| 1. |
- Fortino, Vittorio, et al.
(författare)
-
Machine-learning-driven biomarker discovery for the discrimination between allergic and irritant contact dermatitis
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. - : Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. - 0027-8424 .- 1091-6490. ; 117:52, s. 33474-33485
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Contact dermatitis tremendously impacts the quality of life of suffering patients. Currently, diagnostic regimes rely on allergy testing, exposure specification, and follow-up visits; however, distinguishing the clinical phenotype of irritant and allergic contact dermatitis remains challenging. Employing integrative transcriptomic analysis and machine-learning approaches, we aimed to decipher disease-related signature genes to find suitable sets of biomarkers. A total of 89 positive patch-test reaction biopsies against four contact allergens and two irritants were analyzed via microarray. Coexpression network analysis and Random Forest classification were used to discover potential biomarkers and selected biomarker models were validated in an independent patient group. Differential gene-expression analysis identified major gene-expression changes depending on the stimulus. Random Forest classification identified CD47, BATF, FASLG, RGS16, SYNPO, SELE, PTPN7, WARS, PRC1, EXO1, RRM2, PBK, RAD54L, KIFC1, SPC25, PKMYT, HISTH1A, TPX2, DLGAP5, TPX2, CH25H, and IL37 as potential biomarkers to distinguish allergic and irritant contact dermatitis in human skin. Validation experiments and prediction performances on external testing datasets demonstrated potential applicability of the identified biomarker models in the clinic. Capitalizing on this knowledge, novel diagnostic tools can be developed to guide clinical diagnosis of contact allergies.
|
|
| 2. |
- Gonçalo, Margarida, et al.
(författare)
-
Allergic contact dermatitis caused by nail acrylates in Europe. An EECDRG study
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873. ; 78:4, s. 254-260
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by nail acrylates, also including methacrylates and cyanoacrylates here, is being increasingly reported. Methods: A retrospective study in 11 European Environmental Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG) clinics collected information on cases of ACD caused by nail acrylates diagnosed by aimed testing between 2013 and 2015. Results: Among 18 228 studied patients, 136 had ACD caused by nail acrylates (0.75%; 95%CI: 0.60–0.90), representing 67.3% (95%CI: 60.4–73.7) of ACD cases caused by acrylates. There were 135 females and 1 male, with a mean age ± standard deviation of 36.7 ± 12.2 years; 59 (43.4%) were exposed as consumers, and 77 (56.6%) were occupationally exposed. Occupational cases were more frequent in southern Europe (83.7%), and were younger (mean age of 33.4 ± 8.9 years); most developed ACD during the first year at work (65.0%), and at least 11.7% had to leave their jobs. Skin lesions involved the hands in 121 patients (88.9%) and the face in 50 (36.8%), with the face being the only affected site in 14 (10.3%). Most patients reacted to two or more acrylates on patch testing, mainly to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) (92.5%), 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate (88.6%), ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (69.2%), and ethyl cyanoacrylate (9.9%). Conclusions: Nail cosmetics were responsible for the majority of ACD cases caused by acrylates, affecting nail beauticians and consumers, and therefore calling for stricter regulation and preventive measures. As HEMA detects most cases, and isolated facial lesions may be overlooked, inclusion of this allergen in the baseline series may be warranted.
|
|
| 3. |
- Johansen, Jeanne D., et al.
(författare)
-
European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing : recommendations on best practice
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873 .- 1600-0536. ; 73:4, s. 195-221
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The present guideline summarizes all aspects of patch testing for the diagnosis of contact allergy in patients suspected of suffering, or having been suffering, from allergic contact dermatitis or other delayed-type hypersensitivity skin and mucosal conditions. Sections with brief descriptions and discussions of different pertinent topics are followed by a highlighted short practical recommendation. Topics comprise, after an introduction with important definitions, materials, technique, modifications of epicutaneous testing, individual factors influencing the patch test outcome or necessitating special considerations, children, patients with occupational contact dermatitis and drug eruptions as special groups, patch testing of materials brought in by the patient, adverse effects of patch testing, and the final evaluation and patient counselling based on this judgement. Finally, short reference is made to aspects of (continuing) medical education and to electronic collection of data for epidemiological surveillance.
|
|
| 4. |
- Pontén, Ann, et al.
(författare)
-
Patch testing with 2.0% (0.60 mg/cm(2) ) formaldehyde instead of 1.0% (0.30 mg/cm(2) ) detects significantly more contact allergy.
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873. ; 68:1, s. 50-53
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background.The currently used patch test concentration for formaldehyde is 1.0% (wt/vol) in water. However, clinical experience and previous studies suggest that 1.0% might be insufficient for detecting an optimized number of clinically relevant cases of contact allergy to formaldehyde. Objectives.To validate earlier patch test results for comparison of 1% (wt/vol) and 2% (wt/vol) formaldehyde in water, and to investigate co-reactivity with quaternium-15. Materials and methods.In 12 dermatology clinics, 3591 patients were routinely patch tested simultaneously with 2.0% (wt/vol) (0.60 mg/cm(2) ) and 1.0% (wt/vol) (0.30 mg/cm(2) ) formaldehyde. Micropipettes were used for delivering the exact dosage of the allergen. Results.Significantly more patients reacted to 2.0% formaldehyde than to 1.0% (3.4% versus 1.8%, p < 0.001). Overall, there were no sex differences between those reacting positively to 2.0% and 1.0%. Of 25 quaternium-15-positive patients, 4 (0.1%) reacted positively without reacting to formaldehyde. Conclusion.On the basis of the results of this multicentre study, as well as of previous studies, it can be suggested that 2.0% (wt/vol) in water formaldehyde should be used in routine patch testing in the baseline series.
|
|
| 5. |
- Schwensen, Jakob F., et al.
(författare)
-
The epidemic of methylisothiazolinone : A European prospective study
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Contact Dermatitis. - : Wiley. - 0105-1873. ; 76:5, s. 272-279
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The use of methylisothiazolinone (MI) in cosmetic products has caused an unprecedented epidemic of MI contact allergy. Current data concerning exposures at a European level are required. Objectives: To describe demographics and MI exposures for European patients with MI contact allergy. Methods: Eleven European dermatology departments from eight European countries prospectively collected data between 1 May and 31 October 2015 among consecutive patients who had positive patch test reactions to MI (2000ppm aq.). Results: A total of 6.0% (205/3434; range 2.6-13.0%) of patients had positive patch test reactions to MI. Dermatitis most frequently affected the hands (43.4%), face (32.7%), arms (14.6%), and eyelids (11.7%); 12.7% had widespread dermatitis. For 72.7% (149/205), MI contact allergy was currently relevant mainly because of exposure to cosmetic products (83.2%; 124/149). Of these 124 patients, 19.5% were exposed to leave-on and rinse-off cosmetic products, 24.8% only to leave-on cosmetic products and 38.9% only to rinse-off cosmetic products containing MI or methylchloroisothiazolinone/MI. The majority of these (79%) noted onset of their dermatitis between 2013 and 2015. Fifteen patients (7.3%) had previously experienced allergic reactions when they were in newly painted rooms. Conclusion: Clinically relevant MI contact allergy remains prevalent across European countries, mainly because of exposure to rinse-off and leave-on cosmetic products.
|
|
