Dermatitis®

Rubber accelerators play a significant role in glove-related occupational contact dermatitis, especially among health care workers. Currently, there is limited information readily available outlining the accelerators used in specific medical examination and surgical gloves.

The aim of this study was to ascertain the accelerators used in medical examination and surgical gloves for major glove manufacturers within the United States.

An initial Internet-based search was performed to establish relevant manufacturers and product lines, with subsequent inquiry with each corresponding company regarding accelerators used in each medical and surgical glove line.

Eleven glove manufacturers were identified and contacted. Responses were obtained from all manufacturers, but because of legal limitations, changes in product lines, or inability to supply necessary data, only 8 companies were able to be included in the final analysis, totaling data for 190 gloves. Carbamates were the most common accelerator, used in 90.5% (172/190) of gloves, whereas thiurams were used in only 11 gloves (5.8%). Eight companies surveyed are now advertising and offering touted accelerator-free gloves.

Accelerators are used in most examination and surgical gloves; however, manufacturers are now expanding their product offerings to include accelerator-free options.

Sensitivity to methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/methylisothiazolinone (MI) has increased rapidly over recent years. This increase is mainly related to the extensive use of high concentrations of MI in cosmetic products, although a growing number of cases of occupational allergic contact dermatitis are caused by MCI/MI.

The aim of this study was to examine the association between the increase in MCI/MI sensitization and the work performed by the patients in our area.

A retrospective study was undertaken of the records of a total of 1179 patients who had undergone contact skin patch tests for MCI/MI from January 2005 to December 2015. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the factors independently associated with sensitivity to MCI/MI.

A constant increase in MCI/MI sensitization was observed over the observation period. The only work associated with a significant increase in the prevalence of MCI/MI sensitization was cleaning, with 38.5% of the cleaning professionals with MCI/MI sensitization consulting for cosmetics-related dermatitis.

Occupational sensitization to MCI/MI in cleaning professionals is worryingly increasing. This, in turn, could possibly account for many cases of cosmetics-associated contact dermatitis. Our findings suggest that a review of the regulations with regard to isothiazolinone concentrations in industrial and household detergents is necessary.

Personal care products marketed for babies and children are often regarded as “safe” or “gentle.” However, little is known about the prevalence of contact allergens in these types of products.

This study assessed the prevalence of important sensitizers in personal care products marketed for babies and children. A secondary objective of this study was to determine whether a product's cost correlates with content of sensitizing ingredients.

The ingredient lists of 533 unique personal care products were analyzed for presence of fragrance, betaines, propylene glycol, methylchloroisothiazolinone, methylisothiazolinone, formaldehyde, lanolin, and neomycin. Price per ounce was determined for each product as well.

Most personal care products for babies and children contain 1 or more sensitizers. Products containing more sensitizers tend to cost less than those without any sensitizing ingredients.

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) remains a significant burden of disease in the United States. Patch testing is the criterion standard for diagnosing ACD, but its use may be limited by reimbursement challenges.

This study aimed to assess the current rate of patch test utilization among dermatologists in academic, group, or private practice settings to understand different patch testing business models that address these reimbursement challenges.

All members of the American Contact Dermatitis Society received an online survey regarding their experiences with patch testing and reimbursement.

A “yes” response was received from 28% of survey participants to the question, “Are you or have you been less inclined to administer patch tests or see patients needing patch tests due to challenges with receiving compensation for patch testing?” The most commonly reported barriers include inadequate insurance reimbursement and lack of departmental support.

Compensation challenges to patch testing limit patient access to appropriate diagnosis and management of ACD. This can be addressed through a variety of innovative business models, including raising patch testing caps, negotiating relative value unit compensation, using a fixed salary model with directorship support from the hospital, and raising the percentages of collection reimbursement for physicians.