Contact Dermatitis

Pigmented purpuric dermatoses (PPDs) are a spectrum of chronic disorders that present as speckled brown to purpuric lesions and orange-brown discoloration of the skin.¹ Eruptions generally occur in middle-aged to elderly patients and commonly follow a chronic waxing and waning course.² Lesions usually are found in a localized distribution on the legs. Histologically, PPD presents with perivascular infiltrates of lymphocytes and macrophages centered around the superficial small blood vessels with narrowing of the lumina. Extravasation of red blood cells and hemosiderin deposition are commonly seen in the absence of vasculitis.

The etiology of PPD is unknown; however, important cofactors include venous hypertension, exercise and gravitational dependency, capillary fragility, focal infections, and chemical ingestions.¹ Drugs are the most important provoking factors, including acetaminophen, aspirin, adalin, carbromal, chlordiazepoxide, glipizide, glybuzole, hydralazine, meprobamate, dipyridamole, reserpine, thiamine, and interferon-alfa, as well as medroxyprogesterone acetate injection. Other phenomena include contact allergy and alcohol ingestion.¹

Although the diagnosis often is made clinically, many forms of PPD exist. The 4 main forms include Schaumberg disease, purpura annularis telangiectaticum of Majocchi, pigmented purpuric lichenoid dermatitis of Gougerot and Blum, and eczematoidlike purpura of Doucas and Kapetanakis. Less common variants include itching purpura of Lowenthal, lichen purpuricus, lichen aureus, granulomatous pigmented purpura, transitory pigmented purpuric dermatosis, and linear pigmented purpura.¹Granulomatous PPD (GPPD) is a rare histologic variant of PPD. Clinically, it is indistinguishable from other forms of PPD but reveals itself histologically with granulomatous infiltrates superimposed on classic PPD. We report a case of GPPD and provide a thorough literature review focusing on epidemiology, clinical symptoms, and treatment.^2-17 The eTable summarizes all reported cases of GPPD.

Case Report

An 86-year-old white man with no remarkable medical history presented with an asymptomatic eruption over the bilateral shins extending up both thighs of 6 years’ duration (Figure 1). It began as a 15-cm patch on the right medial thigh that rapidly spread over 1 year to involve the majority of the legs. Physical examination revealed scattered 1- to 2-mm brown macules coalescing into patches on both legs. The patches increased in density distally and extended from the bilateral thighs to the ankles. Edema of the legs was absent, and lesions were nonblanchable and without scale or induration. The differential diagnoses included stasis dermatitis, vasculitis, and PPD. All laboratory values were within reference range, including complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic panel, urine analysis, and lipid profile.

A punch biopsy from the distal right thigh revealed a superficial to mid dermal perivascular lymphocyte-predominant infiltrate with associated siderophages and a focal granulomatous infiltrate comprised of histiocytes (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff, acid-fast bacilli, and Fite stains were negative for microorganisms. No eosinophils or leukocytoclasia were seen. The patient applied betamethasone dipropionate cream 0.05% twice daily for several weeks without improvement. Because the lesions were asymptomatic, he discontinued the topical medication.

Comment

Pathogenesis/Etiology of GPPD
Granulomatous PPD is a rare histological variant of PPD, which was first reported in 1996 by Saito and Matsuoka.³ Originally, GPPD was mainly thought to affect individuals in the Far East and be associated with the hepatitis C virus, antinuclear antibodies, or rheumatoid factor.³ Since its initial description, GPPD continues to predominantly be seen on the distal legs. According to a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE and the Michigan State University library database using the terms granulomatous pigmented purpuric dermatosis and pigmented purpuric dermatosis, 26 known cases including the current case (Asian, n=13; white, n=13) have been reported. The mean age of onset was 54.5 years and the female to male ratio was 2.5 to 1.

Currently, the etiology of GPPD is unknown; however, 13 reported cases have been associated with hyperlipidemia,^{2,4,5,7,8,10,14-16} which has led to the speculation that they may be related. Previous investigators have postulated that the granulomatous infiltrate is a response to lipid deposition in the endothelial cells or that the elevated lipid levels launch an incompetent helper T cell (T_H1) response, leading to granuloma formation.^5,7,8 Currently, hyperlipidemia is present in 50% of patients and appears to be trending downward as more cases present in the literature.

Medications have been implicated in the pathogenesis of PPD and may have a possible role in the development of the granulomatous variant.⁹ One case report noted preceding medication changes, alluding to the possibility of aminosalicylates being the culprit.⁶

Another case described GPPD appearing after an upper respiratory tract infection.¹¹ Comorbidities are not uncommon in patients presenting with GPPD. Although the majority of cases are single reports, they include systemic derangements such as hepatitis C,^3,5 Sjögren syndrome,¹³ hypertension,^{2,4,5,8,10,14,15} seizure disorder,^9,14 ulcerative colitis,⁶ diabetes mellitus,^5,15 meningioma,³ renal calculi,¹⁵ thrombocytopenia,⁵ chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,⁴ thyroid goiter,⁸ obstructive sleep apnea,^2,15 osteoporosis,¹² asthma,¹⁵ gastroesophageal reflux disease/Barrett esophagus,^2,15 hypothyroidism,^2,14,15 and hyperuricemia.⁵

Clinical Presentation
Clinically, GPPD commonly presents as asymptomatic petechiae and bronze discoloration of the lower legs. The clinical presentation can vary from a solitary lesion to a localized eruption typically on the lower legs or rarely a widespread eruption. A review of the literature revealed 5 cases presenting on the upper arms^2,5,11,16 and 4 on the trunk.^2,11,16,17 Four patients presented with pruritus^3,8,13,16 and 1 described pain and photosensitive lesions.¹⁵ No other clinical signs of hyperlipidemia were described (eg, xanthomas). The duration of the disease has a wide spectrum, ranging from 3 weeks to 20 years.^4,16

Histopathology
With the increasing trend toward dermatoscopic evaluation, 2 reviews evaluated dermatoscopic features of GPPD. These reports described scattered, round to oval, red dots, globules, and patches with a diffuse red-brown or coppery background of pigmentation.^14,17

The granulomatous variant of PPD is characterized histopathologically by ill-defined, nonnecrotizing granulomas admixed with a lymphocytic infiltrate. Commonly, erythrocyte extravasation and hemosiderin are seen with granulomas superimposed on classic changes of PPD.¹⁵ Vasculitis features including endothelial swelling, fibrinoid necrosis, and leukocytoclasia are absent. Rarely, eosinophils are seen.⁶ Mild epidermal spongiosis and exocytosis of lymphocytes may be seen in all variants of PPD, except lichen aureus.¹ This exocytosis was observed focally in one case of GPPD.⁴ Although loosely formed granulomas in the papillary dermis are characteristic, 7 cases have had a concomitant lichenoid infiltrate.^2,9-11,15,16

Kaplan et al² reported granulomatous and nongranulomatous PPD occurring together in different areas of the body. A new granulomatous variant was proposed in a 2015 report that revealed 2 patients with granulomatous infiltrates in the mid to deep dermis rather than the classic superficial dermis.¹⁵ One case of GPPD was suspicious for progression into mycosis fungoides (MF) and described a lichenoid infiltrate with mild atypical and small lymphocytes migrating into the epidermis.¹¹ Follow-up biopsy lacked epidermotropism and quantitative representation of T-cell subsets. The diagnosis of early-phase MF was based on the progressive clinical course rather than immunohistologic and molecular findings.¹¹ One other case exhibited minimal epidermotropism.¹⁵

Management of GPPD should require a lipid profile with other tests to assess cardiovascular risk.¹⁰ A thorough medication review and a punch rather than a shave biopsy should be performed, especially because granulomatous infiltrates have been found in the mid to deep dermis.¹⁵ With the lack of rebiopsies documented, follow-up and rebiopsy has been suggested if there is suspicion of MF; however, we favor rebiopsy at a later time to help reveal the course of this disease and rule out progression into MF.

Therapy
Thus far, therapy has mostly been with oral and topical steroids. Five case reports noted improvement,^2,3,6,15,16 2 with oral and 3 with topical steroids. However, therapy has been discouraging, with clinical improvement being transient in most treatment-responsive patients. One case spontaneously resolved.³ Ten cases did not document therapy or follow-up.^{4,5,7,10,14,17} Only 1 case reported follow-up after treatment with simvastatin; unfortunately, the patient had no improvement.² Our case revealed no improvement with topical steroids.

Conclusion

The exact pathogenesis of GPPD is unknown. The initial impression that GPPD was a disease in Far East Asians and patients with hyperlipidemia is becoming less clear. Based on the current literature including the addition of our case, the prevalence appears to be equal among white individuals and Asians, possibly due to increased awareness of this condition and documentation in the literature. Correlation with systemic disorders such as hyperlipidemia and hypertensive medications needs further review. Eight cases reported a medical history of hypertension.^4,5,8,10,14 With antihypertensive medications being a potential culprit of PPD, this etiology should not be overlooked. A punch biopsy should be performed, especially because granulomatous infiltrates may be lurking in the mid to deep dermis.¹⁵ Granulomatous PPD has a chronic course with a disappointing response to therapy but appears to be benign in nature.¹² A rebiopsy is recommended if MF is suspected. Evaluation of GPPD following therapy for hyperlipidemia is not well documented and should be pursued. Clinicians and pathologists should be aware of the suspected associations and consider this variant when dermal granulomatous infiltrates are present with a background of PPD.

Pigmented purpuric dermatoses (PPDs) are a spectrum of chronic disorders that present as speckled brown to purpuric lesions and orange-brown discoloration of the skin.¹ Eruptions generally occur in middle-aged to elderly patients and commonly follow a chronic waxing and waning course.² Lesions usually are found in a localized distribution on the legs. Histologically, PPD presents with perivascular infiltrates of lymphocytes and macrophages centered around the superficial small blood vessels with narrowing of the lumina. Extravasation of red blood cells and hemosiderin deposition are commonly seen in the absence of vasculitis.

The etiology of PPD is unknown; however, important cofactors include venous hypertension, exercise and gravitational dependency, capillary fragility, focal infections, and chemical ingestions.¹ Drugs are the most important provoking factors, including acetaminophen, aspirin, adalin, carbromal, chlordiazepoxide, glipizide, glybuzole, hydralazine, meprobamate, dipyridamole, reserpine, thiamine, and interferon-alfa, as well as medroxyprogesterone acetate injection. Other phenomena include contact allergy and alcohol ingestion.¹

Although the diagnosis often is made clinically, many forms of PPD exist. The 4 main forms include Schaumberg disease, purpura annularis telangiectaticum of Majocchi, pigmented purpuric lichenoid dermatitis of Gougerot and Blum, and eczematoidlike purpura of Doucas and Kapetanakis. Less common variants include itching purpura of Lowenthal, lichen purpuricus, lichen aureus, granulomatous pigmented purpura, transitory pigmented purpuric dermatosis, and linear pigmented purpura.¹Granulomatous PPD (GPPD) is a rare histologic variant of PPD. Clinically, it is indistinguishable from other forms of PPD but reveals itself histologically with granulomatous infiltrates superimposed on classic PPD. We report a case of GPPD and provide a thorough literature review focusing on epidemiology, clinical symptoms, and treatment.^2-17 The eTable summarizes all reported cases of GPPD.

Case Report

An 86-year-old white man with no remarkable medical history presented with an asymptomatic eruption over the bilateral shins extending up both thighs of 6 years’ duration (Figure 1). It began as a 15-cm patch on the right medial thigh that rapidly spread over 1 year to involve the majority of the legs. Physical examination revealed scattered 1- to 2-mm brown macules coalescing into patches on both legs. The patches increased in density distally and extended from the bilateral thighs to the ankles. Edema of the legs was absent, and lesions were nonblanchable and without scale or induration. The differential diagnoses included stasis dermatitis, vasculitis, and PPD. All laboratory values were within reference range, including complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic panel, urine analysis, and lipid profile.

A punch biopsy from the distal right thigh revealed a superficial to mid dermal perivascular lymphocyte-predominant infiltrate with associated siderophages and a focal granulomatous infiltrate comprised of histiocytes (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff, acid-fast bacilli, and Fite stains were negative for microorganisms. No eosinophils or leukocytoclasia were seen. The patient applied betamethasone dipropionate cream 0.05% twice daily for several weeks without improvement. Because the lesions were asymptomatic, he discontinued the topical medication.

Comment

Pathogenesis/Etiology of GPPD
Granulomatous PPD is a rare histological variant of PPD, which was first reported in 1996 by Saito and Matsuoka.³ Originally, GPPD was mainly thought to affect individuals in the Far East and be associated with the hepatitis C virus, antinuclear antibodies, or rheumatoid factor.³ Since its initial description, GPPD continues to predominantly be seen on the distal legs. According to a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE and the Michigan State University library database using the terms granulomatous pigmented purpuric dermatosis and pigmented purpuric dermatosis, 26 known cases including the current case (Asian, n=13; white, n=13) have been reported. The mean age of onset was 54.5 years and the female to male ratio was 2.5 to 1.

Currently, the etiology of GPPD is unknown; however, 13 reported cases have been associated with hyperlipidemia,^{2,4,5,7,8,10,14-16} which has led to the speculation that they may be related. Previous investigators have postulated that the granulomatous infiltrate is a response to lipid deposition in the endothelial cells or that the elevated lipid levels launch an incompetent helper T cell (T_H1) response, leading to granuloma formation.^5,7,8 Currently, hyperlipidemia is present in 50% of patients and appears to be trending downward as more cases present in the literature.

Medications have been implicated in the pathogenesis of PPD and may have a possible role in the development of the granulomatous variant.⁹ One case report noted preceding medication changes, alluding to the possibility of aminosalicylates being the culprit.⁶

Another case described GPPD appearing after an upper respiratory tract infection.¹¹ Comorbidities are not uncommon in patients presenting with GPPD. Although the majority of cases are single reports, they include systemic derangements such as hepatitis C,^3,5 Sjögren syndrome,¹³ hypertension,^{2,4,5,8,10,14,15} seizure disorder,^9,14 ulcerative colitis,⁶ diabetes mellitus,^5,15 meningioma,³ renal calculi,¹⁵ thrombocytopenia,⁵ chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,⁴ thyroid goiter,⁸ obstructive sleep apnea,^2,15 osteoporosis,¹² asthma,¹⁵ gastroesophageal reflux disease/Barrett esophagus,^2,15 hypothyroidism,^2,14,15 and hyperuricemia.⁵

Clinical Presentation
Clinically, GPPD commonly presents as asymptomatic petechiae and bronze discoloration of the lower legs. The clinical presentation can vary from a solitary lesion to a localized eruption typically on the lower legs or rarely a widespread eruption. A review of the literature revealed 5 cases presenting on the upper arms^2,5,11,16 and 4 on the trunk.^2,11,16,17 Four patients presented with pruritus^3,8,13,16 and 1 described pain and photosensitive lesions.¹⁵ No other clinical signs of hyperlipidemia were described (eg, xanthomas). The duration of the disease has a wide spectrum, ranging from 3 weeks to 20 years.^4,16

Histopathology
With the increasing trend toward dermatoscopic evaluation, 2 reviews evaluated dermatoscopic features of GPPD. These reports described scattered, round to oval, red dots, globules, and patches with a diffuse red-brown or coppery background of pigmentation.^14,17

The granulomatous variant of PPD is characterized histopathologically by ill-defined, nonnecrotizing granulomas admixed with a lymphocytic infiltrate. Commonly, erythrocyte extravasation and hemosiderin are seen with granulomas superimposed on classic changes of PPD.¹⁵ Vasculitis features including endothelial swelling, fibrinoid necrosis, and leukocytoclasia are absent. Rarely, eosinophils are seen.⁶ Mild epidermal spongiosis and exocytosis of lymphocytes may be seen in all variants of PPD, except lichen aureus.¹ This exocytosis was observed focally in one case of GPPD.⁴ Although loosely formed granulomas in the papillary dermis are characteristic, 7 cases have had a concomitant lichenoid infiltrate.^2,9-11,15,16

Kaplan et al² reported granulomatous and nongranulomatous PPD occurring together in different areas of the body. A new granulomatous variant was proposed in a 2015 report that revealed 2 patients with granulomatous infiltrates in the mid to deep dermis rather than the classic superficial dermis.¹⁵ One case of GPPD was suspicious for progression into mycosis fungoides (MF) and described a lichenoid infiltrate with mild atypical and small lymphocytes migrating into the epidermis.¹¹ Follow-up biopsy lacked epidermotropism and quantitative representation of T-cell subsets. The diagnosis of early-phase MF was based on the progressive clinical course rather than immunohistologic and molecular findings.¹¹ One other case exhibited minimal epidermotropism.¹⁵

Management of GPPD should require a lipid profile with other tests to assess cardiovascular risk.¹⁰ A thorough medication review and a punch rather than a shave biopsy should be performed, especially because granulomatous infiltrates have been found in the mid to deep dermis.¹⁵ With the lack of rebiopsies documented, follow-up and rebiopsy has been suggested if there is suspicion of MF; however, we favor rebiopsy at a later time to help reveal the course of this disease and rule out progression into MF.

Therapy
Thus far, therapy has mostly been with oral and topical steroids. Five case reports noted improvement,^2,3,6,15,16 2 with oral and 3 with topical steroids. However, therapy has been discouraging, with clinical improvement being transient in most treatment-responsive patients. One case spontaneously resolved.³ Ten cases did not document therapy or follow-up.^{4,5,7,10,14,17} Only 1 case reported follow-up after treatment with simvastatin; unfortunately, the patient had no improvement.² Our case revealed no improvement with topical steroids.

Conclusion

The exact pathogenesis of GPPD is unknown. The initial impression that GPPD was a disease in Far East Asians and patients with hyperlipidemia is becoming less clear. Based on the current literature including the addition of our case, the prevalence appears to be equal among white individuals and Asians, possibly due to increased awareness of this condition and documentation in the literature. Correlation with systemic disorders such as hyperlipidemia and hypertensive medications needs further review. Eight cases reported a medical history of hypertension.^4,5,8,10,14 With antihypertensive medications being a potential culprit of PPD, this etiology should not be overlooked. A punch biopsy should be performed, especially because granulomatous infiltrates may be lurking in the mid to deep dermis.¹⁵ Granulomatous PPD has a chronic course with a disappointing response to therapy but appears to be benign in nature.¹² A rebiopsy is recommended if MF is suspected. Evaluation of GPPD following therapy for hyperlipidemia is not well documented and should be pursued. Clinicians and pathologists should be aware of the suspected associations and consider this variant when dermal granulomatous infiltrates are present with a background of PPD.

Pigmented purpuric dermatoses (PPDs) are a spectrum of chronic disorders that present as speckled brown to purpuric lesions and orange-brown discoloration of the skin.¹ Eruptions generally occur in middle-aged to elderly patients and commonly follow a chronic waxing and waning course.² Lesions usually are found in a localized distribution on the legs. Histologically, PPD presents with perivascular infiltrates of lymphocytes and macrophages centered around the superficial small blood vessels with narrowing of the lumina. Extravasation of red blood cells and hemosiderin deposition are commonly seen in the absence of vasculitis.

The etiology of PPD is unknown; however, important cofactors include venous hypertension, exercise and gravitational dependency, capillary fragility, focal infections, and chemical ingestions.¹ Drugs are the most important provoking factors, including acetaminophen, aspirin, adalin, carbromal, chlordiazepoxide, glipizide, glybuzole, hydralazine, meprobamate, dipyridamole, reserpine, thiamine, and interferon-alfa, as well as medroxyprogesterone acetate injection. Other phenomena include contact allergy and alcohol ingestion.¹

Although the diagnosis often is made clinically, many forms of PPD exist. The 4 main forms include Schaumberg disease, purpura annularis telangiectaticum of Majocchi, pigmented purpuric lichenoid dermatitis of Gougerot and Blum, and eczematoidlike purpura of Doucas and Kapetanakis. Less common variants include itching purpura of Lowenthal, lichen purpuricus, lichen aureus, granulomatous pigmented purpura, transitory pigmented purpuric dermatosis, and linear pigmented purpura.¹Granulomatous PPD (GPPD) is a rare histologic variant of PPD. Clinically, it is indistinguishable from other forms of PPD but reveals itself histologically with granulomatous infiltrates superimposed on classic PPD. We report a case of GPPD and provide a thorough literature review focusing on epidemiology, clinical symptoms, and treatment.^2-17 The eTable summarizes all reported cases of GPPD.

Case Report

An 86-year-old white man with no remarkable medical history presented with an asymptomatic eruption over the bilateral shins extending up both thighs of 6 years’ duration (Figure 1). It began as a 15-cm patch on the right medial thigh that rapidly spread over 1 year to involve the majority of the legs. Physical examination revealed scattered 1- to 2-mm brown macules coalescing into patches on both legs. The patches increased in density distally and extended from the bilateral thighs to the ankles. Edema of the legs was absent, and lesions were nonblanchable and without scale or induration. The differential diagnoses included stasis dermatitis, vasculitis, and PPD. All laboratory values were within reference range, including complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic panel, urine analysis, and lipid profile.

A punch biopsy from the distal right thigh revealed a superficial to mid dermal perivascular lymphocyte-predominant infiltrate with associated siderophages and a focal granulomatous infiltrate comprised of histiocytes (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff, acid-fast bacilli, and Fite stains were negative for microorganisms. No eosinophils or leukocytoclasia were seen. The patient applied betamethasone dipropionate cream 0.05% twice daily for several weeks without improvement. Because the lesions were asymptomatic, he discontinued the topical medication.

Comment

Pathogenesis/Etiology of GPPD
Granulomatous PPD is a rare histological variant of PPD, which was first reported in 1996 by Saito and Matsuoka.³ Originally, GPPD was mainly thought to affect individuals in the Far East and be associated with the hepatitis C virus, antinuclear antibodies, or rheumatoid factor.³ Since its initial description, GPPD continues to predominantly be seen on the distal legs. According to a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE and the Michigan State University library database using the terms granulomatous pigmented purpuric dermatosis and pigmented purpuric dermatosis, 26 known cases including the current case (Asian, n=13; white, n=13) have been reported. The mean age of onset was 54.5 years and the female to male ratio was 2.5 to 1.

Currently, the etiology of GPPD is unknown; however, 13 reported cases have been associated with hyperlipidemia,^{2,4,5,7,8,10,14-16} which has led to the speculation that they may be related. Previous investigators have postulated that the granulomatous infiltrate is a response to lipid deposition in the endothelial cells or that the elevated lipid levels launch an incompetent helper T cell (T_H1) response, leading to granuloma formation.^5,7,8 Currently, hyperlipidemia is present in 50% of patients and appears to be trending downward as more cases present in the literature.

Medications have been implicated in the pathogenesis of PPD and may have a possible role in the development of the granulomatous variant.⁹ One case report noted preceding medication changes, alluding to the possibility of aminosalicylates being the culprit.⁶

Another case described GPPD appearing after an upper respiratory tract infection.¹¹ Comorbidities are not uncommon in patients presenting with GPPD. Although the majority of cases are single reports, they include systemic derangements such as hepatitis C,^3,5 Sjögren syndrome,¹³ hypertension,^{2,4,5,8,10,14,15} seizure disorder,^9,14 ulcerative colitis,⁶ diabetes mellitus,^5,15 meningioma,³ renal calculi,¹⁵ thrombocytopenia,⁵ chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,⁴ thyroid goiter,⁸ obstructive sleep apnea,^2,15 osteoporosis,¹² asthma,¹⁵ gastroesophageal reflux disease/Barrett esophagus,^2,15 hypothyroidism,^2,14,15 and hyperuricemia.⁵

Clinical Presentation
Clinically, GPPD commonly presents as asymptomatic petechiae and bronze discoloration of the lower legs. The clinical presentation can vary from a solitary lesion to a localized eruption typically on the lower legs or rarely a widespread eruption. A review of the literature revealed 5 cases presenting on the upper arms^2,5,11,16 and 4 on the trunk.^2,11,16,17 Four patients presented with pruritus^3,8,13,16 and 1 described pain and photosensitive lesions.¹⁵ No other clinical signs of hyperlipidemia were described (eg, xanthomas). The duration of the disease has a wide spectrum, ranging from 3 weeks to 20 years.^4,16

Histopathology
With the increasing trend toward dermatoscopic evaluation, 2 reviews evaluated dermatoscopic features of GPPD. These reports described scattered, round to oval, red dots, globules, and patches with a diffuse red-brown or coppery background of pigmentation.^14,17

The granulomatous variant of PPD is characterized histopathologically by ill-defined, nonnecrotizing granulomas admixed with a lymphocytic infiltrate. Commonly, erythrocyte extravasation and hemosiderin are seen with granulomas superimposed on classic changes of PPD.¹⁵ Vasculitis features including endothelial swelling, fibrinoid necrosis, and leukocytoclasia are absent. Rarely, eosinophils are seen.⁶ Mild epidermal spongiosis and exocytosis of lymphocytes may be seen in all variants of PPD, except lichen aureus.¹ This exocytosis was observed focally in one case of GPPD.⁴ Although loosely formed granulomas in the papillary dermis are characteristic, 7 cases have had a concomitant lichenoid infiltrate.^2,9-11,15,16

Kaplan et al² reported granulomatous and nongranulomatous PPD occurring together in different areas of the body. A new granulomatous variant was proposed in a 2015 report that revealed 2 patients with granulomatous infiltrates in the mid to deep dermis rather than the classic superficial dermis.¹⁵ One case of GPPD was suspicious for progression into mycosis fungoides (MF) and described a lichenoid infiltrate with mild atypical and small lymphocytes migrating into the epidermis.¹¹ Follow-up biopsy lacked epidermotropism and quantitative representation of T-cell subsets. The diagnosis of early-phase MF was based on the progressive clinical course rather than immunohistologic and molecular findings.¹¹ One other case exhibited minimal epidermotropism.¹⁵

Management of GPPD should require a lipid profile with other tests to assess cardiovascular risk.¹⁰ A thorough medication review and a punch rather than a shave biopsy should be performed, especially because granulomatous infiltrates have been found in the mid to deep dermis.¹⁵ With the lack of rebiopsies documented, follow-up and rebiopsy has been suggested if there is suspicion of MF; however, we favor rebiopsy at a later time to help reveal the course of this disease and rule out progression into MF.

Therapy
Thus far, therapy has mostly been with oral and topical steroids. Five case reports noted improvement,^2,3,6,15,16 2 with oral and 3 with topical steroids. However, therapy has been discouraging, with clinical improvement being transient in most treatment-responsive patients. One case spontaneously resolved.³ Ten cases did not document therapy or follow-up.^{4,5,7,10,14,17} Only 1 case reported follow-up after treatment with simvastatin; unfortunately, the patient had no improvement.² Our case revealed no improvement with topical steroids.

Conclusion

The exact pathogenesis of GPPD is unknown. The initial impression that GPPD was a disease in Far East Asians and patients with hyperlipidemia is becoming less clear. Based on the current literature including the addition of our case, the prevalence appears to be equal among white individuals and Asians, possibly due to increased awareness of this condition and documentation in the literature. Correlation with systemic disorders such as hyperlipidemia and hypertensive medications needs further review. Eight cases reported a medical history of hypertension.^4,5,8,10,14 With antihypertensive medications being a potential culprit of PPD, this etiology should not be overlooked. A punch biopsy should be performed, especially because granulomatous infiltrates may be lurking in the mid to deep dermis.¹⁵ Granulomatous PPD has a chronic course with a disappointing response to therapy but appears to be benign in nature.¹² A rebiopsy is recommended if MF is suspected. Evaluation of GPPD following therapy for hyperlipidemia is not well documented and should be pursued. Clinicians and pathologists should be aware of the suspected associations and consider this variant when dermal granulomatous infiltrates are present with a background of PPD.

SAN FRANCISCO – When patients with contact dermatitis who have had a patch test positive to an allergen and are not improving despite avoiding cutaneous exposure, it’s important to consider the possibility of systemic exposure, according to Nina Botto, MD, of the department of dermatology, at the University of California, San Francisco.

“Theoretically, any allergen can cause a systemic contact dermatitis. The ones that we think about and encounter more frequently are earth metals like nickel and balsam of Peru, which is a component of many fragrances and flavorings,” she said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

In the interview, Dr. Botto, who is codirector of the Occupational and Contact Dermatitis Clinic at UCSF, provides recommendations on how to approach patients with systemic contact dermatitis, including dietary avoidance. But following these diets can be challenging. She recommends starting with avoiding cutaneous exposure to the suspected allergen. For patients not improving after two months of avoidance, “it may be reasonable to consider a diet,”she advised.

Dr. Botto cited the following two publications with tables and guidelines for diets as helpful resources for patients: Dermatitis. 2013 Jul-Aug;24(4):153-60 (for a diet low in balsam of Peru); and Dermatitis. 2013 Jul-Aug; 24(4):190-5 (for a diet low in nickel).

Another useful resource is the American Contact Dermatitis Society website, which produces a customized list of safe products for patients after they enter the allergen into the system.

Dr. Botto had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – When patients with contact dermatitis who have had a patch test positive to an allergen and are not improving despite avoiding cutaneous exposure, it’s important to consider the possibility of systemic exposure, according to Nina Botto, MD, of the department of dermatology, at the University of California, San Francisco.

“Theoretically, any allergen can cause a systemic contact dermatitis. The ones that we think about and encounter more frequently are earth metals like nickel and balsam of Peru, which is a component of many fragrances and flavorings,” she said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

In the interview, Dr. Botto, who is codirector of the Occupational and Contact Dermatitis Clinic at UCSF, provides recommendations on how to approach patients with systemic contact dermatitis, including dietary avoidance. But following these diets can be challenging. She recommends starting with avoiding cutaneous exposure to the suspected allergen. For patients not improving after two months of avoidance, “it may be reasonable to consider a diet,”she advised.

Dr. Botto cited the following two publications with tables and guidelines for diets as helpful resources for patients: Dermatitis. 2013 Jul-Aug;24(4):153-60 (for a diet low in balsam of Peru); and Dermatitis. 2013 Jul-Aug; 24(4):190-5 (for a diet low in nickel).

Another useful resource is the American Contact Dermatitis Society website, which produces a customized list of safe products for patients after they enter the allergen into the system.

Dr. Botto had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – When patients with contact dermatitis who have had a patch test positive to an allergen and are not improving despite avoiding cutaneous exposure, it’s important to consider the possibility of systemic exposure, according to Nina Botto, MD, of the department of dermatology, at the University of California, San Francisco.

“Theoretically, any allergen can cause a systemic contact dermatitis. The ones that we think about and encounter more frequently are earth metals like nickel and balsam of Peru, which is a component of many fragrances and flavorings,” she said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

In the interview, Dr. Botto, who is codirector of the Occupational and Contact Dermatitis Clinic at UCSF, provides recommendations on how to approach patients with systemic contact dermatitis, including dietary avoidance. But following these diets can be challenging. She recommends starting with avoiding cutaneous exposure to the suspected allergen. For patients not improving after two months of avoidance, “it may be reasonable to consider a diet,”she advised.

Dr. Botto cited the following two publications with tables and guidelines for diets as helpful resources for patients: Dermatitis. 2013 Jul-Aug;24(4):153-60 (for a diet low in balsam of Peru); and Dermatitis. 2013 Jul-Aug; 24(4):190-5 (for a diet low in nickel).

Another useful resource is the American Contact Dermatitis Society website, which produces a customized list of safe products for patients after they enter the allergen into the system.

Dr. Botto had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Chronic contact dermatitis often is tied to hidden allergens found in shampoos, soaps, and body washes, according to Cory Dunnick, MD.“A lot of patients who get referred to my patch test clinic will have chronic dermatitis that isn’t responding to treatment or is worsening despite treatment, or they present with a pattern that is suggestive of contact dermatitis,” she said in an interview.

There is also a common perception that liquid body washes are better than bar soaps because they may be more moisturizing, but the results of a recently published study suggest otherwise, Dr. Dunnick of the department of dermatology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

ValuaVitaly/Thinkstock

SAN FRANCISCO – Chronic contact dermatitis often is tied to hidden allergens found in shampoos, soaps, and body washes, according to Cory Dunnick, MD.“A lot of patients who get referred to my patch test clinic will have chronic dermatitis that isn’t responding to treatment or is worsening despite treatment, or they present with a pattern that is suggestive of contact dermatitis,” she said in an interview.

There is also a common perception that liquid body washes are better than bar soaps because they may be more moisturizing, but the results of a recently published study suggest otherwise, Dr. Dunnick of the department of dermatology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

ValuaVitaly/Thinkstock

SAN FRANCISCO – Chronic contact dermatitis often is tied to hidden allergens found in shampoos, soaps, and body washes, according to Cory Dunnick, MD.“A lot of patients who get referred to my patch test clinic will have chronic dermatitis that isn’t responding to treatment or is worsening despite treatment, or they present with a pattern that is suggestive of contact dermatitis,” she said in an interview.

There is also a common perception that liquid body washes are better than bar soaps because they may be more moisturizing, but the results of a recently published study suggest otherwise, Dr. Dunnick of the department of dermatology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

ValuaVitaly/Thinkstock

CHICAGO – If severe eczema persists in a pediatric patient despite your best treatment efforts, think allergic contact dermatitis.

“Or, if your eczema patients tell you that they have a cream that’s making things worse, you should think about a contact allergen,” Catalina Matiz, MD, said at the World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology.

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a type IV delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction to haptens that come into contact with the skin. Poison ivy is a common plant-based culprit, while nickel is the most common metal allergen in adults and children. “The skin barrier also plays a role,” said Dr. Matiz of the department of dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego, and the University of California, San Diego. “Compared with adults, children have a thinner stratum corneum, and some haptens can penetrate the skin. Some studies suggest that patients with atopic dermatitis may have increased rates of allergic sensitization, and filaggrin mutations have been found in patients with atopic dermatitis and in patients with ACD to nickel. Filaggrin helps to aggregate the cytoskeletal proteins that form the cornified cell envelope. Without filaggrin, the skin barrier is defective.”

[email protected]

CHICAGO – If severe eczema persists in a pediatric patient despite your best treatment efforts, think allergic contact dermatitis.

“Or, if your eczema patients tell you that they have a cream that’s making things worse, you should think about a contact allergen,” Catalina Matiz, MD, said at the World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology.

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a type IV delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction to haptens that come into contact with the skin. Poison ivy is a common plant-based culprit, while nickel is the most common metal allergen in adults and children. “The skin barrier also plays a role,” said Dr. Matiz of the department of dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego, and the University of California, San Diego. “Compared with adults, children have a thinner stratum corneum, and some haptens can penetrate the skin. Some studies suggest that patients with atopic dermatitis may have increased rates of allergic sensitization, and filaggrin mutations have been found in patients with atopic dermatitis and in patients with ACD to nickel. Filaggrin helps to aggregate the cytoskeletal proteins that form the cornified cell envelope. Without filaggrin, the skin barrier is defective.”

[email protected]

CHICAGO – If severe eczema persists in a pediatric patient despite your best treatment efforts, think allergic contact dermatitis.

“Or, if your eczema patients tell you that they have a cream that’s making things worse, you should think about a contact allergen,” Catalina Matiz, MD, said at the World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology.

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a type IV delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction to haptens that come into contact with the skin. Poison ivy is a common plant-based culprit, while nickel is the most common metal allergen in adults and children. “The skin barrier also plays a role,” said Dr. Matiz of the department of dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego, and the University of California, San Diego. “Compared with adults, children have a thinner stratum corneum, and some haptens can penetrate the skin. Some studies suggest that patients with atopic dermatitis may have increased rates of allergic sensitization, and filaggrin mutations have been found in patients with atopic dermatitis and in patients with ACD to nickel. Filaggrin helps to aggregate the cytoskeletal proteins that form the cornified cell envelope. Without filaggrin, the skin barrier is defective.”

[email protected]

This article exhibits key pediatric dermatology pearls garnered at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) in Orlando, Florida (March 3–7, 2017). Highlights from both the Society for Pediatric Dermatology pre-AAD meeting (March 2, 2017) and the AAD general meeting sessions are included. This discussion is intended to help maximize care of our pediatric patients in dermatology and present high-yield take-home points from the AAD that can be readily transferred to our patient care.

“New Tools for Your Therapeutic Toolbox” by Erin Mathes, MD (University of California, San Francisco)

During this lecture at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, Dr. Mathes discussed a randomized controlled trial that took place in 2014 in both the United States and the United Kingdom to assess skin barrier enhancement to reduce the incidence of atopic dermatitis (AD) in 124 high-risk infants.¹ The high-risk infants had either a parent or sibling with physician-diagnosed AD, asthma, or rhinitis, or a first-degree relative with an aforementioned condition. Full-body emollient therapy was applied at least once daily within 3 weeks of birth for 6 months, while the control arm did not use emollient. Parents were allowed to choose from the following emollients: sunflower seed oil, moisturizing cream, or ointment. The primary outcome was the incidence of AD at 6 months. The authors found a 43% incidence of AD in the control group compared to 22% in the emollient group, amounting to a relative risk reduction of approximately 50%.¹

Emollients in AD are hypothesized to help through the enhanced barrier function and decreased penetration of irritant substances and allergens. This study is vital given the ease of use of emollients and the foreseeable substantial impact on reduced health care costs associated with the decreased incidence of AD.

Take-Home Point
Full-body emollient therapy within 3 weeks of birth may reduce the incidence of AD in high-risk infants.

Dr. Mathes also discussed the novel topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor crisaborole and its emerging role in AD. She reviewed the results of a large phase 3 trial of crisaborole therapy for patients aged 2 years or older with mild to moderate AD.² Crisaborole ointment was applied twice daily for 28 days. The primary outcome measured was an investigator static global assessment score of clear or almost clear, which is a score for AD based on the degree of erythema, presence of oozing and crusting, and presence of induration or papulation. Overall, 32.8% of patients treated with crisaborole achieved success compared to 25.4% of vehicle-treated patients. The control patients were still given a vehicle to apply, which can function as therapy to help repair the barrier of AD and thus theoretically reduced the percentage gap between patients who met success with and without crisaborole therapy. Furthermore, only 4% of patients reported adverse effects such as burning and stinging with application of crisaborole in contrast to topical calcineurin inhibitors, which can elicit symptoms up to 50% of the time.² In summary, this lecture reviewed the first new topical treatment for AD in 15 years.

Take-Home Point
Crisaborole ointment is a novel topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor approved for mild to moderate AD in patients 2 years of age and older.

“The Truth About Pediatric Contact Dermatitis” by Sharon Jacob, MD (Loma Linda University, California)

In this session, Dr. Jacob discussed how she approaches pediatric patients with suspected contact dermatitis and elaborated on the common allergens unique to this patient population. Furthermore, she explained the substantial role of nickel in pediatric contact dermatitis, citing a study performed in Denmark and the United States, which tested 212 toys for nickel using the dimethylglyoxime test and found that 34.4% of toys did in fact release nickel.³ Additional studies have shown that nickel released from children’s toys is deposited on the skin, even with short contact times such as 30 minutes on one or more occasions within 2 weeks.^3,4 She is currently evaluating the presence of nickel in locales frequented by children such as schools, libraries, and supermarkets. Interestingly, she anecdotally found that a pediatric eczematous eruption in a spiralized distribution of the legs can be attributed to the presence of nickel in school chairs, and the morphology is secondary to children wrapping their legs around the chairs. In conclusion, she reiterated that nickel continues to be the top allergen among pediatric patients, and states that additional allergens for patch testing in this population are unique to their adult counterparts.

Take-Home Point
Nickel is an ubiquitous allergen for pediatric contact dermatitis; additionally, the list of allergens for patch testing should be tailored to this patient population.

“When to Image, When to Sedate” by Annette Wagner, MD (Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, Illinois)

This lecture was a 3-part discussion on the safety of general anesthesia in children, when to image children, and when sedation may be worth the risk. Dr. Wagner shared her pearls for when children younger than 3 years may benefit from dermatologic procedures that involve general anesthesia. Large congenital lesions of the scalp or face that require tissue expansion or multiple stages may be best performed at a younger age due to the flexibility of the infant scalp, providing the best outcome. Additional considerations include a questionable malignant diagnosis in which a punch biopsy is not enough, rapidly growing facial lesions, Spitz nevi of the face, congenital lesions with no available therapy, and nonhealing refractory lesions causing severe pain. The general rule proposed was intervention for single procedures lasting less than 1 hour that otherwise would result in a worse outcome if postponed. Finally, she concluded to always advocate for your patient, to wait if the outcome will be the same regardless of timing, and to be frank about not knowing the risks of general anesthesia in this population. The resource, SmartTots (http://smarttots.org) provides current consensus statements and ongoing research on the use and safety of general anesthesia in children.

Take-Home Point
General sedation may be considered for short pediatric procedures that will result in a worse outcome if postponed.

“Highlights From the Pediatric Literature” by Katherine Marks, DO (Geisinger, Danville and Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania)

Dr. Marks discussed numerous emerging pediatric dermatology articles. One article looked at 40 infants with proliferating infantile hemangiomas (IHs) who had timolol gel 0.5% applied twice daily.⁵ The primary outcomes were the urinary excretion and serum levels of timolol as well as the clinical response to therapy measured by a visual analog scale at monthly visits. A urinalysis collected 3 to 4 hours after timolol application was found to be positive in 83% (20/24) of the tested patients; the first 3 positive infants were then sent to have their serum timolol levels drawn and also were found to be positive, though substantially small levels (median, 0.16 ng/mL). The 3 patients tested had small IHs on the face with no ulceration. None of these patients experienced adverse effects and all of the IHs significantly (P<.001) improved with therapy. The authors stated that even though the absorption was minimal, it is wise to be cognizant about the use of timolol in certain patient demographics such as preterm or young infants with large ulcerating IHs.⁵

Take-Home Point
Systemic absorption with topical timolol occurs, albeit substantially small; be judicious about giving this medication in select patient populations with ulcerated hemangiomas.

Acknowledgment
The author thanks the presenters for their review and contributions to this article.

This article exhibits key pediatric dermatology pearls garnered at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) in Orlando, Florida (March 3–7, 2017). Highlights from both the Society for Pediatric Dermatology pre-AAD meeting (March 2, 2017) and the AAD general meeting sessions are included. This discussion is intended to help maximize care of our pediatric patients in dermatology and present high-yield take-home points from the AAD that can be readily transferred to our patient care.

“New Tools for Your Therapeutic Toolbox” by Erin Mathes, MD (University of California, San Francisco)

During this lecture at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, Dr. Mathes discussed a randomized controlled trial that took place in 2014 in both the United States and the United Kingdom to assess skin barrier enhancement to reduce the incidence of atopic dermatitis (AD) in 124 high-risk infants.¹ The high-risk infants had either a parent or sibling with physician-diagnosed AD, asthma, or rhinitis, or a first-degree relative with an aforementioned condition. Full-body emollient therapy was applied at least once daily within 3 weeks of birth for 6 months, while the control arm did not use emollient. Parents were allowed to choose from the following emollients: sunflower seed oil, moisturizing cream, or ointment. The primary outcome was the incidence of AD at 6 months. The authors found a 43% incidence of AD in the control group compared to 22% in the emollient group, amounting to a relative risk reduction of approximately 50%.¹

Emollients in AD are hypothesized to help through the enhanced barrier function and decreased penetration of irritant substances and allergens. This study is vital given the ease of use of emollients and the foreseeable substantial impact on reduced health care costs associated with the decreased incidence of AD.

Take-Home Point
Full-body emollient therapy within 3 weeks of birth may reduce the incidence of AD in high-risk infants.

Dr. Mathes also discussed the novel topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor crisaborole and its emerging role in AD. She reviewed the results of a large phase 3 trial of crisaborole therapy for patients aged 2 years or older with mild to moderate AD.² Crisaborole ointment was applied twice daily for 28 days. The primary outcome measured was an investigator static global assessment score of clear or almost clear, which is a score for AD based on the degree of erythema, presence of oozing and crusting, and presence of induration or papulation. Overall, 32.8% of patients treated with crisaborole achieved success compared to 25.4% of vehicle-treated patients. The control patients were still given a vehicle to apply, which can function as therapy to help repair the barrier of AD and thus theoretically reduced the percentage gap between patients who met success with and without crisaborole therapy. Furthermore, only 4% of patients reported adverse effects such as burning and stinging with application of crisaborole in contrast to topical calcineurin inhibitors, which can elicit symptoms up to 50% of the time.² In summary, this lecture reviewed the first new topical treatment for AD in 15 years.

Take-Home Point
Crisaborole ointment is a novel topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor approved for mild to moderate AD in patients 2 years of age and older.

“The Truth About Pediatric Contact Dermatitis” by Sharon Jacob, MD (Loma Linda University, California)

In this session, Dr. Jacob discussed how she approaches pediatric patients with suspected contact dermatitis and elaborated on the common allergens unique to this patient population. Furthermore, she explained the substantial role of nickel in pediatric contact dermatitis, citing a study performed in Denmark and the United States, which tested 212 toys for nickel using the dimethylglyoxime test and found that 34.4% of toys did in fact release nickel.³ Additional studies have shown that nickel released from children’s toys is deposited on the skin, even with short contact times such as 30 minutes on one or more occasions within 2 weeks.^3,4 She is currently evaluating the presence of nickel in locales frequented by children such as schools, libraries, and supermarkets. Interestingly, she anecdotally found that a pediatric eczematous eruption in a spiralized distribution of the legs can be attributed to the presence of nickel in school chairs, and the morphology is secondary to children wrapping their legs around the chairs. In conclusion, she reiterated that nickel continues to be the top allergen among pediatric patients, and states that additional allergens for patch testing in this population are unique to their adult counterparts.

Take-Home Point
Nickel is an ubiquitous allergen for pediatric contact dermatitis; additionally, the list of allergens for patch testing should be tailored to this patient population.

“When to Image, When to Sedate” by Annette Wagner, MD (Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, Illinois)

This lecture was a 3-part discussion on the safety of general anesthesia in children, when to image children, and when sedation may be worth the risk. Dr. Wagner shared her pearls for when children younger than 3 years may benefit from dermatologic procedures that involve general anesthesia. Large congenital lesions of the scalp or face that require tissue expansion or multiple stages may be best performed at a younger age due to the flexibility of the infant scalp, providing the best outcome. Additional considerations include a questionable malignant diagnosis in which a punch biopsy is not enough, rapidly growing facial lesions, Spitz nevi of the face, congenital lesions with no available therapy, and nonhealing refractory lesions causing severe pain. The general rule proposed was intervention for single procedures lasting less than 1 hour that otherwise would result in a worse outcome if postponed. Finally, she concluded to always advocate for your patient, to wait if the outcome will be the same regardless of timing, and to be frank about not knowing the risks of general anesthesia in this population. The resource, SmartTots (http://smarttots.org) provides current consensus statements and ongoing research on the use and safety of general anesthesia in children.

Take-Home Point
General sedation may be considered for short pediatric procedures that will result in a worse outcome if postponed.

“Highlights From the Pediatric Literature” by Katherine Marks, DO (Geisinger, Danville and Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania)

Dr. Marks discussed numerous emerging pediatric dermatology articles. One article looked at 40 infants with proliferating infantile hemangiomas (IHs) who had timolol gel 0.5% applied twice daily.⁵ The primary outcomes were the urinary excretion and serum levels of timolol as well as the clinical response to therapy measured by a visual analog scale at monthly visits. A urinalysis collected 3 to 4 hours after timolol application was found to be positive in 83% (20/24) of the tested patients; the first 3 positive infants were then sent to have their serum timolol levels drawn and also were found to be positive, though substantially small levels (median, 0.16 ng/mL). The 3 patients tested had small IHs on the face with no ulceration. None of these patients experienced adverse effects and all of the IHs significantly (P<.001) improved with therapy. The authors stated that even though the absorption was minimal, it is wise to be cognizant about the use of timolol in certain patient demographics such as preterm or young infants with large ulcerating IHs.⁵

Take-Home Point
Systemic absorption with topical timolol occurs, albeit substantially small; be judicious about giving this medication in select patient populations with ulcerated hemangiomas.

Acknowledgment
The author thanks the presenters for their review and contributions to this article.

This article exhibits key pediatric dermatology pearls garnered at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) in Orlando, Florida (March 3–7, 2017). Highlights from both the Society for Pediatric Dermatology pre-AAD meeting (March 2, 2017) and the AAD general meeting sessions are included. This discussion is intended to help maximize care of our pediatric patients in dermatology and present high-yield take-home points from the AAD that can be readily transferred to our patient care.

“New Tools for Your Therapeutic Toolbox” by Erin Mathes, MD (University of California, San Francisco)

During this lecture at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, Dr. Mathes discussed a randomized controlled trial that took place in 2014 in both the United States and the United Kingdom to assess skin barrier enhancement to reduce the incidence of atopic dermatitis (AD) in 124 high-risk infants.¹ The high-risk infants had either a parent or sibling with physician-diagnosed AD, asthma, or rhinitis, or a first-degree relative with an aforementioned condition. Full-body emollient therapy was applied at least once daily within 3 weeks of birth for 6 months, while the control arm did not use emollient. Parents were allowed to choose from the following emollients: sunflower seed oil, moisturizing cream, or ointment. The primary outcome was the incidence of AD at 6 months. The authors found a 43% incidence of AD in the control group compared to 22% in the emollient group, amounting to a relative risk reduction of approximately 50%.¹

Emollients in AD are hypothesized to help through the enhanced barrier function and decreased penetration of irritant substances and allergens. This study is vital given the ease of use of emollients and the foreseeable substantial impact on reduced health care costs associated with the decreased incidence of AD.

Take-Home Point
Full-body emollient therapy within 3 weeks of birth may reduce the incidence of AD in high-risk infants.

Dr. Mathes also discussed the novel topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor crisaborole and its emerging role in AD. She reviewed the results of a large phase 3 trial of crisaborole therapy for patients aged 2 years or older with mild to moderate AD.² Crisaborole ointment was applied twice daily for 28 days. The primary outcome measured was an investigator static global assessment score of clear or almost clear, which is a score for AD based on the degree of erythema, presence of oozing and crusting, and presence of induration or papulation. Overall, 32.8% of patients treated with crisaborole achieved success compared to 25.4% of vehicle-treated patients. The control patients were still given a vehicle to apply, which can function as therapy to help repair the barrier of AD and thus theoretically reduced the percentage gap between patients who met success with and without crisaborole therapy. Furthermore, only 4% of patients reported adverse effects such as burning and stinging with application of crisaborole in contrast to topical calcineurin inhibitors, which can elicit symptoms up to 50% of the time.² In summary, this lecture reviewed the first new topical treatment for AD in 15 years.

Take-Home Point
Crisaborole ointment is a novel topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor approved for mild to moderate AD in patients 2 years of age and older.

“The Truth About Pediatric Contact Dermatitis” by Sharon Jacob, MD (Loma Linda University, California)

In this session, Dr. Jacob discussed how she approaches pediatric patients with suspected contact dermatitis and elaborated on the common allergens unique to this patient population. Furthermore, she explained the substantial role of nickel in pediatric contact dermatitis, citing a study performed in Denmark and the United States, which tested 212 toys for nickel using the dimethylglyoxime test and found that 34.4% of toys did in fact release nickel.³ Additional studies have shown that nickel released from children’s toys is deposited on the skin, even with short contact times such as 30 minutes on one or more occasions within 2 weeks.^3,4 She is currently evaluating the presence of nickel in locales frequented by children such as schools, libraries, and supermarkets. Interestingly, she anecdotally found that a pediatric eczematous eruption in a spiralized distribution of the legs can be attributed to the presence of nickel in school chairs, and the morphology is secondary to children wrapping their legs around the chairs. In conclusion, she reiterated that nickel continues to be the top allergen among pediatric patients, and states that additional allergens for patch testing in this population are unique to their adult counterparts.

Take-Home Point
Nickel is an ubiquitous allergen for pediatric contact dermatitis; additionally, the list of allergens for patch testing should be tailored to this patient population.

“When to Image, When to Sedate” by Annette Wagner, MD (Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, Illinois)

This lecture was a 3-part discussion on the safety of general anesthesia in children, when to image children, and when sedation may be worth the risk. Dr. Wagner shared her pearls for when children younger than 3 years may benefit from dermatologic procedures that involve general anesthesia. Large congenital lesions of the scalp or face that require tissue expansion or multiple stages may be best performed at a younger age due to the flexibility of the infant scalp, providing the best outcome. Additional considerations include a questionable malignant diagnosis in which a punch biopsy is not enough, rapidly growing facial lesions, Spitz nevi of the face, congenital lesions with no available therapy, and nonhealing refractory lesions causing severe pain. The general rule proposed was intervention for single procedures lasting less than 1 hour that otherwise would result in a worse outcome if postponed. Finally, she concluded to always advocate for your patient, to wait if the outcome will be the same regardless of timing, and to be frank about not knowing the risks of general anesthesia in this population. The resource, SmartTots (http://smarttots.org) provides current consensus statements and ongoing research on the use and safety of general anesthesia in children.

Take-Home Point
General sedation may be considered for short pediatric procedures that will result in a worse outcome if postponed.

“Highlights From the Pediatric Literature” by Katherine Marks, DO (Geisinger, Danville and Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania)

Dr. Marks discussed numerous emerging pediatric dermatology articles. One article looked at 40 infants with proliferating infantile hemangiomas (IHs) who had timolol gel 0.5% applied twice daily.⁵ The primary outcomes were the urinary excretion and serum levels of timolol as well as the clinical response to therapy measured by a visual analog scale at monthly visits. A urinalysis collected 3 to 4 hours after timolol application was found to be positive in 83% (20/24) of the tested patients; the first 3 positive infants were then sent to have their serum timolol levels drawn and also were found to be positive, though substantially small levels (median, 0.16 ng/mL). The 3 patients tested had small IHs on the face with no ulceration. None of these patients experienced adverse effects and all of the IHs significantly (P<.001) improved with therapy. The authors stated that even though the absorption was minimal, it is wise to be cognizant about the use of timolol in certain patient demographics such as preterm or young infants with large ulcerating IHs.⁵

Take-Home Point
Systemic absorption with topical timolol occurs, albeit substantially small; be judicious about giving this medication in select patient populations with ulcerated hemangiomas.

Acknowledgment
The author thanks the presenters for their review and contributions to this article.

Mobile health devices enable patients and clinicians to monitor the type, quantity, and quality of everyday activities and hold the promise of improving patient health and health care practices.¹ In 2013, 75% of surveyed consumers in the United States owned a fitness technology product, either a dedicated fitness device, application, or portable blood pressure monitor.² Ownership of dedicated wearable fitness devices among consumers in the United States increased from 3% in 2012 to 9% in 2013. The immense popularity of wearable fitness devices is evident in the trajectory of their reported sales, which increased from $43 million in 2009 to $854 million in 2013.² Recognizing that “widespread adoption and use of mobile technologies is opening new and innovative ways to improve health,”³ the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ruled that “[technologies] that can pose a greater risk to patients will require FDA review.” One popular class of mobile technologies—activity and sleep sensors—falls outside the FDA’s regulatory guidance. To enable continuous monitoring, these sensors often are embedded into wearable devices.

Reports in the media have documented skin rashes arising in conjunction with use of one type of device,⁴ which may be related to nickel contact allergy, and the manufacturer has reported that the metal housing consists of surgical stainless steel that is known to contain nickel. We report a complication related to continuous use of an unregulated, commercially available, watchlike wearable sensor that was linked not to nickel but to an acrylate-containing component.

Case Report

An otherwise healthy 52-year-old woman with no history of contact allergy presented with an intensely itchy eruption involving the left wrist arising 4 days after continuous use of a new watchlike wearable fitness sensor. By day 11, the eruption evolved into a well-demarcated, erythematous, scaly plaque at the location where the device’s rechargeable battery metal housing came into contact with skin (Figure 1).

Dimethylglyoxime testing of the metal housing and clips was negative, but testing of contacts within the housing was positive for nickel (Figure 2). Epicutaneous patch testing of the patient using a modified North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test series (Table) demonstrated no reaction to nickel, instead showing a strong positive (2+) reaction at 48 and 72 hours to methyl methacrylate 2% and a positive (1+) reaction at 96 hours to ethyl acrylate 0.1% (Figure 3).

Comment

Acrylates are used as adhesives to bond metal to plastic and as part of lithium ion polymer batteries, presumably similar to the one used in this device.⁵ Our patient had a history of using acrylic nail polish, which may have been a source of prior sensitization. Exposure to sweat or other moisture could theoretically dissolve such a water-soluble polymer,⁶ allowing for skin contact. Other acrylate polymers have been reported to break down slowly in contact with water, leading to contact sensitization to the monomer.⁷ The manufacturer of the device was contacted for additional information but declined to provide specific details regarding the device’s composition (personal communication, January 2014).

Although not considered toxic,⁸ acrylate was named Allergen of the Year in 2012 by the American Contact Dermatitis Society.^9-11 Nickel might be a source of allergy for some other patients who wear mobile health devices, but we concluded that this particular patient developed allergic contact dermatitis from prolonged exposure to low levels of methyl methacrylate or another acrylate due to gradual breakdown of the acrylate polymer used in the rechargeable battery housing for this wearable health device.

Given the FDA’s tailored risk approach to regulation, many wearable sensors that may contain potential contact allergens such as nickel and acrylates do not fall under the FDA regulatory framework. This case should alert physicians to the lack of regulatory oversight for many mobile technologies. They should consider a screening history for contact allergens before recommending wearable sensors and broader testing for contact allergens should exposed patients develop reactions. Future wearable sensor materials and designs should minimize exposure to allergens given prolonged contact with continuous use. In the absence of regulation, manufacturers of these devices should consider due care testing prior to commercialization.

Acknowledgment

We are indebted to Alexander S. Rattner, PhD (State College, Pennsylvania), who provided his engineering expertise and insight during conversations with the authors.

Mobile health devices enable patients and clinicians to monitor the type, quantity, and quality of everyday activities and hold the promise of improving patient health and health care practices.¹ In 2013, 75% of surveyed consumers in the United States owned a fitness technology product, either a dedicated fitness device, application, or portable blood pressure monitor.² Ownership of dedicated wearable fitness devices among consumers in the United States increased from 3% in 2012 to 9% in 2013. The immense popularity of wearable fitness devices is evident in the trajectory of their reported sales, which increased from $43 million in 2009 to $854 million in 2013.² Recognizing that “widespread adoption and use of mobile technologies is opening new and innovative ways to improve health,”³ the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ruled that “[technologies] that can pose a greater risk to patients will require FDA review.” One popular class of mobile technologies—activity and sleep sensors—falls outside the FDA’s regulatory guidance. To enable continuous monitoring, these sensors often are embedded into wearable devices.

Reports in the media have documented skin rashes arising in conjunction with use of one type of device,⁴ which may be related to nickel contact allergy, and the manufacturer has reported that the metal housing consists of surgical stainless steel that is known to contain nickel. We report a complication related to continuous use of an unregulated, commercially available, watchlike wearable sensor that was linked not to nickel but to an acrylate-containing component.

Case Report

An otherwise healthy 52-year-old woman with no history of contact allergy presented with an intensely itchy eruption involving the left wrist arising 4 days after continuous use of a new watchlike wearable fitness sensor. By day 11, the eruption evolved into a well-demarcated, erythematous, scaly plaque at the location where the device’s rechargeable battery metal housing came into contact with skin (Figure 1).

Dimethylglyoxime testing of the metal housing and clips was negative, but testing of contacts within the housing was positive for nickel (Figure 2). Epicutaneous patch testing of the patient using a modified North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test series (Table) demonstrated no reaction to nickel, instead showing a strong positive (2+) reaction at 48 and 72 hours to methyl methacrylate 2% and a positive (1+) reaction at 96 hours to ethyl acrylate 0.1% (Figure 3).

Comment

Acrylates are used as adhesives to bond metal to plastic and as part of lithium ion polymer batteries, presumably similar to the one used in this device.⁵ Our patient had a history of using acrylic nail polish, which may have been a source of prior sensitization. Exposure to sweat or other moisture could theoretically dissolve such a water-soluble polymer,⁶ allowing for skin contact. Other acrylate polymers have been reported to break down slowly in contact with water, leading to contact sensitization to the monomer.⁷ The manufacturer of the device was contacted for additional information but declined to provide specific details regarding the device’s composition (personal communication, January 2014).

Although not considered toxic,⁸ acrylate was named Allergen of the Year in 2012 by the American Contact Dermatitis Society.^9-11 Nickel might be a source of allergy for some other patients who wear mobile health devices, but we concluded that this particular patient developed allergic contact dermatitis from prolonged exposure to low levels of methyl methacrylate or another acrylate due to gradual breakdown of the acrylate polymer used in the rechargeable battery housing for this wearable health device.

Given the FDA’s tailored risk approach to regulation, many wearable sensors that may contain potential contact allergens such as nickel and acrylates do not fall under the FDA regulatory framework. This case should alert physicians to the lack of regulatory oversight for many mobile technologies. They should consider a screening history for contact allergens before recommending wearable sensors and broader testing for contact allergens should exposed patients develop reactions. Future wearable sensor materials and designs should minimize exposure to allergens given prolonged contact with continuous use. In the absence of regulation, manufacturers of these devices should consider due care testing prior to commercialization.

Acknowledgment

We are indebted to Alexander S. Rattner, PhD (State College, Pennsylvania), who provided his engineering expertise and insight during conversations with the authors.

Mobile health devices enable patients and clinicians to monitor the type, quantity, and quality of everyday activities and hold the promise of improving patient health and health care practices.¹ In 2013, 75% of surveyed consumers in the United States owned a fitness technology product, either a dedicated fitness device, application, or portable blood pressure monitor.² Ownership of dedicated wearable fitness devices among consumers in the United States increased from 3% in 2012 to 9% in 2013. The immense popularity of wearable fitness devices is evident in the trajectory of their reported sales, which increased from $43 million in 2009 to $854 million in 2013.² Recognizing that “widespread adoption and use of mobile technologies is opening new and innovative ways to improve health,”³ the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ruled that “[technologies] that can pose a greater risk to patients will require FDA review.” One popular class of mobile technologies—activity and sleep sensors—falls outside the FDA’s regulatory guidance. To enable continuous monitoring, these sensors often are embedded into wearable devices.

Reports in the media have documented skin rashes arising in conjunction with use of one type of device,⁴ which may be related to nickel contact allergy, and the manufacturer has reported that the metal housing consists of surgical stainless steel that is known to contain nickel. We report a complication related to continuous use of an unregulated, commercially available, watchlike wearable sensor that was linked not to nickel but to an acrylate-containing component.

Case Report

An otherwise healthy 52-year-old woman with no history of contact allergy presented with an intensely itchy eruption involving the left wrist arising 4 days after continuous use of a new watchlike wearable fitness sensor. By day 11, the eruption evolved into a well-demarcated, erythematous, scaly plaque at the location where the device’s rechargeable battery metal housing came into contact with skin (Figure 1).

Dimethylglyoxime testing of the metal housing and clips was negative, but testing of contacts within the housing was positive for nickel (Figure 2). Epicutaneous patch testing of the patient using a modified North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test series (Table) demonstrated no reaction to nickel, instead showing a strong positive (2+) reaction at 48 and 72 hours to methyl methacrylate 2% and a positive (1+) reaction at 96 hours to ethyl acrylate 0.1% (Figure 3).

Comment

Acrylates are used as adhesives to bond metal to plastic and as part of lithium ion polymer batteries, presumably similar to the one used in this device.⁵ Our patient had a history of using acrylic nail polish, which may have been a source of prior sensitization. Exposure to sweat or other moisture could theoretically dissolve such a water-soluble polymer,⁶ allowing for skin contact. Other acrylate polymers have been reported to break down slowly in contact with water, leading to contact sensitization to the monomer.⁷ The manufacturer of the device was contacted for additional information but declined to provide specific details regarding the device’s composition (personal communication, January 2014).

Although not considered toxic,⁸ acrylate was named Allergen of the Year in 2012 by the American Contact Dermatitis Society.^9-11 Nickel might be a source of allergy for some other patients who wear mobile health devices, but we concluded that this particular patient developed allergic contact dermatitis from prolonged exposure to low levels of methyl methacrylate or another acrylate due to gradual breakdown of the acrylate polymer used in the rechargeable battery housing for this wearable health device.

Given the FDA’s tailored risk approach to regulation, many wearable sensors that may contain potential contact allergens such as nickel and acrylates do not fall under the FDA regulatory framework. This case should alert physicians to the lack of regulatory oversight for many mobile technologies. They should consider a screening history for contact allergens before recommending wearable sensors and broader testing for contact allergens should exposed patients develop reactions. Future wearable sensor materials and designs should minimize exposure to allergens given prolonged contact with continuous use. In the absence of regulation, manufacturers of these devices should consider due care testing prior to commercialization.

Acknowledgment

We are indebted to Alexander S. Rattner, PhD (State College, Pennsylvania), who provided his engineering expertise and insight during conversations with the authors.

Chronic urticaria (CU) is clinically defined as the daily or almost daily presence of wheals on the skin for at least 6 weeks.¹ Chronic urticaria severely affects patients’ quality of life and can cause emotional disability and distress.² In clinical practice, CU is one of the most common and challenging conditions for general practitioners, dermatologists, and allergists. It can be provoked by a wide variety of different causes or may be the clinical presentation of certain systemic diseases^3,4; thus, CU often requires a detailed and time-consuming diagnostic procedure that includes screening for allergies, autoimmune diseases, parasites, malignancies, infections, and metabolic disorders.^5,6 In many patients (up to 50% in some case series), the cause or pathogenic mechanism cannot be identified, and the disease is then classified as chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU).⁷

It has previously been shown that contact sensitization could have some relation with CIU,⁸ which was further explored in this study. This study sought to evaluate if contact allergy may play a role in disease development in CIU patients in Saudi Arabia and if patch testing should be routinely performed for CIU patients to determine if any allergens can be avoided.

Methods

This prospective study was conducted at the King Khalid University Hospital Allergy Clinic (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) in patients aged 18 to 60 years who had CU for more than 6 weeks. It was a clinic-based study conducted over a period of 2 years (March 2010 to February 2012). The study protocol was approved by the local ethics committee at King Khalid University Hospital. Valid written consent was obtained from each patient.

Patients were excluded if they had CU caused by physical factors (eg, hot or cold temperature, water, physical contact) or drug reactions that were possible causative factors or if they had taken oral prednisolone or other oral immunosuppressive drugs (eg, azathioprine, cyclosporine) in the last month. However, patients taking antihistamines were not excluded because it was impossible for the patients to discontinue their urticaria treatment. Other exclusion criteria included CU associated with any systemic disease, thyroid disease, diabetes mellitus, autoimmune disorder, or atopic dermatitis. Pregnant and lactating women were not included in this study.

All new adult CU patients (ie, disease duration >6 weeks) were worked up using the routine diagnostic tests that are typically performed for any new CU patient, including complete blood cell count with differential, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, liver function tests, urine analysis, and hepatitis B and C screenings. Further diagnostic tests also were carried out when appropriate according to the patient’s history and physical examination, including levels of urea, electrolytes, thyrotropin, thyroid antibodies (antithyroglobulin and antimicrosomal), and antinuclear antibodies, as well as a Helicobacter pylori test.

All of the patients enrolled in the study were evaluated by skin prick testing to establish the link between CU and its cause. Patch testing was performed in patients who were negative on skin prick testing.

Skin Prick Testing
All patients were advised to temporarily discontinue the use of antihistamines and corticosteroids 5 to 6 days prior to testing. To assess the presence of allergen-specific IgE antibodies, skin prick testing is preferred because it is more sensitive and specific, is simple to use, is inexpensive, and is not associated with any complications.⁹

Patch Testing
Patch tests were carried out using a ready-to-use epicutaneous patch test system for the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).¹⁰ A European standard series was used with the addition of 4 allergens of local relevance: black seed oil, local perfume mix, henna, and myrrh (a topical herbal medicine used to promote healing). Patients with a negative skin prick test who had a positive patch test were enrolled in an allergen-avoidance program to avoid the offending allergen for 8 weeks.

Assessment of Improvement
Assessment of urticaria severity using the Chronic Urticaria Severity Score (CUSS), a simple semiquantitative assessment of disease activity, was calculated as the sum of the number of wheals and the degree of itch severity graded from 0 (none) to 3 (severe), according to the guidelines established by the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology, the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network, the European Dermatology Forum, and the World Allergy Organization.¹¹ The avoidance group of patients was assessed at baseline and after 1 month to evaluate changes in their CUSS after allergen avoidance for 8 weeks.

Statistical Analysis
All of the statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS software version 16. Results were presented as the median with the range or the mean (SD). Descriptive statistics were used to describe the demographic data. The comparability of demographic and baseline characteristics among CIU patients was assessed using the Student t test, and P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

During the study period, a total of 120 CU patients were seen at the clinic. Ninety-three patients with CU met our selection criteria (77.5%) and were enrolled in the study. The mean age (SD) of the patients was 34.7 (12.4) years. Women comprised 68.8% (64/93) of the study population (Table 1).

The duration of urticaria ranged from 0.6 to 20 years, with a median duration of 4 years. Approximately half of the patients (50/93) experienced severe symptoms of urticaria, but only 26.9% (25/93) had graded their urticaria as very severe.

Negative results from the skin prick test were reported in 62.4% (58/93) of patients and were subsequently patch tested. These patients also had no other etiologic factors (eg, infection; thyroid, autoimmune, or metabolic disease). Patients who had positive skin prick test results (35/93 [37.6%]) were not considered to be cases of CIU, according to diagnostic recommendations.¹² Of the 58 CIU patients who were patch tested, 31 (53.4%) had positive results and 27 (46.5%) had negative results to both skin prick and patch tests (Figure).

Univariate analysis revealed significant associations between age, gender, and duration of urticaria and patch test positivity (χ² test, P<.05). Twenty of 31 (64.5%) patch test–positive patients were aged 30 to 45 years. Positive patch test results were observed in 31 of 43 female patients (72.1%; P<.001). Of the patch test–positive patients, disease duration was greater than 5 years in 16 of 31 patients (51.6%).

Of the 31 patients with positive patch tests, there were 20 positive reactions to nickel, 6 to formaldehyde, 4 to phenylenediamine, 3 to cobalt, and 3 to a fragrance mix (Table 2). Some patients showed patch test reactivity to more than 1 allergen concomitantly. Overall, these 31 patients had positive reactions to 16 allergens. None of the patients showed actual signs of contact dermatitis (Table 2).

Of the 31 patch test–positive patients, 10 were enrolled but only 8 (25.8%) agreed to take appropriate avoidance measures for the sensitizing substances; 5 (62.5%) showed excellent improvement in their baseline symptoms at a 1-month follow-up visit.

Comment

Chronic idiopathic urticaria is the diagnosis given when urticarial vasculitis, physical urticaria, and all other possible etiologic factors have been excluded in patients with CU. Our study was designed to assess patch test reactivity in patients with CU without any identifiable systemic etiologic factor after detailed laboratory testing and negative skin prick tests.

Chronic idiopathic urticaria can be an extremely disabling and difficult-to-treat condition. Because the cause is unknown, the management of CIU often is frustrating. The efficacy of performing patch tests in CIU has not yet been proven, as there are conflicting results regarding the role of contact sensitization in CIU. Prior studies in this field have shown that contact allergy can play a role in the etiopathogenesis of CU; these findings have stimulated new approaches for investigation of CIU.^8,12 There were no details of how a common allergen such as nickel was avoided, which caused remission in the majority of patch test–positive patients.

Patch testing is commonly performed to diagnose ACD, and if contact allergens are found via patch testing, patients can often be cured of their dermatitis by avoiding these agents. However, patch testing is not routinely performed in the evaluation of patients with CIU. It is a relatively inexpensive and safe procedure to determine a causal link between sensitization to a specific agent and ACD. In patch test clinics, agents often are tested in standard and screening series. Sensitization that is not suspected from the patient’s history and/or clinical examination can be detected in this manner. Requirements for the inclusion of a chemical in a standard series have been formulated by Bruze et al.¹³ In addition, ready-to-use materials relevant to the specific leisure activities and working conditions also can be selected for patch testing.

A study conducted in Saudi Arabia showed that the European standard series is suitable for patch testing patients in this community¹⁴; however, 3 allergens of local relevance were added in our study: black seed oil, local perfume mix, and henna. Moreover, in our study we added a local allergen known as myrrh, which is a topical herbal medicine used to promote healing that has been reported to cause ACD in some cases.¹⁵ We sought to determine if contact allergens can be identified with patch testing in patients with CU and if avoiding these contact allergens would resolve the CU.

Urticaria was once considered an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction, but recent studies have demonstrated the existence of different subgroupsof urticaria, some with an autoimmune mechanism.^1-4,11 In CU, skin prick tests are recommended for etiologic workup, while patch testing generally is not recommended.¹⁶

It has been observed in clinical practice that a substantial number of patients with CU are positive to patch tests, even without a clear clinical history or signs of contact dermatitis.¹⁷ In 2007, Guerra et al¹⁷ reported that of 121 patients with CU, 50 (41.3%) tested positive for contact allergens. In all of the patch test–positive patients, avoidance measures led to complete remission within 10 days to 1 month. Therefore, this result suggested that testing for contact sensitization could be helpful in the management of CU. Patients with nickel sensitivity were subsequently allowed to ingest small amounts of nickel-containing foods after 8 weeks of a completely nickel-free diet, and remission persisted.¹⁷

Contact dermatitis affects approximately 20% of the general population¹⁸; however, there has been little investigation (limited to nickel) into the relationship between contact allergens and CU,^19,20 and the underlying mechanisms of the disease are unknown. It has been hypothesized that small amounts of the substances are absorbed through the skin or the digestive tract into the bloodstream over the long-term and are delivered to antigen-presenting cells in the skin, which provide the necessary signals for mast cell activation. Nonetheless, the reasons for a selectively cutaneous localization of the reaction remain largely unclear.

Management of CU is debated among physicians, and several diagnostic flowcharts have been proposed.^1,2 In general, patch tests for contact dermatitis are not recommended as a fundamental part of the diagnostic procedure, but Guerra et al¹⁷ suggested that contact allergy often plays a role in CU.

There have been inadequate reports of CU found to be caused by common contact sensitizers.^21-24 Interestingly, no signs of contact allergy were demonstrated in CU patients before urticarial attack.

Our findings supported our patient selection criteria and also confirmed that contact sensitization may be one of the many possible mechanisms involved in the etiology of CU. Urticaria may have a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction element, and patients with CU without an obvious causal factor can have positive patch test results.

The role of contact sensitization in CU has not yet been established, as another study showed no relationship between avoidance of contact allergens and the course of CIU.²⁵ In that study, patients with severe CIU who previously had been patch tested were retrospectively studied. Three groups were studied: CIU patients with positive patch tests; CIU patients with negative patch tests; and a control group, which included patients with CIU who had not been patch tested. The groups were followed monthly to assess changes in CUSS after allergen avoidance. Forty-three patients with severe CIU were patch tested. Nickel sulfate testing was positive in 4 cases (9.3%); potassium dichromate testing was positive in 2 cases (4.7%); and cobalt, balsam of Peru, paraphenylenediamine, fragrance mix, and epoxy resin testing were positive in 1 case (2.3%) each. The mean (SD) baseline CUSS score (5.4 [0.5]) significantly improved after 1 month of allergen avoidance (3.2 [1.1]; P<.001); however, similar improvement in CUSS was observed in 34 patients with CIU with negative patch test results (5.3 [0.5] to 3.2 [1.3]; P<.001) and in 49 patients with CIU in the control group after 1 month (5.2 [0.4] to 3.4 [1.3]; P<.001).²⁵

The main findings of our study were that 53.4% of patients with CIU had positive patch test results and that avoidance of the sensitizing substance was effective in 5 of 8 patients who completed an avoidance program. Almost all of the patients showed notable remission of symptoms after limiting their exposure to the offending allergens. This study clearly showed that a cause or pathogenesis for CIU could be identified, thus showing that CIU occurs less frequently than is usually assumed.

Our study had limitations. The first is our lack of a controlled challenge test, which is important to confirm an allergen as a cause of CIU.²⁶ Nonetheless, avoidance of the revealed contact allergen was associated with comparable improvement of CIU severity after 1 month in 5 of 8 patients, though such measures were not tested in all 31 of 58 CIU patients who had positive patch test results.

Conclusion

We propose that patch tests should be performed while investigating CU because they give effective diagnostic and therapeutic results in a substantial number of patients. Urticaria, or at least a subgroup of the disease, may have a delayed-type reaction element, which may explain the disease etiology for many CIU patients. Patients with CU without a detectable underlying etiologic factor can have positive patch test results.

Chronic urticaria (CU) is clinically defined as the daily or almost daily presence of wheals on the skin for at least 6 weeks.¹ Chronic urticaria severely affects patients’ quality of life and can cause emotional disability and distress.² In clinical practice, CU is one of the most common and challenging conditions for general practitioners, dermatologists, and allergists. It can be provoked by a wide variety of different causes or may be the clinical presentation of certain systemic diseases^3,4; thus, CU often requires a detailed and time-consuming diagnostic procedure that includes screening for allergies, autoimmune diseases, parasites, malignancies, infections, and metabolic disorders.^5,6 In many patients (up to 50% in some case series), the cause or pathogenic mechanism cannot be identified, and the disease is then classified as chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU).⁷

It has previously been shown that contact sensitization could have some relation with CIU,⁸ which was further explored in this study. This study sought to evaluate if contact allergy may play a role in disease development in CIU patients in Saudi Arabia and if patch testing should be routinely performed for CIU patients to determine if any allergens can be avoided.

Methods

This prospective study was conducted at the King Khalid University Hospital Allergy Clinic (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) in patients aged 18 to 60 years who had CU for more than 6 weeks. It was a clinic-based study conducted over a period of 2 years (March 2010 to February 2012). The study protocol was approved by the local ethics committee at King Khalid University Hospital. Valid written consent was obtained from each patient.

Patients were excluded if they had CU caused by physical factors (eg, hot or cold temperature, water, physical contact) or drug reactions that were possible causative factors or if they had taken oral prednisolone or other oral immunosuppressive drugs (eg, azathioprine, cyclosporine) in the last month. However, patients taking antihistamines were not excluded because it was impossible for the patients to discontinue their urticaria treatment. Other exclusion criteria included CU associated with any systemic disease, thyroid disease, diabetes mellitus, autoimmune disorder, or atopic dermatitis. Pregnant and lactating women were not included in this study.

All new adult CU patients (ie, disease duration >6 weeks) were worked up using the routine diagnostic tests that are typically performed for any new CU patient, including complete blood cell count with differential, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, liver function tests, urine analysis, and hepatitis B and C screenings. Further diagnostic tests also were carried out when appropriate according to the patient’s history and physical examination, including levels of urea, electrolytes, thyrotropin, thyroid antibodies (antithyroglobulin and antimicrosomal), and antinuclear antibodies, as well as a Helicobacter pylori test.

All of the patients enrolled in the study were evaluated by skin prick testing to establish the link between CU and its cause. Patch testing was performed in patients who were negative on skin prick testing.

Skin Prick Testing
All patients were advised to temporarily discontinue the use of antihistamines and corticosteroids 5 to 6 days prior to testing. To assess the presence of allergen-specific IgE antibodies, skin prick testing is preferred because it is more sensitive and specific, is simple to use, is inexpensive, and is not associated with any complications.⁹

Patch Testing
Patch tests were carried out using a ready-to-use epicutaneous patch test system for the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).¹⁰ A European standard series was used with the addition of 4 allergens of local relevance: black seed oil, local perfume mix, henna, and myrrh (a topical herbal medicine used to promote healing). Patients with a negative skin prick test who had a positive patch test were enrolled in an allergen-avoidance program to avoid the offending allergen for 8 weeks.

Assessment of Improvement
Assessment of urticaria severity using the Chronic Urticaria Severity Score (CUSS), a simple semiquantitative assessment of disease activity, was calculated as the sum of the number of wheals and the degree of itch severity graded from 0 (none) to 3 (severe), according to the guidelines established by the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology, the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network, the European Dermatology Forum, and the World Allergy Organization.¹¹ The avoidance group of patients was assessed at baseline and after 1 month to evaluate changes in their CUSS after allergen avoidance for 8 weeks.

Statistical Analysis
All of the statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS software version 16. Results were presented as the median with the range or the mean (SD). Descriptive statistics were used to describe the demographic data. The comparability of demographic and baseline characteristics among CIU patients was assessed using the Student t test, and P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

During the study period, a total of 120 CU patients were seen at the clinic. Ninety-three patients with CU met our selection criteria (77.5%) and were enrolled in the study. The mean age (SD) of the patients was 34.7 (12.4) years. Women comprised 68.8% (64/93) of the study population (Table 1).

The duration of urticaria ranged from 0.6 to 20 years, with a median duration of 4 years. Approximately half of the patients (50/93) experienced severe symptoms of urticaria, but only 26.9% (25/93) had graded their urticaria as very severe.

Negative results from the skin prick test were reported in 62.4% (58/93) of patients and were subsequently patch tested. These patients also had no other etiologic factors (eg, infection; thyroid, autoimmune, or metabolic disease). Patients who had positive skin prick test results (35/93 [37.6%]) were not considered to be cases of CIU, according to diagnostic recommendations.¹² Of the 58 CIU patients who were patch tested, 31 (53.4%) had positive results and 27 (46.5%) had negative results to both skin prick and patch tests (Figure).

Univariate analysis revealed significant associations between age, gender, and duration of urticaria and patch test positivity (χ² test, P<.05). Twenty of 31 (64.5%) patch test–positive patients were aged 30 to 45 years. Positive patch test results were observed in 31 of 43 female patients (72.1%; P<.001). Of the patch test–positive patients, disease duration was greater than 5 years in 16 of 31 patients (51.6%).

Of the 31 patients with positive patch tests, there were 20 positive reactions to nickel, 6 to formaldehyde, 4 to phenylenediamine, 3 to cobalt, and 3 to a fragrance mix (Table 2). Some patients showed patch test reactivity to more than 1 allergen concomitantly. Overall, these 31 patients had positive reactions to 16 allergens. None of the patients showed actual signs of contact dermatitis (Table 2).

Of the 31 patch test–positive patients, 10 were enrolled but only 8 (25.8%) agreed to take appropriate avoidance measures for the sensitizing substances; 5 (62.5%) showed excellent improvement in their baseline symptoms at a 1-month follow-up visit.

Comment

Chronic idiopathic urticaria is the diagnosis given when urticarial vasculitis, physical urticaria, and all other possible etiologic factors have been excluded in patients with CU. Our study was designed to assess patch test reactivity in patients with CU without any identifiable systemic etiologic factor after detailed laboratory testing and negative skin prick tests.

Chronic idiopathic urticaria can be an extremely disabling and difficult-to-treat condition. Because the cause is unknown, the management of CIU often is frustrating. The efficacy of performing patch tests in CIU has not yet been proven, as there are conflicting results regarding the role of contact sensitization in CIU. Prior studies in this field have shown that contact allergy can play a role in the etiopathogenesis of CU; these findings have stimulated new approaches for investigation of CIU.^8,12 There were no details of how a common allergen such as nickel was avoided, which caused remission in the majority of patch test–positive patients.

Patch testing is commonly performed to diagnose ACD, and if contact allergens are found via patch testing, patients can often be cured of their dermatitis by avoiding these agents. However, patch testing is not routinely performed in the evaluation of patients with CIU. It is a relatively inexpensive and safe procedure to determine a causal link between sensitization to a specific agent and ACD. In patch test clinics, agents often are tested in standard and screening series. Sensitization that is not suspected from the patient’s history and/or clinical examination can be detected in this manner. Requirements for the inclusion of a chemical in a standard series have been formulated by Bruze et al.¹³ In addition, ready-to-use materials relevant to the specific leisure activities and working conditions also can be selected for patch testing.

A study conducted in Saudi Arabia showed that the European standard series is suitable for patch testing patients in this community¹⁴; however, 3 allergens of local relevance were added in our study: black seed oil, local perfume mix, and henna. Moreover, in our study we added a local allergen known as myrrh, which is a topical herbal medicine used to promote healing that has been reported to cause ACD in some cases.¹⁵ We sought to determine if contact allergens can be identified with patch testing in patients with CU and if avoiding these contact allergens would resolve the CU.

Urticaria was once considered an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction, but recent studies have demonstrated the existence of different subgroupsof urticaria, some with an autoimmune mechanism.^1-4,11 In CU, skin prick tests are recommended for etiologic workup, while patch testing generally is not recommended.¹⁶

It has been observed in clinical practice that a substantial number of patients with CU are positive to patch tests, even without a clear clinical history or signs of contact dermatitis.¹⁷ In 2007, Guerra et al¹⁷ reported that of 121 patients with CU, 50 (41.3%) tested positive for contact allergens. In all of the patch test–positive patients, avoidance measures led to complete remission within 10 days to 1 month. Therefore, this result suggested that testing for contact sensitization could be helpful in the management of CU. Patients with nickel sensitivity were subsequently allowed to ingest small amounts of nickel-containing foods after 8 weeks of a completely nickel-free diet, and remission persisted.¹⁷

Contact dermatitis affects approximately 20% of the general population¹⁸; however, there has been little investigation (limited to nickel) into the relationship between contact allergens and CU,^19,20 and the underlying mechanisms of the disease are unknown. It has been hypothesized that small amounts of the substances are absorbed through the skin or the digestive tract into the bloodstream over the long-term and are delivered to antigen-presenting cells in the skin, which provide the necessary signals for mast cell activation. Nonetheless, the reasons for a selectively cutaneous localization of the reaction remain largely unclear.

Management of CU is debated among physicians, and several diagnostic flowcharts have been proposed.^1,2 In general, patch tests for contact dermatitis are not recommended as a fundamental part of the diagnostic procedure, but Guerra et al¹⁷ suggested that contact allergy often plays a role in CU.

There have been inadequate reports of CU found to be caused by common contact sensitizers.^21-24 Interestingly, no signs of contact allergy were demonstrated in CU patients before urticarial attack.

Our findings supported our patient selection criteria and also confirmed that contact sensitization may be one of the many possible mechanisms involved in the etiology of CU. Urticaria may have a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction element, and patients with CU without an obvious causal factor can have positive patch test results.

The role of contact sensitization in CU has not yet been established, as another study showed no relationship between avoidance of contact allergens and the course of CIU.²⁵ In that study, patients with severe CIU who previously had been patch tested were retrospectively studied. Three groups were studied: CIU patients with positive patch tests; CIU patients with negative patch tests; and a control group, which included patients with CIU who had not been patch tested. The groups were followed monthly to assess changes in CUSS after allergen avoidance. Forty-three patients with severe CIU were patch tested. Nickel sulfate testing was positive in 4 cases (9.3%); potassium dichromate testing was positive in 2 cases (4.7%); and cobalt, balsam of Peru, paraphenylenediamine, fragrance mix, and epoxy resin testing were positive in 1 case (2.3%) each. The mean (SD) baseline CUSS score (5.4 [0.5]) significantly improved after 1 month of allergen avoidance (3.2 [1.1]; P<.001); however, similar improvement in CUSS was observed in 34 patients with CIU with negative patch test results (5.3 [0.5] to 3.2 [1.3]; P<.001) and in 49 patients with CIU in the control group after 1 month (5.2 [0.4] to 3.4 [1.3]; P<.001).²⁵

The main findings of our study were that 53.4% of patients with CIU had positive patch test results and that avoidance of the sensitizing substance was effective in 5 of 8 patients who completed an avoidance program. Almost all of the patients showed notable remission of symptoms after limiting their exposure to the offending allergens. This study clearly showed that a cause or pathogenesis for CIU could be identified, thus showing that CIU occurs less frequently than is usually assumed.

Our study had limitations. The first is our lack of a controlled challenge test, which is important to confirm an allergen as a cause of CIU.²⁶ Nonetheless, avoidance of the revealed contact allergen was associated with comparable improvement of CIU severity after 1 month in 5 of 8 patients, though such measures were not tested in all 31 of 58 CIU patients who had positive patch test results.

Conclusion

We propose that patch tests should be performed while investigating CU because they give effective diagnostic and therapeutic results in a substantial number of patients. Urticaria, or at least a subgroup of the disease, may have a delayed-type reaction element, which may explain the disease etiology for many CIU patients. Patients with CU without a detectable underlying etiologic factor can have positive patch test results.

Chronic urticaria (CU) is clinically defined as the daily or almost daily presence of wheals on the skin for at least 6 weeks.¹ Chronic urticaria severely affects patients’ quality of life and can cause emotional disability and distress.² In clinical practice, CU is one of the most common and challenging conditions for general practitioners, dermatologists, and allergists. It can be provoked by a wide variety of different causes or may be the clinical presentation of certain systemic diseases^3,4; thus, CU often requires a detailed and time-consuming diagnostic procedure that includes screening for allergies, autoimmune diseases, parasites, malignancies, infections, and metabolic disorders.^5,6 In many patients (up to 50% in some case series), the cause or pathogenic mechanism cannot be identified, and the disease is then classified as chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU).⁷

It has previously been shown that contact sensitization could have some relation with CIU,⁸ which was further explored in this study. This study sought to evaluate if contact allergy may play a role in disease development in CIU patients in Saudi Arabia and if patch testing should be routinely performed for CIU patients to determine if any allergens can be avoided.

Methods

This prospective study was conducted at the King Khalid University Hospital Allergy Clinic (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) in patients aged 18 to 60 years who had CU for more than 6 weeks. It was a clinic-based study conducted over a period of 2 years (March 2010 to February 2012). The study protocol was approved by the local ethics committee at King Khalid University Hospital. Valid written consent was obtained from each patient.

Patients were excluded if they had CU caused by physical factors (eg, hot or cold temperature, water, physical contact) or drug reactions that were possible causative factors or if they had taken oral prednisolone or other oral immunosuppressive drugs (eg, azathioprine, cyclosporine) in the last month. However, patients taking antihistamines were not excluded because it was impossible for the patients to discontinue their urticaria treatment. Other exclusion criteria included CU associated with any systemic disease, thyroid disease, diabetes mellitus, autoimmune disorder, or atopic dermatitis. Pregnant and lactating women were not included in this study.

All new adult CU patients (ie, disease duration >6 weeks) were worked up using the routine diagnostic tests that are typically performed for any new CU patient, including complete blood cell count with differential, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, liver function tests, urine analysis, and hepatitis B and C screenings. Further diagnostic tests also were carried out when appropriate according to the patient’s history and physical examination, including levels of urea, electrolytes, thyrotropin, thyroid antibodies (antithyroglobulin and antimicrosomal), and antinuclear antibodies, as well as a Helicobacter pylori test.

All of the patients enrolled in the study were evaluated by skin prick testing to establish the link between CU and its cause. Patch testing was performed in patients who were negative on skin prick testing.

Skin Prick Testing
All patients were advised to temporarily discontinue the use of antihistamines and corticosteroids 5 to 6 days prior to testing. To assess the presence of allergen-specific IgE antibodies, skin prick testing is preferred because it is more sensitive and specific, is simple to use, is inexpensive, and is not associated with any complications.⁹

Patch Testing
Patch tests were carried out using a ready-to-use epicutaneous patch test system for the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).¹⁰ A European standard series was used with the addition of 4 allergens of local relevance: black seed oil, local perfume mix, henna, and myrrh (a topical herbal medicine used to promote healing). Patients with a negative skin prick test who had a positive patch test were enrolled in an allergen-avoidance program to avoid the offending allergen for 8 weeks.

Assessment of Improvement
Assessment of urticaria severity using the Chronic Urticaria Severity Score (CUSS), a simple semiquantitative assessment of disease activity, was calculated as the sum of the number of wheals and the degree of itch severity graded from 0 (none) to 3 (severe), according to the guidelines established by the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology, the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network, the European Dermatology Forum, and the World Allergy Organization.¹¹ The avoidance group of patients was assessed at baseline and after 1 month to evaluate changes in their CUSS after allergen avoidance for 8 weeks.

Statistical Analysis
All of the statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS software version 16. Results were presented as the median with the range or the mean (SD). Descriptive statistics were used to describe the demographic data. The comparability of demographic and baseline characteristics among CIU patients was assessed using the Student t test, and P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

During the study period, a total of 120 CU patients were seen at the clinic. Ninety-three patients with CU met our selection criteria (77.5%) and were enrolled in the study. The mean age (SD) of the patients was 34.7 (12.4) years. Women comprised 68.8% (64/93) of the study population (Table 1).

The duration of urticaria ranged from 0.6 to 20 years, with a median duration of 4 years. Approximately half of the patients (50/93) experienced severe symptoms of urticaria, but only 26.9% (25/93) had graded their urticaria as very severe.

Negative results from the skin prick test were reported in 62.4% (58/93) of patients and were subsequently patch tested. These patients also had no other etiologic factors (eg, infection; thyroid, autoimmune, or metabolic disease). Patients who had positive skin prick test results (35/93 [37.6%]) were not considered to be cases of CIU, according to diagnostic recommendations.¹² Of the 58 CIU patients who were patch tested, 31 (53.4%) had positive results and 27 (46.5%) had negative results to both skin prick and patch tests (Figure).

Univariate analysis revealed significant associations between age, gender, and duration of urticaria and patch test positivity (χ² test, P<.05). Twenty of 31 (64.5%) patch test–positive patients were aged 30 to 45 years. Positive patch test results were observed in 31 of 43 female patients (72.1%; P<.001). Of the patch test–positive patients, disease duration was greater than 5 years in 16 of 31 patients (51.6%).

Of the 31 patients with positive patch tests, there were 20 positive reactions to nickel, 6 to formaldehyde, 4 to phenylenediamine, 3 to cobalt, and 3 to a fragrance mix (Table 2). Some patients showed patch test reactivity to more than 1 allergen concomitantly. Overall, these 31 patients had positive reactions to 16 allergens. None of the patients showed actual signs of contact dermatitis (Table 2).

Of the 31 patch test–positive patients, 10 were enrolled but only 8 (25.8%) agreed to take appropriate avoidance measures for the sensitizing substances; 5 (62.5%) showed excellent improvement in their baseline symptoms at a 1-month follow-up visit.

Comment

Chronic idiopathic urticaria is the diagnosis given when urticarial vasculitis, physical urticaria, and all other possible etiologic factors have been excluded in patients with CU. Our study was designed to assess patch test reactivity in patients with CU without any identifiable systemic etiologic factor after detailed laboratory testing and negative skin prick tests.

Chronic idiopathic urticaria can be an extremely disabling and difficult-to-treat condition. Because the cause is unknown, the management of CIU often is frustrating. The efficacy of performing patch tests in CIU has not yet been proven, as there are conflicting results regarding the role of contact sensitization in CIU. Prior studies in this field have shown that contact allergy can play a role in the etiopathogenesis of CU; these findings have stimulated new approaches for investigation of CIU.^8,12 There were no details of how a common allergen such as nickel was avoided, which caused remission in the majority of patch test–positive patients.

Patch testing is commonly performed to diagnose ACD, and if contact allergens are found via patch testing, patients can often be cured of their dermatitis by avoiding these agents. However, patch testing is not routinely performed in the evaluation of patients with CIU. It is a relatively inexpensive and safe procedure to determine a causal link between sensitization to a specific agent and ACD. In patch test clinics, agents often are tested in standard and screening series. Sensitization that is not suspected from the patient’s history and/or clinical examination can be detected in this manner. Requirements for the inclusion of a chemical in a standard series have been formulated by Bruze et al.¹³ In addition, ready-to-use materials relevant to the specific leisure activities and working conditions also can be selected for patch testing.

A study conducted in Saudi Arabia showed that the European standard series is suitable for patch testing patients in this community¹⁴; however, 3 allergens of local relevance were added in our study: black seed oil, local perfume mix, and henna. Moreover, in our study we added a local allergen known as myrrh, which is a topical herbal medicine used to promote healing that has been reported to cause ACD in some cases.¹⁵ We sought to determine if contact allergens can be identified with patch testing in patients with CU and if avoiding these contact allergens would resolve the CU.

Urticaria was once considered an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction, but recent studies have demonstrated the existence of different subgroupsof urticaria, some with an autoimmune mechanism.^1-4,11 In CU, skin prick tests are recommended for etiologic workup, while patch testing generally is not recommended.¹⁶

It has been observed in clinical practice that a substantial number of patients with CU are positive to patch tests, even without a clear clinical history or signs of contact dermatitis.¹⁷ In 2007, Guerra et al¹⁷ reported that of 121 patients with CU, 50 (41.3%) tested positive for contact allergens. In all of the patch test–positive patients, avoidance measures led to complete remission within 10 days to 1 month. Therefore, this result suggested that testing for contact sensitization could be helpful in the management of CU. Patients with nickel sensitivity were subsequently allowed to ingest small amounts of nickel-containing foods after 8 weeks of a completely nickel-free diet, and remission persisted.¹⁷

Contact dermatitis affects approximately 20% of the general population¹⁸; however, there has been little investigation (limited to nickel) into the relationship between contact allergens and CU,^19,20 and the underlying mechanisms of the disease are unknown. It has been hypothesized that small amounts of the substances are absorbed through the skin or the digestive tract into the bloodstream over the long-term and are delivered to antigen-presenting cells in the skin, which provide the necessary signals for mast cell activation. Nonetheless, the reasons for a selectively cutaneous localization of the reaction remain largely unclear.

Management of CU is debated among physicians, and several diagnostic flowcharts have been proposed.^1,2 In general, patch tests for contact dermatitis are not recommended as a fundamental part of the diagnostic procedure, but Guerra et al¹⁷ suggested that contact allergy often plays a role in CU.

There have been inadequate reports of CU found to be caused by common contact sensitizers.^21-24 Interestingly, no signs of contact allergy were demonstrated in CU patients before urticarial attack.

Our findings supported our patient selection criteria and also confirmed that contact sensitization may be one of the many possible mechanisms involved in the etiology of CU. Urticaria may have a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction element, and patients with CU without an obvious causal factor can have positive patch test results.

The role of contact sensitization in CU has not yet been established, as another study showed no relationship between avoidance of contact allergens and the course of CIU.²⁵ In that study, patients with severe CIU who previously had been patch tested were retrospectively studied. Three groups were studied: CIU patients with positive patch tests; CIU patients with negative patch tests; and a control group, which included patients with CIU who had not been patch tested. The groups were followed monthly to assess changes in CUSS after allergen avoidance. Forty-three patients with severe CIU were patch tested. Nickel sulfate testing was positive in 4 cases (9.3%); potassium dichromate testing was positive in 2 cases (4.7%); and cobalt, balsam of Peru, paraphenylenediamine, fragrance mix, and epoxy resin testing were positive in 1 case (2.3%) each. The mean (SD) baseline CUSS score (5.4 [0.5]) significantly improved after 1 month of allergen avoidance (3.2 [1.1]; P<.001); however, similar improvement in CUSS was observed in 34 patients with CIU with negative patch test results (5.3 [0.5] to 3.2 [1.3]; P<.001) and in 49 patients with CIU in the control group after 1 month (5.2 [0.4] to 3.4 [1.3]; P<.001).²⁵

The main findings of our study were that 53.4% of patients with CIU had positive patch test results and that avoidance of the sensitizing substance was effective in 5 of 8 patients who completed an avoidance program. Almost all of the patients showed notable remission of symptoms after limiting their exposure to the offending allergens. This study clearly showed that a cause or pathogenesis for CIU could be identified, thus showing that CIU occurs less frequently than is usually assumed.

Our study had limitations. The first is our lack of a controlled challenge test, which is important to confirm an allergen as a cause of CIU.²⁶ Nonetheless, avoidance of the revealed contact allergen was associated with comparable improvement of CIU severity after 1 month in 5 of 8 patients, though such measures were not tested in all 31 of 58 CIU patients who had positive patch test results.

Conclusion

We propose that patch tests should be performed while investigating CU because they give effective diagnostic and therapeutic results in a substantial number of patients. Urticaria, or at least a subgroup of the disease, may have a delayed-type reaction element, which may explain the disease etiology for many CIU patients. Patients with CU without a detectable underlying etiologic factor can have positive patch test results.

Contact dermatitis should be suspected in patients with eczematous dermatitis atypical in location, geometric or symmetric in distribution, or unresponsive to or worsened by common therapies, Dr. Catalina Matiz emphasized.

Allergic contact dermatitis is a complex disorder characterized by a type IV delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction that occurs when a patient’s skin is exposed to a substance easily penetrates the skin barrier.

• Tixocortol pivalate (a corticosteroid).
• Propylene glycol.
• Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/methylisothiazolinone (MI).
• Formaldehyde.
• Cocamidopropyl betaine.
• Lanolin.
• Benzalkonium chloride.
• Fragrance and balsam of peru.
• Neomycin.
• Nickel.

Dr. Matiz educated meeting attendees on allergen-containing products and clinical correlations suggestive of allergic sensitization to common allergens. Tixocortol pivilate is a corticosteroid present in Class A corticosteroids including hydrocortisone acetate. She highlighted the cross reactivity between class A and class D2 corticosteroids including hydrocortisone butyrate and valerate.

“Usually topical corticosteroid–contact sensitivity manifests as a failure to improve or worsening of existing dermatitis,” emphasized Dr. Matiz of departments of dermatology and pediatrics at the university.

Propylene glycol, benzalkonium chloride, and neomycin also represent top contact allergens frequently found in topical medications. Similarly, lanolin contact sensitivity often presents as refractory or worsening atopic dermatitis. “Lanolin, also known as wool alcohol, is commonly found in emollients, medications, and personal care products used by atopic dermatitis patients,” Dr. Matiz stressed.

Methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone represent preservatives commonly found in wet wipes, hypoallergenic, and sensitive skin products. This was the allergen of the year in 2013 and was subsequently removed from many wet wipe formulations and products in response.

In addition to acute management of allergic contact dermatitis with corticosteroids, Dr. Matiz further emphasized the importance of preemptive avoidance of the top ten allergens.

She recommends patch testing if no clinical improvement is evident after 8 weeks of common allergen avoidance, for definitive allergen identification.

Dr. Matiz said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

Contact dermatitis should be suspected in patients with eczematous dermatitis atypical in location, geometric or symmetric in distribution, or unresponsive to or worsened by common therapies, Dr. Catalina Matiz emphasized.

Allergic contact dermatitis is a complex disorder characterized by a type IV delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction that occurs when a patient’s skin is exposed to a substance easily penetrates the skin barrier.

• Tixocortol pivalate (a corticosteroid).
• Propylene glycol.
• Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/methylisothiazolinone (MI).
• Formaldehyde.
• Cocamidopropyl betaine.
• Lanolin.
• Benzalkonium chloride.
• Fragrance and balsam of peru.
• Neomycin.
• Nickel.

Dr. Matiz educated meeting attendees on allergen-containing products and clinical correlations suggestive of allergic sensitization to common allergens. Tixocortol pivilate is a corticosteroid present in Class A corticosteroids including hydrocortisone acetate. She highlighted the cross reactivity between class A and class D2 corticosteroids including hydrocortisone butyrate and valerate.

“Usually topical corticosteroid–contact sensitivity manifests as a failure to improve or worsening of existing dermatitis,” emphasized Dr. Matiz of departments of dermatology and pediatrics at the university.

Propylene glycol, benzalkonium chloride, and neomycin also represent top contact allergens frequently found in topical medications. Similarly, lanolin contact sensitivity often presents as refractory or worsening atopic dermatitis. “Lanolin, also known as wool alcohol, is commonly found in emollients, medications, and personal care products used by atopic dermatitis patients,” Dr. Matiz stressed.

Methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone represent preservatives commonly found in wet wipes, hypoallergenic, and sensitive skin products. This was the allergen of the year in 2013 and was subsequently removed from many wet wipe formulations and products in response.

In addition to acute management of allergic contact dermatitis with corticosteroids, Dr. Matiz further emphasized the importance of preemptive avoidance of the top ten allergens.

She recommends patch testing if no clinical improvement is evident after 8 weeks of common allergen avoidance, for definitive allergen identification.

Dr. Matiz said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

Contact dermatitis should be suspected in patients with eczematous dermatitis atypical in location, geometric or symmetric in distribution, or unresponsive to or worsened by common therapies, Dr. Catalina Matiz emphasized.

Allergic contact dermatitis is a complex disorder characterized by a type IV delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction that occurs when a patient’s skin is exposed to a substance easily penetrates the skin barrier.

• Tixocortol pivalate (a corticosteroid).
• Propylene glycol.
• Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/methylisothiazolinone (MI).
• Formaldehyde.
• Cocamidopropyl betaine.
• Lanolin.
• Benzalkonium chloride.
• Fragrance and balsam of peru.
• Neomycin.
• Nickel.

Dr. Matiz educated meeting attendees on allergen-containing products and clinical correlations suggestive of allergic sensitization to common allergens. Tixocortol pivilate is a corticosteroid present in Class A corticosteroids including hydrocortisone acetate. She highlighted the cross reactivity between class A and class D2 corticosteroids including hydrocortisone butyrate and valerate.

“Usually topical corticosteroid–contact sensitivity manifests as a failure to improve or worsening of existing dermatitis,” emphasized Dr. Matiz of departments of dermatology and pediatrics at the university.

Propylene glycol, benzalkonium chloride, and neomycin also represent top contact allergens frequently found in topical medications. Similarly, lanolin contact sensitivity often presents as refractory or worsening atopic dermatitis. “Lanolin, also known as wool alcohol, is commonly found in emollients, medications, and personal care products used by atopic dermatitis patients,” Dr. Matiz stressed.

Methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone represent preservatives commonly found in wet wipes, hypoallergenic, and sensitive skin products. This was the allergen of the year in 2013 and was subsequently removed from many wet wipe formulations and products in response.

In addition to acute management of allergic contact dermatitis with corticosteroids, Dr. Matiz further emphasized the importance of preemptive avoidance of the top ten allergens.

She recommends patch testing if no clinical improvement is evident after 8 weeks of common allergen avoidance, for definitive allergen identification.

Dr. Matiz said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

Sensitization to the isothiazolinones MCI (methylchloroisothiazolinone) and MI (methylisothiazolinone), which are used as preservatives in a wide variety of personal and household products, is both frequent and underdiagnosed in U.S. children, according to a report published in Pediatric Dermatology.

These agents are compatible with surfactants and emulsifiers, and because they maintain biocidal activity across a broad range of pH levels they are frequently used as preservatives in products such as wet wipes; shampoos and hair conditioners; soaps, cleansers, and disinfectants; and laundry products. However, they are known to cause contact dermatitis very frequently, and are among the top five contact allergens identified in infants’ patch tests.

A recent survey showed that among 152 pediatric skin care products available at major retail stores, 20% contained MI. These were specifically targeted to infants and children, advertised as being “hypoallergenic,” “natural,” good for “sensitive” skin, and containing “gentle ingredients,” said Alina Goldenberg, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and her associates.

During the past 10 years, only 35 U.S. cases of a positive patch-test reaction to MCI and/or MI have been reported in the literature. To get a more accurate estimate of the true prevalence of pediatric sensitization to MCI and MI, the investigators analyzed information in a database of patch-test results, the Provider Contact Dermatitis Registry. They focused on 1,056 patch tests performed during a 1-year period.

They found 37 positive reactions to combined MCI/MI and another 39 reactions that were negative to combined MCI/MI but positive to MI alone. This shows how important it is to test for sensitization to both formulations separately, Dr. Goldenberg and her associates noted (Pediatr Dermatol. 2017 Mar;34[2]:138-43).

In stark contrast to the reported 35 cases across the entire country during a 10-year period, the investigators found 76 cases (1%) in 1,056 patch tests during a 1-year period.

When test results for MCI/MI and MI alone were compared with those for all other allergens, children sensitized to the isothiazolinones showed marked differences: They were significantly younger, and the location of their dermatitis was more likely to involve the groin and buttocks. This probably is due to the increased use of wet wipes containing MCI and MI being used to clean up urinary and fecal accidents in young children, the researchers said.

The Society for Pediatric Dermatology supported the work. Dr. Goldenberg reported having no relevant financial disclosures; an associate reported serving as a consultant for Johnson & Johnson.

Sensitization to the isothiazolinones MCI (methylchloroisothiazolinone) and MI (methylisothiazolinone), which are used as preservatives in a wide variety of personal and household products, is both frequent and underdiagnosed in U.S. children, according to a report published in Pediatric Dermatology.

These agents are compatible with surfactants and emulsifiers, and because they maintain biocidal activity across a broad range of pH levels they are frequently used as preservatives in products such as wet wipes; shampoos and hair conditioners; soaps, cleansers, and disinfectants; and laundry products. However, they are known to cause contact dermatitis very frequently, and are among the top five contact allergens identified in infants’ patch tests.

A recent survey showed that among 152 pediatric skin care products available at major retail stores, 20% contained MI. These were specifically targeted to infants and children, advertised as being “hypoallergenic,” “natural,” good for “sensitive” skin, and containing “gentle ingredients,” said Alina Goldenberg, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and her associates.

During the past 10 years, only 35 U.S. cases of a positive patch-test reaction to MCI and/or MI have been reported in the literature. To get a more accurate estimate of the true prevalence of pediatric sensitization to MCI and MI, the investigators analyzed information in a database of patch-test results, the Provider Contact Dermatitis Registry. They focused on 1,056 patch tests performed during a 1-year period.

They found 37 positive reactions to combined MCI/MI and another 39 reactions that were negative to combined MCI/MI but positive to MI alone. This shows how important it is to test for sensitization to both formulations separately, Dr. Goldenberg and her associates noted (Pediatr Dermatol. 2017 Mar;34[2]:138-43).

In stark contrast to the reported 35 cases across the entire country during a 10-year period, the investigators found 76 cases (1%) in 1,056 patch tests during a 1-year period.

When test results for MCI/MI and MI alone were compared with those for all other allergens, children sensitized to the isothiazolinones showed marked differences: They were significantly younger, and the location of their dermatitis was more likely to involve the groin and buttocks. This probably is due to the increased use of wet wipes containing MCI and MI being used to clean up urinary and fecal accidents in young children, the researchers said.

The Society for Pediatric Dermatology supported the work. Dr. Goldenberg reported having no relevant financial disclosures; an associate reported serving as a consultant for Johnson & Johnson.

Sensitization to the isothiazolinones MCI (methylchloroisothiazolinone) and MI (methylisothiazolinone), which are used as preservatives in a wide variety of personal and household products, is both frequent and underdiagnosed in U.S. children, according to a report published in Pediatric Dermatology.

These agents are compatible with surfactants and emulsifiers, and because they maintain biocidal activity across a broad range of pH levels they are frequently used as preservatives in products such as wet wipes; shampoos and hair conditioners; soaps, cleansers, and disinfectants; and laundry products. However, they are known to cause contact dermatitis very frequently, and are among the top five contact allergens identified in infants’ patch tests.

A recent survey showed that among 152 pediatric skin care products available at major retail stores, 20% contained MI. These were specifically targeted to infants and children, advertised as being “hypoallergenic,” “natural,” good for “sensitive” skin, and containing “gentle ingredients,” said Alina Goldenberg, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and her associates.

During the past 10 years, only 35 U.S. cases of a positive patch-test reaction to MCI and/or MI have been reported in the literature. To get a more accurate estimate of the true prevalence of pediatric sensitization to MCI and MI, the investigators analyzed information in a database of patch-test results, the Provider Contact Dermatitis Registry. They focused on 1,056 patch tests performed during a 1-year period.

They found 37 positive reactions to combined MCI/MI and another 39 reactions that were negative to combined MCI/MI but positive to MI alone. This shows how important it is to test for sensitization to both formulations separately, Dr. Goldenberg and her associates noted (Pediatr Dermatol. 2017 Mar;34[2]:138-43).

In stark contrast to the reported 35 cases across the entire country during a 10-year period, the investigators found 76 cases (1%) in 1,056 patch tests during a 1-year period.

When test results for MCI/MI and MI alone were compared with those for all other allergens, children sensitized to the isothiazolinones showed marked differences: They were significantly younger, and the location of their dermatitis was more likely to involve the groin and buttocks. This probably is due to the increased use of wet wipes containing MCI and MI being used to clean up urinary and fecal accidents in young children, the researchers said.

The Society for Pediatric Dermatology supported the work. Dr. Goldenberg reported having no relevant financial disclosures; an associate reported serving as a consultant for Johnson & Johnson.

The Diagnosis: Toxicodendron Dermatitis

Toxicodendron dermatitis is an allergic contact dermatitis that can occur after exposure to a plant from the Toxicodendron genus including poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and poison sumac (Toxicodendron vernix). These plants produce urushiol in their oleoresinous sap, which causes intense pruritus, streaks of erythema, and edematous papules followed by vesicles and bullae. Previously sensitized individuals develop symptoms as quickly as 24 to 48 hours after exposure, with a range of 5 hours to 15 days.^1-3 Rarely, black spots also can be found on the skin, most prominently after 72 hours of exposure.⁴

The color change of urushiol-containing sap from pale to black was first documented by Peter Kalm, a Swedish botanist who traveled to North America in the 1700s.⁵ The black-spot test can be used to identify Toxicodendron species because the sap will turn black when expressed on white paper after a few minutes.⁶ Manifestation of black lacquer streaks on the skin is rare because concentrated sap is necessary, which typically requires an unusually prolonged exposure with Toxicodendron plants.⁷

Without treatment, typical Toxicodendron dermatitis resolves in approximately 3 weeks, though it may take up to 6 weeks to clear.² Early intervention is critical, as urushiol will fully absorb after 30 minutes.² After contact, complete removal of the oleoresin by washing with mild soap and water within 10 minutes can prevent dermatitis. Early topical corticosteroid application can reduce erythema and pruritus. Extensive or severe involvement, which includes Toxicodendron dermatitis with black spots, is treated with systemic corticosteroids such as prednisone that is tapered over 2 to 3 weeks.¹

Our patient had classic findings of Toxicodendron dermatitis; however, initially there was concern for levamisole toxicity by the emergency department, as well-demarcated purpuric or dark skin lesions can be due to morbid conditions such as leukocytoclastic vasculitis or skin necrosis from drug toxicities or infectious etiologies. Dermatology was consulted and these concerns were alleviated on closer skin examination and further questioning. The patient reported that he spent several hours cutting brush that was known to be T vernix (poison sumac) 3 days prior to presentation. Interestingly, the patient did not have similar black streaks on the left side of the face, as he held the weed-trimming saw in his right hand and in effect protected the left side of the face from debris. Furthermore, he had pruritic erythematous plaques on both forearms. The facial black lacquer-like streaks were the result of urushiol oxidation in the setting of prolonged exposure to the poison sumac oleoresin sap during weed trimming. After dermatologic evaluation, the patient was discharged from the emergency department on a 15-day taper of oral prednisone, and he was instructed to wash involved areas and exposed clothing with soap and water, which led to complete resolution.

The Diagnosis: Toxicodendron Dermatitis

Toxicodendron dermatitis is an allergic contact dermatitis that can occur after exposure to a plant from the Toxicodendron genus including poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and poison sumac (Toxicodendron vernix). These plants produce urushiol in their oleoresinous sap, which causes intense pruritus, streaks of erythema, and edematous papules followed by vesicles and bullae. Previously sensitized individuals develop symptoms as quickly as 24 to 48 hours after exposure, with a range of 5 hours to 15 days.^1-3 Rarely, black spots also can be found on the skin, most prominently after 72 hours of exposure.⁴

The color change of urushiol-containing sap from pale to black was first documented by Peter Kalm, a Swedish botanist who traveled to North America in the 1700s.⁵ The black-spot test can be used to identify Toxicodendron species because the sap will turn black when expressed on white paper after a few minutes.⁶ Manifestation of black lacquer streaks on the skin is rare because concentrated sap is necessary, which typically requires an unusually prolonged exposure with Toxicodendron plants.⁷

Without treatment, typical Toxicodendron dermatitis resolves in approximately 3 weeks, though it may take up to 6 weeks to clear.² Early intervention is critical, as urushiol will fully absorb after 30 minutes.² After contact, complete removal of the oleoresin by washing with mild soap and water within 10 minutes can prevent dermatitis. Early topical corticosteroid application can reduce erythema and pruritus. Extensive or severe involvement, which includes Toxicodendron dermatitis with black spots, is treated with systemic corticosteroids such as prednisone that is tapered over 2 to 3 weeks.¹

Our patient had classic findings of Toxicodendron dermatitis; however, initially there was concern for levamisole toxicity by the emergency department, as well-demarcated purpuric or dark skin lesions can be due to morbid conditions such as leukocytoclastic vasculitis or skin necrosis from drug toxicities or infectious etiologies. Dermatology was consulted and these concerns were alleviated on closer skin examination and further questioning. The patient reported that he spent several hours cutting brush that was known to be T vernix (poison sumac) 3 days prior to presentation. Interestingly, the patient did not have similar black streaks on the left side of the face, as he held the weed-trimming saw in his right hand and in effect protected the left side of the face from debris. Furthermore, he had pruritic erythematous plaques on both forearms. The facial black lacquer-like streaks were the result of urushiol oxidation in the setting of prolonged exposure to the poison sumac oleoresin sap during weed trimming. After dermatologic evaluation, the patient was discharged from the emergency department on a 15-day taper of oral prednisone, and he was instructed to wash involved areas and exposed clothing with soap and water, which led to complete resolution.

The Diagnosis: Toxicodendron Dermatitis

Toxicodendron dermatitis is an allergic contact dermatitis that can occur after exposure to a plant from the Toxicodendron genus including poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and poison sumac (Toxicodendron vernix). These plants produce urushiol in their oleoresinous sap, which causes intense pruritus, streaks of erythema, and edematous papules followed by vesicles and bullae. Previously sensitized individuals develop symptoms as quickly as 24 to 48 hours after exposure, with a range of 5 hours to 15 days.^1-3 Rarely, black spots also can be found on the skin, most prominently after 72 hours of exposure.⁴

The color change of urushiol-containing sap from pale to black was first documented by Peter Kalm, a Swedish botanist who traveled to North America in the 1700s.⁵ The black-spot test can be used to identify Toxicodendron species because the sap will turn black when expressed on white paper after a few minutes.⁶ Manifestation of black lacquer streaks on the skin is rare because concentrated sap is necessary, which typically requires an unusually prolonged exposure with Toxicodendron plants.⁷

Without treatment, typical Toxicodendron dermatitis resolves in approximately 3 weeks, though it may take up to 6 weeks to clear.² Early intervention is critical, as urushiol will fully absorb after 30 minutes.² After contact, complete removal of the oleoresin by washing with mild soap and water within 10 minutes can prevent dermatitis. Early topical corticosteroid application can reduce erythema and pruritus. Extensive or severe involvement, which includes Toxicodendron dermatitis with black spots, is treated with systemic corticosteroids such as prednisone that is tapered over 2 to 3 weeks.¹

Our patient had classic findings of Toxicodendron dermatitis; however, initially there was concern for levamisole toxicity by the emergency department, as well-demarcated purpuric or dark skin lesions can be due to morbid conditions such as leukocytoclastic vasculitis or skin necrosis from drug toxicities or infectious etiologies. Dermatology was consulted and these concerns were alleviated on closer skin examination and further questioning. The patient reported that he spent several hours cutting brush that was known to be T vernix (poison sumac) 3 days prior to presentation. Interestingly, the patient did not have similar black streaks on the left side of the face, as he held the weed-trimming saw in his right hand and in effect protected the left side of the face from debris. Furthermore, he had pruritic erythematous plaques on both forearms. The facial black lacquer-like streaks were the result of urushiol oxidation in the setting of prolonged exposure to the poison sumac oleoresin sap during weed trimming. After dermatologic evaluation, the patient was discharged from the emergency department on a 15-day taper of oral prednisone, and he was instructed to wash involved areas and exposed clothing with soap and water, which led to complete resolution.