Age-related differences in patch testing results among children: Analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 2001-2018

Comorbid Scenarios in Contact Dermatitis: Atopic Dermatitis, Irritant Dermatitis, and Extremes of Age

Contact dermatitis (allergic and irritant) occurs when the skin encounters haptens that elicit a T cell-mediated hypersensitivity reaction (allergic) or a nonimmunologic, toxic reaction (irritant). Patch testing is the reference standard for diagnosing allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), although positive results are not always relevant. Therefore, the definitive diagnosis of ACD requires an astute clinician able to connect the results of patch testing appropriately with the clinical history and the cutaneous examination findings. Comorbid conditions such as atopic dermatitis can confound the accurate diagnosis of ACD because of the similarities in clinical presentation. Furthermore, both extremes of age can further challenge the diagnostic specificity of ACD owing to the maturing immune system and the space limitations present when the very young are patch tested. The goal of this Continuing Medical Education article is to discuss the challenges of diagnosing ACD in patients with unique comorbidities such as atopic dermatitis, given the morphologic similarities, and when to patch test these patients. Diagnosis of ACD will also be discussed in very young patients with a focus on patch test allergen selection despite the limited geographic space. The most common allergens reported in very young and old patients will also be discussed.

Fragrance Contact Allergy - A Review Focusing on Patch Testing

Fragrance materials are widely used in various types of products in daily life and many of them can be contact sensitizers. Contact allergy to fragrances has been reported to be common worldwide. Unlike other groups of contact allergens such as metals and preservatives, fragrance materials in consumer products can be present as single fragrance chemicals or in the form of mixtures known as natural complex substances. Due to the complexity of the fragrance materials and the high number of fragrance substances known to cause contact sensitization, selecting suitable materials for patch testing is challenging. Emerging fragrance markers have been additionally introduced in different baseline series for screening to enhance the rate of fragrance contact allergy detection. Moreover, there have been continual updates on basic knowledge, clinical perspectives, sources of exposure, and regulations on the use of fragrance materials. Avoiding pitfalls while performing patch testing with fragrance test materials is also crucial and should not be overlooked. Therefore, this review aims to update knowledge to provide a high-quality holistic approach to fragrance contact allergy diagnosis and management.

Are "clean" products safe for children? An analysis of contact allergens in "clean" children's products from a popular retailer

BACKGROUND

Considering consumer trends toward the use of "clean" personal care products and increasing recognition of childhood allergic contact dermatitis, we sought to characterize the allergen profile of such children's products.

METHODS

Ingredients of baby washes/shampoos, bubble baths, and moisturizers identified using the "Clean Baby" filter on Target®'s online marketplace were analyzed for relevant pediatric contact allergens.

RESULTS

Product compositions declared fragrance in 82% of products, Compositae in 46%, cocamidopropyl betaine in 45%, glucosides in 37%, propylene glycol in 12%, lanolin in 1%, and no allergens in 9%-methylisothiazolinone and formaldehyde were not found.

CONCLUSION

Children are greatly impacted by atopic dermatitis and skin barrier dysfunction, which underscores a need for greater public awareness of sensitizing and irritating ingredients, particularly regarding pediatric personal care products.

Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Linalool Hydroperoxides: Pitfalls in the Diagnostic Process-Findings from a Repeated Open Application Test Study

Background: Increasing trends of oxidized linalool contact allergy have been reported. However, the impact of reactivity and dose in eliciting allergic contact Dermatitis caused by linalool hydroperoxides is insufficiently investigated. Objectives: To perform repeated open application tests (ROATs) using the real-world concentrations of linalool hydroperoxides in patients and control participants. Materials and Methods: Patients who previously had a positive (patients) and a negative (controls) patch test reaction to linalool hydroperoxides 1.0% in petrolatum were patch tested with a dilution series of linalool hydroperoxides preparations and asked to perform ROAT twice daily with 3 concentrations of linalool hydroperoxides creams and a negative control cream for 28 days. The creams contain 44, 140, and 440 PPM of linalool hydroperoxides, representing real-world doses reported in consumer products. Results: Of all 47 participants, 31 were linalool hydroperoxides contact allergy patients, and 16 were controls. One patient had a positive ROAT reaction in the area where cream at the highest concentration of linalool hydroperoxides was applied for 28 days. Conclusions: Repeated exposure to creams containing linalool hydroperoxides at real-life concentrations could rarely elicit an allergic reaction on intact skin after 4 weeks.

Characterization of Pediatric Patch Testing: A Retrospective Review, 2020-2023

Background: Recent evidence shows similar rates of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) among children and adults despite children accounting for less than 10% of patch testing subjects. With a need for in-depth analyses of pediatric ACD, we herein characterize a pediatric cohort at a large North American patch testing center. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted for 135 patients ages 1-17 years who underwent patch testing from July 2020 from August 2023. Data were stratified by age 1-5, 6-11, and 12-17 years. Significance-Prevalence Index Numbers (SPIN) were calculated. Results: A total of 86% were sensitized, 40% had a relevant reaction, and positivity rates were equal between males and females. Top allergens by SPIN differed with age, but overall were linalool hydroperoxides (SPIN = 11.01), propylene glycol (10.30), limonene hydroperoxides (10.27), fragrance mix I (5.62), and lanolin (4.90). In total, 14% of the top allergens were not represented on the North American Contact Dermatitis Group standard series. Of those tested to personal products, 45% had positive reactions and 72% of which were relevant. Conclusions: Emulsifiers and fragrances were the most relevant allergen categories, with the impact of emulsifiers not previously reported. ACD may affect males and females equally in this population. Supplemental allergens and personal products tested "as-is" contribute to conclusive pediatric patch testing.

Trends in contact sensitization, results, and implications from a contact dermatitis clinic in Israel

BACKGROUND

The baseline series includes common allergens, evolves over time, and differs by location. Our study aims to characterize allergen sensitization trends among the Israeli population during the last two decades, compare our results to American and European registries, as well as to highlight significant allergens in additional series outside the European baseline series (OEBS).

METHODS

We analysed patch test results of 2086 patients from a designated contact dermatitis clinic in Tel Aviv between 2019 and 2022, compared them to European and North American registries and to 2156 patch test results conducted in Israel two decades ago.

RESULTS

38.6% of patients had at least one positive reaction to an allergen in the European baseline series (EBS), nickel sulphate (14.6%), fragrance mix I (4.6%), and Methylchloroisothiazolinone methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI; 3.7%) were the most common among them. N-Isopropyl N-Phenyl-4-Phenylenediamine (NIPPD; 0%), Propolis (0.1%), Sesquiterpene lactone mix (0.1%), and Budesonide (0.1%) elicited a sensitization frequency significantly lower than the proposed threshold for baseline inclusion. Chi-square test revealed a statistically significant decrease (p < 0.05) in the sensitization frequency of fragrance mix I, Formaldehyde, Potassium dichromate, Neomycin sulphate, Myroxylon pereirae, Sesquiterpene lactone, and NIPPD during the last two decades. The overall sensitization frequency to the majority of allergens was lower in our cohort in comparison to the North American and European registries.

CONCLUSIONS

MCI/MI and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate-2 (HEMA) are common, relevant allergens, with high SPIN (significance and prevalence index number) and should be better regulated by the authorities. While among the EBS, NIPPD, Propolis, Sesquiterpene lactone, and Budesonide usually do not elicit a positive reaction and therefore should be reconsidered in baseline series, among the OEBS, Chloramphenicol, Quaternium 15, Propyl gallate, and Amerchol L101 have elicited high SPIN values and should be vigilantly examined in the suitable clinical scenario. Significantly lower sensitization frequency to propolis raises the possibility of a protective effect due to early oral exposure among the Israeli population.

Cheilitis: A Diagnostic Algorithm and Review of Underlying Etiologies

Cheilitis, or inflammation of the lips, is a common reason for dermatologic consultation. The inflammation can include the vermillion lip, vermillion border, and surrounding skin, and can present with an acute or chronic course. There are many etiologies, including irritant and allergic contact dermatitis, atopic cheilitis, actinic cheilitis, infectious etiologies, nutritional deficiencies, drug-induced cheilitis, and rare etiologies, including granulomatous cheilitis, cheilitis glandularis, plasma cell cheilitis, lupus cheilitis, and exfoliative cheilitis. Distinguishing among the various etiologies of cheilitis is clinically difficult, as many causes may produce similar erythema and superficial desquamation of mucosal skin. In addition, patients report dryness, redness, irritation, burning, fissuring, and itch in many of the underlying causes. Thus, the specific etiology of cheilitis is often difficult to diagnose, requiring extensive testing and treatment trials. In this review, we summarize the various types of cheilitis, synthesizing novel cases, clinical presentations, histopathology, epidemiology, and advancements in diagnostic methods and therapeutics. We provide a diagnostic algorithm aimed to assist clinicians in the management of cheilitis.

Prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis in children with and without atopic dermatitis: A multicenter retrospective case-control study

BACKGROUND

As both allergic contact dermatitis and atopic dermatitis (AD) have similar clinical presentations and are characterized by spongiotic dermatitis on skin biopsy, many children with AD are not referred for patch testing and allergic contact dermatitis is underdiagnosed.

OBJECTIVE

To provide updated prevalence data of common contact allergens in children with and without AD.

METHODS

This is a retrospective case-control study using the Pediatric Allergic Contact Dermatitis Registry from 2018 to 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 912 children were included (615 with AD and 297 without AD). Children with AD were more likely to have a longer history of dermatitis (4.1 vs 1.6 years, P < .0001), have seen more providers (2.3 vs 2.1, P = .003), have greater than 1 positive patch test (PPT) result (P = .005), have a greater number of PPT results overall (2.3 vs 1.9, P = .012), and have a more generalized distribution of dermatitis (P = .001). PPT to bacitracin (P = .030), carba mix (P = .025), and cocamidopropyl betaine (P = .0007) were significantly increased in children with AD compared to those without AD.

LIMITATIONS

Technical variation between providers and potential for misclassification, selection, and recall biases.

CONCLUSION

Children with AD are significantly more likely to have PPT reactions and should be referred for evaluation of allergic contact dermatitis and obtain patch testing.

Patch testing with Cobalt in Children and Adolescents: North American Contact Dermatitis Group experience, 2001 to 2018

BACKGROUND

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to cobalt is more common in children and adolescents than adults. However, detailed information on sites and sources of cobalt ACD are limited.

OBJECTIVES

To assess trends in positive and clinically relevant patch test reactions to cobalt in children and associated patient characteristics, common sources, and body sites affected.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of children (<18 years) patch tested to cobalt by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group between 2001-2018.

RESULTS

Of 1,919 children patch tested, 228 (11.9%) and 127 (6.6%) had a positive/allergic or currently relevant patch test reaction to cobalt, respectively. The most common primary body sites affected were scattered generalized (30.0%), face, not otherwise specified (NOS, 10.6%), and trunk (10.1%). Patients with allergic and currently relevant allergic patch test reactions were more likely to have a primary site of trunk (P=.0160 and P=.0008) ears (P=.0005 and P<.0001). Affected body site(s) varied by cobalt source among patients with currently relevant reactions, especially for less common sources. The most commonly identified sources of cobalt included jewelry, belts, and clothing.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive patch test reactions to cobalt were common in children. Most common body site was scattered generalized and the sources of cobalt varied by body site. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.