Journal Information
Vol. 102. Issue 5.
Pages 336-343 (June - July 2011)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 102. Issue 5.
Pages 336-343 (June - July 2011)
Original Article
Full text access
Protein Contact Dermatitis: Review of 27 Cases
Dermatitis de contacto por proteínas. Revisión de 27 casos
Visits
6196
P. Hernández-Bel
Corresponding author
pablohernandezbel@hotmail.com

Corresponding author.
, J. De La Cuadra, R. García, V. Alegre
Servicio de Dermatología, Consorcio Hospital General Universitario de Valencia, Valencia, Spain
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Background

Protein contact dermatitis (PCD) is a rare and underdiagnosed condition that many dermatologists fail to recognize. Nevertheless, increasing awareness of the condition and the substances responsible has led to a rise in the number of published cases in recent years.

Objective

To determine the clinical characteristics and allergens implicated in PCD in our setting.

Material and methods

A retrospective observational study of all patients diagnosed with PCD in the last 10 years was undertaken in the Skin Allergies Unit of the Department of Dermatology at Hospital General Universitario in Valencia, Spain. All patients were assessed by skinprick test with the standard GEIDAC allergen panel and by prick-by-prick test with foods or other products that were linked to immediate skin symptoms following handling.

Results

Twenty-seven patients (8 men and 19 women) were diagnosed with PCD, and 26 of the cases were occupational in origin. The mean age of the patients was 32.3 years and 51.8% had a history of atopy. The latency period varied from 2 months to 27 years. The most commonly affected areas were the backs of the hands and the forearms. Four patients had an oral allergy syndrome. In order of frequency, the substances responsible for PCD were fish (9 patients, 33.3%), latex (8 patients, 29.6%), potato (4 patients, 14.8%), chicken (3 patients, 11.1%), flour (3 patients, 11.1%), alpha amylase (2 patients, 7.4%), aubergine (2 patients, 7.4%), pork (1 patient, 3.7%), garlic (1 patient, 3.7%), and Anisakis (1 patient, 3.7%).

Conclusions

PCD is a clinically relevant condition that dermatologists should include in the differential diagnosis of chronic dermatitis affecting the hands or forearms in patients at high occupational risk, particular those in the food preparation industry.

Keywords:
Protein contact dermatitis
Food preparation workers
Hand eczema
Latex
Prick-by-prick test
Introducción

La dermatitis de contacto por proteínas (DCP) es una patología infrecuente, poco conocida por el dermatólogo e infradiagnosticada. Recientemente el número de casos publicados de DCP ha ido en aumento por un mayor conocimiento de esta entidad, así como del espectro de sustancias responsables de la misma.

Objetivo

Estudiar las características clínicas y los alérgenos implicados en la DCP en nuestro entorno.

Material y métodos

Se trata de un estudio observacional y retrospectivo de todos los pacientes diagnosticados de DCP en los últimos 10 años en la Sección de alergia cutánea del Servicio de Dermatología del Hospital General Universitario de Valencia. Todos los pacientes fueron estudiados mediante pruebas epicutáneas con la batería estándar del GEIDAC y mediante pruebas cutáneas con los alimentos y/o productos que al manipularlos relacionaban con síntomas cutáneos inmediatos.

Resultados

Un total de 27 pacientes (8 varones y 19 mujeres) fueron diagnosticados de DCP, 26 de los cuales fueron de origen laboral. La edad media fue de 32,3 años, y el 51,8% tenían historia personal de atopia. El tiempo de sensibilización fue variable, entre dos meses y 27 años. Las áreas más frecuentemente afectadas fueron el dorso de las manos y los antebrazos. Cuatro pacientes presentaron un síndrome oral de alergia. Las sustancias responsables de la DCP fueron, por orden de frecuencia, pescados (9/27, 33,3%), látex (8/27, 29,6%), patata (4/27, 14,8%), pollo y harina (3/27, 11,1%), alfa-amilasa y berenjena (2/27, 7,4%) y carne de cerdo, ajo y anisakis (1/27, 3,7%).

Conclusiones

La DCP es una entidad de relevancia clínica que el dermatólogo debe considerar en el diagnóstico diferencial de una dermatitis crónica de las manos y/o antebrazos en pacientes con alto riesgo ocupacional, particularmente manipuladores de alimentos.

Palabras clave:
Dermatitis de contacto proteínica
Manipuladores de alimentos
Eczema de manos
Látex
Prick-by-prick test
Full text is only aviable in PDF
References
[1.]
N. Hjorth, J. Roed-Petersen.
Occupational protein contact dermatitis in food handlers.
Contact Dermatitis, 2 (1976), pp. 28-42
[2.]
N.K. Veien, T. Hattel, O. Justesen, A. Norholm.
Causes of eczema in the food industry.
Derm Beruf Umwelt, 31 (1983), pp. 84-86
[3.]
J. Cuadra, M. Torres, J. Latasa.
Dermatitis de contacto inmediata a alimentos.
Boletín Informativo GEIDC, 4 (1982), pp. 57
[4.]
C. Romaguera, F. Grimalt, J. Vilaplana, A. Telese.
Protein contact dermatitis.
Contact Dermatitis, 14 (1986), pp. 184-185
[5.]
J.G. Camarasa.
Contact eczema from cow saliva.
Contact Dermatitis, 5 (1986), pp. 117
[6.]
J. Goday Buján, A. Aguirre, N. Gil Ibarra.
Allergic contact dermatitis from squid (Loligo opalescens).
Contact Dermatitis, 24 (1991), pp. 307
[7.]
M.D. Alonso, L. Davila, L. Conde-Salazar, M. Cuevas, J.A. Martin, D. Guimaraens, et al.
Occupational protein contact dermatitis from herring.
Allergy, 48 (1993), pp. 349-352
[8.]
M.D. Alonso, J.A. Martin, M. Cuevas, F. Parra, A. Lezaun, L. Conde Salazar, et al.
Occupational protein contact dermatitis from lettuce.
Contact Dermatitis, 29 (1993), pp. 109
[9.]
V. Janssens, M. Morren, A. Dooms-Goossens, H. Degreef.
Protein contact dermatitis: myth or reality?.
Br J Dermatol, 132 (1995), pp. 1-6
[10.]
N.M. Stone.
Allergic contact dermatitis: clinical manifestations.
Latex intolerance: basic science, epidemiology, and clinical management, pp. 122-123
[11.]
E.F. Chan, C. Mowad.
Contact dermatitis to food and spices.
Am J Contact Dermat, 9 (1998), pp. 71-79
[12.]
K. Stagis-Hansen, H. Overgard-Petersen.
Protein contact dermatitis in slaughterhouse workers.
Contact Dermatitis, 21 (1989), pp. 221-224
[13.]
H. Degreef, M. Bourgeois, C. Naert.
Protein contact dermatitis with positive RAST caused by bovine blood and amniotic fluid.
Contact Dermatitis, 11 (1984), pp. 129-130
[14.]
L. Scharer, J. Hafner, B. Wuthrich, C. Bucher.
Occupational protein contact dermatitis from shrimps.
Contact Dermatitis, 46 (2002), pp. 181-182
[15.]
M. Lehto, M. Koivuluhta, G. Wang.
Epicutaneous natural rubber latex sensitization induces T helper 2-type dermatitis and strong prohevein-specific IgE response.
J Invest Dermatol, 120 (2003), pp. 633-640
[16.]
R. White, I. Dods, C. Vickers.
A study of the epidermal barrier in atopic dermatitis.
Immunological and pharmacological aspects of atopic and contact eczema, pp. 658-659
[17.]
M.S. Doutre.
Occupational contact urticaria and protein contact dermatitis.
Eur J Dermatol, 15 (2005), pp. 419-424
[18.]
G. Krook.
Occupational dermatitis from Lactuca sativa (lettuce) and Cichorium (endive). Simultaneous occurrence of immediate and delayed allergy as a cause of contact dermatitis.
Contact Dermatitis, 3 (1997), pp. 27-36
[19.]
A. Niinimaki.
Scratch-chamber tests in food handler dermatitis.
Contact Dermatitis, 16 (1987), pp. 11-20
[20.]
L. Kanerva, T. Estlander, R. Jolanki.
Long-lasting contact urticaria from castor bean.
J Am Acad Dermatol, 23 (1990), pp. 351-355
[21.]
M. Morren, V. Janssens, A. Dooms-Goossens.
Alpha-amylase, a flour additive as an important cause of protein contact dermatitis in bakers.
J Am Acad Dermatol, 29 (1993), pp. 723-728
[22.]
K. Taravainen, J.P. Salonen, L. Kanerva.
Allergy and toxicodermia from shiitake mushroom.
J Am Acad Dermatol, 24 (1991), pp. 64-66
[23.]
J. Bousquet.
In vivo methods for study of allergy: skin tests, techniques and interpretation.
Allergy: principles and practice, 3rd ed., pp. 419
[24.]
L. Kanerva, M. Pajari-Backas.
IgE-mediated RAST-negative occupational protein contact dermatitis from taxonomically unrelated fish species.
Contact Dermatitis, 41 (1999), pp. 295-296
[25.]
R.M. Adams.
Dermatitis in food service workers.
Allergy Proc, 11 (1990), pp. 123-124
[26.]
S. Amin, A. Lauerma, H.I. Maibach.
Diagnostic tests in dermatology: patch and photopatch testing and contact urticaria.
Dermatotoxicology, 6th ed., pp. 109-112
[27.]
P.S. Friedmann.
Graded continuity, or all or none-studies of the human immune response.
Clin Exp Dermatol, 16 (1991), pp. 79-84
[28.]
T. Tanaka, S.I. Moriwaki, T. Horio.
Occupational dermatitis with simultaneous immediate and delayed allergy to chrysanthemum.
Contact Dermatitis, 16 (1987), pp. 152-154
[29.]
E. Warshaw, G. Lee, F.J. Storrs.
Hand dermatitis: a review of clinical features therapeutic options, and long-term outcomes.
Am J Contact Dermat, 14 (2003), pp. 119-137
[30.]
C. Levin, E. Warshaw.
Protein contact dermatitis: allergens, pathogenesis, and management.
Dermatitis, 19 (2008), pp. 241-251
[31.]
P. Mercader, J. Cuadra-Oyanguren, M. Rodríguez-Serna.
Treatment of protein contact dermatitis with topical tacrolimus.
Acta Derm Venereol, 85 (2005), pp. 555-556
[32.]
E. Cronin.
Dermatitis of the hands in caterers.
Contact Dermatitis, 17 (1987), pp. 265-269
[33.]
A. Giménez-Arnau, M. Maurer, J. De la Cuadra, H. Maibach.
Immediate contact skin reactions, an update of Contact Urticaria, Contact Urticaria Syndrome and Protein Contact Dermatitis - “A Never Ending Story”.
Eur J Dermatol, 20 (2010), pp. 1-11
Copyright © 2011. Academia Española de Dermatología y Venereología and Elsevier España, S.L.
Idiomas
Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas
Article options
Tools
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?