MyMedR

Displaying all 7 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Bullous contact allergy from cinnamon

Goh CL, Ng SK

Derm Beruf Umwelt, 1988 Nov-Dec;36(6):186-7.
PMID: 3069433

A young Malay female presented with a bullous eruption as a manifestation of contact allergy to cinnamic aldehyde in cinnamon. The clinical and histological features resembled bullous pemphigoid but immunological markers for pemphigoid were absent. The patient responded to a short course of oral steroids. Contact allergy can mimic pemphigoid.

Matched MeSH terms: Dermatitis, Contact/etiology*
Fulltext An outbreak of dermatitis among stevodores

Phoon WH, Lee HS, Ho SF, Ngui SJ

Med J Malaysia, 1985 Sep;40(3):220-4.
PMID: 2948100

Cement is a common cause of dermatitis. Workers affected are usually those in cement factories and at building construction sites. Cement dermatitis among port-workers is not so commonly reported. This paper describes an outbreak of dermatitis among stevodores at a port handling cement. The cement was imported in bags, and because of breakage, there was much spillage. It was also hot and dusty inside the hatch of the ship, and some of the stevodores worked bare-bodied. Cases of dermatitis began to appear in January 1983 and reached a peak in April 1983, gradually subsiding over the next few months to August 1983. This coincided with the increased tonnage of cement handled at the port. A total of 33 stevodores were reported as having dermatitis over this period. Of the 15 cases examined, 13 had eczema, and in 19 the hands and wrists were affected. However, most of the cases had multiple site involvement, including the arms, legs and abdomen.
Samples of cement showed the presence of water-soluble chromium, varying from 9.9 to 17.8pg/g. As the stevodores were reluctant to go for skin patch-testing, only four were tested, but two did not return for the reading of the results. The other two were found to have a positive reaction to dichromates. The outbreak of dermatitis was probably due to several factors which are discussed.

Matched MeSH terms: Dermatitis, Contact/etiology*
Fulltext Hand eczema in Malaysians

Ting HC

Med J Malaysia, 1983 Dec;38(4):304-7.
PMID: 6599987

One-hundred-and-four patients unth. hand eczema were studied. The female to male ratio was 1.9:1 and peak incidence was in young adulthood. In females, housewives constituted the biggest group while in males, mechanics/engineers was the biggest group. 30% of the patients had contact sensitivity on patch testing to a standard series. Balsams, medicaments, rubber ingredients, nickel and formaldehyde were the common allergens. The contact sensitivity was considered relevant in 65% of cases.

Matched MeSH terms: Dermatitis, Contact/etiology
Fulltext Dermatitis caused by Paederus fuscipes Curtis, 1840 (Coleoptera: Staphilinidae) in student hostels in Selangor, Malaysia

Heo CC, Latif B, Hafiz WM, Zhou HZ

Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health, 2013 Mar;44(2):197-205.
PMID: 23691629

We report a series of dermatitis cases caused by the staphilinid beetles, Paederusfuscipes Curtis, among university students staying in the residential college in Puncak Alam, Selangor, Malaysia from 1 January to 31 December 2010. A total of 360 cases (6.0%) were recorded in the Student Health Center throughout the year; the majority of patients stayed at a hostel near an oil palm plantation. Skin symptoms included erythema, edema, vesicular papules, painful blisters, burning sensation, pruritus, hyper pigmentation and peeling of skin. The commonly involved sites were the face, neck, shoulders and arms. Most students noticed the symptoms upon awakening in the morning. The patients were treated with fusidic acid cream and the symptoms resolved within 5 days. These beetles are nocturnally active and enter the room whenever a light source is available. The unintentional crushing of these beetles during sleep causes the release of its hemolymph (paederin) which is the cause of the dermatitis.

Matched MeSH terms: Dermatitis, Contact/etiology*
Contact dermatitis from proprietary preparations in Malaysia

Nagreh DS

Int J Dermatol, 1976 1 1;15(1):34-5.
PMID: 1352
Matched MeSH terms: Dermatitis, Contact/etiology*
A clinical survey of paraquat formulation workers

Howard JK

Br J Ind Med, 1979 Aug;36(3):220-3.
PMID: 500781

A group of 18 male Caucasian workers from the United Kingdom and a further group of 18 male mixed race (mainly Malay) workers from Malaysia employed in the formulation of paraquat-based herbicides were examined for evidence of chronic ill health after long-term exposure to paraquat. Clinical records were examined, medical and occupational histories were obtained and a clinical examination, particularly of the skin, was undertaken. Skin rashes, nail damage and epistaxes were encountered by most workers as a result of direct contact of skin and mucous membranes with paraquat. These conditions subsided rapidly and no worker reported any sequelae. There was no clinical evidence of long-term effects on skin, mucous membranes or general health following exposure to paraquat over several years in these workers.

Matched MeSH terms: Dermatitis, Contact/etiology
Fulltext Antimicrobial dressings for the prevention of catheter-related infections in newborn infants with central venous catheters

Lai NM, Taylor JE, Tan K, Choo YM, Ahmad Kamar A, Muhamad NA

Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2016 Mar 23;3:CD011082.
PMID: 27007217 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011082.pub2

BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters (CVCs) provide secured venous access in neonates. Antimicrobial dressings applied over the CVC sites have been proposed to reduce catheter-related blood stream infection (CRBSI) by decreasing colonisation. However, there may be concerns on the local and systemic adverse effects of these dressings in neonates.
OBJECTIVES: We assessed the effectiveness and safety of antimicrobial (antiseptic or antibiotic) dressings in reducing CVC-related infections in newborn infants. Had there been relevant data, we would have evaluated the effects of antimicrobial dressings in different subgroups, including infants who received different types of CVCs, infants who required CVC for different durations, infants with CVCs with and without other antimicrobial modifications, and infants who received an antimicrobial dressing with and without a clearly defined co-intervention.
SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (EBCHOST), CINAHL and references cited in our short-listed articles using keywords and MeSH headings, up to September 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared an antimicrobial CVC dressing against no dressing or another dressing in newborn infants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of the CNRG. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using risk difference (RD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS: Out of 173 articles screened, three studies were included. There were two comparisons: chlorhexidine dressing following alcohol cleansing versus polyurethane dressing following povidone-iodine cleansing (one study); and silver-alginate patch versus control (two studies). A total of 855 infants from level III neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) were evaluated, 705 of whom were from a single study. All studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of care personnel or unclear risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessors. There was moderate-quality evidence for all major outcomes.The single study comparing chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing against polyurethane dressing/povidone-iodine cleansing showed no significant difference in the risk of CRBSI (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.65; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; 655 infants, moderate-quality evidence) and sepsis without a source (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.52; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; 705 infants, moderate-quality evidence). There was a significant reduction in the risk of catheter colonisation favouring chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing group (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86; RD -0.09, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.03; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 11, 95% CI 7 to 33; 655 infants, moderate-quality evidence). However, infants in the chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing group were significantly more likely to develop contact dermatitis, with 19 infants in the chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing group having developed contact dermatitis compared to none in the polyurethane dressing/povidone-iodine cleansing group (RR 43.06, 95% CI 2.61 to 710.44; RD 0.06, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.08; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 17, 95% CI 13 to 33; 705 infants, moderate-quality evidence). The roles of chlorhexidine dressing in the outcomes reported were unclear, as the two assigned groups received different co-interventions in the form of different skin cleansing agents prior to catheter insertion and during each dressing change.In the other comparison, silver-alginate patch versus control, the data for CRBSI were analysed separately in two subgroups as the two included studies reported the outcome using different denominators: one using infants and another using catheters. There were no significant differences between infants who received silver-alginate patch against infants who received standard line dressing in CRBSI, whether expressed as the number of infants (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.78; RD -0.12, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.09; 1 study, 50 participants, moderate-quality evidence) or as the number of catheters (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.89; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.10; 1 study, 118 participants, moderate-quality evidence). There was also no significant difference between the two groups in mortality (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.05; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.05; two studies, 150 infants, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). No adverse skin reaction was recorded in either group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on moderate-quality evidence, chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol skin cleansing reduced catheter colonisation, but made no significant difference in major outcomes like sepsis and CRBSI compared to polyurethane dressing/povidone-iodine cleansing. Chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing posed a substantial risk of contact dermatitis in preterm infants, although it was unclear whether this was contributed mainly by the dressing material or the cleansing agent. While silver-alginate patch appeared safe, evidence is still insufficient for a recommendation in practice. Future research that evaluates antimicrobial dressing should ensure blinding of caregivers and outcome assessors and ensure that all participants receive the same co-interventions, such as the skin cleansing agent. Major outcomes like sepsis, CRBSI and mortality should be assessed in infants of different gestation and birth weight.

Matched MeSH terms: Dermatitis, Contact/etiology