Helene Süß1, Sabine Dölle-Bierke2, Johannes Geier3, Burkhard Kreft4, Eva Oppel5, Claudia Pföhler6, Christoph Skudlik7, Margitta Worm2, Vera Mahler1,8. 1. Department of Dermatology, Allergy Unit, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany. 2. Division of Allergology and Immunology, Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany. 3. Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), University Medicine Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany. 4. Department of Dermatology and Venereology, University Hospital Halle (Saale), Halle (Saale), Germany. 5. Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Hospital of Munich; Ludwig-Maximilian University Munich, Munich, Germany. 6. Department of Dermatology and Allergology, Saarland University Hospital, Homburg, Germany. 7. Institute for Interdisciplinary Dermatological Prevention and Rehabilitation (iDerm), University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany. 8. Division of Allergology, Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, Federal Institute for Vaccines and Biomedicines, Langen, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contact urticaria (CU) is an infrequent, mostly occupational disease that may be life-threatening (CU syndrome stage 4). OBJECTIVES: To identify the current frequency, elicitors and cofactors of CU. PATIENTS: Three cohorts were retrospectively analysed for CU: (a) patients from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) database (2000-2014; n = 159 947); (b) patients from an allergy unit (Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Erlangen, 2000-2015; n = 4741); and (c) patients from the Anaphylaxis Registry (2007-2015: 6365 reported cases, including 2473 patients with Ring and Messmer grade III-IV reactions) for severe cases with skin/mucosal manifestations occurring at the workplace vs cases not occurring at the workplace (n = 68 vs n = 1821). RESULTS: Four hundred and forty-eight CU patients (0.28%) were diagnosed in the IVDK cohort, and 16 (0.34%) (10 of immunological aetiology, and 6 of non-immunological aetiology) in the Erlangen cohort. The most frequent elicitors in the IVDK cohort were cosmetics, creams, sun protection agents (although these were less frequent in CU patients than in controls without CU; 26.8% vs 35.6%, P < .0001), and gloves (significantly more frequent in CU patients than in controls; 18.1% vs 6.5%, P < .0001). The most frequent elicitors in the Erlangen cohort were natural rubber latex and sorbic acid. Among the MOAHLFA index characteristics, in both cohorts occupational disease was more common in CU patients than in patients without CU. CU was significantly associated with allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma. Wet work was a relevant cofactor. In the Anaphylaxis Registry, 19 cases (0.3%) were identified with severe reactions including skin symptoms at the workplace linked to common occupational elicitors. CONCLUSIONS: CU is a rare occupational skin manifestation with a frequency of <0.4% in the examined patients; it may, however, progress to anaphylaxis. Preventive measures are important, and should take into account the identified elicitors and cofactors.
BACKGROUND: Contact urticaria (CU) is an infrequent, mostly occupational disease that may be life-threatening (CU syndrome stage 4). OBJECTIVES: To identify the current frequency, elicitors and cofactors of CU. PATIENTS: Three cohorts were retrospectively analysed for CU: (a) patients from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) database (2000-2014; n = 159 947); (b) patients from an allergy unit (Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Erlangen, 2000-2015; n = 4741); and (c) patients from the Anaphylaxis Registry (2007-2015: 6365 reported cases, including 2473 patients with Ring and Messmer grade III-IV reactions) for severe cases with skin/mucosal manifestations occurring at the workplace vs cases not occurring at the workplace (n = 68 vs n = 1821). RESULTS: Four hundred and forty-eight CUpatients (0.28%) were diagnosed in the IVDK cohort, and 16 (0.34%) (10 of immunological aetiology, and 6 of non-immunological aetiology) in the Erlangen cohort. The most frequent elicitors in the IVDK cohort were cosmetics, creams, sun protection agents (although these were less frequent in CUpatients than in controls without CU; 26.8% vs 35.6%, P < .0001), and gloves (significantly more frequent in CUpatients than in controls; 18.1% vs 6.5%, P < .0001). The most frequent elicitors in the Erlangen cohort were natural rubber latex and sorbic acid. Among the MOAHLFA index characteristics, in both cohorts occupational disease was more common in CUpatients than in patients without CU. CU was significantly associated with allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma. Wet work was a relevant cofactor. In the Anaphylaxis Registry, 19 cases (0.3%) were identified with severe reactions including skin symptoms at the workplace linked to common occupational elicitors. CONCLUSIONS:CU is a rare occupational skin manifestation with a frequency of <0.4% in the examined patients; it may, however, progress to anaphylaxis. Preventive measures are important, and should take into account the identified elicitors and cofactors.
Authors: Pamela L Scheinman; Marc Vocanson; Jacob P Thyssen; Jeanne Duus Johansen; Rosemary L Nixon; Kate Dear; Nina C Botto; Johanna Morot; Ari M Goldminz Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 52.329