Systemic allergic contact dermatitis due to ethylenediamine following administration of oral aminophylline

Systemic allergic dermatitis (systemic contact dermatitis) from pharmaceutical drugs: A review

The literature on systemic allergic dermatitis (SAD; also known as systemic contact dermatitis) is reviewed. Both topical drugs (from absorption through mucosae or skin) and systemic drugs (oral, parenteral, rectal) may be responsible for the disorder. The topical route appears to be rare with 41 culprit topical drugs found to cause SAD in 95 patients. Most reactions are caused by budesonide (especially from inhalation), bufexamac, and dibucaine. SAD from systemic drugs is infrequent with 95 culprit drugs found to cause SAD in 240 patients. The drugs most frequently implicated are mitomycin C, methylprednisolone (salt, ester), and hydrocortisone (salt). The largest group of culprit drugs consisted of corticosteroids (19%), being responsible for >30% of the reactions, of which nearly 40% were not caused by therapeutic drugs, but by drug provocation tests. The most frequent manifestations of SAD from drugs are eczematous eruptions (scattered, widespread, generalized, worsening, reactivation), maculopapular eruptions, symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE [baboon syndrome]) and widespread erythema or erythroderma. Therapeutic systemic drugs hardly ever cause reactivation of previously positive patch tests and infrequently of previous allergic contact dermatitis. The pathophysiology of SAD has received very little attention. Explanations for the rarity of SAD are suggested.

Occupational rhinitis and asthma due to EDTA-containing detergents or disinfectants

BACKGROUND

Detergents and disinfectants are an emerging cause of work-related rhinitis and asthma. These products may contain ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA). The authors report 10 cases of EDTA-related asthma and/or rhinitis.

METHODS

Review of the medical charts of patients who presented with work-related rhinitis (alone or with asthma), with a history of exposure to aerosols of EDTA-containing products and who underwent a nasal provocation test (NPT) with tetrasodium EDTA (1-4%) in our occupational health unit.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients underwent a NPT with EDTA, which was positive in 10 cases. These patients, mostly cleaners or healthcare workers, used spray formulations of cleaning products.

CONCLUSIONS

This case series is the first report of EDTA-related respiratory disease, documented by a specific test. An irritant mechanism is unlikely. Further studies are required to distinguish between an immunoallergic response and a pharmacological mechanism possibly resulting from calcium chelation, as suggested by animal experiments. A ban of spray preparations would be sufficient to prevent respiratory disease induced by EDTA inhalation, regardless of its mechanism.

Systemic contact dermatitis in children: how an avoidance diet can make a difference

Systemic contact dermatitis is an under-recognized skin reaction that occurs secondary to systemic (oral, intravenous, intramuscular, inhaled, or subcutaneous) exposure to a hapten in a previously sensitized individual. Medicaments are the most common cause of SCD in the adult population, but other chemicals like nickel, cobalt, balsam of Peru, and formaldehyde have been implicated as well. Few reports in children exist to date. Dietary restriction has shown to be of some benefit in managing some adult patients. We present a case series of 8 pediatric patients diagnosed with SCD from the contact dermatology clinic, who showed marked improvement of their dermatitis after adequate dietary avoidance. We review common presentations of chemicals causing SCD in children and potential dietary modifications.

A systematic approach to systemic contact dermatitis and symmetric drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE): a closer look at these conditions and an approach to intertriginous eruptions

Systemic contact dermatitis is a condition that occurs when an individual sensitized to a contact allergen is exposed to that same allergen or a cross-reacting molecule through a systemic route. Systemic exposure to allergens can include transcutaneous, transmucosal, oral, intravenous, intramuscular, and inhalational routes. Baboon syndrome is perhaps the most recognizable form of systemic contact dermatitis, presenting with diffuse, well demarcated erythema of the buttocks, upper inner thighs, and axillae. Other forms of systemic contact dermatitis include dermatitis at sites of previous exposure to the allergen such as at a previous site of dermatitis or at sites of previous positive patch tests, dyshidrotic hand eczema, flexural dermatitis, exanthematous rash, erythroderma, and vasculitis-like lesions. The most common causes of systemic contact dermatitis consist of three groups of allergens: (i) metals including mercury, nickel, and gold; (ii) medications including aminoglycoside antibacterials, corticosteroids, and aminophylline; and (iii) plants and herbal products including the Compositae and Anacardiaceae plant families and Balsam of Peru. Baboon syndrome caused by systemic medications without a known history of previous cutaneous sensitization in the patient has been termed drug-related baboon syndrome (DRBS) or symmetric drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE). Criteria for SDRIFE include exposure to systemic drug at first or repeated dose, erythema of the gluteal/perianal area and/or V-shaped erythema of the inguinal area, involvement of at least one other intertriginous localization, symmetry of affected areas, and absence of systemic toxicity. The most common causes are aminopenicillins, β-lactam antibacterials, and certain chemotherapeutic agents, though the list of etiologic agents continues to grow. Baboon syndrome and SDRIFE should be strongly considered in a patient presenting with a symmetric intertriginous eruption involving multiple body folds. With the knowledge of the most frequent causes of these conditions, a detailed history and review of exposures will guide the clinician in the search for the most likely etiologic agent.

Severe adverse cutaneous reaction to insulin due to cresol sensitivity

We present the case of an 80-year-old lady known to be sensitive to chlorocresol (4-chloro-3-methyl phenol) who developed severe erythrodermic exfoliative dermatitis with atypical features 2 weeks after commencing subcutaneous insulin. All medications except insulin were stopped, without major improvement. It was noted that the insulin contained m-cresol (m-methyl phenol) so a parabens-based insulin was substituted. There was a significant improvement in her clinical condition within 72 hr. Further patch and intradermal testing to the insulin and m-cresol was planned, but she developed a nosocomial infection and died. We hypothesize that the adverse cutaneous reaction was a systemic manifestation of cresol sensitivity, given the rapid clinical resolution on changing insulins and the previously demonstrated sensitivity to chlorocresol, particularly as cross-reactivity between different low molecular weight methyl phenols is documented. Local injection site reactions and systemic side-effects including nausea, diarrhoea and vomiting have previously been reported with cresol-containing insulins, although to our knowledge, this is the first reported case of a severe cutaneous reaction. It is important to be aware of m-cresol as a potential allergen, as it is contained in most commercially available insulins.