Lazarov A, Cordoba M
Dermatology Clinic, Sapir Medical Center, Meir Hospital, Kfar Saba, Israel.
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2000 Mar;14(2):101-5. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-3083.2000.00025.x.
Purpuric lesions have been described as an uncommon manifestation of allergic contact dermatitis in individual case reports.
We describe a series of patients who developed purpuric allergic contact dermatitis to textile dyes and resins in their personal clothing. Our purpose was to study the patients clinically and histopathologically and to define the most frequent allergens, which cause purpuric allergic contact dermatitis.
One hundred and three patients were clinically evaluated and tested with the Textile Color & Finish Series (TCFS) (Chemotechnique Diagnostics) and Standard Series (TRUE Tests) because of suspected allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to clothing. The patients with clinical features of purpura as presenting sign of ACD were studied. Biopsies from the purpuric lesions were performed in three patients.
Thirty of the 103 patients (29.1%) had positive reaction to an allergen from the TCFS. Clinically purpuric ACD was observed in 8.7% of all the cases studied (n = 9 of 103). Nine of the 30 patch-positive patients to the TCFS (30%) demonstrated purpuric macules, papules and patches. Patch testing of the nine patients with purpuric contact dermatitis, with the TCFS, resulted in 26 positive patch test results. The major causative allergens were the following: Disperse Blue 106 and Disperse Blue 124 in 26.9% each, Disperse Blue 85 in 11.5%, and ethyleneurea melamine formaldehyde in 7.7%. Positive patch tests were observed to dimethylol dihydroxyethyleneurea, dimethylol propyleneurea, tetramethylol acetylenediurea, urea formaldehyde, melamine formaldehyde, Disperse Red 17, and Basic Red 46 3.8% in each. Purpuric patch test reaction was observed in five cases. The patch test results had present relevance in all the cases. Lesional biopsies demonstrated acanthosis, spongiosis and parakeratosis. The blood vessels were dilated, without signs of vasculitis. The inflammatory infiltrate was composed of lymphocytes and erythrocytes. The extravasated erythrocytes had a perivascular and interstitial distribution in the superficial and deep plexus and were observed at the dermo-epidermal junction as well as in the epidermis.
Purpuric contact dermatitis is not an uncommon clinical form of ACD to textile dyes and resins. New allergens, which can evoke the development of purpuric allergic contact dermatitis and have not been described in the literature until now include: ethyleneurea melamineformaldehyde, dimethylol dihydroxyethyleneurea, tetramethylol acetylenediurea, urea formaldehyde, melamine formaldehyde and Disperse Red 17.
在个别病例报告中,紫癜样皮损已被描述为过敏性接触性皮炎的一种罕见表现。
我们描述了一系列因个人衣物中的纺织染料和树脂而发生紫癜性过敏性接触性皮炎的患者。我们的目的是对这些患者进行临床和组织病理学研究,并确定引起紫癜性过敏性接触性皮炎的最常见过敏原。
对103例因怀疑衣物过敏性接触性皮炎(ACD)而进行临床评估并使用纺织颜色与整理系列(TCFS)(Chemotechnique Diagnostics公司)和标准系列(TRUE Tests)进行检测的患者。对以紫癜为ACD表现体征的患者进行研究。对3例患者的紫癜性皮损进行了活检。
103例患者中有30例(29.1%)对TCFS中的一种过敏原呈阳性反应。在所有研究病例中,临床观察到紫癜性ACD的发生率为8.7%(103例中有9例)。在30例对TCFS斑贴试验阳性的患者中有9例(30%)出现紫癜性斑疹、丘疹和斑块。对9例紫癜性接触性皮炎患者用TCFS进行斑贴试验,结果有26次斑贴试验阳性。主要致病过敏原如下:分散蓝106和分散蓝124各占26.9%,分散蓝85占11.5%,乙烯脲三聚氰胺甲醛占7.7%。对二羟甲基二羟基乙烯脲、二羟甲基丙烯脲、四羟甲基乙炔二脲、脲甲醛、三聚氰胺甲醛、分散红17和碱性红46的斑贴试验阳性率均为3.8%。观察到5例有紫癜性斑贴试验反应。斑贴试验结果在所有病例中均具有现时相关性。皮损活检显示棘层肥厚、海绵形成和角化不全。血管扩张,无血管炎迹象。炎性浸润由淋巴细胞和红细胞组成。外渗的红细胞在浅、深血管丛中呈血管周围和间质分布,在真皮表皮交界处以及表皮中也可见到。
紫癜性接触性皮炎是对纺织染料和树脂的ACD的一种常见临床形式。能引起紫癜性过敏性接触性皮炎且此前文献未描述过的新过敏原包括:乙烯脲三聚氰胺甲醛、二羟甲基二羟基乙烯脲、四羟甲基乙炔二脲、脲甲醛、三聚氰胺甲醛和分散红17。