Haudrey Assier1, Florence Tetart2, Martine Avenel-Audran3, Annick Barbaud4, Marie-Christine Ferrier-le Bouëdec5, Françoise Giordano-Labadie6, Brigitte Milpied7, Emmanuelle Amsler4, Evelyne Collet8, Pascal Girardin9, Angèle Soria4, Julie Waton10, François Truchetet11, Jean-Luc Bourrain12, Gwendeline Gener1, Claire Bernier13, Nadia Raison-Peyron12. 1. Department of Dermatology, CHU Henri-Mondor, Créteil, France. 2. Department of Dermatology, CHU Rouen, Rouen, France. 3. Department of Dermatology, CHU Angers, Angers, France. 4. Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, AP-HP, Paris, France. 5. Department of Dermatology, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 6. Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Larrey, CHU Toulouse, Toulouse, France. 7. Department of Dermatology, Hôpital St André, Bordeaux, France. 8. Department of Dermatology, Hôpital le Bocage, Dijon, France. 9. Department of Dermatology, CHRU Besancon, Besançon, France. 10. Department of Dermatology, CHRU Nancy, Nancy, France. 11. Department of Dermatology, CHR Metz-Thionville, Thionville, France. 12. Department of Dermatology, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France. 13. Department of Dermatology, CHU Nantes, Nantes, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eyelids are frequent sites of contact dermatitis. No prospective study focused on eyelid allergic contact dermatitis (EACD) has yet been published, and this topic has never been studied in French patients. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate the usefulness of an eyelid series in French patients patch tested because of EACD, and to describe these patients. METHODS: We prospectively analysed standardized data for all patients referred to our departments between September 2014 and August 2016 for patch testing for suspected EACD as the main reason. All patients were patch tested with an eyelid series, the European baseline series (EBS), the French additional series, and their personal products. Patch testing with additional series and repeated open application tests (ROATs) or open tests were performed if necessary. A standardized assessment of the relevance was used, and the analysis of the results was focused on patients having positive test results with a current certain relevance. RESULTS: Two-hundred and sixty-four patients (238 women and 26 men) were included. Three-hundred and twenty-two tests gave positive results in 167 patients, 84 of whom had currently relevant reactions: 56 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the EBS, 16 had currently relevant positive test reactions to their personal products, 8 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the French additional series, and 4 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the eyelid series. Sixty-seven per cent of all relevant cases were related to cosmetic products. The most frequent allergens with current relevance were methylisothiazolinone (10.2%), fragrance mix I (3%), nickel (2.7%), hydroxyperoxides of linalool (2.7%) and limonene (2.3%), and Myroxylon pereirae (2.3%). Current atopic dermatitis was found in 9.5% of patients. The duration of dermatitis was shorter (23.2 vs 34.2 months; P = .035) in patients with currently relevant test reactions. The percentage of currently relevant tests remained the same when atopic patients or dermatitis localized only on the eyelids were taken into account. CONCLUSION: In French patients, testing for EACD with the extended baseline series and personal products, also including ROATs and use tests, appears to be adequate, considering the currently relevant positive test reactions. The regular addition of an eyelid series does not seem to be necessary.
BACKGROUND: Eyelids are frequent sites of contact dermatitis. No prospective study focused on eyelid allergic contact dermatitis (EACD) has yet been published, and this topic has never been studied in French patients. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate the usefulness of an eyelid series in French patients patch tested because of EACD, and to describe these patients. METHODS: We prospectively analysed standardized data for all patients referred to our departments between September 2014 and August 2016 for patch testing for suspected EACD as the main reason. All patients were patch tested with an eyelid series, the European baseline series (EBS), the French additional series, and their personal products. Patch testing with additional series and repeated open application tests (ROATs) or open tests were performed if necessary. A standardized assessment of the relevance was used, and the analysis of the results was focused on patients having positive test results with a current certain relevance. RESULTS: Two-hundred and sixty-four patients (238 women and 26 men) were included. Three-hundred and twenty-two tests gave positive results in 167 patients, 84 of whom had currently relevant reactions: 56 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the EBS, 16 had currently relevant positive test reactions to their personal products, 8 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the French additional series, and 4 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the eyelid series. Sixty-seven per cent of all relevant cases were related to cosmetic products. The most frequent allergens with current relevance were methylisothiazolinone (10.2%), fragrance mix I (3%), nickel (2.7%), hydroxyperoxides of linalool (2.7%) and limonene (2.3%), and Myroxylon pereirae (2.3%). Current atopic dermatitis was found in 9.5% of patients. The duration of dermatitis was shorter (23.2 vs 34.2 months; P = .035) in patients with currently relevant test reactions. The percentage of currently relevant tests remained the same when atopicpatients or dermatitis localized only on the eyelids were taken into account. CONCLUSION: In French patients, testing for EACD with the extended baseline series and personal products, also including ROATs and use tests, appears to be adequate, considering the currently relevant positive test reactions. The regular addition of an eyelid series does not seem to be necessary.
Authors: Wolfgang Uter; Thomas Werfel; Jean-Pierre Lepoittevin; Ian R White Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 3.390