No abstract

The proportion of contact sensitization to environmental allergens in the 34 adult atopic patients was remarkable (14 of 34, 41%). Out of the verified contact allergens, nickel, fragrance mix, thiomersal and lanalcolum proved to be relevant. House dust mite and cat epithel proved to be the most common relevant aeroallergens. D. pteronyssinus and D. farinae sensibilization was high, particularly in patients with severe skin symptoms on the face, eyelids and hands. Pollens should be considered in patients with seasonal relapse of AD. Sensitization to animal epithel was usually indicated by the flare-up of skin symptoms upon contact with animals. The relevance of the eliciting effects of sensitization could easily be supported in most cases by the medical history and the distribution of skin symptoms. In some adult AD patients with long-lasting AD, the relevance of triggering factors is hard to determine.

Members of the ESSCA and EBS Working Groups, and GEIDAC are provided in Appendix section.

Members of the A ESSCA working group of the ESCD, B EBS working group of the ESCD, and C GEIDAC are listed in the Appendix.

The European baseline series was last updated in 2019. This article discusses the reasoning behind a further iteration of the series for 2023.

EditorThere are only few data concerning the frequency of contact hypersensitivity (CH) in rosacea, 1-5 although it in fact can play an important role in the therapy or in the daily life of the patients.The aim of this study was to map the ratio of CH in 82 unselected rosacea patients (68 women, 14 men, over all 18 years, mean age: 54.4) tested in the Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Dermato-oncology of the Semmelweis University between January 2004 and December 2009.The patch tests were performed with Brial GmbH D-Greven series, and the reactions were evaluated (with 48 h occlusion) at 48, 72 and 96 h and on the 7th day. The patients did not take any antihistamine or immunosuppressive agents, and used only indifferent topical treatment 1 week before the tests and at the time of testing. Pregnancy, breast feeding, acute skin symptoms and UV radiation within 6 weeks before testing were drop-out criteria.CH was detected in 29 cases (35.4%). Most common allergens were nickel, balsam of Peru and fragrance mix I (Table 1). Among the relevant allergens, balsam of Peru (5 ⁄ 5), fragrance mix I (4 ⁄ 4), lanalcolum and PPD (3 ⁄ 3) were the most common. Relevant CH can rather be related to cosmetics (46.1%) and washing agents (38.4%). 38.8% of women face creams and make-ups and 20% lotions and gels were in connection with the CH. 27.8% showed CH as a component of therapeutic medical creams. At the time of testing, 80.5% of the patients were over 41 years. In 24 patients, the clinical symptoms had been present for 1-2 years, and in six cases, it was present for over 10 years. Two women had atopic dermatitis. The rosacea symptoms did not show correlation with the occupation of the patients.There is only few data about the ratio of CH in rosacea. [2][3][4][5] In this study, the ratio of CH to nickel (7.3%) meets previous data (3.4-15.5%), to that of balsam of Peru (6.1%) is lower than previous data (6.9-10.4%),and to that of fragrance mix I (4.9%) is lower than previous results (5.2-10.3%). [2][3][4][5] Rosacea patients are very susceptible to adverse reactions caused by external formulations, and so the choice of local treatment and cosmetics is difficult. The presence of CH must be kept in mind. According to our results, relevant CH associate mostly with cosmetics in rosacea patients.

Background: Adults frequently interpret food-associated adverse reactions as indicators of a food allergy. However, the public perception of food allergy may differ from a clinician’s point of view. The prevalence of patient-reported food allergy tends to be higher than physician-confirmed cases. Dermatological manifestations (urticaria, pruritus, dermatitis, and edema) are frequently reported by patients. Objective: The aim of this study was to describe patient-reported symptoms related to suspected food allergies and particularly to characterize and highlight the volume of patients who visit Budapest allergy clinics with suspected food allergies. Methods: In this prospective study, adult (≥18 years) patients were examined at the Allergology Outpatient Unit of the Dept. of Dermatology, Venereology, and Dermatooncology, Semmelweis University, Budapest. The examination included a detailed medical history; physical examination; and when necessary the measurement of allergen-specific serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels. Results: Data from 501 patients (393 women, 108 men) were analyzed. Intolerance to dietary biogenic amines occurred in 250 cases (250/501, 50%). Oral allergy syndrome was confirmed in 71 patients (71/501, 14%). Allergy to food preservatives was diagnosed in 14 (14/501, 3%) cases by a dermatologist-allergist specialist. Five individuals (5/501, 1%) were diagnosed with IgE-mediated food allergy. In some cases (28/501, 6%), edema-inducing/enhancing side effects of drugs were observed which patients had misattributed to various foods. Among the food groups considered to be provoking factors, the most frequently mentioned were fruits (198/501, 40%), milk/dairy products (174/501, 35%), and nuts/oilseeds (144/501, 29%). Overwhelmingly, urticaria (47%) was the most common dermatological diagnosis, followed by dermatitis (20%) and allergic contact dermatitis (8%). Conclusion: Improvement is needed in food allergy, food intolerance, and general nutritional knowledge among the general public. According to our data, perceived/self-reported food allergies were overestimated by adults when compared against physician-confirmed food allergies; however, other diseases potentially responsible for food-related problems were underestimated. The prevalence of oral allergy syndrome was high in the cohort. Intolerance to dietary biogenic amines was common, and although the role of dietary histamine and biogenic amine is not entirely understood in eliciting patients’ symptoms, improvements in complaints were reported during the control visits.

The occurence of contact hypersensitivity in PD patients was in present study 34.4%. A relatively high occurrence was seen in cases of PD without other symptoms, in PD + OC and in PD + AD patients. The predominance of environmental contact allergens was remarkable: most frequent sensitizers were nickel sulphate, fragrance mix I, balsam of Peru, thiomersal, and PPD. The prevalence of contact hypersensitivity to ophthalmic allergens did not exceed l.5%.