Jacob P. Thyssen

European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing – recommendations on best practice

The present guideline summarizes all aspects of patch testing for the diagnosis of contact allergy in patients suspected of suffering, or having been suffering, from allergic contact dermatitis or other delayed‐type hypersensitivity skin and mucosal conditions. Sections with brief descriptions and discussions of different pertinent topics are followed by a highlighted short practical recommendation. Topics comprise, after an introduction with important definitions, materials, technique, modifications of epicutaneous testing, individual factors influencing the patch test outcome or necessitating special considerations, children, patients with occupational contact dermatitis and drug eruptions as special groups, patch testing of materials brought in by the patient, adverse effects of patch testing, and the final evaluation and patient counselling based on this judgement. Finally, short reference is made to aspects of (continuing) medical education and to electronic collection of data for epidemiological surveillance.

The epidemiology of hand eczema in the general population: prevalence and main findings

Numerous studies have investigated the prevalence and risk factors of hand eczema in the general population. These studies are of high value as they tend to be less biased than studies using clinical populations and as they are important for healthcare decision makers when they allocate resources. This study aimed to review the epidemiology of hand eczema in the general population.

Metal Allergy—A Review on Exposures, Penetration, Genetics, Prevalence, and Clinical Implications

The prevalence of metal allergy is high in the general population, and it is estimated that up to 17% of women and 3% of men are allergic to nickel and that 1-3% are allergic to cobalt and chromium. Among dermatitis patients, the prevalence of metal allergy is even higher. Metal allergy is mainly an environmental disorder although null mutations in the filaggrin gene complex were recently found to be associated with nickel allergy and dermatitis. Environmental metal exposures include jewelry, buttons, clothing fasteners, dental restorations, mobile phones, and leather. Although consumer exposure is responsible for most cases of metal allergy, the importance of occupational metal exposure remains present and should always be taken into consideration when one interprets allergic patch test reactions to metals. Traditionally, nickel, cobalt, and chromium have been the most important contact allergens. However, recently, gold and palladium have drawn much attention as the prevalence of contact allergy to these metals is high. Palladium allergy is mainly a result of cross-sensitization to nickel, whereas gold allergy is rarely clinically relevant when one takes its high prevalence into account. The epidemiology of metal allergy has recently changed in Europe as nickel allergy among ear-pierced Danish women has decreased following regulatory intervention on nickel release from consumer products. In the United States, the prevalence of nickel allergy is still increasing, which may be explained by the absence of regulation. The prevalence of chromium allergy is increasing in the United States, Singapore, and Denmark among dermatitis patients. This increase is significantly associated with leather exposure in Denmark. Metal allergy may result in allergic contact dermatitis and systemic allergic (contact) dermatitis. Furthermore, metal allergy has been associated with device failure following insertion of intracoronary stents, hip and knee prostheses, as well as other implants. This area is in need of more research.

Causes of epidermal filaggrin reduction and their role in the pathogenesis of atopic dermatitis

The epidermis protects human subjects from exogenous stressors and helps to maintain internal fluid and electrolyte homeostasis. Filaggrin is a crucial epidermal protein that is important for the formation of the corneocyte, as well as the generation of its intracellular metabolites, which contribute to stratum corneum hydration and pH. The levels of filaggrin and its degradation products are influenced not only by the filaggrin genotype but also by inflammation and exogenous stressors. Pertinently, filaggrin deficiency is observed in patients with atopic dermatitis regardless of filaggrin mutation status, suggesting that the absence of filaggrin is a key factor in the pathogenesis of this skin condition. In this article we review the various causes of low filaggrin levels, centralizing the functional and morphologic role of a deficiency in filaggrin, its metabolites, or both in the etiopathogenesis of atopic dermatitis.

The association between null mutations in the filaggrin gene and contact sensitization to nickel and other chemicals in the general population

Background  It was recently shown that filaggrin gene (FLG) null mutations are positively associated with nickel sensitization. We have hypothesized that histidine‐rich filaggrin proteins in the epidermis chelate nickel ions and prevent their skin penetration and exposure to Langerhans cells. Furthermore, we have proposed that the low degree of genetic predisposition to nickel sensitization found by a Danish twin study was explained by a high prevalence of ear piercing among participants resulting in ‘bypassing’ of the filaggrin proteins.

Contact allergy epidemics and their controls

Contact dermatitis can be severe and lead to sick leave as well as significant healthcare expenses. The aim of this review is to present the published knowledge on 6 historical epidemics of contact allergy to apply this knowledge on the prevention and control of future contact allergy epidemics. A historical review is performed on nickel, chromium, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, methyldibromo glutaronitrile, formaldehyde, and para‐phenylenediamine. The first cases of contact dermatitis are mostly occupational, whereas consumer cases appear later. There is often a latency period from the first cases are observed until an epidemic occurs, and the problem is recognized. Finally, no one seems to take responsibility of dealing with the situation, and there are no attempts of regulation until an epidemic is consolidated among consumers for many years. Steps should be taken to prevent contact allergy epidemics. It is essential that dermatologist, scientists, administrators, and consumers organize and structure known methods to accelerate the control of emerging contact allergens.

The association between metal allergy, total hip arthroplasty, and revision

Background and purpose It has been speculated that the prevalence of metal allergy may be higher in patients with implant failure. We compared the prevalence and cause of revisions following total hip arthroplasty (THA) in dermatitis patients suspected to have contact allergy and in patients in general with THA. Furthermore, we compared the prevalence of metal allergy in dermatitis patients with and without THA. Materials and methods The Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry (DHAR) contained detailed information on 90,697 operations. The Gentofte patch-test database contained test results for patients suspected of having allergic contact dermatitis (n = 18,794). Cases (n = 356) were defined as patch-tested dermatitis patients who also had primary THA performed. Two age- and sex-matched controls (n = 712) from the patch-test database were sought for each case. Results The prevalence of revision was similar in cases (12%) and in patients from the DHAR (13%). The prevalence of metal allergy was similar in cases and controls. However, the prevalence of metal allergy was lower in cases who were patch-tested after operation (6%) than in those who were patch-tested before operation (16%) (OR = 2.9; 95% CI = 1–8). Interpretation We found that the risk of surgical revision was not increased in patients with metal allergies and that the risk of metal allergy was not increased in cases who were operated, in comparison to controls. Despite some important study limitations, our observations add to the evidence that the risk of complications in metal allergic patients seems limited.

Hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implants – diagnostic algorithm and suggested patch test series for clinical use

Cutaneous and systemic hypersensitivity reactions to implanted metals are challenging to evaluate and treat. Although they are uncommon, they do exist, and require appropriate and complete evaluation. This review summarizes the evidence regarding evaluation tools, especially patch and lymphocyte transformation tests, for hypersensitivity reactions to implanted metal devices. Patch test evaluation is the gold standard for metal hypersensitivity, although the results may be subjective. Regarding pre‐implant testing, those patients with a reported history of metal dermatitis should be evaluated by patch testing. Those without a history of dermatitis should not be tested unless considerable concern exists. Regarding post‐implant testing, a subset of patients with metal hypersensitivity may develop cutaneous or systemic reactions to implanted metals following implant. For symptomatic patients, a diagnostic algorithm to guide the selection of screening allergen series for patch testing is provided. At a minimum, an extended baseline screening series and metal screening is necessary. Static and dynamic orthopaedic implants, intravascular stent devices, implanted defibrillators and dental and gynaecological devices are considered. Basic management suggestions are provided. Our goal is to provide a comprehensive reference for use by those evaluating suspected cutaneous and systemic metal hypersensitivity reactions.

Pragmatic approach to the clinical work-up of patients with putative allergic disease to metallic orthopaedic implants before and after surgery

Allergic complications following insertion of metallic orthopaedic implants include allergic dermatitis reactions but also extracutaneous complications. As metal‐allergic patients and/or surgeons may ask dermatologists and allergologists for advice prior to planned orthopaedic implant surgery, and as surgeons may refer patients with complications following total joint arthroplasty for diagnostic work‐up, there is a continuous need for updated guidelines. This review presents published evidence for patch testing prior to surgery and proposes tentative diagnostic criteria which clinicians can rely on in the work‐up of patients with putative allergic complications following surgery. Few studies have investigated whether subjects with metal contact allergy have increased risk of developing complications following orthopaedic implant insertion. Metal allergy might in a minority increase the risk of complications caused by a delayed‐type hypersensitivity reaction. At present, we do not know how to identify the subgroups of metal contact allergic patients with a potentially increased risk of complications following insertion of a metal implant. We recommend that clinicians should refrain from routine patch testing prior to surgery unless the patient has already had implant surgery with complications suspected to be allergic or has a history of clinical metal intolerance of sufficient magnitude to be of concern to the patient or a health provider. The clinical work‐up of a patient suspected of having an allergic reaction to a metal implant should include patch testing and possibly in vitro testing. We propose diagnostic criteria for allergic dermatitis reactions as well as noneczematous complications caused by metal implants.

Contact allergy to allergens of the TRUE-test (panels 1 and 2) has decreased modestly in the general population.

Summary Background  The prevalence of contact allergy in the general population is nearly 20%.