Displaying all 12 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Goh CF, Ming LC, Wong LC
    Clin Dermatol, 2021;39(2):314-322.
    PMID: 34272029 DOI: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2020.09.005
    Infection preventive practice of using disinfectants against SARS-CoV-2 has become the new normal due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although disinfectants may not be applied directly to the human body, it remains at high risk of exposure including close skin contact on disinfected surfaces or during handling. This dermal contact, on a regular basis, can induce hazardous skin reactions like irritation, inflammation, and burning in severe conditions. Disinfectants are germicide chemicals that can penetrate the skin and create skin reactions that are usually regarded as irritant and allergic contact dermatitis. More importantly, disinfectants can react with skin components (proteins and lipids) to facilitate their skin penetration and disrupt the skin barrier function. Whereas the antimicrobial actions of disinfectants are well understood, much less is known regarding their dermatologic reactions, including but not limited to irritation and hypersensitivity. We reviewed the skin reactions created by those disinfectants against SARS-CoV-2 approved by the European Chemical Agency and the US Environmental Protection Agency.
    Matched MeSH terms: Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology*
  2. Shafinaz, S., Chan, L.C., Adawiyah, J., Norazirah, M.N.
    Medicine & Health, 2018;13(1):71-76.
    MyJurnal
    Discontinuing antihistamines for patch testing (PT) in allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is more conventional than evidence based. Data suggests that non-sedating antihistamines do not interfere with PT. Investigating the effects of sedating antihistamines are more relevant as these are recommended for eczema. We aimed to evaluate the effect of chlorpheniramine on PT, to determine the prevalence of nickel sensitization and common sensitizing allergens. An open labeled cohort study was conducted at two dermatology clinics. Patients indicated for PT underwent standard protocol where antihistamines were discontinued. Patients sensitised to nickel were subjected to a second nickel PT while taking chlorpheniramine. Results were evaluated using the North American Contact Dermatitis Research Group (NACDRG) score, a Mexameter measured erythema and pruritus was assessed using a visual analogue score. A total 82 patients were recruited, 28 (34.1%) were sensitised to nickel. The mean age was 40 ± 17.7 years with 22(26.8%) males and 60 (73.2%) females. Indications for PT included suspected ACD (57.3%), hand and feet eczema (34.1%) and severe eczema with suspected superimposed ACD (6.1%). The commonest sensitizing allergens were methyldibromoglutaronitrile (40.2%) nickel sulphate (34.1%), potassium dichromate (29.3%) and formaldehyde (24.4%). A second PT was performed on 23 patients. There was no difference in the NACDRG score with chlorpheniramine or without chlorpheniramine (p=0.968). Pruritus score was reduced by 1.39 ± 2.9, p=0.031 with chlorpheniramine. The degree of erythema was 611.46 ± 21.59 with chlorpheniramine versus 613.87 ± 27.5 without chlorpheniramine, p=0.671. Chlorpheniramine did not affect PT based on clinical and objective scorings. It has the additional benefit of reducing test-induced itch.
    Study site: Dermatology clinics, Pusat Perubatan Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (PPUKM), Kuala Lumpur and Hospital Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
    Matched MeSH terms: Dermatitis, Allergic Contact*
  3. How KN, Tang MM, Kaur R, Johar A
    Med J Malaysia, 2017 04;72(2):113-118.
    PMID: 28473674 MyJurnal
    BACKGROUND: The pattern of contact sensitisation should be monitored in order to detect the changing trend of sensitising allergens. We aim to evaluate contact sensitisation in adults suspected to have allergic contact dermatitis.

    METHODS: This is a five-year retrospective review on contact sensitisation in adults patch-tested with the European Standard and extended series between 2011 and 2015 in the Department of Dermatology, Hospital Kuala Lumpur.

    RESULTS: There were 689 adults (M:F= 1:2.04; mean age 40.5 years) who were patch-tested. The majority (175, 25.4%) were white collar workers and 118 (17.1%) were healthcare workers. The provisional diagnoses of patients included contact dermatitis (80.8%); endogenous eczema (7.9%); hand eczema (3.2%); hand and foot eczema (3.5%); foot eczema (1.4%) and photodermatitis (1.2%). The allergens selected for testing were based on past and present history of exposure. Almost all (688, 99.8%) were patch-tested with the European standard allergens and 466 (67.6%) were tested with the extended series. About three quarter (528, 76.6%) developed at least one positive reaction. The top five most frequent reactions were to nickel sulphate (35.3%); potassium dichromate (16.5%); methylchloroisothiazolinone (12.9%), fragrance mix I (12.6%), and cobalt chloride (10.2%). The commonest sensitisations identified in the extended series were palladium chloride (23/105, 21.9%), stannous chloride (18/85, 21.2%), miconazole (7/44, 15.9%), gold(I)sodium thiosulfate (16/105, 15.2%) and thimerosal (29/202, 14.4%).

    CONCLUSION: Contact sensitisation was detected in 76.6% of adults patch-tested. Nickel sulphate was found to be the most frequently sensitising allergen. The rising prevalence of methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone sensitization poses significant concern.

    Matched MeSH terms: Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology*
  4. Chung LY
    Contact Derm., 2005 Mar;52(3):170-1.
    PMID: 15811043
    Matched MeSH terms: Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology*; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/metabolism
  5. Chaubal TV, Bapat RA, Bapat PR
    Contact Derm., 2017 Nov;77(5):325-326.
    PMID: 29063688 DOI: 10.1111/cod.12819
    Matched MeSH terms: Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis*; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology
  6. Chaubal TV, Bapat RA, Shetty D
    Contact Derm., 2017 Oct;77(4):251-252.
    PMID: 28872204 DOI: 10.1111/cod.12794
    Matched MeSH terms: Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis*; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology
  7. Shah V, Chaubal TV, Bapat RA, Shetty D
    Contact Derm., 2017 Dec;77(6):407-408.
    PMID: 29164691 DOI: 10.1111/cod.12779
    Matched MeSH terms: Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis*; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology
  8. Chaubal TV, Bapat RA, Patil PG, Shetty A
    Contact Derm., 2016 Oct;75(4):256-7.
    PMID: 27620128 DOI: 10.1111/cod.12625
    Matched MeSH terms: Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology*
  9. Mohamed KB
    Contact Derm., 1998 Apr;38(4):224-5.
    PMID: 9565305
    Matched MeSH terms: Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology*
  10. Kurup VP, Kelly KJ, Turjanmaa K, Alenius H, Reunala T, Palosuo T, et al.
    J Allergy Clin Immunol, 1993 Jun;91(6):1128-34.
    PMID: 8509575
    BACKGROUND: Patients with latex sensitivity and latex antigens from the United States and Finland, two countries where allergic reactions to latex have been widely reported, were evaluated to determine the spectrum of immune responses.

    METHODS: Sera from 27 patients from Finland and 18 from the United States with latex allergy and control sera from nonsensitive individuals were studied for latex-specific IgE antibodies. Four antigen preparations were used: two extracted from gloves and one each extracted from rubber tree sap from Malaysia and India. All 45 patients had skin prick test results that were positive to latex antigens, and all sera were evaluated by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) with the various antigens.

    RESULTS: There were considerable differences in the reactivity of patient sera with the different antigens. Only 50% of the sera from patients with latex allergy from Finland demonstrated significant levels of IgE to latex as determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. These patients showed more reactivity with rubber tree sap antigens than with glove antigens. However, 72% of the patients from the United States demonstrated antibodies to latex, and no marked differences were noted between the antigen extracts.

    CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that reagents such as rubber tree sap, which contain multiple clinically significant antigenic components, should be included in evaluation of latex allergy and that differences in patient populations may result in serologic variances.

    Matched MeSH terms: Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/immunology*
  11. Yap FBB
    Dermatitis, 2010 May-Jun;21(3):179-81.
    PMID: 20487668
    Matched MeSH terms: Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology*
  12. Leelavathi M, Le Y, Tohid H, Hasliza A
    Asia Pac Fam Med, 2011 May 15;10(1):6.
    PMID: 21575147 DOI: 10.1186/1447-056X-10-6
    Topical antiseptics are commonly used in the management of minor wounds, burns, and infected skin. These agents are widely used by health professionals and are often self-prescribed by patients as they are easily available over-the-counter. This case illustrates a 73 year old man who presented with a non-healing wound on his right forearm for 4 weeks. The wound started from an insect bite and progressively enlarged with increasing pruritus and burning sensation. Clinically an ill-defined ulcer with surrounding erythema and erosion was noted. There was a yellow crust overlying the center of the ulcer and the periphery was scaly. Further inquiry revealed history of self treatment with a yellow solution to clean his wound for 3 weeks. Patient was provisionally diagnosed to have allergic contact dermatitis secondary to acriflavine. Topical acriflavine was stopped and the ulcer resolved after treatment with non-occlusive saline dressing. Skin patch test which is the gold standard for detection and confirmation of contact dermatitis showed a positive reaction (2+) to acriflavine. Acriflavine is widely used as a topical antiseptic agent in this part of the world. Hence, primary care physicians managing a large variety of poorly healing wounds should consider the possibility of contact allergy in recalcitrant cases, not responding to conventional treatment. Patient education is an important aspect of management as this would help curb the incidence of future contact allergies.
    Matched MeSH terms: Dermatitis, Allergic Contact
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links