Faculty Bibliography

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a complex condition that results from the dynamic interplay between genetic predisposition, skin barrier defects, environmental factors, and a dysfunctional immune system. As a result, AD can be complicated by irritant and allergic contact dermatitis and imbalances in the skin microbiome, which can subsequently exacerbate the severity and complicate the course of preexisting atopic disease. Itch is an important symptom of AD, as it plays a large role in the quality of life of patients and their families. Since AD is a chronic, inflammatory disease that recrudesces throughout life, many have utilized alternative and/or complementary therapies, as monotherapy or in conjunction with conventional therapies, as a form of management.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Atopic dermatitis (AD) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) have a dynamic relationship not yet fully understood. Investigation has been limited thus far by a paucity of data on the overlap of these disorders in pediatric patients. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To use data from the Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Registry to elucidate the associations and sensitizations among patients with concomitant AD and ACD. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This retrospective case review examined 1142 patch test cases of children younger than 18 years, who were registered between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015, by 84 health care providers (physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants) from across the United States. Data were gathered electronically from multidisciplinary providers within outpatient clinics throughout the United States on pediatric patients (ages 0-18 years). Exposures/UNASSIGNED:All participants were patch-tested to assess sensitizations to various allergens; history of AD was noted by the patch-testing providers. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Primary outcomes were sensitization rates to various patch-tested allergens. Results/UNASSIGNED:A total of 1142 patients were evaluated: 189 boys (34.2%) and 363 girls (65.8%) in the AD group and 198 boys (36.1%) and 350 girls (63.9%) in the non-AD group (data on gender identification were missing for 17 patients). Compared with those without AD, patch-tested patients with AD were 1.3 years younger (10.5 vs 11.8 years; P < .001) and had longer history of dermatitis (3.5 vs 1.8 years; P < .001). Patch-tested patients designated as Asian or African American were more likely to have concurrent AD (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.20-3.10; P = .008; and OR, 4.09; 95% CI, 2.70-6.20; P <.001, respectively). Patients with AD with generalized distribution were the most likely to be patch tested (OR, 4.68; 95% CI, 3.50-6.30; P < .001). Patients with AD had different reaction profiles than those without AD, with increased frequency of reactions to cocamidopropyl betaine, wool alcohol, lanolin, tixocortol pivalate, and parthenolide. Patients with AD were also noted to have lower frequency of reaction to methylisothiazolinone, cobalt, and potassium dichromate. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:Children with AD showed significant reaction patterns to allergens notable for their use in skin care preparations. This study adds to the current understanding of AD in ACD, and the continued need to investigate the interplay between these disease processes to optimize care for pediatric patients with these conditions.

BACKGROUND:There has been growing interest in the potential for adverse immunologic reactions to metals in biomedical devices and increasing referrals for the evaluation and management of metal hypersensitivity reactions reported in orthopedic, cardiac, gynecologic, and dental implant devices. However, there are few studies that give evidence-based recommendations on how to evaluate this issue in our practices. METHODS:We reviewed reasonable evidence and expert opinion on biomedical device hypersensitivity and published guidelines on pre- and postimplantation evaluation of delayed hypersensitivity reactions in patients suspected of possible metal hypersensitivity to biomedical devices. RESULTS:There is consensus that routine preimplantation evaluation in individuals with no history of adverse cutaneous reactions to metals or a history of implant-related adverse events is not necessary. However, patients with a history of metal hypersensitivity of a magnitude sufficient to cause concern for the patient or health care provider may benefit from evaluation by patch testing (PT) before device implantation. Patients after implantation and with chronic unexplained implant failure or with dermatitis may benefit from patch test evaluation after other causes, such as infection and biomechanical issues, are ruled out. However, a positive metal patch test result does not prove symptom causality, and the decision regarding implant revision can only be made after a thorough discussion among the patient, the allergist or dermatologist, and the orthopedic surgeon. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Consensus guidelines for the evaluation of hypersensitivity to biomedical devices can be used by the practicing physician while awaiting for the results of further investigations.

BACKGROUND:The evaluation of antibiotic immediate-type hypersensitivity is intricate because of nonstandardized skin testing and challenge method variability. OBJECTIVE:To determine the safety outcomes and risk factors for antibiotic challenge reactions in patients reporting a history of antibiotic immediate-type hypersensitivity. METHODS:A 5-year retrospective review of patients evaluated for immediate-type antibiotic allergy was conducted. Data analyzed included patient demographics, index reaction details, and outcomes of skin testing and challenges, classified as single-step or multistep. RESULTS:Antibiotic hypersensitivity history was identified in 211 patients: 78% to penicillins, 10% to fluoroquinolones, 7.6% to cephalosporins, and 3.8% to carbapenems. In total, 179 patients completed the challenges (median age 67 years, range 50-76 years, 56% women), and compared with nonchallenged patients, they reported nonanaphylactic (P < .001) and remote index (P = .003) reactions. Sixteen patients (8.9%) experienced challenge reactions (5 of 28 for single-step challenge, 11 of 151 for multistep challenge), and 11 of these patients had negative skin testing results before the challenge. Challenge-reactive patients were significantly younger (P = .007), more often women (P = .036), and had additional reported antibiotic allergies (P = .005). No correlation was detected between the reported index and observed challenge reaction severities (κ = -0.05, 95% confidence interval -0.34 to 0.24). Anaphylactic rates were similar during single-step and multistep challenges (3.6% vs 3.3%). CONCLUSION:In the present population, younger women with multiple reported antibiotic allergies were at greatest risk for challenge reactions. Negative skin testing results did not exclude reactions, and index severity was not predictive of challenge outcome. The multistep and full-dose methods demonstrated a comparable reaction risk for anaphylaxis.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that requires a manifold approach to therapy. The goal of therapy is to restore the function of the epidermal barrier and to reduce skin inflammation. This can be achieved with skin moisturization and topical anti-inflammatory agents, such as topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors. Furthermore, proactive therapy with twice weekly use of both topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors in previously affected areas has been found to reduce the time to the next eczematous flare. Adjunctive treatment options include wet wrap therapy, anti-histamines, and vitamin D supplementation. Bacterial colonization, in particular Staphylococcus aureus, can contribute to eczematous flares and overt infection. Use of systemic antibiotics in infected lesions is warranted; however, empiric antibiotics use in uninfected lesions is controversial. Local antiseptic measures (i.e., bleach baths) and topical antimicrobial therapies can be considered in patients with high bacterial colonization. Difficult-to-treat AD is a complex clinical problem that may require re-evaluation of the initial diagnosis of AD, especially if the onset of disease occurs in adulthood. It may also necessitate evaluation for contact, food, and inhaled allergens that may exacerbate the underlying AD. There are a host of systemic therapies that have been successful in patients with difficult-to-treat AD, however, these agents are limited by their side effect profiles. Lastly, with further insight into the pathophysiology of AD, new biological agents have been investigated with promising results.