Should methyldibromo glutaronitrile continue to be used in the European baseline Series? A REIDAC national cross-sectional study

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.

Standard and Expanded Series Patch Testing Update by the Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC)

After the meeting held by the Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC) back in October 2021, changes were suggested to the Spanish standard series patch testing. Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2% pet.), textile dye mixt (6.6% pet.), linalool hydroperoxide (1% pet.), and limonene hydroperoxide (0.3% pet.) were, then, added to the series that agreed upon in 2016. Ethyldiamine and phenoxyethanol were excluded. Methyldibromoglutaronitrile, the mixture of sesquiterpene lactones, and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene (Lyral) were alo added to the extended Spanish series of 2022.

Risk management of skin sensitisers: A commentary

Historically, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to chemicals encouraged hazard identification improvements, more sophisticated risk assessment and implementation of regulatory strategies, including banning of specific sensitising substances. The validation process applied to hazard identification methods demonstrates their accuracy; their use to characterise sensitiser potency facilitates quantitative and transparent risk assessment. Diagnostic patch testing at dermatology clinics worldwide delivers feedback showing where risk assessment/management has been insufficient or did not target the exposure of concern, thereby facilitating improvements. When urgent action to protect human health was required, regulations limited/banned, specific skin sensitisers. This can be seen in practice with the fragrance industry, a known source of ACD, thus requiring risk management, usually restrictions to limit allergy induction, and very rarely specific bans on ingredients. Experience and development of more sophisticated tools, e.g. to assess aggregate exposure from multitude of consumer product types, has led to repeated adaptation of risk assessment and promulgation of updated fragrance use limits. Although targeted control may not always lead to rapid change in the overall clinical picture, it is preferable to a blanket undifferentiated regulatory control of all sensitisers, resulting in unwarranted restrictions for many uses of no health concern, with consequent substantial socio-economic impacts.

The European baseline series and recommended additions: 2023

The European baseline series was last updated in 2019. This article discusses the reasoning behind a further iteration of the series for 2023.