This study characterizes concomitant reactions to carba mix (CM) and thiuram mix (TM) in a large North American population. Because thiurams and dithiocarbamates have structural similarity, concomitant reactions are expected.
Methods
The 1994–2016 North American Contact Dermatitis Group data were analyzed. Patients with a final reaction interpreted as “allergic” to either CM or TM were included.
Results
A total of 49,758 patients were tested to both CM and TM. A total of 3437 (6.9%) had positive reactions to CM and/or TM including the following groups: CM+ only (n = 1403, 40.8%), TM+ only (n = 1068, 31.0%), or both (n = 966, 28.1%). A total of 47.5% of TM+ patients were positive to CM and 40.8% of CM+ patients were positive to TM. Male sex, occupationally related dermatitis, and hand involvement were significantly more common in individuals positive to CM and/or TM as compared with those who were negative (P < 0.0001). More than 80% of CM+/TM+ reactions were currently relevant. Gloves were the most common source of CM and TM; clothing and footwear were also frequent.
Conclusions
Carba mix and TM remain important, clinically relevant allergens. Although significant concomitant reaction frequency was demonstrated, more than half of the patients reacting to either CM or TM would have been missed if both had not been tested, underscoring the importance of testing to both.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KershAE, HelmsS, De La FeldS. Glove-related allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatitis, 2018; 29(1):13–21.
2.
Aalto-korteK, PesonenM. Patterns of simultaneous patch test reactions to thiurams and dithiocarbamates in 164 patients. Contact Dermatitis, 2016; 75:353–357.
3.
GeierJ, LessmannH, MahlerV, et al.Occupational contact allergy caused by rubber gloves—nothing has changed. Contact Dermatitis, 2012; 67(3):149–156.
4.
GoodierMC, RonkainenSD, HylwaSA. Rubber accelerators in medical examination and surgical gloves. Dermatitis, 2018; 29(2):66–76.
5.
HanssonC, PonténA, SvedmanC, et al.Reaction profile in patch testing with allergens formed during vulcanization of rubber. Contact Dermatitis, 2014; 70(5):300–308.
6.
WarshawEM, GuptaR, DeKovenJG, et al.Patch testing to diphenylguanidine by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2013–2016. Dermatitis, 2020; In press. doi: 10.1097/DER.0000000000000629.
7.
UterW, WarburtonK, WeisshaarE, et al.Patch test results with rubber series in the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA), 2013/14. Contact Dermatitis, 2016; 75(6):345–352.
8.
ButtazzoS, ProdiA, FortinaAB, et al.Sensitization to rubber accelerators in Northeastern Italy: the Triveneto Patch Test Database. Dermatitis, 2016; 27(4):222–226.
9.
WarburtonKL, BauerA, ChowdhuryMMU, et al.ESSCA results with the baseline series, 2009–2012: rubber allergens. Contact Dermatitis, 2015; 73(5):305–312.
10.
Conde-SalazarL, del-RíoE, GuimaraensD, et al.Type IV allergy to rubber additives: a 10-year study of 686 cases. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1993; 29(2):176–180.
11.
von HintzensternJ, HeeseA, KochHU, et al.Frequency, spectrum and occupational relevance of type IV allergies to rubber chemicals. Contact Dermatitis, 1991; 24(4):244–252.
12.
ChenHH, SunCC, TsengMP. Type IV hypersensitivity from rubber chemicals: a 15-year experience in Taiwan. Dermatology, 2004; 208(4):319–325.
13.
DejonckheereG, HermanA, BaeckM. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by synthetic rubber gloves in healthcare workers: sensitization to 1,3-diphenylguanidine is common. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 81:167–173.
14.
SiegelPD, FowlerJFJr., StorrsFJ, et al.Allergen content of patient problem and nonproblem gloves: relationship to allergen-specific patch-test findings. Dermatitis, 2010; 21(2):77–83.
15.
CaoLY, TaylorJS, SoodA, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis to synthetic rubber gloves: changing trends in patch test reactions to accelerators. Arch Dermatol, 2010; 146(9):1001–1007.
16.
CravoM, GonçaloM, FigueiredoA. Allergic contact dermatitis to rubber-containing bandages in patients with leg ulcers. Contact Dermatitis, 2008; 58(6):371–372.
17.
DeKovenJG, WarshawEM, BelsitoDV, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results 2013–2014. Dermatitis, 2017; 28(1):33–46.
18.
WarshawEM, ZhangAJ, BelsitoDV, et al.Patients with negative patch tests: retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) data 2001–2016. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2019; 80(6):1618–1629.
19.
DeKovenJG, WarshawEM, ZugKA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2015–2016. Dermatitis, 2018; 29(6):297–309.
20.
MarksJG, BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for the detection of delayed-type hypersensitivity to topical allergens. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1998; 38(6 pt 1):911–918.
21.
MarksJGJr., BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1996–1998. Arch Dermatol, 2000; 136(2):272–273.
22.
MarksJGJr., BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et alNorth American Contact DermatitisGroup.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermat, 2003; 14(2):59–62.
23.
PrattMD, BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 2001–2002 study period. Dermatitis, 2004; 15(4):176–183.
24.
WarshawEM, BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 2003–2004 study period. Dermatitis, 2008; 19(3):129–136.
25.
ZugKA, WarshawEM, FowlerJF, et al.Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005–2006. Dermatitis, 2009; 20(3):149–160.
26.
FranswayAF, ZugKA, BelsitoDV, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for 2007–2008. Dermatitis, 2013; 24(1):10–21.
27.
WarshawEM, BelsitoDV, TaylorJS, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2009 to 2010. Dermatitis, 2013; 24(2):50–59.
28.
WarshawEM, MaibachHI, TaylorJS, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2011-2012. Contact Dermatitis, 1992; 26(1):49–59.
29.
JasimS, TjälveH. Effect of thiuram sulphides on the uptake and distribution of nickel in pregnant and non-pregnant mice. Toxicology, 1984; 32(4):297–313.
30.
WarshawEM, NelsenDD, SassevilleD, et al.Positivity ratio and reaction index: patch-test quality-control metrics applied to the North American Contact Dermatitis Group database. Dermatitis, 2010; 21(2):91–97.
31.
CrepyMN.Rubber: new allergens and preventive measures. Eur J Dermatol, 2016; 26(6):523–530.
32.
CrepyMN, LecuenJ, Ratour-BigotC, et al.Accelerator-free gloves as alternatives in cases of glove allergy in healthcare workers. Contact Dermatitis, 2018; 78(1):28–32.
33.
PillsburyME, RonkainenS, GoodierM, et al.Are rubber gloves marketed as accelerator-free truly free of accelerators?Dermatitis, 2020; 31(2):128–133.
SherertzEF, SwartzSM. Careful with carba mix. Dermatitis, 1994; 5(1):44–45.
36.
AndersenKE, BurrowsD, CroninE, et al.Recommended changes to standard series. Contact Dermatitis, 1988; 19(5):389–390.
37.
GeierJ, UterW, LessmannH, et al.The positivity ratio—another parameter to assess the diagnostic quality of a patch test preparation. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 48(5):280–282.
38.
BraschJ, HenselerT. The reaction index: a parameter to assess the quality of patch test preparations. Contact Dermatitis, 1992; 27(3):203–204.
