
Research article
Select search scope: search across all journals or within the current journal






We are entering a new stage of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic with the initiation of large-scale vaccination programs globally. In these circumstances, even rare adverse effects of vaccines may be encountered more often, if millions of people are to be vaccinated in a short period. Vaccination has the potential for causing cutaneous adverse effects. Thus, it is paramount that dermatologists worldwide are acquainted with the possible skin reaction patterns to the coming vaccines. Herein, we conduct a review to discuss the most frequent cutaneous adverse effects of vaccines and their management, with a particular focus on the expected adverse reactions for the coming severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccines, such as local reactions, as well as immediate- and delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions, including erythema multiforme, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrosis, serum sickness–like reactions, and vasculitides. We also discuss the yet unanswered questions on vaccines for which we may soon be asked to provide an expert opinion.
Phytophotodermatitis is a cutaneous reaction that occurs after exposure to plant-derived furocoumarins and ultraviolet A light. Psoralen is the most common phototoxic furocoumarin and is present in varying levels within many different plant species. This article focuses on the diagnosis and management of psoralen-induced phytophotodermatitis along with other clinical applications.
This systematic review summarizes characteristics and treatment outcomes of dental amalgam–associated oral lichenoid lesions (OLLs) and oral lichen planus (OLP). Embase and MEDLINE were searched for original studies on OLLs or OLP associated with dental amalgam. Data extraction was completed from 44 studies representing 1855 patients. Removal of amalgam restorations led to complete resolution in 54.2% (n = 423/781), partial resolution in 34.8% (n = 272/781), and no resolution in 11.0% (n = 86/781) of the patients with OLLs, whereas complete resolution occurred in 37.1% (n = 72/194), partial resolution in 26.3% (n = 51/194), and no resolution in 36.6% (n = 71/194) of the patients with OLP. For patients with OLLs, 91.6% of the patients with positive patch tests and 82.9% with negative patch tests had improvement with removal of amalgam, whereas for patients with OLP, 89.2% of the patients with positive patch tests and 78.9% with negative patch tests had improvement with removal of amalgam. Our results suggest improvement occurs, regardless of patch testing status.
Health care workers with occupational contact dermatitis often attribute their symptoms to frequent use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers. However, ingredient lists are difficult to obtain, and safe alternatives typically must accommodate brands utilized by a particular hospital system.
The aims of this study were to investigate allergenic ingredients present within health care hand sanitizers and to provide a comprehensive product list to assist with allergen avoidance.
Five major hospitals in Minnesota and 20 hospitals across the United States were called to obtain a product list. The National Library of Medicine's DailyMed Web site was searched to retrieve ingredients. Ingredients were compared with the American Contact Dermatitis Society 2017 Core Allergen Series and cross-reactors.
The most common brands included Purell, Ecolab, DebMed, and Avagard. Active ingredients consisted of ethyl alcohol (85.0%), benzalkonium chloride (8.8%), or isopropyl alcohol (2.5%). Top 5 allergens included tocopherol (51.3%), fragrance (40.0%), propylene glycol (27.5%), benzoates (25.0%), and cetyl stearyl alcohol (12.5%). Four sanitizers were free of all American Contact Dermatitis Society allergens; 15 products contained only tocopherol or propylene glycol as allergens.
We identified 19 low-allergen hand sanitizers within the most common brands utilized by US hospital systems. This product list will be useful for patients and health care workers seeking allergen avoidance.
Mercaptobenzothiazole compounds are associated with allergic contact dermatitis caused by rubber products. Several screening substances have been used for patch testing.
To compare the frequency of positive test reactions to a mercapto mix containing a higher concentration of 2-mercaptobenzothiazole with reactions to the combination of 2-mercaptobenzothiazole 2.0% and mercapto mix 2.0%.
There were 7103 dermatitis patients in 12 International Contact Dermatitis Research Group dermatology departments who were patch tested with 2-mercaptobenzothiazole 2.0% petrolatum (pet.), mercapto mix 2.0% pet., and mercapto mix 3.5% pet.
Contact allergy to the 3 test preparations varied among the 12 centers: 2-mercaptobenzothiazole 2.0% pet. (0–2.4%), mercapto mix 2.0% pet. (0–4.9%), and mercapto mix 3.5% pet. (0–1.4%). 2-Mercaptobenzothiazole 2.0% and mercapto mix 2.0% detected a few more positive patients compared with mercapto mix 3.5%, but the difference was statistically insignificant (mercapto mix 2.0% pet.,
Mercapto mix 3.5% pet. is not better than 2-mercaptobenzothiazole 2.0% and mercapto mix 2.0% by a difference that is significant. By using only 1 test preparation (mercapto mix 3.5%), an additional hapten could be tested. No cases of suspected/proven patch test sensitization were registered.
Ruxolitinib (Jakafi) is a Janus kinase 1 and 2 small molecule inhibitor that the Food and Drug Administration approved for myelofibrosis and polycythemia vera. It has been expanded to off-label treatment for a variety of dermatologic conditions, with several clinical trials ongoing. A review of available studies and cases of off-label uses was performed to guide clinicians seeking evidence on the efficacy of this Janus kinase inhibitor for dermatologic disorders.
PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched with the term “ruxolitinib,” and results were manually reviewed to identify published data on off-label uses of ruxolitinib. Studies included are structured by quality of evidence available.
Ruxolitinib may have utility in the treatment of atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, and vitiligo, with data from open-label and randomized trials supporting efficacy of topical formulations. Evidence of utility for alopecia areata is mixed and differs depending on topical versus oral form. Evidence for numerous other conditions is available through case reports and case series.
There is growing evidence supporting potential off-label use of oral and topical ruxolitinib for a wide range of skin conditions. There are several ongoing investigations of ruxolitinib use in dermatology that will undoubtedly better define its efficacy and appropriate use in dermatology.
This study characterizes concomitant reactions to carba mix (CM) and thiuram mix (TM) in a large North American population. Because thiurams and dithiocarbamates have structural similarity, concomitant reactions are expected.
The 1994–2016 North American Contact Dermatitis Group data were analyzed. Patients with a final reaction interpreted as “allergic” to either CM or TM were included.
A total of 49,758 patients were tested to both CM and TM. A total of 3437 (6.9%) had positive reactions to CM and/or TM including the following groups: CM+ only (n = 1403, 40.8%), TM+ only (n = 1068, 31.0%), or both (n = 966, 28.1%). A total of 47.5% of TM+ patients were positive to CM and 40.8% of CM+ patients were positive to TM. Male sex, occupationally related dermatitis, and hand involvement were significantly more common in individuals positive to CM and/or TM as compared with those who were negative (
Carba mix and TM remain important, clinically relevant allergens. Although significant concomitant reaction frequency was demonstrated, more than half of the patients reacting to either CM or TM would have been missed if both had not been tested, underscoring the importance of testing to both.
Manufacturers are increasingly branding personal care products (PCPs) specifically for men.
The aim of the study was to characterize ingredients and claims of facial moisturizers marketed to men.
Men's facial moisturizers from 7 different online retailers were identified in June–September 2018. Ingredients were grouped and identified per the Ingredient Database of the Personal Care Products Council. Potential allergens were identified using the 2017 American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) Core Allergen Series and 2017–2018 North American Contact Dermatitis Group Screening Series.
Sixty-five men's facial moisturizers were identified with a total of 1930 ingredients. On average, there were 12 ACDS Core and 9 North American Contact Dermatitis Group Screening allergens per product. A total of 70.8% of products contained between 6 and 15 ACDS Core allergens. The most notable allergens were fragrances (present in 98.5% of products), propylene glycol/derivatives (32.3%), parabens (29.2%), and alkyl glucosides (26.2%). Interestingly, less than 10% of products contained the most common allergenic preservatives in PCPs: formaldehyde releasers and methylisothiazolinone.
Men's facial moisturizers commonly contain fragrances, emulsifiers, and glucosides but relatively few allergenic preservatives. This may reflect changes in modern PCP preservation. These findings are important for modern dermatologists to be aware, especially in a new era of male skincare.