Carba mix (CM, 3% petrolatum) contains 1,3-diphenylguanidine (DPG, 1%), zinc diethyldithiocarbamate (1%), and zinc dibutyldithiocarbamate (1%). Because DPG is a component of CM, DPG is often not tested separately. The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency of concomitant reactions to CM and DPG.
Methods
A retrospective analysis of the 2013–2016 North American Contact Dermatitis Group data was conducted. The study group consisted of patients with final interpretation of “allergic” to either DPG or CM. Reactions coded as irritant or doubtful/macular erythema (+/− and not interpreted as allergic) were excluded.
Results
A total of 10,457 patients were patch tested to both CM and DPG, and 610 (5.8%) had allergic reactions to either CM or DPG (CM only [n = 292, 47.9%], DPG only [n = 190, 31.1%], both [n = 128, 21.0%]). A total of 39.4% of CM-allergic patients reacted to DPG, and 59.7% of DPG-allergic patients reacted to CM. Analyses found that 25% (++/+++ subgroup) to 40% (all patients) of allergic reactions to DPG would have been missed by testing to CM alone. More than 70% of reactions to CM and DPG were +/− or +.
Conclusions
Patch testing to CM will miss 25% to 40% of positive reactions to DPG. Both CM and DPG have a high frequency of +/− and + reactions.
WarshawEM, RajuS, DeKovenJG, et al.Positive patch test reactions to carba mix and iodopropynyl butylcarbamate: data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 1998–2008. Dermatitis, 2013; 24(5):241–245.
4.
FanJ, WeiY, WangJ, et al.Study of molecularly imprinted solid-phase extraction of diphenylguanidine and its structural analogs. Anal Chim Acta, 2009; 639(1–2):42–50.
5.
KoëterHBWM, RégnierJF, van MarwijkMW. Effect of oral administration of 1,3-diphenylguanidine on sperm morphology and male fertility in mice. Toxicology, 1992; 71(1–2):173–179.
6.
PonténA, HamneriusN, BruzeM, et al.Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by sterile non-latex protective gloves: clinical investigation and chemical analyses. Contact Dermatitis, 2013; 68(2):103–110.
MortzCG, JensenE, MadsenJT, et al.Should carba mix be reintroduced into the European Baseline Series?. Contact Dermatitis, 2016; 75(1):48–50.
12.
Aalto-KorteK, PesonenM. Patterns of simultaneous patch test reactions to thiurams and dithiocarbamates in 164 patients. Contact Dermatitis, 2016; 75(6):353–357.
13.
UterW, WarburtonK, WeisshaarE, et al.Patch test results with rubber series in the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA), 2013/14. Contact Dermatitis, 2016; 75(6):345–352.
14.
SchalockPC, DunnickCA, NedorostS, et al.American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series: 2017 update. Dermatitis, 2017; 28(2):141–143.
15.
CaoLY, TaylorJS, SoodA, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis to synthetic rubber gloves. Arch Dermatol, 2010; 146(9):1001–1007.
16.
DejonckheereG, HermanA, BaeckM. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by synthetic rubber gloves in healthcare workers: sensitization to 1,3-diphenylguanidine is common. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 81:167–173.
17.
BendewaldMJ, FarmerSA, DavisMD. An 8-year retrospective review of patch testing with rubber allergens: the Mayo Clinic experience. Dermatitis, 2010; 21(1):33–40.
18.
BaeckM, CawetB, TennstedtD, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis caused by latex (natural rubber)-free gloves in healthcare workers. Contact Dermatitis, 2013; 68(1):54–55.
19.
WarshawEM, ZhangAJ, BelsitoDV, et al.Patients with negative patch tests: retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) data 2001-2016. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2019; 80(6):1618–1629.
20.
WarshawEM, NelsenDD, SassevilleD, et al.Positivity ratio and reaction index: patch-test quality-control metrics applied to the North American Contact Dermatitis Group database. Dermatitis, 2010; 21(2):91–97.
21.
GeierJ, UterW, LessmannH, et al.The positivity ratio—another parameter to assess the diagnostic quality of a patch test preparation. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 48(5):280–282.
22.
BraschJ, HenselerT. The reaction index: a parameter to assess the quality of patch test preparations. Contact Dermatitis, 1992; 27(3):203–204.
23.
WarburtonKL, BauerA, ChowdhuryMM, et al.ESSCA results with the baseline series, 2009–2012: rubber allergens. Contact Dermatitis, 2015; 73(5):305–312.
24.
MowitzM, SvedmanC, ZimersonE, et al.Simultaneous patch testing with fragrance mix I, fragrance mix II and their ingredients in southern Sweden between 2009 and 2015. Contact Dermatitis, 2017; 77(5):280–287.
25.
UenoK, ImamuraT.Non-coordinating reagents. In: CRC Handbook of Organic Analytical Reagents. 2nd ed. CRC Press (New York: Taylor & Francis Group); 2019:567.
26.
PaulsenE, AndersenKE, HausenBM. Compositae dermatitis in a Danish dermatology department in one year. Contact Dermatitis, 1993; 29(1):6–10.
27.
MitchellJ, ClendenningWE, CroninE, et al.Patch testing with mercaptobenzothiazole and mercapto mix. Contact Dermatitis, 1978; 4:123.
28.
GollhausenR, PrzybillaB, RingJ. Reproducibility of patch test results: comparison of TRUE Test and Finn Chamber test results. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1989; 21(4):843–846.
29.
BraschJ, HenselerT, AbererW, et al.Reproducibility of patch tests. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1994; 31(4):584–591.
30.
BourkeJF, BattaK, PraisL, et al.The reproducibility of patch tests. Br J Dermatol, 1999; 140(1):102–105.
31.
LindelöfB.A left versus right side comparative study of Finn Chamber™ patch tests in 220 consecutive patients. Contact Dermatitis, 1990; 22(5):288–289.
32.
BousemaMT, GeursenAM, JoostT. High reproducibility of patch tests. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1991; 24(2):322.
33.
BjörkAK, BruzeM, EngfeldtM, et al.The reactivity of the back revisited. Are there differences in reactivity in different parts of the back?Contact Dermatitis, 2017; 76(1):19–26.
34.
HamneriusN, SvedmanC, BergendorffO, et al.Hand eczema and occupational contact allergies in healthcare workers with a focus on rubber additives. Contact Dermatitis, 2018; 79(3):149–156.
35.
AndersenKE, BurrowsD, CroninE, et al.Recommended changes to standard series. Contact Dermatitis, 1988; 19(5):389–390.
GeierJ, LessmannH, UterW, et alInformation Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK). Occupational rubber glove allergy: results of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 1995–2001. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 48(1):39–44.
38.
GeierJ, LessmannH, MahlerV, et al.Occupational contact allergy caused by rubber gloves—nothing has changed. Contact Dermatitis, 2012; 67(3):149–156.
39.
JohansenJD, Aalto-KorteK, AgnerT, et al.European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing—recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis, 2015; 73(4):195–221.
40.
KershAE, HelmsS, De La FeldS. Glove-related allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatitis, 2018; 29(1):13–21.
CrepyMN.Rubber: new allergens and preventive measures. Eur J Dermatol, 2016; 26(6):523–530.
43.
PiskinG, MeijsMM, Van Der HamR, et al.Glove allergy due to 1,3-diphenylguanidine. Contact Dermatitis, 2006; 54(1):61–62.
44.
GoodierMC, RonkainenSD, HylwaSA. Rubber accelerators in medical examination and surgical gloves. Dermatitis, 2018; 29(2):66–76.
45.
HamneriusN, PonténA, BjörkJ, et al.Skin exposure to the rubber accelerator diphenylguanidine in medical gloves—an experimental study. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 81(1):9–16.
