Usage Tests of Oak Moss Absolutes Containing High and Low Levels of Atranol and Chloroatranol.

Atranol and chloroatranol are strong contact allergens in oak moss absolute, a lichen extract used in perfumery. Fifteen subjects with contact allergy to oak moss absolute underwent a repeated open application test (ROAT) using solutions of an untreated oak moss absolute (sample A) and an oak moss absolute with reduced content of atranol and chloroatranol (sample B). All subjects were in addition patch-tested with serial dilutions of samples A and B. Statistically significantly more subjects reacted to sample A than to sample B in the patch tests. No corresponding difference was observed in the ROAT, though there was a significant difference in the time required to elicit a positive reaction. Still, the ROAT indicates that the use of a cosmetic product containing oak moss absolute with reduced levels of atranol and chloroatranol is capable of eliciting an allergic reaction in previously sensitised individuals

Skin Exposures, Hand Eczema and Facial Skin Disease in Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-sectional Study

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to enhanced hygiene procedures and use of personal protective equipment, but also to increased attention to occupational skin disease in healthcare workers. The occurrence of hand and facial skin disease in > 5,000 Swedish healthcare workers was investigated in a questionnaire survey. Levels of skin exposure related to hygiene procedures and personal protective equipment were recorded. Caring for patients with COVID-19 entailed higher levels of wet work and face mask exposures, and was associated with higher 1-year prevalence of both hand eczema (36%) and facial skin disease (32%) compared with not being directly engaged in COVID-19 care (28% and 22%, respectively). Acne and eczema were the most common facial skin diseases; for both, a dose-dependent association with face mask use was found. Dose-dependent associations could be shown between hand eczema and exposure to soap and gloves, but not to alcohol-based hand disinfectants

Patch Testing with a Textile Dye Mix in a Baseline Series in Two Countries

Disperse dyes are the most common contact sensitizers among textile dyes. The main aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of patch testing with a textile dye mix 6.6%. A total of 2,049 patients from Sweden and 497 from Belgium were tested with the mix, consisting of Disperse (D) Blue 35, D Yellow 3, D Orange 1 and 3, D Red 1 and 17, 1.0% each, and D Blue 106 and D Blue 124, 0.3% each. Of the total number, 65 patients, 2.6%, tested positively to the mix, 4.2% of the Belgian patients and 2.1% of the Swedish patients. Patch testing with the mix 6.6% revealed significantly more patients with contact allergy compared with testing with a previous mix 3.2% (p<0.01). Contact allergy to the mix was significantly more common in the Belgian than in the Swedish patients

Patch testing with aluminium Finn Chambers could give false-positive reactions in patients with contact allergy to aluminium

Background Earlier laboratory studies have shown that sodium tetrachloropalladate, Myroxylon pereirae, caine mix II, and palladium chloride trigger the release of aluminium (Al) from Finn Chambers (FC). Objectives To investigate whether aluminium realease from FC could influence the diagnostic outcome of patch testing with FC. Method A retrospective analysis of patch test results from 2010 to 2019 was performed. A two-sided Fisher\u27s exact test was used to calculate any overrepresentation of contact allergy to Al among patients with positive reactions to sodium tetrachloropalladate, Myroxylon pereirae, caine mix II, and palladium chloride. Results A total of 5446 patients had been tested with FC during the study period. There was a significant overrepresentation of contact allergy to Al among patients with positive reactions to sodium tetrachloropalladate, Myroxylon pereirae, caine mix II, and palladium chloride. Patients with a strong Al allergy had significantly higher amounts of concomitant reactions to sodium tetrachloropalladate, Myroxylon pereirae, caine mix II, and palladium chloride compared to patients with weak Al allergy. These results were not seen for patients tested with Finn Chambers AQUA. Conclusion In patients with contact allergy to Al, patch testing with Finn chambers could give false-positive reactions to sodium tetrachloropalladate, Myroxylon pereirae, caine mix II, and palladium chloride

In VivoEvaluation of the Protective Capacity of Different Gloves Against Hair Dyes

n/

Rheumatoid arthritis, gold therapy, contact allergy and blood cytokines

OBJECTIVE: To study the clinical and biochemical effects of a low starting dose for gold therapy in rheumatoid arthritis patients with a contact allergy to gold. METHODS: Serum cytokines were assayed before and 24 h after the first injection of gold sodium thiomalate (GSTM). RESULTS: Contact allergy to gold was found in 4 of 19 patients. Compared to gold-negative patients (starting dose: 10 mg GSTM), there was a larger increase in serum TNFalpha (p < 0.05), sTNF-R1 (NS), and IL-1 ra (p < 0.05) in gold-allergic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Cytokines are released in blood by GSTM in RA patients with gold allergy. To minimize the risk of acute adverse reactions the starting dose of GSTM should be lowered to 5 mg. Alternatively, patients should be patch-tested before gold therapy; in test-positive cases, 5 mg is recommended as the first dose

Thoughts on the interpretation of positive photopatch test reactions

BACKGROUND: Positive photopatch test reactions are classified according to the International Contact Dermatitis Group. The various reaction patterns are interpreted to represent patterns such as contact allergy, photocontact allergy, photoaugmentation, and photoinhibition. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether there are any weaknesses in the interpretation of reaction patterns. MATERIALS & METHODS: A dermatitis patient with photoallergic contact dermatitis due to ketoprofen was photopatch tested with serial dilutions of ketoprofen in ethanol. The reaction patterns for the various concentrations were used as a basis for discussion on weaknesses regarding the present interpretations of positive photopatch test reactions. RESULTS: The reaction patterns to the ketoprofen photopatch at various concentrations were interpreted as (i) contact allergy, (ii) contact allergy with photoaugmentation, (iii) contact allergy and photocontact allergy, and (iv) photocontact allergy. CONCLUSION: The present interpretation of positive photopatch test reactions is unreliable and therefore insufficient regarding appropriate advice for patients