Contact dermatitis · 2016
Acrylate and methacrylate contact allergy and allergic contact disease: a 13-year review.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Spencer Ashley, Gazzani Paul, Thompson Donna A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: (Meth)acrylates are important causes of contact allergy and allergic contact disease, such as dermatitis and stomatitis, with new and emerging sources resulting in changing clinical presentations.
OBJECTIVES: To identify the (meth)acrylates that most commonly cause allergic contact disease, highlight their usefulness for screening, and examine their relationship with occupational and clinical data.
METHODS: A retrospective review of results from patch tests performed between July 2002 and September 2015, in one tertiary Cutaneous Allergy Unit, was performed
RESULTS: A series of 28 (meth)acrylates was applied to 475 patients. Results were positive in 52 cases, with occupational sources being identified in 24. Industrial exposures and acrylic nails were responsible for 13 and 10 cases, respectively, with wound dressings being implicated in 7. We found that four individual (meth)acrylates (2-hydroxyethyl acrylate, 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate, bisphenol A glycerolate dimethacrylate, and ethyl acrylate), if used as a screening tool, could have identified 47 (90.4%) of our positive cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Our 13-year experience indicates a changing landscape of (meth)acrylate contact allergy and allergic contact disease, with an observed shift in exposures away from manufacturing and towards acrylic nail sources. Wound dressings are highlighted as emerging sources of sensitization. Larger studies are required to establish the sensitivity and specificity of the four (meth)acrylates proposed for potential screening.
OBJECTIVES: To identify the (meth)acrylates that most commonly cause allergic contact disease, highlight their usefulness for screening, and examine their relationship with occupational and clinical data.
METHODS: A retrospective review of results from patch tests performed between July 2002 and September 2015, in one tertiary Cutaneous Allergy Unit, was performed
RESULTS: A series of 28 (meth)acrylates was applied to 475 patients. Results were positive in 52 cases, with occupational sources being identified in 24. Industrial exposures and acrylic nails were responsible for 13 and 10 cases, respectively, with wound dressings being implicated in 7. We found that four individual (meth)acrylates (2-hydroxyethyl acrylate, 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate, bisphenol A glycerolate dimethacrylate, and ethyl acrylate), if used as a screening tool, could have identified 47 (90.4%) of our positive cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Our 13-year experience indicates a changing landscape of (meth)acrylate contact allergy and allergic contact disease, with an observed shift in exposures away from manufacturing and towards acrylic nail sources. Wound dressings are highlighted as emerging sources of sensitization. Larger studies are required to establish the sensitivity and specificity of the four (meth)acrylates proposed for potential screening.