erythrocytes had a perivascular and interstitial distribution in the superficial and deep plexus and were observed at the dermo-epidermal junction as well as in the epidermis. CONCLUSION: Purpuric contact dermatitis is not an uncommon clinical form of ACD to textile dyes and resins. New allergens, which can evoke the development of purpuric allergic contact dermatitis and have not been described in the literature until now include: ethyleneurea melamineformaldehyde, dimethylol dihydroxyethyleneurea, tetramethylol acetylenediurea, urea formaldehyde, melamine formaldehyde and Disperse Red 17.     

T cell lymphomatoid contact dermatitis: a challenging case and review of the literature

Lymphomatoid contact dermatitis is a pseudolymphoma with clinical and histological features of allergic contact dermatitis and cutaneous T cell lymphoma. Incorrect diagnosis may lead to unnecessary testing, unnecessary treatment, or patient harm. The objective of this study is to present a case to demonstrate the diagnostic challenge and overlap between allergic contact dermatitis and cutaneous T cell lymphoma in a patient with lymphomatoid contact dermatitis caused by methylchoroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone and paraben mix, and to review the existing literature in order to summarize the demographics, clinical features, allergens and treatments reported for lymphomatoid contact dermatitis. A search of major scientific databases was conducted for English‐language articles reporting cases of lymphomatoid contact dermatitis or additional synonymous search headings. Nineteen articles with a total of 23 patients were analysed. Lymphomatoid contact dermatitis was more common in men, with an average age of 58.5 years. Fourteen unique allergens were identified and confirmed by patch testing. However, no single test or study was diagnostic of lymphomatoid contact dermatitis. Allergen avoidance was the most useful management tool, but selected patients required topical or systemic immunosuppression. In conclusion, without specific diagnostic features, evaluation for lymphomatoid contact dermatitis should include a thorough history and examination, patch testing, and biopsy with immunohistochemistry and clonality studies.     

Industrial airborne irritant or allergic contact dermatitis

Industrial airborne irritant or allergic contact dermatitis is commonly observed in many factories. Examples of airborne irritants include fibres (such as fibreglass or rockwool), various kinds of dust particles (such as cement, slag, sludge, insulating foam, wood chips), acids and alkalis, gasses and vapours. Airborne contact allergens are unequivocally numerous. The clinical symptoms of both irritant and allergic airborne contact dermatitis are reviewed.     

Allergic contact dermatitis in children: strategies of prevention and risk management

Over recent years, allergic contact dermatitis in children has repeatedly been reported as a significant clinical problem. It is generally accepted that allergic contact dermatitis is rare in the first years of life, and with increasing age (by the age of 10 years) reaches the incidence seen in adults. As in adults, metals are one of the most common sensitizers in children, along with rubber chemicals and fragrances. The influence of fashion trends and lifestyle such as piercing, decorative skin paintings, the hype of natural remedies and cosmetics (e.g. tea tree oil) or the use of cosmetical products with fragrances or herbal ingredients play an important role in developing allergic contact dermatitis. This review aims to give an overview on allergic contact dermatitis in childhood by focussing on strategies for prevention, potential risk factors and recommendations for parents as well as for physicians. By reporting typical cases of our outpatients clinic we point out several characteristics of allergic contact dermatitis. Prevention of allergic contact dermatitis in children is a current problem of interdisciplinary concern not only for dermatologists and paediatricians, but also for midwives. Frequently, children are already exposed at an early age to well-known allergens, and therefore, strategies of avoidance have to gain or regain importance and should start as early as possible.     

Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by thiourea compounds

Thiourea compounds are mainly used as accelerators in the rubber industry, but also in other industries, e.g., as antioxidants in the graphics industry. Thiourea compounds may provoke allergic contact dermatitis, although the number of reported cases is relatively low. During 1985–1991, we had 5 patients with allergic patch test reactions caused by thiourea compounds. 1 of our patients had to use a knee brace after an occupational accident. He developed allergic contact dermatitis caused by the knee brace, probably because he had become sensitized to diethylthiourea. 2 patients were probably sensitized by diphenylthiourea in neoprene gloves. A florist had an allergic patch test reaction to diphenylthiourea and might have been sensitized by fungicides or pesticides, which break down into thioureas. It is often difficult, however, to detect the source of thiourea compound sensitization. If the patient has contact dermatitis and has been exposed to products that may contain thiourea compounds (or compounds that break down into thiourea compounds), such as rubber, PVC plastic or adhesive, diazo paper, paints or glue remover, anticorrosive agents, fungicides or pesticides, patch testing with a series of thiourea compounds needs to be performed. If patch testing with thiourea compounds is not performed, allergic contact dermatitis caused by thiourea compounds is not likely to be diagnosed.     

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.     

Lack of effect of ustekinumab in treatment of allergic contact dermatitis

Background. Allergic contact dermatitis is a chronic inflammatory T cell mediated disease that can be recalcitrant to existing treatments. Ustekinumab is a monocloncal antibody blocking IL‐12 and IL‐23, shown to be effective and safe for patients with psoriasis. Despite both IL‐12 and IL‐23 involvement in contact allergy, the effect of Ustekinumab on allergic contact dermatitis has not been reported. Objectives. To evaluate the clinical effect of Ustekinumab in patients with allergic contact dermatitis. Methods. A retrospective, case cohort study of patients with allergic contact dermatitis treated with Ustekinumab in our department. Results. Five patients had been treated with Ustekinumab for allergic contact dermatitis, with limited effect. Conclusion. Our observation suggests that, although theoretically plausible, Ustekinumab does not seem to be a valuable therapeutic approach for chronic allergic contact dermatitis.     

Leukoderma following occupational allergic contact dermatitis

We describe 2 cases of occupational allergic contact dermatitis followed by leukoderma. The 1st case was a 49-year-old wood machinist who developed leukoderma in areas of contact dermatitis involving his lips, neck, hands and forearms and was found to be allergic to colophony and pine sawdust on patch testing. The 2nd case involved a 44-year-old man who worked as an epoxy applicator in a ceramics factory. He developed depigmentation in areas of contact dermatitis involving his face, hands, forearms, back, thighs and legs and was found on patch testing to be allergic to epoxy resin. The appearance of contact leukoderma may be indistinguishable from idiopathic vitiligo. However the prognosis for repigmentation may be better in contact leukoderma than in idiopathic vitiligo.     

Allergic contact dermatitis from 1,6-diisocyanatohexane in an anti-pill finish

We report an outbreak of occupational allergic contact dermatitis from 1,6-diisocyanatohexane (old name hexamethylene diisocyanate or HDI), in the anti-pill finish Evafanol AS-1, in 2 clothing factories. The 19 operatives from 2 dressmaking mills all complained of work-related dermatitis. 5 of the subjects had positive patch tests to the fabric with which they were working, and when all 19 were patch tested to Evafanol AS-1 (1% aq.), 11 were positive. 6 of these 11 were patch tested to HDI (1% pet.) and all 6 were positive. It appears that HDI in our group of clothing workers acted as a potent sensitizer affecting around 10% of the workforce.     

Allergic and photoallergic contact dermatitis to chlorpromazine

Chlorpromazine is known to produce both systemic phototoxic and photoallergic reactions. However, it may also cause photoallergic contact dermatitis and, albeit exceptionally, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). We present a series of photoallergic contact dermatitis and ACD to chlorpromazine diagnosed at a tertiary centre cutaneous allergy unit between 1980 and 2019.