暂无摘要。

Background: Direct skin contact with items containing lanolin can induce sensitization and development of contact dermatitis (CD). This multi-centric study investigated prevalence of lanolin sensitization among 30,269 outpatients from North-Eastern Italy patch tested during 1997-2021. Methods: European baseline and extended Triveneto series were applied on the upper part of patients\' back and removed after 48 h. Risk factors for lanolin sensitization were investigated by multiple logistic regression analysis, reporting adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence interval (95%CI). Results. Overall lanolin patch test positive ratio (PTPR) was 1.64% (=501/30,629), with variability over time and by research center. The body area most frequently affected by CD were hands (36.32%), followed by face (19.52%) and legs (8.09%), with a lanolin PTPR of 1.68%, 1.37% and 3.07%, respectively. Prevalence of occupational CD was 8.24%, and 1.83% patients with occupational CD patch tested positive against lanolin. Lanolin sensitization was significantly higher in males (aOR = 1.34; 95%CI: 1.08; 1.65) and among patients with leg CD aged 49-60 years (aOR = 2.34; 95%CI: 1.20; 4.57) or older than 60 (aOR = 4.21; 95%CI: 2.59; 6.85). Sub-group analysis confirmed the significantly higher sensitization rate of older patients with leg CD, with much stronger effect size in females 61+ years old (aOR = 5.33; 95%CI 2.87; 9.89) than males in the same age group (aOR = 2.92; 95%CI: 1.34; 6.39). Moreover, female house painters were more likely to test positive to lanolin. Conclusions: The variability of lanolin PTPR over time and by research center endorsed the ongoing debate on the relevance of the respective skin reaction. Clinicians assessing patients with dermatitis should collect information on potential risk factors for lanolin sensitization, particularly use of skin care products containing the hapten. Occupational exposure to lanolin-containing varnishes should also be considered.

BACKGROUND: Hand eczema (HE) is a common skin disease with a negative impact on patients\' quality of life in occupational and non-occupational settings. Up-to-date, data on HE in Italian patients referred for patch testing are lacking.
OBJECTIVE: To characterise the profile in terms of demographics, aetiology and patch test results of Italian patients affected by HE referred for patch testing.
METHODS: A retrospective descriptive study on consecutive patients affected by HE who underwent patch testing from 2016 to 2023 in eight dermatology clinics was performed. HE patients were divided into two groups according to the exclusive (HE-only group) and not-exclusive (HE+ group) hand involvement, and compared to patients with eczema localised in body areas other than hands (NHE group).
RESULTS: One thousand five hundred and ninety-seven patients were affected by HE (35.3% males; mean age 42.7 years), 60.2% belonging to the HE-only group and 39.8% to the HE+ group. Occupational dermatitis was diagnosed in 33.2% of HE-only patients, 25.0% of HE+ patients and 5.2% of NHE patients (p < 0.001). HE-only patients presented: Allergic Contact Dermatitis (ACD), Irritant Contact Dermatitis (ICD), atopic HE in 48.1%, 47.5% and 7.1%, respectively; hyperkeratotic palmar, acute recurrent vesicular and nummular clinical subtypes in 52.2%, 43.9% and 11.9%, respectively; relevant positive patch test reactions in 48.1% (nickel sulphate 18.9%, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone 10.6%, methylisothiazolinone 8.6%, p-phenylenediamine 6.0% and potassium dichromate 4.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: HE patients, and particularly those with exclusive hand involvement, show a particular profile in terms of demographic and clinical characteristics, etiologies and relevant positive patch test reactions.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Reports of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to phytonadione epoxide (PE) in cosmetics suggest that PE is as powerful a sensitiser as its parent compound phytonadione.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a case series of ACD to PE in Spain.
METHODS: We reviewed the records of 20 patients with ACD to cosmetics containing PE diagnosed across Spain between January 2019 and June 2023.
RESULTS: All 20 patients developed patch test (PT) or repeated open application test (ROAT) reactions to cosmetics containing PE. All involved women with eyelid eczema. PT or ROAT with PE preparations were positive in 17/20 (85%). PE at 1%, 5%, 10% and 20% in pet. was patch-tested in 8/17, 14/17, 11/17 and 8/17 patients; being positive in 6/8 (75%), 13/14 (92.85%), 11/11 (100%) and 8/8 (100%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Regulators should, not only ban the specific dangerous cosmetic ingredients, but also consider to ban or keep under close surveillance those closely related products or derivatives that might potentially cause similar harmful effects. PTs with PE are suggested to be performed at a 5% concentration in pet. Higher concentrations (10% pet.) should be tested whenever PTs with 5% pet. PE are negative.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) are inflammatory skin conditions whose association is not clearly defined.
OBJECTIVE: 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.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

UNASSIGNED: Toilet seat dermatitis (TSD) is a localized form of dermatitis that commonly occurs in the buttocks and upper posterior aspect of the thigh in school-going children. Previously, it was mostly seen due to allergic contact dermatitis to wood, but recently, many other allergens in toilet seats along with the possibility of irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) to detergents were reported.
UNASSIGNED: Six cases diagnosed clinically as atopic dermatitis per Hanifin and Rajka criteria presented with posterior thigh dermatitis. Patch testing using the Indian Standard Series, toilet seat scrapings, and detergents was conducted.
UNASSIGNED: Patch testing showed negative results at 48, 96, and 168 hours, including lesional site testing. Symptomatic management, including topical steroids and later tacrolimus, was administered, coupled with counselling on toilet seat cover use, with a follow-up after four weeks. Lesions showed resolution and reduced itching.
UNASSIGNED: This study\'s limitation lies in its small sample size from a single geographic area.
UNASSIGNED: Lesion resolution through topical treatment and toilet seat avoidance, support a diagnosis of contact dermatitis; however, the role of atopy remains crucial, suggesting a complex interplay. Larger studies are needed for a comprehensive understanding of this dermatological condition.