Potassium dichromate sensitivity presenting as tefillin dermatitis: A retrospective cohort study.
allergic contact dermatitis
contact allergy
patch test
potassium dichromate
tefillin
tefillin dermatitis
Journal
Contact dermatitis
ISSN: 1600-0536
Titre abrégé: Contact Dermatitis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7604950
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Jun 2024
24 Jun 2024
Historique:
revised:
11
06
2024
received:
04
05
2024
accepted:
12
06
2024
medline:
26
6
2024
pubmed:
26
6
2024
entrez:
26
6
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Tefillin are a religious article worn by Jewish men during daily prayer. Tefillin dermatitis secondary to potassium dichromate sensitivity is recognised, but data remain sparse. To investigate the prevalence and clinical characteristics of tefillin dermatitis. Patients who underwent patch testing with the European baseline series in a tertiary dermatology clinic in 2009-2023 and were diagnosed with tefillin dermatitis were identified by file review and their clinical data recorded. Of 1679 consecutive male patients tested, 25 (1.49%) were diagnosed with tefillin dermatitis, accounting for 15.34% of all potassium-dichromate-positive patients (163/1679). Mean pre-symptomatic duration of tefillin use was 38 ± 16.9 years, and mean follow-up time, 3.1 ± 2.9 years. Patients presented with an eczematous rash on body areas in direct contact with the leather box or straps of the tefillin. An id reaction was noted in 32%, and sensitivity to other leather accessories, in 44%. Fourteen patients (56%) switched to chromate-free tefillin: symptoms resolved completely in 11 (79%) and partially in 2. Retrospective cohort design. This is the largest study to date of tefillin dermatitis caused by sensitivity to potassium dichromate used in leather production. Prognosis after switching to chromate-free tefillin was good-to-excellent. Tefillin dermatitis may be more prevalent than previously thought.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Tefillin are a religious article worn by Jewish men during daily prayer. Tefillin dermatitis secondary to potassium dichromate sensitivity is recognised, but data remain sparse.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the prevalence and clinical characteristics of tefillin dermatitis.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients who underwent patch testing with the European baseline series in a tertiary dermatology clinic in 2009-2023 and were diagnosed with tefillin dermatitis were identified by file review and their clinical data recorded.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 1679 consecutive male patients tested, 25 (1.49%) were diagnosed with tefillin dermatitis, accounting for 15.34% of all potassium-dichromate-positive patients (163/1679). Mean pre-symptomatic duration of tefillin use was 38 ± 16.9 years, and mean follow-up time, 3.1 ± 2.9 years. Patients presented with an eczematous rash on body areas in direct contact with the leather box or straps of the tefillin. An id reaction was noted in 32%, and sensitivity to other leather accessories, in 44%. Fourteen patients (56%) switched to chromate-free tefillin: symptoms resolved completely in 11 (79%) and partially in 2.
LIMITATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Retrospective cohort design.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This is the largest study to date of tefillin dermatitis caused by sensitivity to potassium dichromate used in leather production. Prognosis after switching to chromate-free tefillin was good-to-excellent. Tefillin dermatitis may be more prevalent than previously thought.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Trattner A, David M. Tefillin dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;52:831‐833.
Ross BBR. Allergic contact dermatitis to religious articles. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 1994;5:160‐161.
Feit NE, Weinberg JM, DeLeo VA. Cutaneous disease and religious practice: case of allergic contact dermatitis to tefillin and review of the literature. Int J Dermatol. 2004;43:886‐888.
Friedmann AC, Goldsmith P. Tefillin contact dermatitis: a problem in the devout. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;59:188‐189.
Gilead L, Vardy DA, Schamroth J. Tefillin dermatitis (a phylacteric phenomenon). J Am Acad Dermatol. 1995;32(5 Pt 1):812‐813.
Kridin K, Bergman R, Khamaisi M, Zelber‐Sagi S, Weltfriend S. Cement‐induced chromate occupational allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2016;27:208‐214.
Radillo L, Riosa F, Mauro M, Fortina AB, Corradin MT, Larese FF. Contact dermatitis in construction Workers in Northeastern Italian Patch Test Database between 1996 and 2016. Dermatitis. 2021;32:381‐387.
DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Reeder MJ, et al. North American contact dermatitis group patch test results: 2019–2020. Dermatitis. 2023;34:90‐104.
Hamann CR, Hamann D, Simonsen AB, Zachariae C, Johansen JD, Thyssen JP. Cobalt content of a convenience sample of leather shoes and gloves in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:248‐249.
Alinaghi F, Zachariae C, Thyssen JP, Johansen JD. Causative exposures and temporal development of cobalt allergy in Denmark between 2002 and 2017. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;81:242‐248.
Herman A, Marot L, Baeck M. Sofa dermatitis: value of patch test with 2‐(thiocyanomethylthio)benzothiazole. Contact Dermatitis. 2023;89:20‐25.
Hunt WTN, Dunnill MG, Sansom JE. Sofa dermatitis again? A case report of allergic contact dermatitis to octylisothiazolinone from a leather reclining chair. Contact Dermatitis. 2020;82:161‐162.
Hussain AN, Khanna R, Moshell AN. Allergic contact dermatitis associated with religious practices: review of the literature. Dermatitis. 2023;34:387‐391.