Contact Dermatitis

The COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed health care facilities and health care providers (HCPs) due to the limited resources available to treat a rapidly expanding patient population. Health care providers have been required to work long hours and put themselves at increased risk of infection by coming into frequent contact with infected patients. In addition to the risk of becoming infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, HCPs might be required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) for the entirety of the workday, which can cause a variety of adverse effects.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been an increase in reported cases of facial acne, pressure injury, urticaria, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), irritant contact dermatitis (ICD), and exacerbation of underlying cutaneous conditions among health care workers.^1-4 This increase in dermatologic disorders among HCPs has been associated with the increased utilization of and duration of exposure to PPE—particularly N95 respirator masks and surgical masks.^5-7 Most studies of these reactions have attributed them to local pressure, friction, hyperhydration, elevated pH, and occlusion caused by prolonged wearing of the masks, resulting ultimately in acne and other rashes^8-10; however, a few studies have suggested that formaldehyde is a potential culprit underlying the increase in skin reactions to face masks.^11-14

Formaldehyde is a known skin irritant and has been found to cause ACD and ICD from exposure to textiles and cosmetics treated with this chemical.^15-18 Both N95 and surgical masks previously have been found to contain sufficient levels of formaldehyde or formaldehyde-releasing resins (FRRs) to induce ACD or ICD in susceptible people.^12-14 In this article, we focus on the role of formaldehyde in N95 masks as a potential cause of ACD and ICD in HCPs who have been wearing PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Formaldehyde: Benefits With Significant Problems

Formaldehyde is nearly ubiquitous in the textile industry because it confers advantageous properties, including resistance to flames, water, and wrinkling.¹⁵ Despite these advantages, it has long been established that consumers can become sensitized to formaldehyde and FRRs in textiles after chronic exposure.^15-18

A study of Australian HCPs found that 5.2% of those tested had ACD in response to formaldehyde, which was attributed to their PPE.¹¹ In a case report of ACD caused by FRRs, Donovan and Skotnicki-Grant¹² suggested that individuals who are sensitive to formaldehyde are vulnerable to reactions that are exacerbated by friction, warmth, moisture, and tight-fitting materials—all of which can occur when wearing an N95 mask. In that report, a formaldehyde-sensitive patient had a strong positive reaction on patch testing to melamine formaldehyde and to a piece of her N95 mask while taking prednisone 8 mg/d, suggesting that some sensitized patients have a strong reaction to their mask even when they are immunosuppressed.¹²

This finding, along with the known formaldehyde content of some N95 masks, suggests that these masks might be a cause of contact dermatitis in some HCPs. Somewhat complicating the situation is that false-negative patch testing can occur in and might contribute to the underdiagnosis of formaldehyde-induced N95 mask facial dermatitis.^12,13 Some HCPs have reported mild respiratory symptoms and eye irritation associated with the use of an N95 mask—symptoms that are consistent with formaldehyde exposure. In some cases, those symptoms have caused discomfort sufficient to prompt HCPs to take leave from work.^13,14

Development of contact dermatitis in response to an N95 mask is not novel; this problem also was observed during the severe acute respiratory syndrome pandemic of the early 2000s.^9,17 Some HCPs noticed onset of skin reactions after they were required to wear an N95 mask in the workplace, which some studies attributed to material in the mask increasing the likelihood of developing an adverse reaction.^2,6,8 The components of N95 masks and the materials from which they are manufactured are listed in the Table.¹⁹

Face Masks, Adverse Reactions, and Formaldehyde

Allergic contact dermatitis and ICD typically are rare responses to wearing facial masks, but the recent COVID-19 pandemic has forced HCPs to wear masks for longer than 6 hours at a time and to reuse a single mask, which has been shown to increase the likelihood of adverse reactions.^1,4,6 Additionally, humid environments, tight-fitting materials, and skin abrasions—all of which can be induced by wearing an N95 mask—have been found to increase the likelihood of formaldehyde-related contact dermatitis by increasing the release of free formaldehyde or by enhancing its penetration into the skin.^6,20,21

Formaldehyde is an ubiquitous chemical agent that is part of indoor and outdoor working and residential environments. Health care professionals have many opportunities to be exposed to formaldehyde, which is a well-known mucous membrane irritant and a primary skin-sensitizing agent associated with both contact dermatitis (type IV hypersensitivity reaction), and an immediate anaphylactic reaction (type I hypersensitivity reaction).^22-25 Exposure to formaldehyde by inhalation has been identified as a potential cause of asthma.^26,27 More studies on the prevalence of formaldehyde-induced hypersensitivity reactions would be beneficial to HCPs for early diagnosis of hypersensitivity, adequate prophylaxis, and occupational risk assessment.

N95 mask dermatitis also heightens the potential for breaches of PPE protocols. The discomfort that HCPs experience in response to adverse skin reactions to masks can cause an increased rate of inappropriate mask-wearing, face-touching during mask adjustment, and removal of the mask in the health care setting.²⁸ These acts of face-touching and PPE adjustment have been shown to increase microbial transmission and to reduce the efficacy of PPE in blocking pathogens.^29,30

Considering the mounting evidence that widespread use of masks effectively prevents viral transmission, it is crucial that all HCPs wear appropriate PPE when treating patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.^31,32 The recent surge in ACD and ICD among HCPs in response to wearing N95 masks creates a need to determine the underlying cause of these dermatoses and find methods of mitigating sensitization of HCPs to the offending agents. The current epidemiology of COVID-19 in the United States suggests that PPE will be necessary for much longer than originally anticipated and will continue to be worn for long hours by HCPs.

Formaldehyde-Free Alternatives?

Some researchers have proposed that using materials that are free of allergens like formaldehyde might be a long-term solution to the development of contact dermatitis.^15,33 Formaldehyde is used in the finishing process of N95 masks for wrinkle and crease resistance and to prevent mildew. It is possible that formaldehyde could be completely removed from the manufacturing process, although no studies on the effects of such alternatives on mask efficacy have been performed.

Formaldehyde-free alternatives that would confer similar properties on textiles have been explored; the most promising alternative to formaldehyde in cross-linking cellulose fibers is polycarboxylic acid in combination with sodium hypophosphite, which can help avoid the adverse health outcomes and environmental impact of formaldehyde.^34-36 Studies of such alternatives in the manufacturing of N95 masks would be needed to establish the efficacy and durability of formaldehyde-free PPE.

Final Thoughts

Additional studies are needed to confirm the presence of formaldehyde in N95 masks and to confirm that the mask material yields a positive patch test in sensitized individuals. The paucity of available studies that quantify formaldehyde or FRR content of N95 and surgical masks makes it difficult to establish an association between the chemical content of masks and the prevalence of mask dermatitis among HCPs; however, available reports of skin reactions, including contact dermatitis, from PPE suggest that formaldehyde sensitivity might be at least part of the problem. As such, we propose that manufacturers of N95 and surgical masks be required to reveal the chemical components of their products so that consumers can make educated purchasing decisions.

The COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed health care facilities and health care providers (HCPs) due to the limited resources available to treat a rapidly expanding patient population. Health care providers have been required to work long hours and put themselves at increased risk of infection by coming into frequent contact with infected patients. In addition to the risk of becoming infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, HCPs might be required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) for the entirety of the workday, which can cause a variety of adverse effects.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been an increase in reported cases of facial acne, pressure injury, urticaria, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), irritant contact dermatitis (ICD), and exacerbation of underlying cutaneous conditions among health care workers.^1-4 This increase in dermatologic disorders among HCPs has been associated with the increased utilization of and duration of exposure to PPE—particularly N95 respirator masks and surgical masks.^5-7 Most studies of these reactions have attributed them to local pressure, friction, hyperhydration, elevated pH, and occlusion caused by prolonged wearing of the masks, resulting ultimately in acne and other rashes^8-10; however, a few studies have suggested that formaldehyde is a potential culprit underlying the increase in skin reactions to face masks.^11-14

Formaldehyde is a known skin irritant and has been found to cause ACD and ICD from exposure to textiles and cosmetics treated with this chemical.^15-18 Both N95 and surgical masks previously have been found to contain sufficient levels of formaldehyde or formaldehyde-releasing resins (FRRs) to induce ACD or ICD in susceptible people.^12-14 In this article, we focus on the role of formaldehyde in N95 masks as a potential cause of ACD and ICD in HCPs who have been wearing PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Formaldehyde: Benefits With Significant Problems

Formaldehyde is nearly ubiquitous in the textile industry because it confers advantageous properties, including resistance to flames, water, and wrinkling.¹⁵ Despite these advantages, it has long been established that consumers can become sensitized to formaldehyde and FRRs in textiles after chronic exposure.^15-18

A study of Australian HCPs found that 5.2% of those tested had ACD in response to formaldehyde, which was attributed to their PPE.¹¹ In a case report of ACD caused by FRRs, Donovan and Skotnicki-Grant¹² suggested that individuals who are sensitive to formaldehyde are vulnerable to reactions that are exacerbated by friction, warmth, moisture, and tight-fitting materials—all of which can occur when wearing an N95 mask. In that report, a formaldehyde-sensitive patient had a strong positive reaction on patch testing to melamine formaldehyde and to a piece of her N95 mask while taking prednisone 8 mg/d, suggesting that some sensitized patients have a strong reaction to their mask even when they are immunosuppressed.¹²

This finding, along with the known formaldehyde content of some N95 masks, suggests that these masks might be a cause of contact dermatitis in some HCPs. Somewhat complicating the situation is that false-negative patch testing can occur in and might contribute to the underdiagnosis of formaldehyde-induced N95 mask facial dermatitis.^12,13 Some HCPs have reported mild respiratory symptoms and eye irritation associated with the use of an N95 mask—symptoms that are consistent with formaldehyde exposure. In some cases, those symptoms have caused discomfort sufficient to prompt HCPs to take leave from work.^13,14

Development of contact dermatitis in response to an N95 mask is not novel; this problem also was observed during the severe acute respiratory syndrome pandemic of the early 2000s.^9,17 Some HCPs noticed onset of skin reactions after they were required to wear an N95 mask in the workplace, which some studies attributed to material in the mask increasing the likelihood of developing an adverse reaction.^2,6,8 The components of N95 masks and the materials from which they are manufactured are listed in the Table.¹⁹

Face Masks, Adverse Reactions, and Formaldehyde

Allergic contact dermatitis and ICD typically are rare responses to wearing facial masks, but the recent COVID-19 pandemic has forced HCPs to wear masks for longer than 6 hours at a time and to reuse a single mask, which has been shown to increase the likelihood of adverse reactions.^1,4,6 Additionally, humid environments, tight-fitting materials, and skin abrasions—all of which can be induced by wearing an N95 mask—have been found to increase the likelihood of formaldehyde-related contact dermatitis by increasing the release of free formaldehyde or by enhancing its penetration into the skin.^6,20,21

Formaldehyde is an ubiquitous chemical agent that is part of indoor and outdoor working and residential environments. Health care professionals have many opportunities to be exposed to formaldehyde, which is a well-known mucous membrane irritant and a primary skin-sensitizing agent associated with both contact dermatitis (type IV hypersensitivity reaction), and an immediate anaphylactic reaction (type I hypersensitivity reaction).^22-25 Exposure to formaldehyde by inhalation has been identified as a potential cause of asthma.^26,27 More studies on the prevalence of formaldehyde-induced hypersensitivity reactions would be beneficial to HCPs for early diagnosis of hypersensitivity, adequate prophylaxis, and occupational risk assessment.

N95 mask dermatitis also heightens the potential for breaches of PPE protocols. The discomfort that HCPs experience in response to adverse skin reactions to masks can cause an increased rate of inappropriate mask-wearing, face-touching during mask adjustment, and removal of the mask in the health care setting.²⁸ These acts of face-touching and PPE adjustment have been shown to increase microbial transmission and to reduce the efficacy of PPE in blocking pathogens.^29,30

Considering the mounting evidence that widespread use of masks effectively prevents viral transmission, it is crucial that all HCPs wear appropriate PPE when treating patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.^31,32 The recent surge in ACD and ICD among HCPs in response to wearing N95 masks creates a need to determine the underlying cause of these dermatoses and find methods of mitigating sensitization of HCPs to the offending agents. The current epidemiology of COVID-19 in the United States suggests that PPE will be necessary for much longer than originally anticipated and will continue to be worn for long hours by HCPs.

Formaldehyde-Free Alternatives?

Some researchers have proposed that using materials that are free of allergens like formaldehyde might be a long-term solution to the development of contact dermatitis.^15,33 Formaldehyde is used in the finishing process of N95 masks for wrinkle and crease resistance and to prevent mildew. It is possible that formaldehyde could be completely removed from the manufacturing process, although no studies on the effects of such alternatives on mask efficacy have been performed.

Formaldehyde-free alternatives that would confer similar properties on textiles have been explored; the most promising alternative to formaldehyde in cross-linking cellulose fibers is polycarboxylic acid in combination with sodium hypophosphite, which can help avoid the adverse health outcomes and environmental impact of formaldehyde.^34-36 Studies of such alternatives in the manufacturing of N95 masks would be needed to establish the efficacy and durability of formaldehyde-free PPE.

Final Thoughts

Additional studies are needed to confirm the presence of formaldehyde in N95 masks and to confirm that the mask material yields a positive patch test in sensitized individuals. The paucity of available studies that quantify formaldehyde or FRR content of N95 and surgical masks makes it difficult to establish an association between the chemical content of masks and the prevalence of mask dermatitis among HCPs; however, available reports of skin reactions, including contact dermatitis, from PPE suggest that formaldehyde sensitivity might be at least part of the problem. As such, we propose that manufacturers of N95 and surgical masks be required to reveal the chemical components of their products so that consumers can make educated purchasing decisions.

The COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed health care facilities and health care providers (HCPs) due to the limited resources available to treat a rapidly expanding patient population. Health care providers have been required to work long hours and put themselves at increased risk of infection by coming into frequent contact with infected patients. In addition to the risk of becoming infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, HCPs might be required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) for the entirety of the workday, which can cause a variety of adverse effects.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been an increase in reported cases of facial acne, pressure injury, urticaria, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), irritant contact dermatitis (ICD), and exacerbation of underlying cutaneous conditions among health care workers.^1-4 This increase in dermatologic disorders among HCPs has been associated with the increased utilization of and duration of exposure to PPE—particularly N95 respirator masks and surgical masks.^5-7 Most studies of these reactions have attributed them to local pressure, friction, hyperhydration, elevated pH, and occlusion caused by prolonged wearing of the masks, resulting ultimately in acne and other rashes^8-10; however, a few studies have suggested that formaldehyde is a potential culprit underlying the increase in skin reactions to face masks.^11-14

Formaldehyde is a known skin irritant and has been found to cause ACD and ICD from exposure to textiles and cosmetics treated with this chemical.^15-18 Both N95 and surgical masks previously have been found to contain sufficient levels of formaldehyde or formaldehyde-releasing resins (FRRs) to induce ACD or ICD in susceptible people.^12-14 In this article, we focus on the role of formaldehyde in N95 masks as a potential cause of ACD and ICD in HCPs who have been wearing PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Formaldehyde: Benefits With Significant Problems

Formaldehyde is nearly ubiquitous in the textile industry because it confers advantageous properties, including resistance to flames, water, and wrinkling.¹⁵ Despite these advantages, it has long been established that consumers can become sensitized to formaldehyde and FRRs in textiles after chronic exposure.^15-18

A study of Australian HCPs found that 5.2% of those tested had ACD in response to formaldehyde, which was attributed to their PPE.¹¹ In a case report of ACD caused by FRRs, Donovan and Skotnicki-Grant¹² suggested that individuals who are sensitive to formaldehyde are vulnerable to reactions that are exacerbated by friction, warmth, moisture, and tight-fitting materials—all of which can occur when wearing an N95 mask. In that report, a formaldehyde-sensitive patient had a strong positive reaction on patch testing to melamine formaldehyde and to a piece of her N95 mask while taking prednisone 8 mg/d, suggesting that some sensitized patients have a strong reaction to their mask even when they are immunosuppressed.¹²

This finding, along with the known formaldehyde content of some N95 masks, suggests that these masks might be a cause of contact dermatitis in some HCPs. Somewhat complicating the situation is that false-negative patch testing can occur in and might contribute to the underdiagnosis of formaldehyde-induced N95 mask facial dermatitis.^12,13 Some HCPs have reported mild respiratory symptoms and eye irritation associated with the use of an N95 mask—symptoms that are consistent with formaldehyde exposure. In some cases, those symptoms have caused discomfort sufficient to prompt HCPs to take leave from work.^13,14

Development of contact dermatitis in response to an N95 mask is not novel; this problem also was observed during the severe acute respiratory syndrome pandemic of the early 2000s.^9,17 Some HCPs noticed onset of skin reactions after they were required to wear an N95 mask in the workplace, which some studies attributed to material in the mask increasing the likelihood of developing an adverse reaction.^2,6,8 The components of N95 masks and the materials from which they are manufactured are listed in the Table.¹⁹

Face Masks, Adverse Reactions, and Formaldehyde

Allergic contact dermatitis and ICD typically are rare responses to wearing facial masks, but the recent COVID-19 pandemic has forced HCPs to wear masks for longer than 6 hours at a time and to reuse a single mask, which has been shown to increase the likelihood of adverse reactions.^1,4,6 Additionally, humid environments, tight-fitting materials, and skin abrasions—all of which can be induced by wearing an N95 mask—have been found to increase the likelihood of formaldehyde-related contact dermatitis by increasing the release of free formaldehyde or by enhancing its penetration into the skin.^6,20,21

Formaldehyde is an ubiquitous chemical agent that is part of indoor and outdoor working and residential environments. Health care professionals have many opportunities to be exposed to formaldehyde, which is a well-known mucous membrane irritant and a primary skin-sensitizing agent associated with both contact dermatitis (type IV hypersensitivity reaction), and an immediate anaphylactic reaction (type I hypersensitivity reaction).^22-25 Exposure to formaldehyde by inhalation has been identified as a potential cause of asthma.^26,27 More studies on the prevalence of formaldehyde-induced hypersensitivity reactions would be beneficial to HCPs for early diagnosis of hypersensitivity, adequate prophylaxis, and occupational risk assessment.

N95 mask dermatitis also heightens the potential for breaches of PPE protocols. The discomfort that HCPs experience in response to adverse skin reactions to masks can cause an increased rate of inappropriate mask-wearing, face-touching during mask adjustment, and removal of the mask in the health care setting.²⁸ These acts of face-touching and PPE adjustment have been shown to increase microbial transmission and to reduce the efficacy of PPE in blocking pathogens.^29,30

Considering the mounting evidence that widespread use of masks effectively prevents viral transmission, it is crucial that all HCPs wear appropriate PPE when treating patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.^31,32 The recent surge in ACD and ICD among HCPs in response to wearing N95 masks creates a need to determine the underlying cause of these dermatoses and find methods of mitigating sensitization of HCPs to the offending agents. The current epidemiology of COVID-19 in the United States suggests that PPE will be necessary for much longer than originally anticipated and will continue to be worn for long hours by HCPs.

Formaldehyde-Free Alternatives?

Some researchers have proposed that using materials that are free of allergens like formaldehyde might be a long-term solution to the development of contact dermatitis.^15,33 Formaldehyde is used in the finishing process of N95 masks for wrinkle and crease resistance and to prevent mildew. It is possible that formaldehyde could be completely removed from the manufacturing process, although no studies on the effects of such alternatives on mask efficacy have been performed.

Formaldehyde-free alternatives that would confer similar properties on textiles have been explored; the most promising alternative to formaldehyde in cross-linking cellulose fibers is polycarboxylic acid in combination with sodium hypophosphite, which can help avoid the adverse health outcomes and environmental impact of formaldehyde.^34-36 Studies of such alternatives in the manufacturing of N95 masks would be needed to establish the efficacy and durability of formaldehyde-free PPE.

Final Thoughts

Additional studies are needed to confirm the presence of formaldehyde in N95 masks and to confirm that the mask material yields a positive patch test in sensitized individuals. The paucity of available studies that quantify formaldehyde or FRR content of N95 and surgical masks makes it difficult to establish an association between the chemical content of masks and the prevalence of mask dermatitis among HCPs; however, available reports of skin reactions, including contact dermatitis, from PPE suggest that formaldehyde sensitivity might be at least part of the problem. As such, we propose that manufacturers of N95 and surgical masks be required to reveal the chemical components of their products so that consumers can make educated purchasing decisions.

Identifying safe, effective, and affordable evidence-based dermatologic treatments for older adults can be challenging because of age-related changes in the skin, comorbidities, polypharmacy, mobility issues, and cognitive changes. Phototherapy has been shown to be an effective nonpharmacologic treatment option for multiple challenging dermatologic conditions^1-8; however, few studies have specifically examined its effectiveness in older adults. The challenge for older patients with psoriasis and dermatitis is that the conditions can be difficult to control and often require multiple treatment modalities.^9,10 Patients with psoriasis also have a higher risk for diabetes, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular disease compared to other older patients,^11,12 which poses treatment challenges and makes nonpharmacologic treatments even more appealing.

Recent studies show that phototherapy can help decrease the use of dermatologic medications. Foerster and colleagues² found that adults with psoriasis who were treated with phototherapy significantly decreased their use of topical steroids (24.5% fewer patients required steroid creams and 31.1% fewer patients required psoriasis-specific topicals)(P<.01) while their use of non–psoriasis-specific medications did not change. Click and colleagues¹³ identified a decrease in medication costs, health care utilization, and risk for immunosuppression in patients treated with phototherapy when compared to those treated with biologics and apremilast. Methotrexate is a common dermatologic medication that is highly associated with increased risks in elderly patients because of impaired immune system function and the presence of comorbidities (eg, kidney disease, obesity, diabetes, fatty liver),¹⁴ which increase in prevalence with age. Combining phototherapy with methotrexate can substantially decrease the amount of methotrexate needed to achieve disease control,¹⁵ thereby decreasing the methotrexate-associated risks. Findings from these studies suggest that a safe, effective, cost-effective, and well-tolerated nonpharmacologic alternative, such as phototherapy, is highly desirable and should be optimized. Unfortunately, most studies that report the effectiveness of phototherapy are in younger populations.

This retrospective study aimed to (1) identify the most common dermatologic conditions treated with phototherapy in older adults, (2) examine the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy in older adults, and (3) compare the outcomes with 2 similar studies in the United Kingdom¹⁶ and Turkey.¹⁷

Methods

Design, Setting, Sample, and Statistical Analysis
The institutional review boards of Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, and the University of Washington, Seattle, approved this study. It was conducted in a large US multispecialty health care system (Group Health, Seattle, Washington [now Kaiser Permanente Washington]) serving approximately 600,000 patients, using billing records to identify all patients treated with phototherapy between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015, all who received narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) phototherapy. All adults 65 years and older who received phototherapy treatment during the 12-month study period were included. Patients were included regardless of comorbidities and other dermatologic treatments to maintain as much uniformity as possible between the present study and 2 prior studies examining phototherapy in older adult populations in the United Kingdom¹⁶ and Turkey.¹⁷ Demographic and clinical factors were presented using frequencies (percentages) or means and medians as appropriate. Comparisons of dermatologic conditions and clearance levels used a Fisher exact test. The number of phototherapy treatments to clearance and total number of treatments were compared between groups of patients using independent sample t tests.

Phototherapy Protocol
All patients received treatments administered by specially trained phototherapy nurses using a Daavlin UV Series (The Daavlin Company) or an Ultralite unit (Ultralite Enterprises, Inc), both with 48 lamps. All phototherapy nurses had been previously trained to provide treatments based on standardized protocols (Table 1) and to determine the patient’s level of disease clearance using a high to low clearance scale (Table 2). Daavlin’s treatment protocols were built into the software that accompanied the units and were developed based on the American Academy of Dermatology guidelines. The starting dose for an individual patient was determined based on the estimated minimal erythema dose for each phototype. If the patient was using photosensitizing medications, then the protocol guided the nurse to start the patient at a lower dose appropriate for their phototype. Patients with vitiligo were treated with the same starting and escalation doses as patients with Fitzpatrick phototype I because of the assumption that their vitiliginous skin had an increased risk for photosensitivity. A more recent review of the evidence has indicated that this assumption was overly conservative,¹⁸ and Kaiser Permanente Washington’s vitiligo protocol has been adjusted.

Results

Patients
Billing records identified 229 total patients who received phototherapy in 2015, of whom 52 (22.7%) were at least 65 years old. The median age was 70 years (range, 65–91 years). Twenty-nine (56%) were men and 35 (67%) had previously received phototherapy treatments.

Dermatologic Conditions Treated With Phototherapy
Our primary aim was to identify the most common dermatologic conditions treated with phototherapy in older adults. Psoriasis and dermatitis were the most common conditions treated in the sample (50% [26/52] and 21% [11/52], respectively), with mycosis fungoides being the third most common (10% [5/52]) and vitiligo tied with prurigo nodularis as fourth most common (6% [3/52])(Figure 1).

Effectiveness and Safety of Phototherapy
Our secondary aim was to examine the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy in older adults. Phototherapy was effective in this population, with 50 of 52 patients (96%) achieving a high or medium level of clearance. The degree of clearance for each of the dermatologic conditions is shown in Figure 2. Psoriasis and dermatitis achieved high clearance rates in 81% (21/26) and 82% (9/11) of patients, respectively. Overall, conditions did not have significant differences in clearances rates (Fisher exact test, P=.10). On average, it took patients 33 treatments to achieve medium or high rates of clearance. Psoriasis cleared more quickly, with an average of 30.4 treatments vs 36.1 treatments for other conditions, but the difference was not significant (t test, P=.26). Patients received an average of 98 total phototherapy treatments; the median number of treatments was 81 due to many being on maintenance therapy over several months. There was no relationship between a history of treatment with phototherapy and the total number of treatments needed to achieve clearance (t test, P=.40), but interestingly, those who had a history of phototherapy took approximately 5 more treatments to achieve clearance. The present study found that a slightly larger number of men were being treated for psoriasis (15 men vs 11 women), but there was no significant difference in response rate based on gender.

Comment

Our study found that 94% of patients with psoriasis achieved clearance with an average of 30.4 treatments, which is comparable to the reported 91% response rate with an average of 30 treatments in the United Kingdom.¹⁶ The other similar study in Turkey¹⁷ reported 73.7% of psoriasis patients achieved a 75% or more improvement from baseline with an average of 42 treatments, which may reflect underlying differences in regional skin type. Of note, the scatter chart (Figure 3) shows that several patients in the present study’s analysis are listed as not clear, but many of those patients had low treatment numbers below the mean time to clearance. Thus, the present study’s response rate may have been underestimated.

In the general population, studies show that psoriasis treated with standardized phototherapy protocols typically clears with an average of 20.6 treatments.²¹ The levels of clearance were similar in our study’s older population, but more treatments were required to achieve those results, with an average of 10 more treatments needed (an additional 3.3 weeks). Similar results were found in this sample for dermatitis and mycosis fungoides, indicating comparable clearance rates and levels but a need for more treatments to achieve similar results compared to the general population.

Additionally, in the current study more patients experienced grade 1 (mild) erythema (46%) and grade 2 erythema (25%) at some point in their treatment compared with the United Kingdom¹⁶ (1.89%) and Turkey¹⁷ (35%) studies, though these side effects did not impact the clearance rate. Interestingly, the current study’s scatter chart (Figure 3) illustrates that this side effect did not seem to increase with aging in this population. If anything, the erythema response was more prevalent in the median or younger patients in the sample. Erythema may have been due to the frequent use of photosensitizing medications in older adults in the United States, some of which typically get discontinued in patients 75 years and older (eg, statins). Other potential causes might include the use of phototype vs minimal erythema dose–driven protocols, the standard utilization of protocols originally designed for psoriasis vs other condition-specific protocols, missed treatments leading to increased sensitivity, or possibly shielding mishaps (eg, not wearing a prescribed face shield). Given the number of potential causes and the possibility of overlapping factors, careful analysis is important. With NB-UVB phototherapy, near-erythemogenic doses are optimal to achieve effective treatments, but this delicate balance may be more problematic for older adults. Future studies are needed to fully determine the factors at play for this population. In the interim, it is important for phototherapy-trained nurses to consider this risk carefully in the older population. They must follow the prescribed protocols that guide them to query patients about their responses to the prior treatment (eg, erythema, tenderness, itching), photosensitizing medications, missed treatments, and placement of shielding, and then adjust the treatment dosing accordingly.

Limitations
This study had several limitations. Although clinical outcomes were recorded prospectively, the analysis was retrospective, unblinded, and not placebo controlled. It was conducted in a single organization (Group Health [now Kaiser Permanente Washington]) but did analyze data from 4 medical centers in different cities with diverse demographics and a variety of nursing staff providing the treatments. Although the vitiligo treatment protocol likely slowed the response rate for those patients with vitiligo, the numbers were small (ie, only 3 of 52 patients), so the researchers chose to include them in the current study. The sample population was relatively small, but when these data are evaluated alongside the studies in the United Kingdom¹⁶ and Turkey,¹⁷ they show a consistent picture illustrating the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy in the older population. Further epidemiologic studies could be helpful to further describe the usefulness of this modality compared with other treatments for a variety of dermatoses in this age group. Supplementary analysis specifically examining the relationship between the number and type of photosensitizing medications, frequency of erythema, and time to clearance also could be useful.

Conclusion

Older adults with a variety of dermatoses respond well to phototherapy and should have the opportunity to use it, particularly considering the potential for increased complications and costs from other treatment modalities, such as commonly used immunosuppressive pharmaceuticals. However, the current study and the comparison studies indicate that it is important to carefully consider the slower clearance rates and the potential risk for increased erythema in this population and adjust patient education and treatment dosing accordingly.

Unfortunately, many dermatology centers do not offer phototherapy because of infrastructure limitations such as space and specially trained nursing staff. Increasing accessibility of phototherapy for older adults through home treatments may be an alternative, given its effectiveness in the general population.^22,23 In addition, home phototherapy may be worth pursuing for the older population considering the challenges they may face with transportation to the clinic setting and their increased risk for serious illness if exposed to infections such as COVID-19. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light the need for reliable, safe, and effective treatments that can be utilized in the safety of patients’ homes and should therefore be considered as an option for older adults. Issues such as mobility and cognitive decline could pose some complicating factors, but with the help of a well-trained family member or caregiver, home phototherapy could be a viable option that improves accessibility for older patients. Future research opportunities include further examination of the slower but ultimately equivalent response to phototherapy in the older population, the influence of photosensitizing medications on phototherapy effects, and the impact of phototherapy on utilization of immunosuppressive pharmaceuticals in older adults.

Identifying safe, effective, and affordable evidence-based dermatologic treatments for older adults can be challenging because of age-related changes in the skin, comorbidities, polypharmacy, mobility issues, and cognitive changes. Phototherapy has been shown to be an effective nonpharmacologic treatment option for multiple challenging dermatologic conditions^1-8; however, few studies have specifically examined its effectiveness in older adults. The challenge for older patients with psoriasis and dermatitis is that the conditions can be difficult to control and often require multiple treatment modalities.^9,10 Patients with psoriasis also have a higher risk for diabetes, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular disease compared to other older patients,^11,12 which poses treatment challenges and makes nonpharmacologic treatments even more appealing.

Recent studies show that phototherapy can help decrease the use of dermatologic medications. Foerster and colleagues² found that adults with psoriasis who were treated with phototherapy significantly decreased their use of topical steroids (24.5% fewer patients required steroid creams and 31.1% fewer patients required psoriasis-specific topicals)(P<.01) while their use of non–psoriasis-specific medications did not change. Click and colleagues¹³ identified a decrease in medication costs, health care utilization, and risk for immunosuppression in patients treated with phototherapy when compared to those treated with biologics and apremilast. Methotrexate is a common dermatologic medication that is highly associated with increased risks in elderly patients because of impaired immune system function and the presence of comorbidities (eg, kidney disease, obesity, diabetes, fatty liver),¹⁴ which increase in prevalence with age. Combining phototherapy with methotrexate can substantially decrease the amount of methotrexate needed to achieve disease control,¹⁵ thereby decreasing the methotrexate-associated risks. Findings from these studies suggest that a safe, effective, cost-effective, and well-tolerated nonpharmacologic alternative, such as phototherapy, is highly desirable and should be optimized. Unfortunately, most studies that report the effectiveness of phototherapy are in younger populations.

This retrospective study aimed to (1) identify the most common dermatologic conditions treated with phototherapy in older adults, (2) examine the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy in older adults, and (3) compare the outcomes with 2 similar studies in the United Kingdom¹⁶ and Turkey.¹⁷

Methods

Design, Setting, Sample, and Statistical Analysis
The institutional review boards of Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, and the University of Washington, Seattle, approved this study. It was conducted in a large US multispecialty health care system (Group Health, Seattle, Washington [now Kaiser Permanente Washington]) serving approximately 600,000 patients, using billing records to identify all patients treated with phototherapy between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015, all who received narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) phototherapy. All adults 65 years and older who received phototherapy treatment during the 12-month study period were included. Patients were included regardless of comorbidities and other dermatologic treatments to maintain as much uniformity as possible between the present study and 2 prior studies examining phototherapy in older adult populations in the United Kingdom¹⁶ and Turkey.¹⁷ Demographic and clinical factors were presented using frequencies (percentages) or means and medians as appropriate. Comparisons of dermatologic conditions and clearance levels used a Fisher exact test. The number of phototherapy treatments to clearance and total number of treatments were compared between groups of patients using independent sample t tests.

Phototherapy Protocol
All patients received treatments administered by specially trained phototherapy nurses using a Daavlin UV Series (The Daavlin Company) or an Ultralite unit (Ultralite Enterprises, Inc), both with 48 lamps. All phototherapy nurses had been previously trained to provide treatments based on standardized protocols (Table 1) and to determine the patient’s level of disease clearance using a high to low clearance scale (Table 2). Daavlin’s treatment protocols were built into the software that accompanied the units and were developed based on the American Academy of Dermatology guidelines. The starting dose for an individual patient was determined based on the estimated minimal erythema dose for each phototype. If the patient was using photosensitizing medications, then the protocol guided the nurse to start the patient at a lower dose appropriate for their phototype. Patients with vitiligo were treated with the same starting and escalation doses as patients with Fitzpatrick phototype I because of the assumption that their vitiliginous skin had an increased risk for photosensitivity. A more recent review of the evidence has indicated that this assumption was overly conservative,¹⁸ and Kaiser Permanente Washington’s vitiligo protocol has been adjusted.

Results

Patients
Billing records identified 229 total patients who received phototherapy in 2015, of whom 52 (22.7%) were at least 65 years old. The median age was 70 years (range, 65–91 years). Twenty-nine (56%) were men and 35 (67%) had previously received phototherapy treatments.

Dermatologic Conditions Treated With Phototherapy
Our primary aim was to identify the most common dermatologic conditions treated with phototherapy in older adults. Psoriasis and dermatitis were the most common conditions treated in the sample (50% [26/52] and 21% [11/52], respectively), with mycosis fungoides being the third most common (10% [5/52]) and vitiligo tied with prurigo nodularis as fourth most common (6% [3/52])(Figure 1).

Effectiveness and Safety of Phototherapy
Our secondary aim was to examine the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy in older adults. Phototherapy was effective in this population, with 50 of 52 patients (96%) achieving a high or medium level of clearance. The degree of clearance for each of the dermatologic conditions is shown in Figure 2. Psoriasis and dermatitis achieved high clearance rates in 81% (21/26) and 82% (9/11) of patients, respectively. Overall, conditions did not have significant differences in clearances rates (Fisher exact test, P=.10). On average, it took patients 33 treatments to achieve medium or high rates of clearance. Psoriasis cleared more quickly, with an average of 30.4 treatments vs 36.1 treatments for other conditions, but the difference was not significant (t test, P=.26). Patients received an average of 98 total phototherapy treatments; the median number of treatments was 81 due to many being on maintenance therapy over several months. There was no relationship between a history of treatment with phototherapy and the total number of treatments needed to achieve clearance (t test, P=.40), but interestingly, those who had a history of phototherapy took approximately 5 more treatments to achieve clearance. The present study found that a slightly larger number of men were being treated for psoriasis (15 men vs 11 women), but there was no significant difference in response rate based on gender.

Comment

Our study found that 94% of patients with psoriasis achieved clearance with an average of 30.4 treatments, which is comparable to the reported 91% response rate with an average of 30 treatments in the United Kingdom.¹⁶ The other similar study in Turkey¹⁷ reported 73.7% of psoriasis patients achieved a 75% or more improvement from baseline with an average of 42 treatments, which may reflect underlying differences in regional skin type. Of note, the scatter chart (Figure 3) shows that several patients in the present study’s analysis are listed as not clear, but many of those patients had low treatment numbers below the mean time to clearance. Thus, the present study’s response rate may have been underestimated.

In the general population, studies show that psoriasis treated with standardized phototherapy protocols typically clears with an average of 20.6 treatments.²¹ The levels of clearance were similar in our study’s older population, but more treatments were required to achieve those results, with an average of 10 more treatments needed (an additional 3.3 weeks). Similar results were found in this sample for dermatitis and mycosis fungoides, indicating comparable clearance rates and levels but a need for more treatments to achieve similar results compared to the general population.

Additionally, in the current study more patients experienced grade 1 (mild) erythema (46%) and grade 2 erythema (25%) at some point in their treatment compared with the United Kingdom¹⁶ (1.89%) and Turkey¹⁷ (35%) studies, though these side effects did not impact the clearance rate. Interestingly, the current study’s scatter chart (Figure 3) illustrates that this side effect did not seem to increase with aging in this population. If anything, the erythema response was more prevalent in the median or younger patients in the sample. Erythema may have been due to the frequent use of photosensitizing medications in older adults in the United States, some of which typically get discontinued in patients 75 years and older (eg, statins). Other potential causes might include the use of phototype vs minimal erythema dose–driven protocols, the standard utilization of protocols originally designed for psoriasis vs other condition-specific protocols, missed treatments leading to increased sensitivity, or possibly shielding mishaps (eg, not wearing a prescribed face shield). Given the number of potential causes and the possibility of overlapping factors, careful analysis is important. With NB-UVB phototherapy, near-erythemogenic doses are optimal to achieve effective treatments, but this delicate balance may be more problematic for older adults. Future studies are needed to fully determine the factors at play for this population. In the interim, it is important for phototherapy-trained nurses to consider this risk carefully in the older population. They must follow the prescribed protocols that guide them to query patients about their responses to the prior treatment (eg, erythema, tenderness, itching), photosensitizing medications, missed treatments, and placement of shielding, and then adjust the treatment dosing accordingly.

Limitations
This study had several limitations. Although clinical outcomes were recorded prospectively, the analysis was retrospective, unblinded, and not placebo controlled. It was conducted in a single organization (Group Health [now Kaiser Permanente Washington]) but did analyze data from 4 medical centers in different cities with diverse demographics and a variety of nursing staff providing the treatments. Although the vitiligo treatment protocol likely slowed the response rate for those patients with vitiligo, the numbers were small (ie, only 3 of 52 patients), so the researchers chose to include them in the current study. The sample population was relatively small, but when these data are evaluated alongside the studies in the United Kingdom¹⁶ and Turkey,¹⁷ they show a consistent picture illustrating the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy in the older population. Further epidemiologic studies could be helpful to further describe the usefulness of this modality compared with other treatments for a variety of dermatoses in this age group. Supplementary analysis specifically examining the relationship between the number and type of photosensitizing medications, frequency of erythema, and time to clearance also could be useful.

Conclusion

Older adults with a variety of dermatoses respond well to phototherapy and should have the opportunity to use it, particularly considering the potential for increased complications and costs from other treatment modalities, such as commonly used immunosuppressive pharmaceuticals. However, the current study and the comparison studies indicate that it is important to carefully consider the slower clearance rates and the potential risk for increased erythema in this population and adjust patient education and treatment dosing accordingly.

Unfortunately, many dermatology centers do not offer phototherapy because of infrastructure limitations such as space and specially trained nursing staff. Increasing accessibility of phototherapy for older adults through home treatments may be an alternative, given its effectiveness in the general population.^22,23 In addition, home phototherapy may be worth pursuing for the older population considering the challenges they may face with transportation to the clinic setting and their increased risk for serious illness if exposed to infections such as COVID-19. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light the need for reliable, safe, and effective treatments that can be utilized in the safety of patients’ homes and should therefore be considered as an option for older adults. Issues such as mobility and cognitive decline could pose some complicating factors, but with the help of a well-trained family member or caregiver, home phototherapy could be a viable option that improves accessibility for older patients. Future research opportunities include further examination of the slower but ultimately equivalent response to phototherapy in the older population, the influence of photosensitizing medications on phototherapy effects, and the impact of phototherapy on utilization of immunosuppressive pharmaceuticals in older adults.

Identifying safe, effective, and affordable evidence-based dermatologic treatments for older adults can be challenging because of age-related changes in the skin, comorbidities, polypharmacy, mobility issues, and cognitive changes. Phototherapy has been shown to be an effective nonpharmacologic treatment option for multiple challenging dermatologic conditions^1-8; however, few studies have specifically examined its effectiveness in older adults. The challenge for older patients with psoriasis and dermatitis is that the conditions can be difficult to control and often require multiple treatment modalities.^9,10 Patients with psoriasis also have a higher risk for diabetes, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular disease compared to other older patients,^11,12 which poses treatment challenges and makes nonpharmacologic treatments even more appealing.

Recent studies show that phototherapy can help decrease the use of dermatologic medications. Foerster and colleagues² found that adults with psoriasis who were treated with phototherapy significantly decreased their use of topical steroids (24.5% fewer patients required steroid creams and 31.1% fewer patients required psoriasis-specific topicals)(P<.01) while their use of non–psoriasis-specific medications did not change. Click and colleagues¹³ identified a decrease in medication costs, health care utilization, and risk for immunosuppression in patients treated with phototherapy when compared to those treated with biologics and apremilast. Methotrexate is a common dermatologic medication that is highly associated with increased risks in elderly patients because of impaired immune system function and the presence of comorbidities (eg, kidney disease, obesity, diabetes, fatty liver),¹⁴ which increase in prevalence with age. Combining phototherapy with methotrexate can substantially decrease the amount of methotrexate needed to achieve disease control,¹⁵ thereby decreasing the methotrexate-associated risks. Findings from these studies suggest that a safe, effective, cost-effective, and well-tolerated nonpharmacologic alternative, such as phototherapy, is highly desirable and should be optimized. Unfortunately, most studies that report the effectiveness of phototherapy are in younger populations.

This retrospective study aimed to (1) identify the most common dermatologic conditions treated with phototherapy in older adults, (2) examine the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy in older adults, and (3) compare the outcomes with 2 similar studies in the United Kingdom¹⁶ and Turkey.¹⁷

Methods

Design, Setting, Sample, and Statistical Analysis
The institutional review boards of Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, and the University of Washington, Seattle, approved this study. It was conducted in a large US multispecialty health care system (Group Health, Seattle, Washington [now Kaiser Permanente Washington]) serving approximately 600,000 patients, using billing records to identify all patients treated with phototherapy between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015, all who received narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) phototherapy. All adults 65 years and older who received phototherapy treatment during the 12-month study period were included. Patients were included regardless of comorbidities and other dermatologic treatments to maintain as much uniformity as possible between the present study and 2 prior studies examining phototherapy in older adult populations in the United Kingdom¹⁶ and Turkey.¹⁷ Demographic and clinical factors were presented using frequencies (percentages) or means and medians as appropriate. Comparisons of dermatologic conditions and clearance levels used a Fisher exact test. The number of phototherapy treatments to clearance and total number of treatments were compared between groups of patients using independent sample t tests.

Phototherapy Protocol
All patients received treatments administered by specially trained phototherapy nurses using a Daavlin UV Series (The Daavlin Company) or an Ultralite unit (Ultralite Enterprises, Inc), both with 48 lamps. All phototherapy nurses had been previously trained to provide treatments based on standardized protocols (Table 1) and to determine the patient’s level of disease clearance using a high to low clearance scale (Table 2). Daavlin’s treatment protocols were built into the software that accompanied the units and were developed based on the American Academy of Dermatology guidelines. The starting dose for an individual patient was determined based on the estimated minimal erythema dose for each phototype. If the patient was using photosensitizing medications, then the protocol guided the nurse to start the patient at a lower dose appropriate for their phototype. Patients with vitiligo were treated with the same starting and escalation doses as patients with Fitzpatrick phototype I because of the assumption that their vitiliginous skin had an increased risk for photosensitivity. A more recent review of the evidence has indicated that this assumption was overly conservative,¹⁸ and Kaiser Permanente Washington’s vitiligo protocol has been adjusted.

Results

Patients
Billing records identified 229 total patients who received phototherapy in 2015, of whom 52 (22.7%) were at least 65 years old. The median age was 70 years (range, 65–91 years). Twenty-nine (56%) were men and 35 (67%) had previously received phototherapy treatments.

Dermatologic Conditions Treated With Phototherapy
Our primary aim was to identify the most common dermatologic conditions treated with phototherapy in older adults. Psoriasis and dermatitis were the most common conditions treated in the sample (50% [26/52] and 21% [11/52], respectively), with mycosis fungoides being the third most common (10% [5/52]) and vitiligo tied with prurigo nodularis as fourth most common (6% [3/52])(Figure 1).

Effectiveness and Safety of Phototherapy
Our secondary aim was to examine the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy in older adults. Phototherapy was effective in this population, with 50 of 52 patients (96%) achieving a high or medium level of clearance. The degree of clearance for each of the dermatologic conditions is shown in Figure 2. Psoriasis and dermatitis achieved high clearance rates in 81% (21/26) and 82% (9/11) of patients, respectively. Overall, conditions did not have significant differences in clearances rates (Fisher exact test, P=.10). On average, it took patients 33 treatments to achieve medium or high rates of clearance. Psoriasis cleared more quickly, with an average of 30.4 treatments vs 36.1 treatments for other conditions, but the difference was not significant (t test, P=.26). Patients received an average of 98 total phototherapy treatments; the median number of treatments was 81 due to many being on maintenance therapy over several months. There was no relationship between a history of treatment with phototherapy and the total number of treatments needed to achieve clearance (t test, P=.40), but interestingly, those who had a history of phototherapy took approximately 5 more treatments to achieve clearance. The present study found that a slightly larger number of men were being treated for psoriasis (15 men vs 11 women), but there was no significant difference in response rate based on gender.

Comment

Our study found that 94% of patients with psoriasis achieved clearance with an average of 30.4 treatments, which is comparable to the reported 91% response rate with an average of 30 treatments in the United Kingdom.¹⁶ The other similar study in Turkey¹⁷ reported 73.7% of psoriasis patients achieved a 75% or more improvement from baseline with an average of 42 treatments, which may reflect underlying differences in regional skin type. Of note, the scatter chart (Figure 3) shows that several patients in the present study’s analysis are listed as not clear, but many of those patients had low treatment numbers below the mean time to clearance. Thus, the present study’s response rate may have been underestimated.

In the general population, studies show that psoriasis treated with standardized phototherapy protocols typically clears with an average of 20.6 treatments.²¹ The levels of clearance were similar in our study’s older population, but more treatments were required to achieve those results, with an average of 10 more treatments needed (an additional 3.3 weeks). Similar results were found in this sample for dermatitis and mycosis fungoides, indicating comparable clearance rates and levels but a need for more treatments to achieve similar results compared to the general population.

Additionally, in the current study more patients experienced grade 1 (mild) erythema (46%) and grade 2 erythema (25%) at some point in their treatment compared with the United Kingdom¹⁶ (1.89%) and Turkey¹⁷ (35%) studies, though these side effects did not impact the clearance rate. Interestingly, the current study’s scatter chart (Figure 3) illustrates that this side effect did not seem to increase with aging in this population. If anything, the erythema response was more prevalent in the median or younger patients in the sample. Erythema may have been due to the frequent use of photosensitizing medications in older adults in the United States, some of which typically get discontinued in patients 75 years and older (eg, statins). Other potential causes might include the use of phototype vs minimal erythema dose–driven protocols, the standard utilization of protocols originally designed for psoriasis vs other condition-specific protocols, missed treatments leading to increased sensitivity, or possibly shielding mishaps (eg, not wearing a prescribed face shield). Given the number of potential causes and the possibility of overlapping factors, careful analysis is important. With NB-UVB phototherapy, near-erythemogenic doses are optimal to achieve effective treatments, but this delicate balance may be more problematic for older adults. Future studies are needed to fully determine the factors at play for this population. In the interim, it is important for phototherapy-trained nurses to consider this risk carefully in the older population. They must follow the prescribed protocols that guide them to query patients about their responses to the prior treatment (eg, erythema, tenderness, itching), photosensitizing medications, missed treatments, and placement of shielding, and then adjust the treatment dosing accordingly.

Limitations
This study had several limitations. Although clinical outcomes were recorded prospectively, the analysis was retrospective, unblinded, and not placebo controlled. It was conducted in a single organization (Group Health [now Kaiser Permanente Washington]) but did analyze data from 4 medical centers in different cities with diverse demographics and a variety of nursing staff providing the treatments. Although the vitiligo treatment protocol likely slowed the response rate for those patients with vitiligo, the numbers were small (ie, only 3 of 52 patients), so the researchers chose to include them in the current study. The sample population was relatively small, but when these data are evaluated alongside the studies in the United Kingdom¹⁶ and Turkey,¹⁷ they show a consistent picture illustrating the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy in the older population. Further epidemiologic studies could be helpful to further describe the usefulness of this modality compared with other treatments for a variety of dermatoses in this age group. Supplementary analysis specifically examining the relationship between the number and type of photosensitizing medications, frequency of erythema, and time to clearance also could be useful.

Conclusion

Older adults with a variety of dermatoses respond well to phototherapy and should have the opportunity to use it, particularly considering the potential for increased complications and costs from other treatment modalities, such as commonly used immunosuppressive pharmaceuticals. However, the current study and the comparison studies indicate that it is important to carefully consider the slower clearance rates and the potential risk for increased erythema in this population and adjust patient education and treatment dosing accordingly.

Unfortunately, many dermatology centers do not offer phototherapy because of infrastructure limitations such as space and specially trained nursing staff. Increasing accessibility of phototherapy for older adults through home treatments may be an alternative, given its effectiveness in the general population.^22,23 In addition, home phototherapy may be worth pursuing for the older population considering the challenges they may face with transportation to the clinic setting and their increased risk for serious illness if exposed to infections such as COVID-19. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light the need for reliable, safe, and effective treatments that can be utilized in the safety of patients’ homes and should therefore be considered as an option for older adults. Issues such as mobility and cognitive decline could pose some complicating factors, but with the help of a well-trained family member or caregiver, home phototherapy could be a viable option that improves accessibility for older patients. Future research opportunities include further examination of the slower but ultimately equivalent response to phototherapy in the older population, the influence of photosensitizing medications on phototherapy effects, and the impact of phototherapy on utilization of immunosuppressive pharmaceuticals in older adults.

The increased use of masks caused by the COVID-19 pandemic was accompanied by a “dramatic increase in face mask–related injuries” reported to a national surveillance system.

How dramatic? The number of mask-related injuries treated in U.S. emergency departments averaged about 200 per year from 2016 to 2019. In 2020, that figure soared to 4,976 – an increase of almost 2,400%, Gerald McGwin Jr., PhD, and associates said in a research letter published in the Journal to the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic the use of respiratory protection equipment was largely limited to healthcare and industrial settings. As [face mask] use by the general population increased, so too have reports of dermatologic reactions,” said Dr. McGwin and associates of the department of epidemiology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Dermatitis was the most common mask-related injury treated last year, affecting 28.3% of those presenting to EDs, followed by lacerations at 10.1%. Injuries were more common in women than men, but while and black patients “were equally represented,” they noted, based on data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, which includes about 100 hospitals and EDs.

Most injuries were caused by rashes/allergic reactions (38%) from prolonged use, poorly fitting masks (19%), and obscured vision (14%). “There was a small (5%) but meaningful number of injuries, all among children, attributable to consuming pieces of a mask or inserting dismantled pieces of a mask into body orifices,” the investigators said.

Guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is available “to aid in the choice and proper fit of face masks,” they wrote, and “increased awareness of these resources [could] minimize the future occurrence of mask-related injuries.”

There was no funding source for the study, and the investigators did not declare any conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

The increased use of masks caused by the COVID-19 pandemic was accompanied by a “dramatic increase in face mask–related injuries” reported to a national surveillance system.

How dramatic? The number of mask-related injuries treated in U.S. emergency departments averaged about 200 per year from 2016 to 2019. In 2020, that figure soared to 4,976 – an increase of almost 2,400%, Gerald McGwin Jr., PhD, and associates said in a research letter published in the Journal to the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic the use of respiratory protection equipment was largely limited to healthcare and industrial settings. As [face mask] use by the general population increased, so too have reports of dermatologic reactions,” said Dr. McGwin and associates of the department of epidemiology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Dermatitis was the most common mask-related injury treated last year, affecting 28.3% of those presenting to EDs, followed by lacerations at 10.1%. Injuries were more common in women than men, but while and black patients “were equally represented,” they noted, based on data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, which includes about 100 hospitals and EDs.

Most injuries were caused by rashes/allergic reactions (38%) from prolonged use, poorly fitting masks (19%), and obscured vision (14%). “There was a small (5%) but meaningful number of injuries, all among children, attributable to consuming pieces of a mask or inserting dismantled pieces of a mask into body orifices,” the investigators said.

Guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is available “to aid in the choice and proper fit of face masks,” they wrote, and “increased awareness of these resources [could] minimize the future occurrence of mask-related injuries.”

There was no funding source for the study, and the investigators did not declare any conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

The increased use of masks caused by the COVID-19 pandemic was accompanied by a “dramatic increase in face mask–related injuries” reported to a national surveillance system.

How dramatic? The number of mask-related injuries treated in U.S. emergency departments averaged about 200 per year from 2016 to 2019. In 2020, that figure soared to 4,976 – an increase of almost 2,400%, Gerald McGwin Jr., PhD, and associates said in a research letter published in the Journal to the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic the use of respiratory protection equipment was largely limited to healthcare and industrial settings. As [face mask] use by the general population increased, so too have reports of dermatologic reactions,” said Dr. McGwin and associates of the department of epidemiology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Dermatitis was the most common mask-related injury treated last year, affecting 28.3% of those presenting to EDs, followed by lacerations at 10.1%. Injuries were more common in women than men, but while and black patients “were equally represented,” they noted, based on data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, which includes about 100 hospitals and EDs.

Most injuries were caused by rashes/allergic reactions (38%) from prolonged use, poorly fitting masks (19%), and obscured vision (14%). “There was a small (5%) but meaningful number of injuries, all among children, attributable to consuming pieces of a mask or inserting dismantled pieces of a mask into body orifices,” the investigators said.

Guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is available “to aid in the choice and proper fit of face masks,” they wrote, and “increased awareness of these resources [could] minimize the future occurrence of mask-related injuries.”

There was no funding source for the study, and the investigators did not declare any conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

The world is an increasingly diverse place, which has particular relevance for the dermatologist. Skin color plays a significant role in diagnostic approach, as there are important differences in how cutaneous disease presents in patients with skin of color (SOC). Therefore, education about these differences is imperative. In this review, we focus on allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and patch testing in patients with SOC. We discuss allergens common to this demographic and challenges encountered in patch testing patients with SOC. We also identify key health care disparities in the evaluation and management of ACD in this population.

Has contact allergy in SOC populations been studied in North America?

Over the last 2 decades, there have been only a handful of North American studies that address contact allergy in SOC populations. Patch test results from 114 Black patients and 877 White patients at the Cleveland Clinic from 1988 to 1991 showed that overall allergy frequency was relatively similar (43.0% vs 43.6%). There were notable differences in allergen sensitization. Paraphenylenediamine (PPD), which is used in hair dye, had more positive patch test reactions in Black patients (10.6% vs 4.5%), and both PPD (21.2% vs 4.2%) and imidazolidinyl urea, a formaldehyde-releasing preservative (9.1% vs 2.6%), were more frequently allergenic in Black men compared to White men.¹ Patch test results from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group from 1992 to 1998 described similar results, with minimal variation in the prevalence of ACD among 1014 Black and 8610 White patients (47%–49% vs 46%–49%).² Positive patch test reactions to PPD were higher in Black patients for 2 of 3 test cycles (13.5% vs 5.8% [1994-1996] and 10.3% vs 5.3% [1996-1998]). Positive patch test reactions were higher in White patients for dimethylol dimethyl hydantoin, a formaldehyde-releasing preservative, also for 2 of 3 test cycles (1.8% vs 0% [1992-1994] and 2.8% vs 0.3% [1994-1996]). Finally, positive patch test reactions to thioureas (rubber accelerators) had a mixed picture: 2 test cycles were higher in Black patients (1.9% vs 1.0% [1992-1994] and 1.3% vs 0.7% [1994-1996]), but the third cycle (1996-1998) was lower (0.7% vs 1.4%). Positive patch test reactions to the metal cobalt chloride were higher in Black patients in just 1 test cycle (9.2% vs 6.6% [1992-1994]). The authors suggested that the use of darker hair dyes in the Black community may lead to more sensitization to PPD. They also theorized that this population’s more frequent use of ointment-based skin care products may make them less susceptible to sensitization to preservatives such as formaldehyde, which more commonly are found in water-based products such as creams. They concluded that differences in sensitization patterns likely were driven by cultural practices affecting exposures.²

In 2016, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group reported patch test results in 434 Black and 6634 White patients (1998-2006).³ Again, ACD prevalence was about the same in both groups (45.9% vs 43.6%). However, they reported several allergens with different reaction patterns. Black patients had higher risk ratios (RRs) for 3 rubber accelerators: mercaptobenzothiazole (RR, 2.10), mercapto mix (RR, 2.27), and thiuram mix (RR, 1.44). They also reacted to PPD (RR, 1.56) and the antibiotic bacitracin (RR, 1.34) at higher frequencies than White patients, who more frequently reacted to formaldehyde (RR, 0.58); the formaldehyde-releasing preservatives quaternium-15 (RR, 0.63) and diazolidinyl urea (in petrolatum: RR, 0.44; aqueous: RR, 0.47); the clothing finish ethylene urea melamine formalin resin (RR, 0.45); and the fragrances fragrance mix 1 (RR, 0.65) and balsam of Peru (RR, 0.55).³

Patch testing of 139 African American or Black patients at the Cleveland Clinic (2003-2012) revealed that this population most commonly had positive reactions to nickel (27.5%), fragrance mix (18.1%), bacitracin (13.0%), balsam of Peru (12.3%), and PPD (10.9%). The authors highlighted unique features of physical examination in patients with darker skin types, including lichenification and/or hyperpigmentation in those with ACD and the potential for lack of erythema and/or a papular reaction with patch test readings.⁴ Recently, data was presented at the American Contact Dermatitis Society Annual Meeting (March 2021) on patterns of ACD in Black and White patch tested patients in Philadelphia (2009-2019).⁵ Using the North American 80 comprehensive series, the researchers documented statistically significant differences in allergen sensitivity between the 2 groups. Black patients reacted to disperse blue dye (P=.019) and textile dye mix (P=.001) at higher frequencies. There was a nonsignificant trend of more frequent positive reactions to PPD in Black patients (11% vs 6%).⁵

Notably, all of these studies examined only 1 or 2 racial groups with a focus on Black patients. Some authors commented that this was due to low numbers of Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Native American patients in tested populations.^2,3,5 With approximately 13% of the US population self-identifying as Black,⁶ these patients and other minority races typically are underrepresented in large patch test studies. More data on patch test results for these groups is necessary for a complete understanding of patch testing in patients with SOC.

What are the challenges in patch testing SOC populations?

Patch testing in patients with SOC requires additional skills and experience. Darker skin does not reveal erythema as strikingly as lighter skin, making it more difficult to appreciate subtle color changes. Moreover, multiple studies have shown that ACD can have different presentations in Black patients.^4,7,8 Lichenification and hyperpigmentation may be early signs of ACD in comparison to bright erythema and vesicles that can be seen in lighter skin types. It also has been reported that scalp ACD can be mistaken for seborrheic dermatitis due to lack of erythema.⁷ Without a high degree of clinical suspicion, a diagnosis of ACD can be missed in this patient population.

Patch test interpretation also can be challenging in patients with SOC. An early papular or follicular eruption with minimal erythema can signal a positive reaction.^4,7 Because of these potentially subtle changes, patch testers should exercise care and attention when reading results for SOC populations. We recommend ample side lighting, palpation for adequate identification of positive reactions, and double-checking for positives that may have been overlooked on the initial review of findings.^4,7

What health care disparities impact the evaluation and management of ACD?

There are many factors at play in this dialogue. The challenges we identified in diagnosing ACD in darker skin types are important to consider. Lack of familiarity with these unique features can lead to a delay in diagnosis and ultimately a delay in referral for patch testing. This is where dermatology training can help fill in the gap, but are the majority of programs equipped to do so? Inadequate education and exposure to patients with SOC is an issue for many dermatology residency programs. Surveys of residents and program directors in geographically less diverse regions may not receive adequate education or exposure to patients with SOC.⁹ Further, there is a lack of representation of SOC images for general dermatologic conditions in textbooks,^10,11 which has a profound impact on the dermatologist’s ability to recognize common diseases in darker skin types. A 2019 survey of more than 5000 images from 2 dermatology textbooks showed SOC images comprised 22% to 32% of the total images.¹¹ However, SOC images are overrepresented in textbooks for sexually transmitted infections, constituting 47% to 58% of the images; they made up 28% of images for nonvenereal infections.¹¹ Why is that? In this article, we have shown the prevalence of ACD to be nearly equivalent in Black and White patients, yet a perusal of ACD images in dermatology textbooks will tell a different story. This trend deserves our attention; perhaps it is highlighting patterns of systemic racism seen in medicine. If our primary teaching materials are perpetuating stereotypes, we must consider the impact this can have on our personal implicit biases and the health care disparities that can ensue.

Additional factors impact time to diagnosis of ACD and referral for patch testing. A retrospective study examining distance to a North Carolina patch test referral clinic showed that patients living further from the clinic experienced a longer duration of dermatitis prior to patch test consultation and tended to live in areas with a higher county poverty rate.¹² Specifically, a 17.9% increase (P<.001) in the median duration of dermatitis was observed for every 50-mile increase in distance to the patch test clinic. County poverty rate was measured by the percentage of residents living below the poverty threshold; for every 5% increase in county poverty rate, a 16.3% increase (P<.032) in duration of dermatitis was found.¹²

These data highlight a relationship with which many dermatologists are familiar and underscore a need for dermatologists to practice in areas that are more geographically accessible. The recently increased utilization of telehealth modalities can potentially help to bridge this gap by decreasing delays in diagnosis and providing more affordable options for evaluation by a dermatologist for patients with socioeconomic obstacles.

Final Interpretation

The prevalence of ACD among Black and White patients is similar; however, there are important differences in patch test reaction frequencies that may be related to the diverse exposure patterns for each group. Additionally, patients with SOC may have unique clinical presentations of ACD, such as lichenification and hyperpigmentation. Darker skin types also may require specialized techniques for accurate patch test readings. It is imperative that dermatologists are trained to recognize all of these features. Health care disparities come in many forms and, in this setting, can result in delayed referral for patch testing. Additional studies are needed to further examine these health care disparities and identify potential solutions.

The world is an increasingly diverse place, which has particular relevance for the dermatologist. Skin color plays a significant role in diagnostic approach, as there are important differences in how cutaneous disease presents in patients with skin of color (SOC). Therefore, education about these differences is imperative. In this review, we focus on allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and patch testing in patients with SOC. We discuss allergens common to this demographic and challenges encountered in patch testing patients with SOC. We also identify key health care disparities in the evaluation and management of ACD in this population.

Has contact allergy in SOC populations been studied in North America?

Over the last 2 decades, there have been only a handful of North American studies that address contact allergy in SOC populations. Patch test results from 114 Black patients and 877 White patients at the Cleveland Clinic from 1988 to 1991 showed that overall allergy frequency was relatively similar (43.0% vs 43.6%). There were notable differences in allergen sensitization. Paraphenylenediamine (PPD), which is used in hair dye, had more positive patch test reactions in Black patients (10.6% vs 4.5%), and both PPD (21.2% vs 4.2%) and imidazolidinyl urea, a formaldehyde-releasing preservative (9.1% vs 2.6%), were more frequently allergenic in Black men compared to White men.¹ Patch test results from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group from 1992 to 1998 described similar results, with minimal variation in the prevalence of ACD among 1014 Black and 8610 White patients (47%–49% vs 46%–49%).² Positive patch test reactions to PPD were higher in Black patients for 2 of 3 test cycles (13.5% vs 5.8% [1994-1996] and 10.3% vs 5.3% [1996-1998]). Positive patch test reactions were higher in White patients for dimethylol dimethyl hydantoin, a formaldehyde-releasing preservative, also for 2 of 3 test cycles (1.8% vs 0% [1992-1994] and 2.8% vs 0.3% [1994-1996]). Finally, positive patch test reactions to thioureas (rubber accelerators) had a mixed picture: 2 test cycles were higher in Black patients (1.9% vs 1.0% [1992-1994] and 1.3% vs 0.7% [1994-1996]), but the third cycle (1996-1998) was lower (0.7% vs 1.4%). Positive patch test reactions to the metal cobalt chloride were higher in Black patients in just 1 test cycle (9.2% vs 6.6% [1992-1994]). The authors suggested that the use of darker hair dyes in the Black community may lead to more sensitization to PPD. They also theorized that this population’s more frequent use of ointment-based skin care products may make them less susceptible to sensitization to preservatives such as formaldehyde, which more commonly are found in water-based products such as creams. They concluded that differences in sensitization patterns likely were driven by cultural practices affecting exposures.²

In 2016, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group reported patch test results in 434 Black and 6634 White patients (1998-2006).³ Again, ACD prevalence was about the same in both groups (45.9% vs 43.6%). However, they reported several allergens with different reaction patterns. Black patients had higher risk ratios (RRs) for 3 rubber accelerators: mercaptobenzothiazole (RR, 2.10), mercapto mix (RR, 2.27), and thiuram mix (RR, 1.44). They also reacted to PPD (RR, 1.56) and the antibiotic bacitracin (RR, 1.34) at higher frequencies than White patients, who more frequently reacted to formaldehyde (RR, 0.58); the formaldehyde-releasing preservatives quaternium-15 (RR, 0.63) and diazolidinyl urea (in petrolatum: RR, 0.44; aqueous: RR, 0.47); the clothing finish ethylene urea melamine formalin resin (RR, 0.45); and the fragrances fragrance mix 1 (RR, 0.65) and balsam of Peru (RR, 0.55).³

Patch testing of 139 African American or Black patients at the Cleveland Clinic (2003-2012) revealed that this population most commonly had positive reactions to nickel (27.5%), fragrance mix (18.1%), bacitracin (13.0%), balsam of Peru (12.3%), and PPD (10.9%). The authors highlighted unique features of physical examination in patients with darker skin types, including lichenification and/or hyperpigmentation in those with ACD and the potential for lack of erythema and/or a papular reaction with patch test readings.⁴ Recently, data was presented at the American Contact Dermatitis Society Annual Meeting (March 2021) on patterns of ACD in Black and White patch tested patients in Philadelphia (2009-2019).⁵ Using the North American 80 comprehensive series, the researchers documented statistically significant differences in allergen sensitivity between the 2 groups. Black patients reacted to disperse blue dye (P=.019) and textile dye mix (P=.001) at higher frequencies. There was a nonsignificant trend of more frequent positive reactions to PPD in Black patients (11% vs 6%).⁵

Notably, all of these studies examined only 1 or 2 racial groups with a focus on Black patients. Some authors commented that this was due to low numbers of Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Native American patients in tested populations.^2,3,5 With approximately 13% of the US population self-identifying as Black,⁶ these patients and other minority races typically are underrepresented in large patch test studies. More data on patch test results for these groups is necessary for a complete understanding of patch testing in patients with SOC.

What are the challenges in patch testing SOC populations?

Patch testing in patients with SOC requires additional skills and experience. Darker skin does not reveal erythema as strikingly as lighter skin, making it more difficult to appreciate subtle color changes. Moreover, multiple studies have shown that ACD can have different presentations in Black patients.^4,7,8 Lichenification and hyperpigmentation may be early signs of ACD in comparison to bright erythema and vesicles that can be seen in lighter skin types. It also has been reported that scalp ACD can be mistaken for seborrheic dermatitis due to lack of erythema.⁷ Without a high degree of clinical suspicion, a diagnosis of ACD can be missed in this patient population.

Patch test interpretation also can be challenging in patients with SOC. An early papular or follicular eruption with minimal erythema can signal a positive reaction.^4,7 Because of these potentially subtle changes, patch testers should exercise care and attention when reading results for SOC populations. We recommend ample side lighting, palpation for adequate identification of positive reactions, and double-checking for positives that may have been overlooked on the initial review of findings.^4,7

What health care disparities impact the evaluation and management of ACD?

There are many factors at play in this dialogue. The challenges we identified in diagnosing ACD in darker skin types are important to consider. Lack of familiarity with these unique features can lead to a delay in diagnosis and ultimately a delay in referral for patch testing. This is where dermatology training can help fill in the gap, but are the majority of programs equipped to do so? Inadequate education and exposure to patients with SOC is an issue for many dermatology residency programs. Surveys of residents and program directors in geographically less diverse regions may not receive adequate education or exposure to patients with SOC.⁹ Further, there is a lack of representation of SOC images for general dermatologic conditions in textbooks,^10,11 which has a profound impact on the dermatologist’s ability to recognize common diseases in darker skin types. A 2019 survey of more than 5000 images from 2 dermatology textbooks showed SOC images comprised 22% to 32% of the total images.¹¹ However, SOC images are overrepresented in textbooks for sexually transmitted infections, constituting 47% to 58% of the images; they made up 28% of images for nonvenereal infections.¹¹ Why is that? In this article, we have shown the prevalence of ACD to be nearly equivalent in Black and White patients, yet a perusal of ACD images in dermatology textbooks will tell a different story. This trend deserves our attention; perhaps it is highlighting patterns of systemic racism seen in medicine. If our primary teaching materials are perpetuating stereotypes, we must consider the impact this can have on our personal implicit biases and the health care disparities that can ensue.

Additional factors impact time to diagnosis of ACD and referral for patch testing. A retrospective study examining distance to a North Carolina patch test referral clinic showed that patients living further from the clinic experienced a longer duration of dermatitis prior to patch test consultation and tended to live in areas with a higher county poverty rate.¹² Specifically, a 17.9% increase (P<.001) in the median duration of dermatitis was observed for every 50-mile increase in distance to the patch test clinic. County poverty rate was measured by the percentage of residents living below the poverty threshold; for every 5% increase in county poverty rate, a 16.3% increase (P<.032) in duration of dermatitis was found.¹²

These data highlight a relationship with which many dermatologists are familiar and underscore a need for dermatologists to practice in areas that are more geographically accessible. The recently increased utilization of telehealth modalities can potentially help to bridge this gap by decreasing delays in diagnosis and providing more affordable options for evaluation by a dermatologist for patients with socioeconomic obstacles.

Final Interpretation

The prevalence of ACD among Black and White patients is similar; however, there are important differences in patch test reaction frequencies that may be related to the diverse exposure patterns for each group. Additionally, patients with SOC may have unique clinical presentations of ACD, such as lichenification and hyperpigmentation. Darker skin types also may require specialized techniques for accurate patch test readings. It is imperative that dermatologists are trained to recognize all of these features. Health care disparities come in many forms and, in this setting, can result in delayed referral for patch testing. Additional studies are needed to further examine these health care disparities and identify potential solutions.

The world is an increasingly diverse place, which has particular relevance for the dermatologist. Skin color plays a significant role in diagnostic approach, as there are important differences in how cutaneous disease presents in patients with skin of color (SOC). Therefore, education about these differences is imperative. In this review, we focus on allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and patch testing in patients with SOC. We discuss allergens common to this demographic and challenges encountered in patch testing patients with SOC. We also identify key health care disparities in the evaluation and management of ACD in this population.

Has contact allergy in SOC populations been studied in North America?

Over the last 2 decades, there have been only a handful of North American studies that address contact allergy in SOC populations. Patch test results from 114 Black patients and 877 White patients at the Cleveland Clinic from 1988 to 1991 showed that overall allergy frequency was relatively similar (43.0% vs 43.6%). There were notable differences in allergen sensitization. Paraphenylenediamine (PPD), which is used in hair dye, had more positive patch test reactions in Black patients (10.6% vs 4.5%), and both PPD (21.2% vs 4.2%) and imidazolidinyl urea, a formaldehyde-releasing preservative (9.1% vs 2.6%), were more frequently allergenic in Black men compared to White men.¹ Patch test results from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group from 1992 to 1998 described similar results, with minimal variation in the prevalence of ACD among 1014 Black and 8610 White patients (47%–49% vs 46%–49%).² Positive patch test reactions to PPD were higher in Black patients for 2 of 3 test cycles (13.5% vs 5.8% [1994-1996] and 10.3% vs 5.3% [1996-1998]). Positive patch test reactions were higher in White patients for dimethylol dimethyl hydantoin, a formaldehyde-releasing preservative, also for 2 of 3 test cycles (1.8% vs 0% [1992-1994] and 2.8% vs 0.3% [1994-1996]). Finally, positive patch test reactions to thioureas (rubber accelerators) had a mixed picture: 2 test cycles were higher in Black patients (1.9% vs 1.0% [1992-1994] and 1.3% vs 0.7% [1994-1996]), but the third cycle (1996-1998) was lower (0.7% vs 1.4%). Positive patch test reactions to the metal cobalt chloride were higher in Black patients in just 1 test cycle (9.2% vs 6.6% [1992-1994]). The authors suggested that the use of darker hair dyes in the Black community may lead to more sensitization to PPD. They also theorized that this population’s more frequent use of ointment-based skin care products may make them less susceptible to sensitization to preservatives such as formaldehyde, which more commonly are found in water-based products such as creams. They concluded that differences in sensitization patterns likely were driven by cultural practices affecting exposures.²

In 2016, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group reported patch test results in 434 Black and 6634 White patients (1998-2006).³ Again, ACD prevalence was about the same in both groups (45.9% vs 43.6%). However, they reported several allergens with different reaction patterns. Black patients had higher risk ratios (RRs) for 3 rubber accelerators: mercaptobenzothiazole (RR, 2.10), mercapto mix (RR, 2.27), and thiuram mix (RR, 1.44). They also reacted to PPD (RR, 1.56) and the antibiotic bacitracin (RR, 1.34) at higher frequencies than White patients, who more frequently reacted to formaldehyde (RR, 0.58); the formaldehyde-releasing preservatives quaternium-15 (RR, 0.63) and diazolidinyl urea (in petrolatum: RR, 0.44; aqueous: RR, 0.47); the clothing finish ethylene urea melamine formalin resin (RR, 0.45); and the fragrances fragrance mix 1 (RR, 0.65) and balsam of Peru (RR, 0.55).³

Patch testing of 139 African American or Black patients at the Cleveland Clinic (2003-2012) revealed that this population most commonly had positive reactions to nickel (27.5%), fragrance mix (18.1%), bacitracin (13.0%), balsam of Peru (12.3%), and PPD (10.9%). The authors highlighted unique features of physical examination in patients with darker skin types, including lichenification and/or hyperpigmentation in those with ACD and the potential for lack of erythema and/or a papular reaction with patch test readings.⁴ Recently, data was presented at the American Contact Dermatitis Society Annual Meeting (March 2021) on patterns of ACD in Black and White patch tested patients in Philadelphia (2009-2019).⁵ Using the North American 80 comprehensive series, the researchers documented statistically significant differences in allergen sensitivity between the 2 groups. Black patients reacted to disperse blue dye (P=.019) and textile dye mix (P=.001) at higher frequencies. There was a nonsignificant trend of more frequent positive reactions to PPD in Black patients (11% vs 6%).⁵

Notably, all of these studies examined only 1 or 2 racial groups with a focus on Black patients. Some authors commented that this was due to low numbers of Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Native American patients in tested populations.^2,3,5 With approximately 13% of the US population self-identifying as Black,⁶ these patients and other minority races typically are underrepresented in large patch test studies. More data on patch test results for these groups is necessary for a complete understanding of patch testing in patients with SOC.

What are the challenges in patch testing SOC populations?

Patch testing in patients with SOC requires additional skills and experience. Darker skin does not reveal erythema as strikingly as lighter skin, making it more difficult to appreciate subtle color changes. Moreover, multiple studies have shown that ACD can have different presentations in Black patients.^4,7,8 Lichenification and hyperpigmentation may be early signs of ACD in comparison to bright erythema and vesicles that can be seen in lighter skin types. It also has been reported that scalp ACD can be mistaken for seborrheic dermatitis due to lack of erythema.⁷ Without a high degree of clinical suspicion, a diagnosis of ACD can be missed in this patient population.

Patch test interpretation also can be challenging in patients with SOC. An early papular or follicular eruption with minimal erythema can signal a positive reaction.^4,7 Because of these potentially subtle changes, patch testers should exercise care and attention when reading results for SOC populations. We recommend ample side lighting, palpation for adequate identification of positive reactions, and double-checking for positives that may have been overlooked on the initial review of findings.^4,7

What health care disparities impact the evaluation and management of ACD?

There are many factors at play in this dialogue. The challenges we identified in diagnosing ACD in darker skin types are important to consider. Lack of familiarity with these unique features can lead to a delay in diagnosis and ultimately a delay in referral for patch testing. This is where dermatology training can help fill in the gap, but are the majority of programs equipped to do so? Inadequate education and exposure to patients with SOC is an issue for many dermatology residency programs. Surveys of residents and program directors in geographically less diverse regions may not receive adequate education or exposure to patients with SOC.⁹ Further, there is a lack of representation of SOC images for general dermatologic conditions in textbooks,^10,11 which has a profound impact on the dermatologist’s ability to recognize common diseases in darker skin types. A 2019 survey of more than 5000 images from 2 dermatology textbooks showed SOC images comprised 22% to 32% of the total images.¹¹ However, SOC images are overrepresented in textbooks for sexually transmitted infections, constituting 47% to 58% of the images; they made up 28% of images for nonvenereal infections.¹¹ Why is that? In this article, we have shown the prevalence of ACD to be nearly equivalent in Black and White patients, yet a perusal of ACD images in dermatology textbooks will tell a different story. This trend deserves our attention; perhaps it is highlighting patterns of systemic racism seen in medicine. If our primary teaching materials are perpetuating stereotypes, we must consider the impact this can have on our personal implicit biases and the health care disparities that can ensue.

Additional factors impact time to diagnosis of ACD and referral for patch testing. A retrospective study examining distance to a North Carolina patch test referral clinic showed that patients living further from the clinic experienced a longer duration of dermatitis prior to patch test consultation and tended to live in areas with a higher county poverty rate.¹² Specifically, a 17.9% increase (P<.001) in the median duration of dermatitis was observed for every 50-mile increase in distance to the patch test clinic. County poverty rate was measured by the percentage of residents living below the poverty threshold; for every 5% increase in county poverty rate, a 16.3% increase (P<.032) in duration of dermatitis was found.¹²

These data highlight a relationship with which many dermatologists are familiar and underscore a need for dermatologists to practice in areas that are more geographically accessible. The recently increased utilization of telehealth modalities can potentially help to bridge this gap by decreasing delays in diagnosis and providing more affordable options for evaluation by a dermatologist for patients with socioeconomic obstacles.

Final Interpretation

The prevalence of ACD among Black and White patients is similar; however, there are important differences in patch test reaction frequencies that may be related to the diverse exposure patterns for each group. Additionally, patients with SOC may have unique clinical presentations of ACD, such as lichenification and hyperpigmentation. Darker skin types also may require specialized techniques for accurate patch test readings. It is imperative that dermatologists are trained to recognize all of these features. Health care disparities come in many forms and, in this setting, can result in delayed referral for patch testing. Additional studies are needed to further examine these health care disparities and identify potential solutions.

To the Editor:

Patients with psychocutaneous disorders present unique challenges to physicians. We illustrate the critical role that dermoscopy may play to illuminate exogenous skin pathology.

A 50-year-old woman with a reported medical history of systemic lupus erythematosus, chronic pain, and nonhealing leg ulcers presented to the emergency department with severe pain of the left lower leg and redness that was concerning for cellulitis. She sought treatment at an outside hospital for cellulitis 2 weeks prior but left against medical advice. Symptomatic review revealed chest pain, shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The primary team started her on intravenous clindamycin and vancomycin for the presumed infection and scheduled narcotic medications due to concerns of intractable pain in the left leg. The dermatology department was consulted after failure to improve with 1 week of systemic antibiotics.

Physical examination revealed a geometric, atrophic, purple plaque on the left anterior shin from a prior leg ulcer as well as a diffuse red-pink patch extending from the knee to the ankle. Notably, the cellulitis spared the left posterior calf resting against the sheet and had a sharp line of demarcation at the distal shin. The leg was cool to the touch while the patient was distractible. She later reported that the leg was extremely tender to palpation. Dermoscopy revealed linear red pigments within skin furrows that accentuated skin lines (Figure). These findings raised suspicions of an external manipulation. The skin was wiped with an alcohol pad that removed a shimmering pink substance consistent in appearance to a cosmetic product. The skin beneath the cellulitis appeared normal.

Dermoscopy is not a standard method to diagnose cellulitis of the skin; however, when patients present with an atypical response to appropriate care, the presumed diagnosis must be challenged. This patient had dramatized symptoms, false medical history, and numerous hospitalizations that were suspicious for factitious disorder.¹ Furthermore, the physical examination was inconsistent with the classic course of cellulitis. In this case, dermoscopy had advantages over biopsies because it was noninvasive, gave immediate feedback, and provided a macroscopic view of the morphology. Via dermoscopy, we had an objective lens to distinguish cellulitis from cosmetic product and to obtain the correct diagnosis.

To the Editor:

Patients with psychocutaneous disorders present unique challenges to physicians. We illustrate the critical role that dermoscopy may play to illuminate exogenous skin pathology.

A 50-year-old woman with a reported medical history of systemic lupus erythematosus, chronic pain, and nonhealing leg ulcers presented to the emergency department with severe pain of the left lower leg and redness that was concerning for cellulitis. She sought treatment at an outside hospital for cellulitis 2 weeks prior but left against medical advice. Symptomatic review revealed chest pain, shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The primary team started her on intravenous clindamycin and vancomycin for the presumed infection and scheduled narcotic medications due to concerns of intractable pain in the left leg. The dermatology department was consulted after failure to improve with 1 week of systemic antibiotics.

Physical examination revealed a geometric, atrophic, purple plaque on the left anterior shin from a prior leg ulcer as well as a diffuse red-pink patch extending from the knee to the ankle. Notably, the cellulitis spared the left posterior calf resting against the sheet and had a sharp line of demarcation at the distal shin. The leg was cool to the touch while the patient was distractible. She later reported that the leg was extremely tender to palpation. Dermoscopy revealed linear red pigments within skin furrows that accentuated skin lines (Figure). These findings raised suspicions of an external manipulation. The skin was wiped with an alcohol pad that removed a shimmering pink substance consistent in appearance to a cosmetic product. The skin beneath the cellulitis appeared normal.

Dermoscopy is not a standard method to diagnose cellulitis of the skin; however, when patients present with an atypical response to appropriate care, the presumed diagnosis must be challenged. This patient had dramatized symptoms, false medical history, and numerous hospitalizations that were suspicious for factitious disorder.¹ Furthermore, the physical examination was inconsistent with the classic course of cellulitis. In this case, dermoscopy had advantages over biopsies because it was noninvasive, gave immediate feedback, and provided a macroscopic view of the morphology. Via dermoscopy, we had an objective lens to distinguish cellulitis from cosmetic product and to obtain the correct diagnosis.

To the Editor:

Patients with psychocutaneous disorders present unique challenges to physicians. We illustrate the critical role that dermoscopy may play to illuminate exogenous skin pathology.

A 50-year-old woman with a reported medical history of systemic lupus erythematosus, chronic pain, and nonhealing leg ulcers presented to the emergency department with severe pain of the left lower leg and redness that was concerning for cellulitis. She sought treatment at an outside hospital for cellulitis 2 weeks prior but left against medical advice. Symptomatic review revealed chest pain, shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The primary team started her on intravenous clindamycin and vancomycin for the presumed infection and scheduled narcotic medications due to concerns of intractable pain in the left leg. The dermatology department was consulted after failure to improve with 1 week of systemic antibiotics.

Physical examination revealed a geometric, atrophic, purple plaque on the left anterior shin from a prior leg ulcer as well as a diffuse red-pink patch extending from the knee to the ankle. Notably, the cellulitis spared the left posterior calf resting against the sheet and had a sharp line of demarcation at the distal shin. The leg was cool to the touch while the patient was distractible. She later reported that the leg was extremely tender to palpation. Dermoscopy revealed linear red pigments within skin furrows that accentuated skin lines (Figure). These findings raised suspicions of an external manipulation. The skin was wiped with an alcohol pad that removed a shimmering pink substance consistent in appearance to a cosmetic product. The skin beneath the cellulitis appeared normal.

Dermoscopy is not a standard method to diagnose cellulitis of the skin; however, when patients present with an atypical response to appropriate care, the presumed diagnosis must be challenged. This patient had dramatized symptoms, false medical history, and numerous hospitalizations that were suspicious for factitious disorder.¹ Furthermore, the physical examination was inconsistent with the classic course of cellulitis. In this case, dermoscopy had advantages over biopsies because it was noninvasive, gave immediate feedback, and provided a macroscopic view of the morphology. Via dermoscopy, we had an objective lens to distinguish cellulitis from cosmetic product and to obtain the correct diagnosis.

It’s time for the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) Allergen of the Year! For 2021, the esteemed award goes to acetophenone azine (AA). If you have never heard of this chemical, you are not alone. Acetophenone azine has been identified in foam materials made of the copolymer ethyl-vinyl acetate (EVA). Contact allergy to AA initially was reported in 2016.¹ There are only a few European and Canadian case reports and one case series of AA contact allergy in the literature, all of which are associated with foam shin pads or shin guards, shoe insoles, and/or flip-flops.^2-6 Acetophenone azine is an important emerging allergen, and in this column, we will introduce you to AA and the sneaky places it can lurk and cause allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). We also highlight diagnosis, management, and patch testing for AA contact allergy.

AA Contact Allergy in the Literature

The first case of AA contact allergy was reported in Europe in 2016 when a 13-year-old male soccer player developed severe lower leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis associated with wearing foam shin guards.¹ Patch testing to standard and supplemental trays was negative or not relevant; however, the patient exhibited strong reactions when patch tested directly to a piece of the shin guard soaked in acetone, water, and ethanol. Additional testing with AA diluted in acetone, water, and petrolatum resulted in positive patch test reactions to acetone dilutions of 1%, 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001% and aqueous solutions of 1% and 0.1%. Chromatographic analyses with high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) of shin guard extracts confirmed the culprit allergen to be AA.¹

In the following months, the same clinic saw 2 more cases of AA contact allergy.² An 11-year-old male soccer player developed lower leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis from wearing shin guards. Months later, he also developed dermatitis on the soles of the feet, which was attributed to wearing flip-flops. Patch tests to pieces of the shin guards and flip-flops were positive; AA in acetone 0.1% and 0.01% also was positive. As you might expect, HPLC again confirmed the presence of AA in the shin guards and flip-flops. The third patient was a 12-year-old boy with dermatitis on the soles of both feet; later he also developed a generalized dermatitis. Patch testing to pieces of the insoles of his sneakers and AA in acetone 0.1% and 0.01% was positive. Again, HPLC was positive for the presence of AA in the insoles of his sneakers.²

Several more cases of AA contact allergy have been reported in the literature. A 29-year-old European male hockey player demonstrated contact allergy to the gray foam of his shin pads as well as localized leg dermatitis followed by generalized dermatitis (are you noticing a trend yet?), and later dermatitis on the soles of the feet with positive patch-test reactions to pieces of his shin pads and shoe insoles as well as AA 0.1% and 0.01% in acetone.³ A 6-year-old Canadian male soccer player presented with leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis and dermatitis on the soles of the feet with positive reactions to pieces of his shin pads and shoe insoles as well as to AA 1% and 0.1% in petrolatum.⁴ A 17-year-old British male (another trend, all males so far!) hockey player developed dermatitis localized to the legs and positive patch tests to the worn foam inner lining of his shin pads as well as to AA 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001% in acetone.⁵Finally, Darrigade et al⁶ published a case series of 6 European children with AA contact allergy associated with shin pads and shoes; all had localized leg dermatitis, and some had generalized dermatitis. Patch testing to pieces of shin pads and shoe parts as well as to AA 0.1% in petrolatum and/or acetone showed with positive reactions to the foam pieces and AA in all 6 patients.

What’s the Deal With AA?

Acetophenone azine (also known as methylphenylketazine or bis[1-phenylethylidene]hydrazine) is composed of 2 acetophenone structures and a hydrazine moiety. It has been identified in EVA foam, which can be found in sports equipment such as shin pads or shin guards, shoes, and flip-flops. Raison-Peyron et al¹ confirmed the presence of AA in EVA foam but reported that they did not know the exact reason for its presence. The authors theorized that AA might be a catalyst during EVA polymerization and also noted that it has antimicrobial and antihelminthic activity.¹ Several authors noted that AA could be a by-product of EVA synthesis and that sports equipment manufacturers might not be aware of its presence in EVA.^2,4-6 Some noted that AA concentration was higher in shin guards than in shoe insoles; they thought this explained why patients reacted first to their shin guards and were perhaps even initially sensitized to the shin guards, as well as why shoe insole contact allergy commonly was reported later or only after allergy to shin guards had already developed.^4,6

Differential Diagnosis of Shin Pad or Shin Guard Dermatitis

We would be remiss if we did not mention the appropriate differential diagnosis when shin pad or shin guard dermatitis is identified. In fact, in most cases, shin guard dermatitis results from irritant contact dermatitis from friction, heat, and/or perspiration. Acetophenone azine contact allergy is not the most likely diagnosis when your sports-savvy, shin guard–wearing patient presents with anterior lower leg dermatitis. However, when conservative therapy (eg, barrier between the shin guard and the skin, control or management of perspiration, topical corticosteroid therapy) fails, patch testing to evaluate for ACD is indicated.

Management of AA Contact Allergy

As astute readers of this column are already aware, treatment of ACD requires strict allergen avoidance. You will find that we have the same recommendations for AA contact allergy. Given that there are only a handful of cases in the literature, there are limited recommendations on practical allergen avoidance other than “don’t wear the problem shin guards, shoe insoles, or flip-flops.” However, Darrigade et al⁶ recommended wearing polyurethane shin guards and leather insoles as alternatives when AA contact allergy is suspected or confirmed. They also made it clear that thick socks worn between shin guards and the skin often are not good enough to avoid ACD because the relevant allergens may achieve skin contact despite the barrier.⁶

Patch Testing for AA Contact Allergy

Historically, ACD to shin guards or shin pads, insoles of shoes, and even flip-flops has been associated with rubber-related chemicals such as mercapto mix, thiuram mix, N-isopropyl-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine, thioureas, and carbamates, as well as dyes, benzoyl peroxide, and urea formaldehyde or phenol formaldehyde resins.¹ Most of these chemicals can be tested with standard screening series or supplemental series. Patients with contact allergy to AA may have negative patch testing to screening series and/or supplemental series and may have strong positive reactions to pieces of suspected foam shin pads or shin guards, shoes, and/or flip-flops. Although Koumaki et al⁵ recommended patch testing for AA contact allergy with AA 0.1% in acetone, Besner Morin et al⁴ mentioned that petrolatum may be a more desirable vehicle because it could maintain stability for a longer period of time. In fact, a 2021 article highlighting the American Contact Dermatitis Society Allergen of the Year recommends testing with either AA 0.1% in acetone or AA 0.1% in petrolatum.⁷ Unfortunately, AA is not commercially available for purchase at the time of publication. We are hopeful that this will change in the near future.

Final Interpretation

Acetophenone azine is an emerging allergen commonly identified in EVA foam and attributed to contact allergy to shin guards or pads, soles of shoes, and flip-flops. Most cases have been reported in Europe and Canada and have been identified in young male athletes. In addition to standard patch testing, athletes with lower leg dermatitis and/or dermatitis of the soles of the feet should undergo patch testing with AA 0.1% in acetone or petrolatum and pieces of the equipment and/or footwear.

It’s time for the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) Allergen of the Year! For 2021, the esteemed award goes to acetophenone azine (AA). If you have never heard of this chemical, you are not alone. Acetophenone azine has been identified in foam materials made of the copolymer ethyl-vinyl acetate (EVA). Contact allergy to AA initially was reported in 2016.¹ There are only a few European and Canadian case reports and one case series of AA contact allergy in the literature, all of which are associated with foam shin pads or shin guards, shoe insoles, and/or flip-flops.^2-6 Acetophenone azine is an important emerging allergen, and in this column, we will introduce you to AA and the sneaky places it can lurk and cause allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). We also highlight diagnosis, management, and patch testing for AA contact allergy.

AA Contact Allergy in the Literature

The first case of AA contact allergy was reported in Europe in 2016 when a 13-year-old male soccer player developed severe lower leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis associated with wearing foam shin guards.¹ Patch testing to standard and supplemental trays was negative or not relevant; however, the patient exhibited strong reactions when patch tested directly to a piece of the shin guard soaked in acetone, water, and ethanol. Additional testing with AA diluted in acetone, water, and petrolatum resulted in positive patch test reactions to acetone dilutions of 1%, 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001% and aqueous solutions of 1% and 0.1%. Chromatographic analyses with high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) of shin guard extracts confirmed the culprit allergen to be AA.¹

In the following months, the same clinic saw 2 more cases of AA contact allergy.² An 11-year-old male soccer player developed lower leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis from wearing shin guards. Months later, he also developed dermatitis on the soles of the feet, which was attributed to wearing flip-flops. Patch tests to pieces of the shin guards and flip-flops were positive; AA in acetone 0.1% and 0.01% also was positive. As you might expect, HPLC again confirmed the presence of AA in the shin guards and flip-flops. The third patient was a 12-year-old boy with dermatitis on the soles of both feet; later he also developed a generalized dermatitis. Patch testing to pieces of the insoles of his sneakers and AA in acetone 0.1% and 0.01% was positive. Again, HPLC was positive for the presence of AA in the insoles of his sneakers.²

Several more cases of AA contact allergy have been reported in the literature. A 29-year-old European male hockey player demonstrated contact allergy to the gray foam of his shin pads as well as localized leg dermatitis followed by generalized dermatitis (are you noticing a trend yet?), and later dermatitis on the soles of the feet with positive patch-test reactions to pieces of his shin pads and shoe insoles as well as AA 0.1% and 0.01% in acetone.³ A 6-year-old Canadian male soccer player presented with leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis and dermatitis on the soles of the feet with positive reactions to pieces of his shin pads and shoe insoles as well as to AA 1% and 0.1% in petrolatum.⁴ A 17-year-old British male (another trend, all males so far!) hockey player developed dermatitis localized to the legs and positive patch tests to the worn foam inner lining of his shin pads as well as to AA 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001% in acetone.⁵Finally, Darrigade et al⁶ published a case series of 6 European children with AA contact allergy associated with shin pads and shoes; all had localized leg dermatitis, and some had generalized dermatitis. Patch testing to pieces of shin pads and shoe parts as well as to AA 0.1% in petrolatum and/or acetone showed with positive reactions to the foam pieces and AA in all 6 patients.

What’s the Deal With AA?

Acetophenone azine (also known as methylphenylketazine or bis[1-phenylethylidene]hydrazine) is composed of 2 acetophenone structures and a hydrazine moiety. It has been identified in EVA foam, which can be found in sports equipment such as shin pads or shin guards, shoes, and flip-flops. Raison-Peyron et al¹ confirmed the presence of AA in EVA foam but reported that they did not know the exact reason for its presence. The authors theorized that AA might be a catalyst during EVA polymerization and also noted that it has antimicrobial and antihelminthic activity.¹ Several authors noted that AA could be a by-product of EVA synthesis and that sports equipment manufacturers might not be aware of its presence in EVA.^2,4-6 Some noted that AA concentration was higher in shin guards than in shoe insoles; they thought this explained why patients reacted first to their shin guards and were perhaps even initially sensitized to the shin guards, as well as why shoe insole contact allergy commonly was reported later or only after allergy to shin guards had already developed.^4,6

Differential Diagnosis of Shin Pad or Shin Guard Dermatitis

We would be remiss if we did not mention the appropriate differential diagnosis when shin pad or shin guard dermatitis is identified. In fact, in most cases, shin guard dermatitis results from irritant contact dermatitis from friction, heat, and/or perspiration. Acetophenone azine contact allergy is not the most likely diagnosis when your sports-savvy, shin guard–wearing patient presents with anterior lower leg dermatitis. However, when conservative therapy (eg, barrier between the shin guard and the skin, control or management of perspiration, topical corticosteroid therapy) fails, patch testing to evaluate for ACD is indicated.

Management of AA Contact Allergy

As astute readers of this column are already aware, treatment of ACD requires strict allergen avoidance. You will find that we have the same recommendations for AA contact allergy. Given that there are only a handful of cases in the literature, there are limited recommendations on practical allergen avoidance other than “don’t wear the problem shin guards, shoe insoles, or flip-flops.” However, Darrigade et al⁶ recommended wearing polyurethane shin guards and leather insoles as alternatives when AA contact allergy is suspected or confirmed. They also made it clear that thick socks worn between shin guards and the skin often are not good enough to avoid ACD because the relevant allergens may achieve skin contact despite the barrier.⁶

Patch Testing for AA Contact Allergy

Historically, ACD to shin guards or shin pads, insoles of shoes, and even flip-flops has been associated with rubber-related chemicals such as mercapto mix, thiuram mix, N-isopropyl-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine, thioureas, and carbamates, as well as dyes, benzoyl peroxide, and urea formaldehyde or phenol formaldehyde resins.¹ Most of these chemicals can be tested with standard screening series or supplemental series. Patients with contact allergy to AA may have negative patch testing to screening series and/or supplemental series and may have strong positive reactions to pieces of suspected foam shin pads or shin guards, shoes, and/or flip-flops. Although Koumaki et al⁵ recommended patch testing for AA contact allergy with AA 0.1% in acetone, Besner Morin et al⁴ mentioned that petrolatum may be a more desirable vehicle because it could maintain stability for a longer period of time. In fact, a 2021 article highlighting the American Contact Dermatitis Society Allergen of the Year recommends testing with either AA 0.1% in acetone or AA 0.1% in petrolatum.⁷ Unfortunately, AA is not commercially available for purchase at the time of publication. We are hopeful that this will change in the near future.

Final Interpretation

Acetophenone azine is an emerging allergen commonly identified in EVA foam and attributed to contact allergy to shin guards or pads, soles of shoes, and flip-flops. Most cases have been reported in Europe and Canada and have been identified in young male athletes. In addition to standard patch testing, athletes with lower leg dermatitis and/or dermatitis of the soles of the feet should undergo patch testing with AA 0.1% in acetone or petrolatum and pieces of the equipment and/or footwear.

It’s time for the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) Allergen of the Year! For 2021, the esteemed award goes to acetophenone azine (AA). If you have never heard of this chemical, you are not alone. Acetophenone azine has been identified in foam materials made of the copolymer ethyl-vinyl acetate (EVA). Contact allergy to AA initially was reported in 2016.¹ There are only a few European and Canadian case reports and one case series of AA contact allergy in the literature, all of which are associated with foam shin pads or shin guards, shoe insoles, and/or flip-flops.^2-6 Acetophenone azine is an important emerging allergen, and in this column, we will introduce you to AA and the sneaky places it can lurk and cause allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). We also highlight diagnosis, management, and patch testing for AA contact allergy.

AA Contact Allergy in the Literature

The first case of AA contact allergy was reported in Europe in 2016 when a 13-year-old male soccer player developed severe lower leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis associated with wearing foam shin guards.¹ Patch testing to standard and supplemental trays was negative or not relevant; however, the patient exhibited strong reactions when patch tested directly to a piece of the shin guard soaked in acetone, water, and ethanol. Additional testing with AA diluted in acetone, water, and petrolatum resulted in positive patch test reactions to acetone dilutions of 1%, 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001% and aqueous solutions of 1% and 0.1%. Chromatographic analyses with high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) of shin guard extracts confirmed the culprit allergen to be AA.¹

In the following months, the same clinic saw 2 more cases of AA contact allergy.² An 11-year-old male soccer player developed lower leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis from wearing shin guards. Months later, he also developed dermatitis on the soles of the feet, which was attributed to wearing flip-flops. Patch tests to pieces of the shin guards and flip-flops were positive; AA in acetone 0.1% and 0.01% also was positive. As you might expect, HPLC again confirmed the presence of AA in the shin guards and flip-flops. The third patient was a 12-year-old boy with dermatitis on the soles of both feet; later he also developed a generalized dermatitis. Patch testing to pieces of the insoles of his sneakers and AA in acetone 0.1% and 0.01% was positive. Again, HPLC was positive for the presence of AA in the insoles of his sneakers.²

Several more cases of AA contact allergy have been reported in the literature. A 29-year-old European male hockey player demonstrated contact allergy to the gray foam of his shin pads as well as localized leg dermatitis followed by generalized dermatitis (are you noticing a trend yet?), and later dermatitis on the soles of the feet with positive patch-test reactions to pieces of his shin pads and shoe insoles as well as AA 0.1% and 0.01% in acetone.³ A 6-year-old Canadian male soccer player presented with leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis and dermatitis on the soles of the feet with positive reactions to pieces of his shin pads and shoe insoles as well as to AA 1% and 0.1% in petrolatum.⁴ A 17-year-old British male (another trend, all males so far!) hockey player developed dermatitis localized to the legs and positive patch tests to the worn foam inner lining of his shin pads as well as to AA 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001% in acetone.⁵Finally, Darrigade et al⁶ published a case series of 6 European children with AA contact allergy associated with shin pads and shoes; all had localized leg dermatitis, and some had generalized dermatitis. Patch testing to pieces of shin pads and shoe parts as well as to AA 0.1% in petrolatum and/or acetone showed with positive reactions to the foam pieces and AA in all 6 patients.

What’s the Deal With AA?

Acetophenone azine (also known as methylphenylketazine or bis[1-phenylethylidene]hydrazine) is composed of 2 acetophenone structures and a hydrazine moiety. It has been identified in EVA foam, which can be found in sports equipment such as shin pads or shin guards, shoes, and flip-flops. Raison-Peyron et al¹ confirmed the presence of AA in EVA foam but reported that they did not know the exact reason for its presence. The authors theorized that AA might be a catalyst during EVA polymerization and also noted that it has antimicrobial and antihelminthic activity.¹ Several authors noted that AA could be a by-product of EVA synthesis and that sports equipment manufacturers might not be aware of its presence in EVA.^2,4-6 Some noted that AA concentration was higher in shin guards than in shoe insoles; they thought this explained why patients reacted first to their shin guards and were perhaps even initially sensitized to the shin guards, as well as why shoe insole contact allergy commonly was reported later or only after allergy to shin guards had already developed.^4,6

Differential Diagnosis of Shin Pad or Shin Guard Dermatitis

We would be remiss if we did not mention the appropriate differential diagnosis when shin pad or shin guard dermatitis is identified. In fact, in most cases, shin guard dermatitis results from irritant contact dermatitis from friction, heat, and/or perspiration. Acetophenone azine contact allergy is not the most likely diagnosis when your sports-savvy, shin guard–wearing patient presents with anterior lower leg dermatitis. However, when conservative therapy (eg, barrier between the shin guard and the skin, control or management of perspiration, topical corticosteroid therapy) fails, patch testing to evaluate for ACD is indicated.

Management of AA Contact Allergy

As astute readers of this column are already aware, treatment of ACD requires strict allergen avoidance. You will find that we have the same recommendations for AA contact allergy. Given that there are only a handful of cases in the literature, there are limited recommendations on practical allergen avoidance other than “don’t wear the problem shin guards, shoe insoles, or flip-flops.” However, Darrigade et al⁶ recommended wearing polyurethane shin guards and leather insoles as alternatives when AA contact allergy is suspected or confirmed. They also made it clear that thick socks worn between shin guards and the skin often are not good enough to avoid ACD because the relevant allergens may achieve skin contact despite the barrier.⁶

Patch Testing for AA Contact Allergy

Historically, ACD to shin guards or shin pads, insoles of shoes, and even flip-flops has been associated with rubber-related chemicals such as mercapto mix, thiuram mix, N-isopropyl-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine, thioureas, and carbamates, as well as dyes, benzoyl peroxide, and urea formaldehyde or phenol formaldehyde resins.¹ Most of these chemicals can be tested with standard screening series or supplemental series. Patients with contact allergy to AA may have negative patch testing to screening series and/or supplemental series and may have strong positive reactions to pieces of suspected foam shin pads or shin guards, shoes, and/or flip-flops. Although Koumaki et al⁵ recommended patch testing for AA contact allergy with AA 0.1% in acetone, Besner Morin et al⁴ mentioned that petrolatum may be a more desirable vehicle because it could maintain stability for a longer period of time. In fact, a 2021 article highlighting the American Contact Dermatitis Society Allergen of the Year recommends testing with either AA 0.1% in acetone or AA 0.1% in petrolatum.⁷ Unfortunately, AA is not commercially available for purchase at the time of publication. We are hopeful that this will change in the near future.

Final Interpretation

Acetophenone azine is an emerging allergen commonly identified in EVA foam and attributed to contact allergy to shin guards or pads, soles of shoes, and flip-flops. Most cases have been reported in Europe and Canada and have been identified in young male athletes. In addition to standard patch testing, athletes with lower leg dermatitis and/or dermatitis of the soles of the feet should undergo patch testing with AA 0.1% in acetone or petrolatum and pieces of the equipment and/or footwear.

To the Editor:

Melanocytic nevi are ubiquitous, and although they are benign, patients often desire to have them removed. We report a patient who presented to our clinic after attempting home removal of a concerning mole on the back with frankincense, a remedy that she found online.

A 43-year-old woman presented with a worrisome mole on the back. She had no personal history of skin cancer, but her father had a history of melanoma in situ in his 60s. The patient reported that she had the mole for years, but approximately 1 month prior to her visit she noticed that it began to bleed and crust, causing concern for melanoma. She read online that the lesion could be removed with topical application of the essential oil frankincense; she applied it directly to the lesion on the back. Within hours she developed a burn where it was applied with associated blistering.

Clinically, the lesion appeared as a darkly pigmented, well-circumscribed papule with hemorrhagic crust overlying a well-demarcated pink plaque (Figure 1). Dermatoscopically, the lesion lacked a pigment network and demonstrated 2 distinct pink papules with peripheral telangiectasia and a pink background with white streaks (Figure 2). A shave biopsy of the lesion demonstrated a nodular basal cell carcinoma extending to the base and margin.

Approximately 6 million individuals in the United States search the internet for health information daily, and as many as 41% of those do so to learn about alternative medicine.^5,6 Although information gleaned from search engines can be useful, it is unregulated and often can be inaccurate. Clinicians generally are unaware of the erroneous material presented online and, therefore, cannot appropriately combat patient misinformation. Our case demonstrates the need to maintain an awareness of common online fallacies to better answer patient questions and guide them to more accurate sources of dermatologic information and appropriate treatment.

To the Editor:

Melanocytic nevi are ubiquitous, and although they are benign, patients often desire to have them removed. We report a patient who presented to our clinic after attempting home removal of a concerning mole on the back with frankincense, a remedy that she found online.

A 43-year-old woman presented with a worrisome mole on the back. She had no personal history of skin cancer, but her father had a history of melanoma in situ in his 60s. The patient reported that she had the mole for years, but approximately 1 month prior to her visit she noticed that it began to bleed and crust, causing concern for melanoma. She read online that the lesion could be removed with topical application of the essential oil frankincense; she applied it directly to the lesion on the back. Within hours she developed a burn where it was applied with associated blistering.

Clinically, the lesion appeared as a darkly pigmented, well-circumscribed papule with hemorrhagic crust overlying a well-demarcated pink plaque (Figure 1). Dermatoscopically, the lesion lacked a pigment network and demonstrated 2 distinct pink papules with peripheral telangiectasia and a pink background with white streaks (Figure 2). A shave biopsy of the lesion demonstrated a nodular basal cell carcinoma extending to the base and margin.

Approximately 6 million individuals in the United States search the internet for health information daily, and as many as 41% of those do so to learn about alternative medicine.^5,6 Although information gleaned from search engines can be useful, it is unregulated and often can be inaccurate. Clinicians generally are unaware of the erroneous material presented online and, therefore, cannot appropriately combat patient misinformation. Our case demonstrates the need to maintain an awareness of common online fallacies to better answer patient questions and guide them to more accurate sources of dermatologic information and appropriate treatment.

To the Editor:

Melanocytic nevi are ubiquitous, and although they are benign, patients often desire to have them removed. We report a patient who presented to our clinic after attempting home removal of a concerning mole on the back with frankincense, a remedy that she found online.

A 43-year-old woman presented with a worrisome mole on the back. She had no personal history of skin cancer, but her father had a history of melanoma in situ in his 60s. The patient reported that she had the mole for years, but approximately 1 month prior to her visit she noticed that it began to bleed and crust, causing concern for melanoma. She read online that the lesion could be removed with topical application of the essential oil frankincense; she applied it directly to the lesion on the back. Within hours she developed a burn where it was applied with associated blistering.

Clinically, the lesion appeared as a darkly pigmented, well-circumscribed papule with hemorrhagic crust overlying a well-demarcated pink plaque (Figure 1). Dermatoscopically, the lesion lacked a pigment network and demonstrated 2 distinct pink papules with peripheral telangiectasia and a pink background with white streaks (Figure 2). A shave biopsy of the lesion demonstrated a nodular basal cell carcinoma extending to the base and margin.

Approximately 6 million individuals in the United States search the internet for health information daily, and as many as 41% of those do so to learn about alternative medicine.^5,6 Although information gleaned from search engines can be useful, it is unregulated and often can be inaccurate. Clinicians generally are unaware of the erroneous material presented online and, therefore, cannot appropriately combat patient misinformation. Our case demonstrates the need to maintain an awareness of common online fallacies to better answer patient questions and guide them to more accurate sources of dermatologic information and appropriate treatment.

To the Editor:

Psoriasis vulgaris is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease and biologic agents, such as anti–tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α), are alternative drugs in case of resistance or adverse events to conventional ones.¹ The limitation of these agents is immunosuppression that may cause infections such as tuberculosis (TB). Prophylaxis is indicated to latent TB diseases if the purified protein derivative (tuberculin) skin test is higher than 5 mm before starting these treatments. The challenge in TB treatment is adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that are reported in 4% to 6% of cases.^2,3

Erythema multiforme–like dermatitis is a rare skin rash that develops due to isoniazid (INH). The clinical presentation includes erythematoedematous lesions in an acral distribution with no mucosal involvement and systemic exposure to INH. Skin biopsy and patch tests are the supportive diagnostic methods. Isoniazid-associated skin rashes rarely are reported and generally are not severe enough to terminate the drug. We present a patient with psoriasis who received TB prophylaxis before anti–TNF-α use. He presented with erythema multiforme–like dermatitis due to INH. Withdrawal of the drug and treatment of the lesions were the first steps of intolerance, followed by a patch test with the culprit drug after recovery. We discuss the diagnostic drug allergy evaluation and treatment approach.

A 37-year-old man presented with a 15-year history of severe psoriasis with frequent flares. He was treated with various topical and systemic agents including acitretin and methotrexate at 4-year intervals. Despite the addition of phototherapy, he underwent a new treatment with anti–TNF-α, as the disease control with other treatments was insufficient. Before starting anti–TNF-α, preventive treatment against TB with INH (300 mg/d) was indicated with 20 mm of purified protein derivative. On approximately the 20th day of treatment, he developed pruritic erythema with desquamation and exfoliation localized to the hands and feet (Figure 1). Isoniazid was discontinued and a topical steroid was initiated. After 3 weeks, the skin lesions were completely improved and INH was reinitiated at the same dose with antihistamine prophylaxis (oral levocetirizine 5 mg/d). Seven days later, similar skin lesions presented that were more extensive on the arms and legs (Figure 2). Complete blood cell counts, renal and hepatic function tests, and hepatitis markers were within reference range in consultation with the allergy division. To distinguish the lesions from a psoriasis attack, a punch biopsy of the eruptive dermatitis showed erythema multiforme–like dermatitis including dermal edema and perivascular lymphocytic infiltration with no relation to psoriasis but consistent with a drug eruption. Isoniazid was discontinued, and the skin lesions resolved after 4 weeks of topical steroid and oral antihistamine use (Figure 3). There was no other drug use except INH, and a skin patch test with INH was positive at 72 hours (Figure 4). Skin tests with INH were done to 5 healthy lesions that were negative. Finally, TB prophylaxis was performed with rifampicin (10 mg/kg/d [600 mg/d]) for 4 months with no ADRs. The patient’s psoriasis lesions improved with anti–TNF-α that was initiated 1 month after starting TB prevention with rifampicin.

This case of erythema multiforme–like dermatitis was diagnosed with acral involvement, a positive patch test to INH, and lymphocytic inflammation in a skin biopsy. It was a drug-induced reaction, as skin lesions developed during INH intake and improved after drug withdrawal.

Isoniazid, also known as isonicotinylhydrazide, is an oral antibiotic used for the treatment of TB and other mycobacteria. Protective treatment against latent TB primarily is done with daily INH for 6 or 9 months; alternatively, INH may be taken weekly with rifapentine for 3 months or daily with rifampicin for 4 months. Daily rifampicin alone for 4 months also is an option. In general, these regimens have similar efficacy; however, in terms of safety, the rifampicin and rifapentine combination regimens have fewer hepatotoxicity events compared to the INH alone regimen, but there are more cutaneous and flulike reactions and gastrointestinal intolerance.⁴ Cutaneous ADRs to TB treatment such as mild itchiness and cutaneous eruptions usually are observed within 2 months of drug initiation. Pyrazinamide was reported as the most common drug associated with cutaneous ADRs, and INH was the rarest offending drug.⁵

The frequency of ADRs to INH is approximately 5.4%, and the most prevalent ADRs include asymptomatic elevation of serum liver enzyme concentrations, peripheral neuropathy, and hepatotoxicity, and skin lesions are less common.² Our patient’s laboratory test results excluded vitamin B deficiency, hepatic and renal dysfunction, and neuropathy.

Previously reported skin reactions related to INH were late-type reactions such as maculopapular rash, dermatitis, erythema multiforme, drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and toxic epidermal necrolysis.^5,6 The concerning prediagnosis of psoriatic exacerbation in our patient was ruled out by the absence of typical skin lesions such as well-defined, erythematous plaques and pustules and atypical localization such as the dorsal hands and feet rather than the knees, elbows, lumbosacral region, scalp, and abdomen, which is typical of psoriasis. DRESS syndrome was unlikely with the absence of fever, lymphadenopathy, hypereosinophilia, leukocytosis, and renal and hepatic dysfunction.⁷ There were no widespread blisters, epidermal detachment, or mucosal involvement on the trunk or face typically associated with Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis.^7,8 A possible diagnosis of contact dermatitis was suspected with likely skin lesions as exfoliation and chapping, typical localization on the hands and feet, and positive patch test that supported sensitization to the drug. However, the patient’s skin lesions were not eczematous (characterized by erythema, vesiculation, exudation, or bullous edema in the acute phase), and were not localized to areas of irritant exposure.³ In our patient, erythematoedematous lesions in an acral distribution with no mucosal involvement and systemic exposure to INH was compatible with erythema multiforme, whereas the absence of target appearance, positive patch test, and late appearance were incompatible with erythema multiforme.⁸

Because the clinical picture did not fit contact dermatitis or erythema multiforme, a diagnosis of erythema multiforme–like noneczematous dermatitis was suggested. Noneczematous dermatitis has subtypes that include purpuric, lichenoid, pustular, lymphomatoid, dyshidrosiform, and pigmented, as well as erythema multiforme–like contact eruptions.⁹ These clinical entities are not associated with contact exposure, but are related to systemic exposure, as seen in our patient.¹⁰ The patch test positivity and skin biopsy report also supported the diagnosis of erythema multiforme–like dermatitis. Erythema multiforme–like dermatitis is thought to be caused by medications or infections inducing immunocomplexes and lymphocytic infiltration in the dermis and subepidermis. Nevertheless, the prognosis was self-limiting in both.⁸ The clinical polymorphism caused by INH in this patient was suggested to be related with individual susceptibility, variability of contact-activating modalities, and the targeted cutaneous structures. Furthermore, among the risk factors for cutaneous ADRs—HIV, polypharmacy, older age, and preexisting renal and liver impairment—the only notable factor in this patient was psoriasis as an autoimmune disorder.

Patients with skin diseases such as psoriasis should be followed up by closer monitoring during INH use. Withdrawal of the drug and symptomatic treatment of the lesions with corticosteroid and antihistamine are the first steps of drug intolerance. After complete recovery and termination of antiallergic drugs, diagnostic tests are recommended if the drug reaction was not life-threatening. Skin prick and intradermal tests are useful in early-type drug reactions, whereas patch testing and late evaluation of an intradermal test may be helpful in the diagnosis of delayed-type reactions. The full dose of INH is avoided in an intradermal test against irritation. A patch test with INH was performed by diluting a 100-mg tablet with 1 mL of distilled water, and used as 1/100, 1/10, and 1/1 dilutions.⁸ Patch testing with INH also was done in 5 healthy control patients to exclude the irritation effect in this case. The rechallenge of INH was done in a controlled manner in our patient to rule out psoriasis activation since it was a localized skin reaction with no serious ADR. An oral provocation test with the culprit drug is the gold standard of drug allergy diagnosis that should be done in a tertiary hospital with an intensive care unit.

This case of erythema multiforme–like dermatitis due to INH is interesting due to systemic intake of INH, which resulted in dermatitis with localized involvement similar to erythema multiforme but with no immunologic processes or prior sensitization. With the increasing use of anti–TNF-α treatment, INH use will be more prevalent than in the past for the treatment of latent TB. Even though the skin-restricted ADRs of INH are rare and minor, particular attention should be paid to patients with dermatologic diseases. In our case, diagnostic drug allergy evaluation was performed to optimize the second-line treatment of TB infection, in addition to early withdrawal of the culprit drug.

To the Editor:

Psoriasis vulgaris is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease and biologic agents, such as anti–tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α), are alternative drugs in case of resistance or adverse events to conventional ones.¹ The limitation of these agents is immunosuppression that may cause infections such as tuberculosis (TB). Prophylaxis is indicated to latent TB diseases if the purified protein derivative (tuberculin) skin test is higher than 5 mm before starting these treatments. The challenge in TB treatment is adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that are reported in 4% to 6% of cases.^2,3

Erythema multiforme–like dermatitis is a rare skin rash that develops due to isoniazid (INH). The clinical presentation includes erythematoedematous lesions in an acral distribution with no mucosal involvement and systemic exposure to INH. Skin biopsy and patch tests are the supportive diagnostic methods. Isoniazid-associated skin rashes rarely are reported and generally are not severe enough to terminate the drug. We present a patient with psoriasis who received TB prophylaxis before anti–TNF-α use. He presented with erythema multiforme–like dermatitis due to INH. Withdrawal of the drug and treatment of the lesions were the first steps of intolerance, followed by a patch test with the culprit drug after recovery. We discuss the diagnostic drug allergy evaluation and treatment approach.

A 37-year-old man presented with a 15-year history of severe psoriasis with frequent flares. He was treated with various topical and systemic agents including acitretin and methotrexate at 4-year intervals. Despite the addition of phototherapy, he underwent a new treatment with anti–TNF-α, as the disease control with other treatments was insufficient. Before starting anti–TNF-α, preventive treatment against TB with INH (300 mg/d) was indicated with 20 mm of purified protein derivative. On approximately the 20th day of treatment, he developed pruritic erythema with desquamation and exfoliation localized to the hands and feet (Figure 1). Isoniazid was discontinued and a topical steroid was initiated. After 3 weeks, the skin lesions were completely improved and INH was reinitiated at the same dose with antihistamine prophylaxis (oral levocetirizine 5 mg/d). Seven days later, similar skin lesions presented that were more extensive on the arms and legs (Figure 2). Complete blood cell counts, renal and hepatic function tests, and hepatitis markers were within reference range in consultation with the allergy division. To distinguish the lesions from a psoriasis attack, a punch biopsy of the eruptive dermatitis showed erythema multiforme–like dermatitis including dermal edema and perivascular lymphocytic infiltration with no relation to psoriasis but consistent with a drug eruption. Isoniazid was discontinued, and the skin lesions resolved after 4 weeks of topical steroid and oral antihistamine use (Figure 3). There was no other drug use except INH, and a skin patch test with INH was positive at 72 hours (Figure 4). Skin tests with INH were done to 5 healthy lesions that were negative. Finally, TB prophylaxis was performed with rifampicin (10 mg/kg/d [600 mg/d]) for 4 months with no ADRs. The patient’s psoriasis lesions improved with anti–TNF-α that was initiated 1 month after starting TB prevention with rifampicin.

This case of erythema multiforme–like dermatitis was diagnosed with acral involvement, a positive patch test to INH, and lymphocytic inflammation in a skin biopsy. It was a drug-induced reaction, as skin lesions developed during INH intake and improved after drug withdrawal.

Isoniazid, also known as isonicotinylhydrazide, is an oral antibiotic used for the treatment of TB and other mycobacteria. Protective treatment against latent TB primarily is done with daily INH for 6 or 9 months; alternatively, INH may be taken weekly with rifapentine for 3 months or daily with rifampicin for 4 months. Daily rifampicin alone for 4 months also is an option. In general, these regimens have similar efficacy; however, in terms of safety, the rifampicin and rifapentine combination regimens have fewer hepatotoxicity events compared to the INH alone regimen, but there are more cutaneous and flulike reactions and gastrointestinal intolerance.⁴ Cutaneous ADRs to TB treatment such as mild itchiness and cutaneous eruptions usually are observed within 2 months of drug initiation. Pyrazinamide was reported as the most common drug associated with cutaneous ADRs, and INH was the rarest offending drug.⁵

The frequency of ADRs to INH is approximately 5.4%, and the most prevalent ADRs include asymptomatic elevation of serum liver enzyme concentrations, peripheral neuropathy, and hepatotoxicity, and skin lesions are less common.² Our patient’s laboratory test results excluded vitamin B deficiency, hepatic and renal dysfunction, and neuropathy.

Previously reported skin reactions related to INH were late-type reactions such as maculopapular rash, dermatitis, erythema multiforme, drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and toxic epidermal necrolysis.^5,6 The concerning prediagnosis of psoriatic exacerbation in our patient was ruled out by the absence of typical skin lesions such as well-defined, erythematous plaques and pustules and atypical localization such as the dorsal hands and feet rather than the knees, elbows, lumbosacral region, scalp, and abdomen, which is typical of psoriasis. DRESS syndrome was unlikely with the absence of fever, lymphadenopathy, hypereosinophilia, leukocytosis, and renal and hepatic dysfunction.⁷ There were no widespread blisters, epidermal detachment, or mucosal involvement on the trunk or face typically associated with Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis.^7,8 A possible diagnosis of contact dermatitis was suspected with likely skin lesions as exfoliation and chapping, typical localization on the hands and feet, and positive patch test that supported sensitization to the drug. However, the patient’s skin lesions were not eczematous (characterized by erythema, vesiculation, exudation, or bullous edema in the acute phase), and were not localized to areas of irritant exposure.³ In our patient, erythematoedematous lesions in an acral distribution with no mucosal involvement and systemic exposure to INH was compatible with erythema multiforme, whereas the absence of target appearance, positive patch test, and late appearance were incompatible with erythema multiforme.⁸

Because the clinical picture did not fit contact dermatitis or erythema multiforme, a diagnosis of erythema multiforme–like noneczematous dermatitis was suggested. Noneczematous dermatitis has subtypes that include purpuric, lichenoid, pustular, lymphomatoid, dyshidrosiform, and pigmented, as well as erythema multiforme–like contact eruptions.⁹ These clinical entities are not associated with contact exposure, but are related to systemic exposure, as seen in our patient.¹⁰ The patch test positivity and skin biopsy report also supported the diagnosis of erythema multiforme–like dermatitis. Erythema multiforme–like dermatitis is thought to be caused by medications or infections inducing immunocomplexes and lymphocytic infiltration in the dermis and subepidermis. Nevertheless, the prognosis was self-limiting in both.⁸ The clinical polymorphism caused by INH in this patient was suggested to be related with individual susceptibility, variability of contact-activating modalities, and the targeted cutaneous structures. Furthermore, among the risk factors for cutaneous ADRs—HIV, polypharmacy, older age, and preexisting renal and liver impairment—the only notable factor in this patient was psoriasis as an autoimmune disorder.

Patients with skin diseases such as psoriasis should be followed up by closer monitoring during INH use. Withdrawal of the drug and symptomatic treatment of the lesions with corticosteroid and antihistamine are the first steps of drug intolerance. After complete recovery and termination of antiallergic drugs, diagnostic tests are recommended if the drug reaction was not life-threatening. Skin prick and intradermal tests are useful in early-type drug reactions, whereas patch testing and late evaluation of an intradermal test may be helpful in the diagnosis of delayed-type reactions. The full dose of INH is avoided in an intradermal test against irritation. A patch test with INH was performed by diluting a 100-mg tablet with 1 mL of distilled water, and used as 1/100, 1/10, and 1/1 dilutions.⁸ Patch testing with INH also was done in 5 healthy control patients to exclude the irritation effect in this case. The rechallenge of INH was done in a controlled manner in our patient to rule out psoriasis activation since it was a localized skin reaction with no serious ADR. An oral provocation test with the culprit drug is the gold standard of drug allergy diagnosis that should be done in a tertiary hospital with an intensive care unit.

This case of erythema multiforme–like dermatitis due to INH is interesting due to systemic intake of INH, which resulted in dermatitis with localized involvement similar to erythema multiforme but with no immunologic processes or prior sensitization. With the increasing use of anti–TNF-α treatment, INH use will be more prevalent than in the past for the treatment of latent TB. Even though the skin-restricted ADRs of INH are rare and minor, particular attention should be paid to patients with dermatologic diseases. In our case, diagnostic drug allergy evaluation was performed to optimize the second-line treatment of TB infection, in addition to early withdrawal of the culprit drug.

To the Editor:

Psoriasis vulgaris is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease and biologic agents, such as anti–tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α), are alternative drugs in case of resistance or adverse events to conventional ones.¹ The limitation of these agents is immunosuppression that may cause infections such as tuberculosis (TB). Prophylaxis is indicated to latent TB diseases if the purified protein derivative (tuberculin) skin test is higher than 5 mm before starting these treatments. The challenge in TB treatment is adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that are reported in 4% to 6% of cases.^2,3

Erythema multiforme–like dermatitis is a rare skin rash that develops due to isoniazid (INH). The clinical presentation includes erythematoedematous lesions in an acral distribution with no mucosal involvement and systemic exposure to INH. Skin biopsy and patch tests are the supportive diagnostic methods. Isoniazid-associated skin rashes rarely are reported and generally are not severe enough to terminate the drug. We present a patient with psoriasis who received TB prophylaxis before anti–TNF-α use. He presented with erythema multiforme–like dermatitis due to INH. Withdrawal of the drug and treatment of the lesions were the first steps of intolerance, followed by a patch test with the culprit drug after recovery. We discuss the diagnostic drug allergy evaluation and treatment approach.

A 37-year-old man presented with a 15-year history of severe psoriasis with frequent flares. He was treated with various topical and systemic agents including acitretin and methotrexate at 4-year intervals. Despite the addition of phototherapy, he underwent a new treatment with anti–TNF-α, as the disease control with other treatments was insufficient. Before starting anti–TNF-α, preventive treatment against TB with INH (300 mg/d) was indicated with 20 mm of purified protein derivative. On approximately the 20th day of treatment, he developed pruritic erythema with desquamation and exfoliation localized to the hands and feet (Figure 1). Isoniazid was discontinued and a topical steroid was initiated. After 3 weeks, the skin lesions were completely improved and INH was reinitiated at the same dose with antihistamine prophylaxis (oral levocetirizine 5 mg/d). Seven days later, similar skin lesions presented that were more extensive on the arms and legs (Figure 2). Complete blood cell counts, renal and hepatic function tests, and hepatitis markers were within reference range in consultation with the allergy division. To distinguish the lesions from a psoriasis attack, a punch biopsy of the eruptive dermatitis showed erythema multiforme–like dermatitis including dermal edema and perivascular lymphocytic infiltration with no relation to psoriasis but consistent with a drug eruption. Isoniazid was discontinued, and the skin lesions resolved after 4 weeks of topical steroid and oral antihistamine use (Figure 3). There was no other drug use except INH, and a skin patch test with INH was positive at 72 hours (Figure 4). Skin tests with INH were done to 5 healthy lesions that were negative. Finally, TB prophylaxis was performed with rifampicin (10 mg/kg/d [600 mg/d]) for 4 months with no ADRs. The patient’s psoriasis lesions improved with anti–TNF-α that was initiated 1 month after starting TB prevention with rifampicin.

This case of erythema multiforme–like dermatitis was diagnosed with acral involvement, a positive patch test to INH, and lymphocytic inflammation in a skin biopsy. It was a drug-induced reaction, as skin lesions developed during INH intake and improved after drug withdrawal.

Isoniazid, also known as isonicotinylhydrazide, is an oral antibiotic used for the treatment of TB and other mycobacteria. Protective treatment against latent TB primarily is done with daily INH for 6 or 9 months; alternatively, INH may be taken weekly with rifapentine for 3 months or daily with rifampicin for 4 months. Daily rifampicin alone for 4 months also is an option. In general, these regimens have similar efficacy; however, in terms of safety, the rifampicin and rifapentine combination regimens have fewer hepatotoxicity events compared to the INH alone regimen, but there are more cutaneous and flulike reactions and gastrointestinal intolerance.⁴ Cutaneous ADRs to TB treatment such as mild itchiness and cutaneous eruptions usually are observed within 2 months of drug initiation. Pyrazinamide was reported as the most common drug associated with cutaneous ADRs, and INH was the rarest offending drug.⁵

The frequency of ADRs to INH is approximately 5.4%, and the most prevalent ADRs include asymptomatic elevation of serum liver enzyme concentrations, peripheral neuropathy, and hepatotoxicity, and skin lesions are less common.² Our patient’s laboratory test results excluded vitamin B deficiency, hepatic and renal dysfunction, and neuropathy.

Previously reported skin reactions related to INH were late-type reactions such as maculopapular rash, dermatitis, erythema multiforme, drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and toxic epidermal necrolysis.^5,6 The concerning prediagnosis of psoriatic exacerbation in our patient was ruled out by the absence of typical skin lesions such as well-defined, erythematous plaques and pustules and atypical localization such as the dorsal hands and feet rather than the knees, elbows, lumbosacral region, scalp, and abdomen, which is typical of psoriasis. DRESS syndrome was unlikely with the absence of fever, lymphadenopathy, hypereosinophilia, leukocytosis, and renal and hepatic dysfunction.⁷ There were no widespread blisters, epidermal detachment, or mucosal involvement on the trunk or face typically associated with Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis.^7,8 A possible diagnosis of contact dermatitis was suspected with likely skin lesions as exfoliation and chapping, typical localization on the hands and feet, and positive patch test that supported sensitization to the drug. However, the patient’s skin lesions were not eczematous (characterized by erythema, vesiculation, exudation, or bullous edema in the acute phase), and were not localized to areas of irritant exposure.³ In our patient, erythematoedematous lesions in an acral distribution with no mucosal involvement and systemic exposure to INH was compatible with erythema multiforme, whereas the absence of target appearance, positive patch test, and late appearance were incompatible with erythema multiforme.⁸

Because the clinical picture did not fit contact dermatitis or erythema multiforme, a diagnosis of erythema multiforme–like noneczematous dermatitis was suggested. Noneczematous dermatitis has subtypes that include purpuric, lichenoid, pustular, lymphomatoid, dyshidrosiform, and pigmented, as well as erythema multiforme–like contact eruptions.⁹ These clinical entities are not associated with contact exposure, but are related to systemic exposure, as seen in our patient.¹⁰ The patch test positivity and skin biopsy report also supported the diagnosis of erythema multiforme–like dermatitis. Erythema multiforme–like dermatitis is thought to be caused by medications or infections inducing immunocomplexes and lymphocytic infiltration in the dermis and subepidermis. Nevertheless, the prognosis was self-limiting in both.⁸ The clinical polymorphism caused by INH in this patient was suggested to be related with individual susceptibility, variability of contact-activating modalities, and the targeted cutaneous structures. Furthermore, among the risk factors for cutaneous ADRs—HIV, polypharmacy, older age, and preexisting renal and liver impairment—the only notable factor in this patient was psoriasis as an autoimmune disorder.

Patients with skin diseases such as psoriasis should be followed up by closer monitoring during INH use. Withdrawal of the drug and symptomatic treatment of the lesions with corticosteroid and antihistamine are the first steps of drug intolerance. After complete recovery and termination of antiallergic drugs, diagnostic tests are recommended if the drug reaction was not life-threatening. Skin prick and intradermal tests are useful in early-type drug reactions, whereas patch testing and late evaluation of an intradermal test may be helpful in the diagnosis of delayed-type reactions. The full dose of INH is avoided in an intradermal test against irritation. A patch test with INH was performed by diluting a 100-mg tablet with 1 mL of distilled water, and used as 1/100, 1/10, and 1/1 dilutions.⁸ Patch testing with INH also was done in 5 healthy control patients to exclude the irritation effect in this case. The rechallenge of INH was done in a controlled manner in our patient to rule out psoriasis activation since it was a localized skin reaction with no serious ADR. An oral provocation test with the culprit drug is the gold standard of drug allergy diagnosis that should be done in a tertiary hospital with an intensive care unit.

This case of erythema multiforme–like dermatitis due to INH is interesting due to systemic intake of INH, which resulted in dermatitis with localized involvement similar to erythema multiforme but with no immunologic processes or prior sensitization. With the increasing use of anti–TNF-α treatment, INH use will be more prevalent than in the past for the treatment of latent TB. Even though the skin-restricted ADRs of INH are rare and minor, particular attention should be paid to patients with dermatologic diseases. In our case, diagnostic drug allergy evaluation was performed to optimize the second-line treatment of TB infection, in addition to early withdrawal of the culprit drug.

Phytophotodermatitis (PPD) is a nonallergic contact dermatitis and thus is independent of the immune system, so prior sensitization is not required.^1-3 It sometimes is known by colorful names such as margarita photodermatitis, in which a slice of lime in a refreshing summer drink may be etiologic,^4,5 or berloque dermatitis, caused by exposure to perfumes containing bergapten (5-methoxypsoralen).^6,7 Phytophotodermatitis may develop when phototoxic agents such as furocoumarins, which protect plants from fungal pathogens, and psoralens are applied to the skin followed by exposure to UV light, more specifically in the UVA range of 320 to 400 nm. Thus, these chemicals produce a phototoxic rather than photoallergic reaction, leading to cellular damage. Furocoumarins and psoralens often are found in plants such as celery and figs as well as in citrus fruits such as limes, lemons, and grapefruits. Exposure may be cryptic, as the patient may not consider or mention the eruption as possibly caused by activities such as soaking one’s feet in a folk remedy containing fig leaves.^7,8 Once these phototoxic agents come in contact with the skin, the symptoms of PPD may arise within 24 hours of exposure, beginning as an acute dermatitis with erythema, edema, vesicles, or bullae accompanied by pain and itching.

Etiology

Phytophotodermatitis is caused by exposure to several different types of plants, including Ficus carica (common fig), the genus Citrus (eg, lime, lemon), or Pastina sativa (wild parsnip). Each of these contain furocoumarins and psoralens—phototoxic agents that cause cellular damage with epidermal necrosis and resultant pain when the skin is exposed to UVA light.^1-4 There are 2 types of photochemical reactions in PPD: type I reactions occur in the absence of oxygen, whereas oxygen is present in type II reactions. Both damage cell membranes and DNA, which then results in DNA interstrand cross-linking between the psoralen furan ring and the thymine or cytosine of DNA, activating arachidonic acid metabolic pathways to produce cell death.¹

Epidemiology

The incidence of PPD is unknown due to the high variability of reactions in individuals spanning from children to the elderly. It can be caused by many different wild and domestic plants in many areas of the world and can affect any individual regardless of age, race, gender, or ethnicity. Some individuals may be affected by hyperpigmentation without prominent inflammation.⁸ Diagnosis of PPD can be challenging, and an occupation and recreational history of exposure or recent travel with possible contact with plants may be required.

Occupational Dermatitis

Phytophotodermatitis also may be an occupational disease.^9-12 Occupational exposure may occur in soldiers during military drills and other activities, farm workers, chefs, gardeners, groundskeepers, food processors, bartenders, and florists. Wearing protective gloves when handling plants such as limes, lemons, grapefruit, celery, or parsnips may prevent occupational exposure. Exposure to hogweed, an invasive species originally introduced as an ornamental plant in Europe and the United States, can produce a dramatic acute photodermatitis from exposure to its sap, which contains the psoralens 5-methoxypsoralen and 8-methylpsoralen.^9-11

Recreational Dermatitis

Phytophotodermatitis may be caused by exposure to phototoxic agents during leisure activities. Recreational exposure can occur almost anywhere, including in the kitchen, backyard, park, or woods, as well as at the beach. One notable culprit in recreational PPD is cooking with limes, parsley, or parsnips—plants that often are employed as garnishes in dishes, allowing early exposure of juices on the hands. Individuals who garden recreationally should be aware of ornamental plants such as hogweed and figs, which are notorious for causing PPD.¹³ Children’s camp counselors should have knowledge of PPD, as children have considerable curiosity and may touch or play with attractive plants such as hogweed. Children enjoying sports in parks can accidentally fall onto or be exposed to wild parsnip or hogweed growing nearby and wake up the next day with erythema and burning.¹⁴ Photoprotection is important, but sunscreens containing carrot extract can produce PPD.¹⁵ Widespread PPD over 80% of the body surface area due to sunbathing after applying fig leaf tea as a tanning agent has been described.¹⁶ Eating figs does not cause photosensitization unless the juice is smeared onto the skin. Margarita dermatitis and “Mexican beer dermatitis” can occur due to limes and other citrus fruits being used as ingredients in summer drinks.⁵ Similarly, preparing sangria may produce PPD from lime and lemon juices.¹⁷ In one report, hiking in Corsica resulted in PPD following incidental contact with the endemic plant Peucedanum paniculatum.¹⁸

Perfume (Berloque) Dermatitis

Perfume dermatitis, or berloque dermatitis, is a type of PPD for which the name is derived from the German word berlock or the French word berloque meaning trinket or charm; it was first described in 1925 by Rosenthal⁷ with regard to pendantlike streaks of pigmentation on the neck, face, arms, or trunk. The dermatitis develops due to bergapten, a component of bergamot oil, which is derived from the rind of Citrus bergamia. Many perfumes contain bergamot oil, but the incidence of this condition has been diminished due to use of artificial bergamot oil.⁶

Clinical Manifestation

Phytophotodermatitis is first evident as erythematous patches that appear within 24 hours of initial exposure to a phototoxic agent and UVA light, sometimes with a burning sensation. Solar exposure within 48 hours of sufficient plant exposure is required. Perfuse sweating may enhance the reaction.¹⁹ Rarely, it first may be seen with the sudden appearance of asymptomatic hyperpigmentation. One may see the pattern of splash marks from lime or lemon juice (Figure 1). The acute dermatitis may be associated with adjacent cutaneous edema near the reaction site or along with the erythema and blister formation. Its severity is related to the intensity of sun exposure and amount of furocoumarins.² The most common etiologic plants are citrus fruits such as limes and lemons, but it also can be caused by celery, figs, parsley, parsnips, and even mustard.^1-3,12 Wild parsley may grow in grass, producing a bizarre pattern on the back in children who lay in the grass and then spend time in the sun. Phytophotodermatitis usually is followed by postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, which may be the principal or only finding in some individuals.⁸

Differential Diagnosis

Phytophotodermatitis may resemble other types of dermatitis, particularly other forms of contact dermatitis such poison ivy, and occasionally other environmental simulants such as jellyfish stings.^1-6,20,21 Photosensitizing disorders including porphyria cutanea tarda, pseudoporphyria, and lupus erythematosus must be distinguished from PPD.^22-24 Photosensitizing medications such tetracyclines, thiazide diuretics, sulfonamides, griseofulvin, and sulfonylureas should be considered. Airborne contact dermatitis may resemble PPD, as when poison ivy is burned and is exposed to the skin in sites of airborne contact.²⁰ Excessive solar exposure is popular, particularly among adolescents, so sunburn and sunburnlike reactions can be noteworthy.^25,26

Treatment

Phytophotodermatitis can be treated with topical steroids, sometimes adding an oral antihistamine, and occasionally oral steroids.^2-4 Localized pain or a burning sensation should respond to therapy. Alternatively, a cold compress applied to the skin can relieve the pain and pruritus, and the burn can be debrided and dressed daily with silver sulfadiazine plus an oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. This eruption should be self-limited as long as it is recognized early and the cause avoided. Management of acute exposure includes prompt application of soap and water and avoidance of UV light exposure for 48 to 72 hours to prevent psoralen photoactivation.

Because PPD is essentially a chemical burn, a burn protocol and possible referral to a burn center may be needed, whether the reaction is acute or widespread.^{11,12,14,27,28} Surgical debridement and skin grafting rarely may be mandated.¹⁴ Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation may ensue as the dermatitis resolves but is not common.

The best approach for PPD is prevention (Figure 2). Individuals who are at risk should be aware of their surroundings and potential plants of concern and employ personal protective equipment to shield the skin from plant sap, which should be promptly removed if it comes in contact with the skin.

Phytophotodermatitis (PPD) is a nonallergic contact dermatitis and thus is independent of the immune system, so prior sensitization is not required.^1-3 It sometimes is known by colorful names such as margarita photodermatitis, in which a slice of lime in a refreshing summer drink may be etiologic,^4,5 or berloque dermatitis, caused by exposure to perfumes containing bergapten (5-methoxypsoralen).^6,7 Phytophotodermatitis may develop when phototoxic agents such as furocoumarins, which protect plants from fungal pathogens, and psoralens are applied to the skin followed by exposure to UV light, more specifically in the UVA range of 320 to 400 nm. Thus, these chemicals produce a phototoxic rather than photoallergic reaction, leading to cellular damage. Furocoumarins and psoralens often are found in plants such as celery and figs as well as in citrus fruits such as limes, lemons, and grapefruits. Exposure may be cryptic, as the patient may not consider or mention the eruption as possibly caused by activities such as soaking one’s feet in a folk remedy containing fig leaves.^7,8 Once these phototoxic agents come in contact with the skin, the symptoms of PPD may arise within 24 hours of exposure, beginning as an acute dermatitis with erythema, edema, vesicles, or bullae accompanied by pain and itching.

Etiology

Phytophotodermatitis is caused by exposure to several different types of plants, including Ficus carica (common fig), the genus Citrus (eg, lime, lemon), or Pastina sativa (wild parsnip). Each of these contain furocoumarins and psoralens—phototoxic agents that cause cellular damage with epidermal necrosis and resultant pain when the skin is exposed to UVA light.^1-4 There are 2 types of photochemical reactions in PPD: type I reactions occur in the absence of oxygen, whereas oxygen is present in type II reactions. Both damage cell membranes and DNA, which then results in DNA interstrand cross-linking between the psoralen furan ring and the thymine or cytosine of DNA, activating arachidonic acid metabolic pathways to produce cell death.¹

Epidemiology

The incidence of PPD is unknown due to the high variability of reactions in individuals spanning from children to the elderly. It can be caused by many different wild and domestic plants in many areas of the world and can affect any individual regardless of age, race, gender, or ethnicity. Some individuals may be affected by hyperpigmentation without prominent inflammation.⁸ Diagnosis of PPD can be challenging, and an occupation and recreational history of exposure or recent travel with possible contact with plants may be required.

Occupational Dermatitis

Phytophotodermatitis also may be an occupational disease.^9-12 Occupational exposure may occur in soldiers during military drills and other activities, farm workers, chefs, gardeners, groundskeepers, food processors, bartenders, and florists. Wearing protective gloves when handling plants such as limes, lemons, grapefruit, celery, or parsnips may prevent occupational exposure. Exposure to hogweed, an invasive species originally introduced as an ornamental plant in Europe and the United States, can produce a dramatic acute photodermatitis from exposure to its sap, which contains the psoralens 5-methoxypsoralen and 8-methylpsoralen.^9-11

Recreational Dermatitis

Phytophotodermatitis may be caused by exposure to phototoxic agents during leisure activities. Recreational exposure can occur almost anywhere, including in the kitchen, backyard, park, or woods, as well as at the beach. One notable culprit in recreational PPD is cooking with limes, parsley, or parsnips—plants that often are employed as garnishes in dishes, allowing early exposure of juices on the hands. Individuals who garden recreationally should be aware of ornamental plants such as hogweed and figs, which are notorious for causing PPD.¹³ Children’s camp counselors should have knowledge of PPD, as children have considerable curiosity and may touch or play with attractive plants such as hogweed. Children enjoying sports in parks can accidentally fall onto or be exposed to wild parsnip or hogweed growing nearby and wake up the next day with erythema and burning.¹⁴ Photoprotection is important, but sunscreens containing carrot extract can produce PPD.¹⁵ Widespread PPD over 80% of the body surface area due to sunbathing after applying fig leaf tea as a tanning agent has been described.¹⁶ Eating figs does not cause photosensitization unless the juice is smeared onto the skin. Margarita dermatitis and “Mexican beer dermatitis” can occur due to limes and other citrus fruits being used as ingredients in summer drinks.⁵ Similarly, preparing sangria may produce PPD from lime and lemon juices.¹⁷ In one report, hiking in Corsica resulted in PPD following incidental contact with the endemic plant Peucedanum paniculatum.¹⁸

Perfume (Berloque) Dermatitis

Perfume dermatitis, or berloque dermatitis, is a type of PPD for which the name is derived from the German word berlock or the French word berloque meaning trinket or charm; it was first described in 1925 by Rosenthal⁷ with regard to pendantlike streaks of pigmentation on the neck, face, arms, or trunk. The dermatitis develops due to bergapten, a component of bergamot oil, which is derived from the rind of Citrus bergamia. Many perfumes contain bergamot oil, but the incidence of this condition has been diminished due to use of artificial bergamot oil.⁶

Clinical Manifestation

Phytophotodermatitis is first evident as erythematous patches that appear within 24 hours of initial exposure to a phototoxic agent and UVA light, sometimes with a burning sensation. Solar exposure within 48 hours of sufficient plant exposure is required. Perfuse sweating may enhance the reaction.¹⁹ Rarely, it first may be seen with the sudden appearance of asymptomatic hyperpigmentation. One may see the pattern of splash marks from lime or lemon juice (Figure 1). The acute dermatitis may be associated with adjacent cutaneous edema near the reaction site or along with the erythema and blister formation. Its severity is related to the intensity of sun exposure and amount of furocoumarins.² The most common etiologic plants are citrus fruits such as limes and lemons, but it also can be caused by celery, figs, parsley, parsnips, and even mustard.^1-3,12 Wild parsley may grow in grass, producing a bizarre pattern on the back in children who lay in the grass and then spend time in the sun. Phytophotodermatitis usually is followed by postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, which may be the principal or only finding in some individuals.⁸

Differential Diagnosis

Phytophotodermatitis may resemble other types of dermatitis, particularly other forms of contact dermatitis such poison ivy, and occasionally other environmental simulants such as jellyfish stings.^1-6,20,21 Photosensitizing disorders including porphyria cutanea tarda, pseudoporphyria, and lupus erythematosus must be distinguished from PPD.^22-24 Photosensitizing medications such tetracyclines, thiazide diuretics, sulfonamides, griseofulvin, and sulfonylureas should be considered. Airborne contact dermatitis may resemble PPD, as when poison ivy is burned and is exposed to the skin in sites of airborne contact.²⁰ Excessive solar exposure is popular, particularly among adolescents, so sunburn and sunburnlike reactions can be noteworthy.^25,26

Treatment

Phytophotodermatitis can be treated with topical steroids, sometimes adding an oral antihistamine, and occasionally oral steroids.^2-4 Localized pain or a burning sensation should respond to therapy. Alternatively, a cold compress applied to the skin can relieve the pain and pruritus, and the burn can be debrided and dressed daily with silver sulfadiazine plus an oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. This eruption should be self-limited as long as it is recognized early and the cause avoided. Management of acute exposure includes prompt application of soap and water and avoidance of UV light exposure for 48 to 72 hours to prevent psoralen photoactivation.

Because PPD is essentially a chemical burn, a burn protocol and possible referral to a burn center may be needed, whether the reaction is acute or widespread.^{11,12,14,27,28} Surgical debridement and skin grafting rarely may be mandated.¹⁴ Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation may ensue as the dermatitis resolves but is not common.

The best approach for PPD is prevention (Figure 2). Individuals who are at risk should be aware of their surroundings and potential plants of concern and employ personal protective equipment to shield the skin from plant sap, which should be promptly removed if it comes in contact with the skin.

Phytophotodermatitis (PPD) is a nonallergic contact dermatitis and thus is independent of the immune system, so prior sensitization is not required.^1-3 It sometimes is known by colorful names such as margarita photodermatitis, in which a slice of lime in a refreshing summer drink may be etiologic,^4,5 or berloque dermatitis, caused by exposure to perfumes containing bergapten (5-methoxypsoralen).^6,7 Phytophotodermatitis may develop when phototoxic agents such as furocoumarins, which protect plants from fungal pathogens, and psoralens are applied to the skin followed by exposure to UV light, more specifically in the UVA range of 320 to 400 nm. Thus, these chemicals produce a phototoxic rather than photoallergic reaction, leading to cellular damage. Furocoumarins and psoralens often are found in plants such as celery and figs as well as in citrus fruits such as limes, lemons, and grapefruits. Exposure may be cryptic, as the patient may not consider or mention the eruption as possibly caused by activities such as soaking one’s feet in a folk remedy containing fig leaves.^7,8 Once these phototoxic agents come in contact with the skin, the symptoms of PPD may arise within 24 hours of exposure, beginning as an acute dermatitis with erythema, edema, vesicles, or bullae accompanied by pain and itching.

Etiology

Phytophotodermatitis is caused by exposure to several different types of plants, including Ficus carica (common fig), the genus Citrus (eg, lime, lemon), or Pastina sativa (wild parsnip). Each of these contain furocoumarins and psoralens—phototoxic agents that cause cellular damage with epidermal necrosis and resultant pain when the skin is exposed to UVA light.^1-4 There are 2 types of photochemical reactions in PPD: type I reactions occur in the absence of oxygen, whereas oxygen is present in type II reactions. Both damage cell membranes and DNA, which then results in DNA interstrand cross-linking between the psoralen furan ring and the thymine or cytosine of DNA, activating arachidonic acid metabolic pathways to produce cell death.¹

Epidemiology

The incidence of PPD is unknown due to the high variability of reactions in individuals spanning from children to the elderly. It can be caused by many different wild and domestic plants in many areas of the world and can affect any individual regardless of age, race, gender, or ethnicity. Some individuals may be affected by hyperpigmentation without prominent inflammation.⁸ Diagnosis of PPD can be challenging, and an occupation and recreational history of exposure or recent travel with possible contact with plants may be required.

Occupational Dermatitis

Phytophotodermatitis also may be an occupational disease.^9-12 Occupational exposure may occur in soldiers during military drills and other activities, farm workers, chefs, gardeners, groundskeepers, food processors, bartenders, and florists. Wearing protective gloves when handling plants such as limes, lemons, grapefruit, celery, or parsnips may prevent occupational exposure. Exposure to hogweed, an invasive species originally introduced as an ornamental plant in Europe and the United States, can produce a dramatic acute photodermatitis from exposure to its sap, which contains the psoralens 5-methoxypsoralen and 8-methylpsoralen.^9-11

Recreational Dermatitis

Phytophotodermatitis may be caused by exposure to phototoxic agents during leisure activities. Recreational exposure can occur almost anywhere, including in the kitchen, backyard, park, or woods, as well as at the beach. One notable culprit in recreational PPD is cooking with limes, parsley, or parsnips—plants that often are employed as garnishes in dishes, allowing early exposure of juices on the hands. Individuals who garden recreationally should be aware of ornamental plants such as hogweed and figs, which are notorious for causing PPD.¹³ Children’s camp counselors should have knowledge of PPD, as children have considerable curiosity and may touch or play with attractive plants such as hogweed. Children enjoying sports in parks can accidentally fall onto or be exposed to wild parsnip or hogweed growing nearby and wake up the next day with erythema and burning.¹⁴ Photoprotection is important, but sunscreens containing carrot extract can produce PPD.¹⁵ Widespread PPD over 80% of the body surface area due to sunbathing after applying fig leaf tea as a tanning agent has been described.¹⁶ Eating figs does not cause photosensitization unless the juice is smeared onto the skin. Margarita dermatitis and “Mexican beer dermatitis” can occur due to limes and other citrus fruits being used as ingredients in summer drinks.⁵ Similarly, preparing sangria may produce PPD from lime and lemon juices.¹⁷ In one report, hiking in Corsica resulted in PPD following incidental contact with the endemic plant Peucedanum paniculatum.¹⁸

Perfume (Berloque) Dermatitis

Perfume dermatitis, or berloque dermatitis, is a type of PPD for which the name is derived from the German word berlock or the French word berloque meaning trinket or charm; it was first described in 1925 by Rosenthal⁷ with regard to pendantlike streaks of pigmentation on the neck, face, arms, or trunk. The dermatitis develops due to bergapten, a component of bergamot oil, which is derived from the rind of Citrus bergamia. Many perfumes contain bergamot oil, but the incidence of this condition has been diminished due to use of artificial bergamot oil.⁶

Clinical Manifestation

Phytophotodermatitis is first evident as erythematous patches that appear within 24 hours of initial exposure to a phototoxic agent and UVA light, sometimes with a burning sensation. Solar exposure within 48 hours of sufficient plant exposure is required. Perfuse sweating may enhance the reaction.¹⁹ Rarely, it first may be seen with the sudden appearance of asymptomatic hyperpigmentation. One may see the pattern of splash marks from lime or lemon juice (Figure 1). The acute dermatitis may be associated with adjacent cutaneous edema near the reaction site or along with the erythema and blister formation. Its severity is related to the intensity of sun exposure and amount of furocoumarins.² The most common etiologic plants are citrus fruits such as limes and lemons, but it also can be caused by celery, figs, parsley, parsnips, and even mustard.^1-3,12 Wild parsley may grow in grass, producing a bizarre pattern on the back in children who lay in the grass and then spend time in the sun. Phytophotodermatitis usually is followed by postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, which may be the principal or only finding in some individuals.⁸

Differential Diagnosis

Phytophotodermatitis may resemble other types of dermatitis, particularly other forms of contact dermatitis such poison ivy, and occasionally other environmental simulants such as jellyfish stings.^1-6,20,21 Photosensitizing disorders including porphyria cutanea tarda, pseudoporphyria, and lupus erythematosus must be distinguished from PPD.^22-24 Photosensitizing medications such tetracyclines, thiazide diuretics, sulfonamides, griseofulvin, and sulfonylureas should be considered. Airborne contact dermatitis may resemble PPD, as when poison ivy is burned and is exposed to the skin in sites of airborne contact.²⁰ Excessive solar exposure is popular, particularly among adolescents, so sunburn and sunburnlike reactions can be noteworthy.^25,26

Treatment

Phytophotodermatitis can be treated with topical steroids, sometimes adding an oral antihistamine, and occasionally oral steroids.^2-4 Localized pain or a burning sensation should respond to therapy. Alternatively, a cold compress applied to the skin can relieve the pain and pruritus, and the burn can be debrided and dressed daily with silver sulfadiazine plus an oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. This eruption should be self-limited as long as it is recognized early and the cause avoided. Management of acute exposure includes prompt application of soap and water and avoidance of UV light exposure for 48 to 72 hours to prevent psoralen photoactivation.

Because PPD is essentially a chemical burn, a burn protocol and possible referral to a burn center may be needed, whether the reaction is acute or widespread.^{11,12,14,27,28} Surgical debridement and skin grafting rarely may be mandated.¹⁴ Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation may ensue as the dermatitis resolves but is not common.

The best approach for PPD is prevention (Figure 2). Individuals who are at risk should be aware of their surroundings and potential plants of concern and employ personal protective equipment to shield the skin from plant sap, which should be promptly removed if it comes in contact with the skin.

Evidence of human exposure to mercury dates as far back as the Egyptians in 1500 bc . ¹ The ancient Chinese believed mercury could prolong life, heal bones, and maintain vitality. ² Western medicine has utilized mercury in diuretics, laxatives, antibacterial agents, and antiseptics. ³ Health effects caused by chronic mercury exposure became increasingly apparent in the 1800s after hat makers who had inhaled mercuric nitrate vapors began to present with a host of neurologic symptoms, which is where the p hrase "mad as a hatter" was derived. ^4,5 In 1889, French neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot attributed rapid tremors to mercury poisoning. ⁶ By 1940, Kinnier Wilson ⁷ further characterized the effects of mercury, describing mercury-induced cognitive impairments. In the 1960s, Japanese researchers correlated elevated urinary mercury levels with an outbreak of Minamata disease, a condition characterized by tremors, sensory loss, ataxia, and visual constrictions. ⁸ The World Health Organization considers mercury to be one of the top 10 chemicals of major public health concern. ⁹

Mercury release in the environment primarily is a function of human activity, including coal-fired power plants, residential heating, and mining.^9,10 Mercury from these sources is commonly found in the sediment of lakes and bays, where it is enzymatically converted to methylmercury by aquatic microorganisms; subsequent food chain biomagnification results in elevated mercury levels in apex predators. Substantial release of mercury into the environment also can be attributed to health care facilities from their use of thermometers containing 0.5 to 3 g of elemental mercury,¹¹ blood pressure monitors, and medical waste incinerators.⁵

Mercury has been reported as the second most common cause of heavy metal poisoning after lead.¹² Standards from the US Food and Drug Administration dictate that methylmercury levels in fish and wheat products must not exceed 1 ppm.¹³ Most plant and animal food sources contain methylmercury at levels between 0.0001 and 0.01 ppm; mercury concentrations are especially high in tuna, averaging 0.4 ppm, while larger predatory fish contain levels in excess of 1 ppm.¹⁴ The use of mercury-containing cosmetic products also presents a substantial exposure risk to consumers.^5,10 In one study, 3.3% of skin-lightening creams and soaps purchased within the United States contained concentrations of mercury exceeding 1000 ppm.¹⁵

We describe a case of mercury toxicity resulting from intentional injection of liquid mercury into the right antecubital fossa in a suicide attempt.

Case Report

A 31-year-old woman presented to the family practice center for evaluation of a firm stained area on the skin of the right arm. She reported increasing anxiety, depression, tremors, irritability, and difficulty concentrating over the last 6 months. She denied headache and joint or muscle pain. Four years earlier, she had broken apart a thermometer and injected approximately 0.7 mL of its contents into the right arm in a suicide attempt. She intended to inject the thermometer’s contents directly into a vein, but the material instead entered the surrounding tissue. She denied notable pain or itching overlying the injection site. Her medications included aripiprazole and buspirone. She noted that she smoked half a pack of cigarettes per day and had a history of methamphetamine abuse. She was homeless and unemployed. Physical examination revealed an anxious tremulous woman with an erythematous to bluish gray, firm plaque on the right antecubital fossa (Figure 1). There were no notable tremors and no gait disturbance.

Her blood mercury level was greater than 100 µg/L and urine mercury was 477 µg/g (reference ranges, 1–8 μg/L and 4–5 μg/L, respectively). A radiograph of the right elbow area revealed scattered punctate foci of increased density within or overlying the anterolateral elbow soft tissues. She was diagnosed with mercury granuloma causing chronic mercury elevation. She underwent excision of the granuloma (Figure 2) with endovascular surgery via an elliptical incision. The patient was subsequently lost to follow-up.

Comment

Elemental mercury is a silver liquid at room temperature that spontaneously evaporates to form mercury vapor, an invisible, odorless, toxic gas. Accidental cutaneous exposure typically is safely managed by washing exposed skin with soap and water,¹⁶ though there is a potential risk for systemic absorption, especially when the skin is inflamed. When metallic mercury is subcutaneously injected, it is advised to promptly excise all subcutaneous areas containing mercury, regardless of any symptoms of systemic toxicity. Patients should subsequently be monitored for signs of both central nervous system (CNS) and renal deficits, undergo chelation therapy when systemic effects are apparent, and finally receive psychiatric consultation and treatment when necessary.¹⁷

Inorganic mercury compounds are formed when elemental mercury combines with sulfur or oxygen and often take the form of mercury salts, which appear as white crystals.¹⁶ These salts occur naturally in the environment and are used in pesticides, antiseptics, and skin-lightening creams and soaps.¹⁸

Methylmercury is a highly toxic, organic compound that is capable of crossing the placental and blood-brain barriers. It is the most common organic mercury compound found in the environment.¹⁶ Most humans have trace amounts of methylmercury in their bodies, typically as a result of consuming seafood.⁵

Exposure to mercury most commonly occurs through chronic consumption of methylmercury in seafood or acute inhalation of elemental mercury vapors.⁹ Iatrogenic cases of mercury exposure via injection also have been reported in the literature, including a case resulting in acute poisoning due to peritoneal lavage with mercury bichloride.¹⁹ Acute mercury-induced pulmonary damage typically resolves completely. However, there have been reported cases of exposure progressing to interstitial emphysema, pneumatocele, pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, interstitial fibrosis, and chronic respiratory insufficiency, with examples of fatal acute respiratory distress syndrome being reported.^5,16,20 Although individuals who inhale mercury vapors initially may be unaware of exposure due to little upper airway irritation, symptoms following an initial acute exposure may include ptyalism, a metallic taste, dysphagia, enteritis, diarrhea, nausea, renal damage, and CNS effects.¹⁶ Additionally, exposure may lead to confusion with signs and symptoms of metal fume fever, including shortness of breath, pleuritic chest pain, stomatitis, lethargy, and vomiting.²⁰

Chronic exposure to mercury vapor can result in accumulation of mercury in the body, leading to neuropsychiatric, dermatologic, oropharyngeal, and renal manifestations. Sore throat, fever, headache, fatigue, dyspnea, chest pain, and pneumonitis are common.¹⁶ Typically, low-level exposure to elemental mercury does not lead to long-lasting health effects. However, individuals exposed to high-level elemental mercury vapors may require hospitalization. Treatment of acute mercury poisoning consists of removing the source of exposure, followed by cardiopulmonary support.¹⁶

Specific assays for mercury levels in blood and urine are useful to assess the level of exposure and risk to the patient. Blood mercury concentrations of 20 µg/L or below are considered within reference range; however, once blood and urine concentrations of mercury exceed 100 µg/L, clinical signs of acute mercury poisoning typically manifest.²¹ Chest radiographs can reveal pulmonary damage, while complete blood cell count, metabolic panel, and urinalysis can assess damage to other organs. Neuropsychiatric testing and nerve conduction studies may provide objective evidence of CNS toxicity. Assays for N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase can provide an indication of early renal tubular dysfunction.¹⁶

Elemental mercury is not absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, posing minimal risk for acute toxicity from ingestion. Generally, less than 10% of ingested inorganic mercury is absorbed from the gut, while elemental mercury is nonabsorbable.¹⁰ If an individual ingests a large amount of mercury, it may persist in the gastrointestinal tract for an extended period. Mercury is radiopaque, and abdominal radiographs should be obtained in all cases of ingestion.¹⁶

Mercury is toxic to the CNS and peripheral nervous system, resulting in erethism mercurialis, a constellation of neuropsychologic signs and symptoms including restlessness, irritability, insomnia, emotional lability, difficulty concentrating, and impaired memory. In severe cases, delirium and psychosis may develop. Other CNS effects include tremors, paresthesia, dysarthria, neuromuscular changes, headaches, polyneuropathy, and cerebellar ataxia, as well as ophthalmologic and audiologic impairment.^5,16

Upon inhalation exposure, patients with respiratory concerns should be given oxygen. Bronchospasms are treated with bronchodilators; however, if multiple chemical exposures are suspected, bronchial-sensitizing agents may pose additional risks. Corticosteroids and antibiotics have been recommended for treatment of chemical pneumonitis, but their efficacy has not been substantiated.¹⁶

Skin reactions associated with skin contact to elemental mercury are rare. However, hives and dermatitis have been observed following accidental contact with inorganic mercury compounds.⁵ Manifestation in children chronically exposed to mercury includes a nonallergic hypersensitivity (acrodynia),^5,17 which is characterized by pain and dusky pink discoloration in the hands and feet, most often seen in children chronically exposed to mercury absorbed from vapor inhalation or cutaneous exposure.¹⁶

Renal conditions associated with acute inhalation of elemental mercury vapor include proteinuria, nephrotic syndrome, temporary tubular dysfunction, acute tubular necrosis, and oliguric renal failure.¹⁶ Chronic exposure to inorganic mercury compounds also has been reported to cause renal damage.⁵ Chelation therapy should be performed for any symptomatic patient with a clear history of acute elemental mercury exposure.¹⁶ The most frequently used chelation agent in cases of acute inorganic mercury exposures is dimercaprol. In rare cases of mercury intoxication, hemodialysis is required in the treatment of renal failure and to expedite removal of dimercaprol-mercury complexes.¹⁶

Cardiovascular symptoms associated with acute inhalation of high levels of elemental mercury include tachycardia and hypertension.¹⁶ Increases in blood pressure, palpitations, and heart rate also have been observed in instances of acute elemental mercury exposure. Studies show that exposure to mercury increases both the risk for acute myocardial infarction as well as death from coronary heart and cardiovascular diseases.⁵

Conclusion

Mercury poisoning presents with varied neuropsychologic signs and symptoms. Our case provides insight into a unique route of exposure for mercury toxicity. In addition to the unusual presentation of a mercury granuloma, our case illustrates how surgical techniques can aid in removal of cutaneous reservoirs in the setting of percutaneous exposure.

Evidence of human exposure to mercury dates as far back as the Egyptians in 1500 bc . ¹ The ancient Chinese believed mercury could prolong life, heal bones, and maintain vitality. ² Western medicine has utilized mercury in diuretics, laxatives, antibacterial agents, and antiseptics. ³ Health effects caused by chronic mercury exposure became increasingly apparent in the 1800s after hat makers who had inhaled mercuric nitrate vapors began to present with a host of neurologic symptoms, which is where the p hrase "mad as a hatter" was derived. ^4,5 In 1889, French neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot attributed rapid tremors to mercury poisoning. ⁶ By 1940, Kinnier Wilson ⁷ further characterized the effects of mercury, describing mercury-induced cognitive impairments. In the 1960s, Japanese researchers correlated elevated urinary mercury levels with an outbreak of Minamata disease, a condition characterized by tremors, sensory loss, ataxia, and visual constrictions. ⁸ The World Health Organization considers mercury to be one of the top 10 chemicals of major public health concern. ⁹

Mercury release in the environment primarily is a function of human activity, including coal-fired power plants, residential heating, and mining.^9,10 Mercury from these sources is commonly found in the sediment of lakes and bays, where it is enzymatically converted to methylmercury by aquatic microorganisms; subsequent food chain biomagnification results in elevated mercury levels in apex predators. Substantial release of mercury into the environment also can be attributed to health care facilities from their use of thermometers containing 0.5 to 3 g of elemental mercury,¹¹ blood pressure monitors, and medical waste incinerators.⁵

Mercury has been reported as the second most common cause of heavy metal poisoning after lead.¹² Standards from the US Food and Drug Administration dictate that methylmercury levels in fish and wheat products must not exceed 1 ppm.¹³ Most plant and animal food sources contain methylmercury at levels between 0.0001 and 0.01 ppm; mercury concentrations are especially high in tuna, averaging 0.4 ppm, while larger predatory fish contain levels in excess of 1 ppm.¹⁴ The use of mercury-containing cosmetic products also presents a substantial exposure risk to consumers.^5,10 In one study, 3.3% of skin-lightening creams and soaps purchased within the United States contained concentrations of mercury exceeding 1000 ppm.¹⁵

We describe a case of mercury toxicity resulting from intentional injection of liquid mercury into the right antecubital fossa in a suicide attempt.

Case Report

A 31-year-old woman presented to the family practice center for evaluation of a firm stained area on the skin of the right arm. She reported increasing anxiety, depression, tremors, irritability, and difficulty concentrating over the last 6 months. She denied headache and joint or muscle pain. Four years earlier, she had broken apart a thermometer and injected approximately 0.7 mL of its contents into the right arm in a suicide attempt. She intended to inject the thermometer’s contents directly into a vein, but the material instead entered the surrounding tissue. She denied notable pain or itching overlying the injection site. Her medications included aripiprazole and buspirone. She noted that she smoked half a pack of cigarettes per day and had a history of methamphetamine abuse. She was homeless and unemployed. Physical examination revealed an anxious tremulous woman with an erythematous to bluish gray, firm plaque on the right antecubital fossa (Figure 1). There were no notable tremors and no gait disturbance.

Her blood mercury level was greater than 100 µg/L and urine mercury was 477 µg/g (reference ranges, 1–8 μg/L and 4–5 μg/L, respectively). A radiograph of the right elbow area revealed scattered punctate foci of increased density within or overlying the anterolateral elbow soft tissues. She was diagnosed with mercury granuloma causing chronic mercury elevation. She underwent excision of the granuloma (Figure 2) with endovascular surgery via an elliptical incision. The patient was subsequently lost to follow-up.

Comment

Elemental mercury is a silver liquid at room temperature that spontaneously evaporates to form mercury vapor, an invisible, odorless, toxic gas. Accidental cutaneous exposure typically is safely managed by washing exposed skin with soap and water,¹⁶ though there is a potential risk for systemic absorption, especially when the skin is inflamed. When metallic mercury is subcutaneously injected, it is advised to promptly excise all subcutaneous areas containing mercury, regardless of any symptoms of systemic toxicity. Patients should subsequently be monitored for signs of both central nervous system (CNS) and renal deficits, undergo chelation therapy when systemic effects are apparent, and finally receive psychiatric consultation and treatment when necessary.¹⁷

Inorganic mercury compounds are formed when elemental mercury combines with sulfur or oxygen and often take the form of mercury salts, which appear as white crystals.¹⁶ These salts occur naturally in the environment and are used in pesticides, antiseptics, and skin-lightening creams and soaps.¹⁸

Methylmercury is a highly toxic, organic compound that is capable of crossing the placental and blood-brain barriers. It is the most common organic mercury compound found in the environment.¹⁶ Most humans have trace amounts of methylmercury in their bodies, typically as a result of consuming seafood.⁵

Exposure to mercury most commonly occurs through chronic consumption of methylmercury in seafood or acute inhalation of elemental mercury vapors.⁹ Iatrogenic cases of mercury exposure via injection also have been reported in the literature, including a case resulting in acute poisoning due to peritoneal lavage with mercury bichloride.¹⁹ Acute mercury-induced pulmonary damage typically resolves completely. However, there have been reported cases of exposure progressing to interstitial emphysema, pneumatocele, pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, interstitial fibrosis, and chronic respiratory insufficiency, with examples of fatal acute respiratory distress syndrome being reported.^5,16,20 Although individuals who inhale mercury vapors initially may be unaware of exposure due to little upper airway irritation, symptoms following an initial acute exposure may include ptyalism, a metallic taste, dysphagia, enteritis, diarrhea, nausea, renal damage, and CNS effects.¹⁶ Additionally, exposure may lead to confusion with signs and symptoms of metal fume fever, including shortness of breath, pleuritic chest pain, stomatitis, lethargy, and vomiting.²⁰

Chronic exposure to mercury vapor can result in accumulation of mercury in the body, leading to neuropsychiatric, dermatologic, oropharyngeal, and renal manifestations. Sore throat, fever, headache, fatigue, dyspnea, chest pain, and pneumonitis are common.¹⁶ Typically, low-level exposure to elemental mercury does not lead to long-lasting health effects. However, individuals exposed to high-level elemental mercury vapors may require hospitalization. Treatment of acute mercury poisoning consists of removing the source of exposure, followed by cardiopulmonary support.¹⁶

Specific assays for mercury levels in blood and urine are useful to assess the level of exposure and risk to the patient. Blood mercury concentrations of 20 µg/L or below are considered within reference range; however, once blood and urine concentrations of mercury exceed 100 µg/L, clinical signs of acute mercury poisoning typically manifest.²¹ Chest radiographs can reveal pulmonary damage, while complete blood cell count, metabolic panel, and urinalysis can assess damage to other organs. Neuropsychiatric testing and nerve conduction studies may provide objective evidence of CNS toxicity. Assays for N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase can provide an indication of early renal tubular dysfunction.¹⁶

Elemental mercury is not absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, posing minimal risk for acute toxicity from ingestion. Generally, less than 10% of ingested inorganic mercury is absorbed from the gut, while elemental mercury is nonabsorbable.¹⁰ If an individual ingests a large amount of mercury, it may persist in the gastrointestinal tract for an extended period. Mercury is radiopaque, and abdominal radiographs should be obtained in all cases of ingestion.¹⁶

Mercury is toxic to the CNS and peripheral nervous system, resulting in erethism mercurialis, a constellation of neuropsychologic signs and symptoms including restlessness, irritability, insomnia, emotional lability, difficulty concentrating, and impaired memory. In severe cases, delirium and psychosis may develop. Other CNS effects include tremors, paresthesia, dysarthria, neuromuscular changes, headaches, polyneuropathy, and cerebellar ataxia, as well as ophthalmologic and audiologic impairment.^5,16

Upon inhalation exposure, patients with respiratory concerns should be given oxygen. Bronchospasms are treated with bronchodilators; however, if multiple chemical exposures are suspected, bronchial-sensitizing agents may pose additional risks. Corticosteroids and antibiotics have been recommended for treatment of chemical pneumonitis, but their efficacy has not been substantiated.¹⁶

Skin reactions associated with skin contact to elemental mercury are rare. However, hives and dermatitis have been observed following accidental contact with inorganic mercury compounds.⁵ Manifestation in children chronically exposed to mercury includes a nonallergic hypersensitivity (acrodynia),^5,17 which is characterized by pain and dusky pink discoloration in the hands and feet, most often seen in children chronically exposed to mercury absorbed from vapor inhalation or cutaneous exposure.¹⁶

Renal conditions associated with acute inhalation of elemental mercury vapor include proteinuria, nephrotic syndrome, temporary tubular dysfunction, acute tubular necrosis, and oliguric renal failure.¹⁶ Chronic exposure to inorganic mercury compounds also has been reported to cause renal damage.⁵ Chelation therapy should be performed for any symptomatic patient with a clear history of acute elemental mercury exposure.¹⁶ The most frequently used chelation agent in cases of acute inorganic mercury exposures is dimercaprol. In rare cases of mercury intoxication, hemodialysis is required in the treatment of renal failure and to expedite removal of dimercaprol-mercury complexes.¹⁶

Cardiovascular symptoms associated with acute inhalation of high levels of elemental mercury include tachycardia and hypertension.¹⁶ Increases in blood pressure, palpitations, and heart rate also have been observed in instances of acute elemental mercury exposure. Studies show that exposure to mercury increases both the risk for acute myocardial infarction as well as death from coronary heart and cardiovascular diseases.⁵

Conclusion

Mercury poisoning presents with varied neuropsychologic signs and symptoms. Our case provides insight into a unique route of exposure for mercury toxicity. In addition to the unusual presentation of a mercury granuloma, our case illustrates how surgical techniques can aid in removal of cutaneous reservoirs in the setting of percutaneous exposure.

Evidence of human exposure to mercury dates as far back as the Egyptians in 1500 bc . ¹ The ancient Chinese believed mercury could prolong life, heal bones, and maintain vitality. ² Western medicine has utilized mercury in diuretics, laxatives, antibacterial agents, and antiseptics. ³ Health effects caused by chronic mercury exposure became increasingly apparent in the 1800s after hat makers who had inhaled mercuric nitrate vapors began to present with a host of neurologic symptoms, which is where the p hrase "mad as a hatter" was derived. ^4,5 In 1889, French neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot attributed rapid tremors to mercury poisoning. ⁶ By 1940, Kinnier Wilson ⁷ further characterized the effects of mercury, describing mercury-induced cognitive impairments. In the 1960s, Japanese researchers correlated elevated urinary mercury levels with an outbreak of Minamata disease, a condition characterized by tremors, sensory loss, ataxia, and visual constrictions. ⁸ The World Health Organization considers mercury to be one of the top 10 chemicals of major public health concern. ⁹

Mercury release in the environment primarily is a function of human activity, including coal-fired power plants, residential heating, and mining.^9,10 Mercury from these sources is commonly found in the sediment of lakes and bays, where it is enzymatically converted to methylmercury by aquatic microorganisms; subsequent food chain biomagnification results in elevated mercury levels in apex predators. Substantial release of mercury into the environment also can be attributed to health care facilities from their use of thermometers containing 0.5 to 3 g of elemental mercury,¹¹ blood pressure monitors, and medical waste incinerators.⁵

Mercury has been reported as the second most common cause of heavy metal poisoning after lead.¹² Standards from the US Food and Drug Administration dictate that methylmercury levels in fish and wheat products must not exceed 1 ppm.¹³ Most plant and animal food sources contain methylmercury at levels between 0.0001 and 0.01 ppm; mercury concentrations are especially high in tuna, averaging 0.4 ppm, while larger predatory fish contain levels in excess of 1 ppm.¹⁴ The use of mercury-containing cosmetic products also presents a substantial exposure risk to consumers.^5,10 In one study, 3.3% of skin-lightening creams and soaps purchased within the United States contained concentrations of mercury exceeding 1000 ppm.¹⁵

We describe a case of mercury toxicity resulting from intentional injection of liquid mercury into the right antecubital fossa in a suicide attempt.

Case Report

A 31-year-old woman presented to the family practice center for evaluation of a firm stained area on the skin of the right arm. She reported increasing anxiety, depression, tremors, irritability, and difficulty concentrating over the last 6 months. She denied headache and joint or muscle pain. Four years earlier, she had broken apart a thermometer and injected approximately 0.7 mL of its contents into the right arm in a suicide attempt. She intended to inject the thermometer’s contents directly into a vein, but the material instead entered the surrounding tissue. She denied notable pain or itching overlying the injection site. Her medications included aripiprazole and buspirone. She noted that she smoked half a pack of cigarettes per day and had a history of methamphetamine abuse. She was homeless and unemployed. Physical examination revealed an anxious tremulous woman with an erythematous to bluish gray, firm plaque on the right antecubital fossa (Figure 1). There were no notable tremors and no gait disturbance.

Her blood mercury level was greater than 100 µg/L and urine mercury was 477 µg/g (reference ranges, 1–8 μg/L and 4–5 μg/L, respectively). A radiograph of the right elbow area revealed scattered punctate foci of increased density within or overlying the anterolateral elbow soft tissues. She was diagnosed with mercury granuloma causing chronic mercury elevation. She underwent excision of the granuloma (Figure 2) with endovascular surgery via an elliptical incision. The patient was subsequently lost to follow-up.

Comment

Elemental mercury is a silver liquid at room temperature that spontaneously evaporates to form mercury vapor, an invisible, odorless, toxic gas. Accidental cutaneous exposure typically is safely managed by washing exposed skin with soap and water,¹⁶ though there is a potential risk for systemic absorption, especially when the skin is inflamed. When metallic mercury is subcutaneously injected, it is advised to promptly excise all subcutaneous areas containing mercury, regardless of any symptoms of systemic toxicity. Patients should subsequently be monitored for signs of both central nervous system (CNS) and renal deficits, undergo chelation therapy when systemic effects are apparent, and finally receive psychiatric consultation and treatment when necessary.¹⁷

Inorganic mercury compounds are formed when elemental mercury combines with sulfur or oxygen and often take the form of mercury salts, which appear as white crystals.¹⁶ These salts occur naturally in the environment and are used in pesticides, antiseptics, and skin-lightening creams and soaps.¹⁸

Methylmercury is a highly toxic, organic compound that is capable of crossing the placental and blood-brain barriers. It is the most common organic mercury compound found in the environment.¹⁶ Most humans have trace amounts of methylmercury in their bodies, typically as a result of consuming seafood.⁵

Exposure to mercury most commonly occurs through chronic consumption of methylmercury in seafood or acute inhalation of elemental mercury vapors.⁹ Iatrogenic cases of mercury exposure via injection also have been reported in the literature, including a case resulting in acute poisoning due to peritoneal lavage with mercury bichloride.¹⁹ Acute mercury-induced pulmonary damage typically resolves completely. However, there have been reported cases of exposure progressing to interstitial emphysema, pneumatocele, pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, interstitial fibrosis, and chronic respiratory insufficiency, with examples of fatal acute respiratory distress syndrome being reported.^5,16,20 Although individuals who inhale mercury vapors initially may be unaware of exposure due to little upper airway irritation, symptoms following an initial acute exposure may include ptyalism, a metallic taste, dysphagia, enteritis, diarrhea, nausea, renal damage, and CNS effects.¹⁶ Additionally, exposure may lead to confusion with signs and symptoms of metal fume fever, including shortness of breath, pleuritic chest pain, stomatitis, lethargy, and vomiting.²⁰

Chronic exposure to mercury vapor can result in accumulation of mercury in the body, leading to neuropsychiatric, dermatologic, oropharyngeal, and renal manifestations. Sore throat, fever, headache, fatigue, dyspnea, chest pain, and pneumonitis are common.¹⁶ Typically, low-level exposure to elemental mercury does not lead to long-lasting health effects. However, individuals exposed to high-level elemental mercury vapors may require hospitalization. Treatment of acute mercury poisoning consists of removing the source of exposure, followed by cardiopulmonary support.¹⁶

Specific assays for mercury levels in blood and urine are useful to assess the level of exposure and risk to the patient. Blood mercury concentrations of 20 µg/L or below are considered within reference range; however, once blood and urine concentrations of mercury exceed 100 µg/L, clinical signs of acute mercury poisoning typically manifest.²¹ Chest radiographs can reveal pulmonary damage, while complete blood cell count, metabolic panel, and urinalysis can assess damage to other organs. Neuropsychiatric testing and nerve conduction studies may provide objective evidence of CNS toxicity. Assays for N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase can provide an indication of early renal tubular dysfunction.¹⁶

Elemental mercury is not absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, posing minimal risk for acute toxicity from ingestion. Generally, less than 10% of ingested inorganic mercury is absorbed from the gut, while elemental mercury is nonabsorbable.¹⁰ If an individual ingests a large amount of mercury, it may persist in the gastrointestinal tract for an extended period. Mercury is radiopaque, and abdominal radiographs should be obtained in all cases of ingestion.¹⁶

Mercury is toxic to the CNS and peripheral nervous system, resulting in erethism mercurialis, a constellation of neuropsychologic signs and symptoms including restlessness, irritability, insomnia, emotional lability, difficulty concentrating, and impaired memory. In severe cases, delirium and psychosis may develop. Other CNS effects include tremors, paresthesia, dysarthria, neuromuscular changes, headaches, polyneuropathy, and cerebellar ataxia, as well as ophthalmologic and audiologic impairment.^5,16

Upon inhalation exposure, patients with respiratory concerns should be given oxygen. Bronchospasms are treated with bronchodilators; however, if multiple chemical exposures are suspected, bronchial-sensitizing agents may pose additional risks. Corticosteroids and antibiotics have been recommended for treatment of chemical pneumonitis, but their efficacy has not been substantiated.¹⁶

Skin reactions associated with skin contact to elemental mercury are rare. However, hives and dermatitis have been observed following accidental contact with inorganic mercury compounds.⁵ Manifestation in children chronically exposed to mercury includes a nonallergic hypersensitivity (acrodynia),^5,17 which is characterized by pain and dusky pink discoloration in the hands and feet, most often seen in children chronically exposed to mercury absorbed from vapor inhalation or cutaneous exposure.¹⁶

Renal conditions associated with acute inhalation of elemental mercury vapor include proteinuria, nephrotic syndrome, temporary tubular dysfunction, acute tubular necrosis, and oliguric renal failure.¹⁶ Chronic exposure to inorganic mercury compounds also has been reported to cause renal damage.⁵ Chelation therapy should be performed for any symptomatic patient with a clear history of acute elemental mercury exposure.¹⁶ The most frequently used chelation agent in cases of acute inorganic mercury exposures is dimercaprol. In rare cases of mercury intoxication, hemodialysis is required in the treatment of renal failure and to expedite removal of dimercaprol-mercury complexes.¹⁶

Cardiovascular symptoms associated with acute inhalation of high levels of elemental mercury include tachycardia and hypertension.¹⁶ Increases in blood pressure, palpitations, and heart rate also have been observed in instances of acute elemental mercury exposure. Studies show that exposure to mercury increases both the risk for acute myocardial infarction as well as death from coronary heart and cardiovascular diseases.⁵

Conclusion

Mercury poisoning presents with varied neuropsychologic signs and symptoms. Our case provides insight into a unique route of exposure for mercury toxicity. In addition to the unusual presentation of a mercury granuloma, our case illustrates how surgical techniques can aid in removal of cutaneous reservoirs in the setting of percutaneous exposure.