Many women and men now dye their hair. p-Phenylenediamine (PPD) is a frequent and important component of permanent hair dye products; exposure to it may cause allergic contact sensitization, acute dermatitis, and severe facial oedema. To increase our understanding of PPD allergy, we reviewed published literature containing PPD patch test data from dermatitis patients and individuals in the general population. This was performed to estimate the median prevalence and the weighted average of PPD sensitization and thereby assess the burden of PPD-containing hair care products on health. Literature was examined using PubMed-MEDLINE, Biosis, and Science Citation Index. The median prevalence among dermatitis patients was 4.3% in Asia, 4% in Europe, and 6.2% in North America. A widespread increase in the prevalence of PPD sensitization was observed among Asian dermatitis patients. In Europe, a decrease in the 1970s was replaced by a plateau with steady, high prevalences ranging between 2% and 6%. The prevalence remained high in North America, although a decreasing tendency was observed. Contact allergy to PPD is an important health issue for both women and men. More stringent regulation and enforcement are required as public health measures to reduce the burden of disease that exposure to PPD has brought to populations.

Background: Positive patch test reactions to p-phenylenediamine (PPD) are common. PPD is used in oxidative hair dyes and is also present in dark henna temporary 'tattoos'. Cross-sensitization to other contact allergens may occur. Because subjects sensitized to PPD are at risk of clinically severe reactions upon hair dyeing, there is a need for 'current' prevalence data on PPD sensitization. Materials: Patch testing was performed using PPD (1% free base in petrolatum from Trolab (Almirall Hermal GmbH, Reinbeck, Germany) or Chemotechnique (Malmo¨, Sweden), equivalent to 0.090 mg/cm 2 in the TRUE 1 test from MEKOS Laboratories AS). Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-squared test.Results: The weighted average prevalence was 4.6% among 21 515 patients. PPD sensitization occurred more often in centres located in Central and Southern Europe than in Scandinavian centres (odds ratio ¼ 2.40; 95% confidence interval ¼ 2.07-2.78). The overall proportion of positive patch test reactions to PPD that were registered as being of either current or 'past' relevance was high (weighted average 53.6% and 20.3%, respectively). Consumer hair dyeing was the most prominent cause of PPD sensitization (weighted average 41.8%). Furthermore, occupational hair dye exposure (10.6%) and cross-sensitization to textile dyes (12.6%) were frequently reported.Conclusions: PPD sensitization caused by exposure to hair dyes is frequent and remains a present problem for patients visiting contact dermatitis clinics, especially in patch test centres located in Central and Southern Europe.

These findings confirm that the standard fragrance markers fail to identify patients with contact allergies to the 26 fragrances.

The management of chronic hand eczema is often inadequate. There are currently no evidence-based guidelines specifically for the management of chronic hand eczema, and evidence for established treatments for hand eczema is not of sufficient quality to guide clinical practice. This consensus statement, based on a review of published data and clinical practice in both primary and secondary care, is intended to guide the management of chronic hand eczema. It describes the epidemiology and pathogenesis of hand eczema, its diagnosis and its effect on patients' quality of life. Management strategies include a skin education programme, lifestyle changes, and the use of emollients, barriers and soap substitutes. Topical drug therapy includes topical steroids and calcineurin inhibitors. Treatment with psoralen ultraviolet A and systemic therapies may then be appropriate, although there is no strong evidence of efficacy. Alitretinoin has been shown to be effective in a randomized controlled trial, and is currently the only treatment specifically licensed for the treatment of hand eczema. Recommendations for management are summarized in a treatment algorithm.

Summary Background Gonorrhoea is a common sexually transmitted infection for which ceftriaxone is the current first-line treatment, but antimicrobial resistance is emerging. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of gentamicin as an alternative to ceftriaxone (both combined with azithromycin) for treatment of gonorrhoea. Methods G-ToG was a multicentre, parallel-group, pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial comparing treatment with gentamicin to treatment with ceftriaxone for patients with gonorrhoea. The patients, treating physician, and assessing physician were masked to treatment but the treating nurse was not. The trial took place at 14 sexual health clinics in England. Adults aged 16–70 years were eligible for participation if they had a diagnosis of uncomplicated genital, pharyngeal, or rectal gonorrhoea. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a single intramuscular dose of either gentamicin 240 mg (gentamicin group) or ceftriaxone 500 mg (ceftriaxone group). All participants also received a single 1 g dose of oral azithromycin. Randomisation (1:1) was stratified by clinic and performed using a secure web-based system. The primary outcome was clearance of Neisseria gonorrhoeae at all initially infected sites, defined as a negative nucleic acid amplification test 2 weeks post treatment. Primary outcome analyses included only participants who had follow-up data, irrespective of the baseline visit N gonorrhoeae test result. The margin used to establish non-inferiority was a lower confidence limit of 5% for the risk difference. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN51783227. Findings Of 1762 patients assessed, we enrolled 720 participants between Oct 7, 2014, and Nov 14, 2016, and randomly assigned 358 to gentamicin and 362 to ceftriaxone. Primary outcome data were available for 306 (85%) of 362 participants allocated to ceftriaxone and 292 (82%) of 358 participants allocated to gentamicin. At 2 weeks after treatment, infection had cleared for 299 (98%) of 306 participants in the ceftriaxone group compared with 267 (91%) of 292 participants in the gentamicin group (adjusted risk difference −6·4%, 95% CI −10·4% to −2·4%). Of the 328 participants who had a genital infection, 151 (98%) of 154 in the ceftriaxone group and 163 (94%) of 174 in the gentamicin group had clearance at follow-up (adjusted risk difference −4·4%, −8·7 to 0). For participants with a pharyngeal infection, a greater proportion receiving ceftriaxone had clearance at follow-up (108 [96%] in the ceftriaxone group compared with 82 [80%] in the gentamicin group; adjusted risk difference −15·3%, −24·0 to −6·5). Similarly, a greater proportion of participants with rectal infection in the ceftriaxone group had clearance (134 [98%] in the ceftriaxone group compared with 107 [90%] in the gentamicin group; adjusted risk difference −7·8%, −13·6 to −2·0). Thus, we did n...