The recent coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in increased hand hygiene and hand cleansing awareness. To prevent virus transmission, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) recommends frequent hand washing with soap and water. Hand hygiene products are available in a variety of forms and while each of these formulations may be effective against COVID-19, they may also alter skin barrier integrity and function. As health care workers and the general population focus on stringent hand hygiene, the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) anticipates an increase in both irritant contact and allergic contact hand dermatitis. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers with moisturizers have the least sensitizing and irritancy potential when compared to soaps and synthetic detergents. This article provides an overview of the most frequently used hand hygiene products and their associations with contact dermatitis as well as recommendations from the ACDS on how to treat and prevent further dermatitis.

In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, 2 mRNA vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) received emergency use authorization from the US Food and Drug Administration in December 2020. Some patients in the US have developed delayed localized cutaneous vaccine reactions that have been dubbed "COVID arm."OBJECTIVE To describe the course of localized cutaneous injection-site reactions to the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, subsequent reactions to the second vaccine dose, and to characterize the findings of histopathologic examination of the reaction. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis retrospective case series study was performed at Yale New Haven Hospital, a tertiary medical center in New Haven, Connecticut, with 16 patients referred with localized cutaneous injection-site reactions from January 20 through February 12, 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESWe collected each patient's demographic information, a brief relevant medical history, clinical course, and treatment (if any); and considered the findings of a histopathologic examination of 1 skin biopsy specimen. RESULTSOf 16 patients (median [range] age, 38 [25-89] years; 13 [81%] women), 14 patients self-identified as White and 2 as Asian. The delayed localized cutaneous reactions developed in a median (range) of 7 (2-12) days after receiving the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. These reactions occurred at or near the injection site and were described as pruritic, painful, and edematous pink plaques. None of the participants had received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Results of a skin biopsy specimen demonstrated a mild predominantly perivascular mixed infiltrate with lymphocytes and eosinophils, consistent with a dermal hypersensitivity reaction. Of participants who had a reaction to first vaccine dose (15 of 16 patients), most (11 patients) developed a similar localized injection-site reaction to the second vaccine dose; most (10 patients) also developed the second reaction sooner as compared with the first-dose reaction.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Clinical and histopathologic findings of this case series study indicate that the localized injection-site reactions to the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine are a delayed hypersensitivity reaction. These reactions may occur sooner after the second dose, but they are self-limited and not associated with serious vaccine adverse effects. In contrast to immediate hypersensitivity reactions (eg, anaphylaxis, urticaria), these delayed reactions (dubbed "COVID arm") are not a contraindication to subsequent vaccination.

The American Contact Dermatitis Society recognizes the interest in the evaluation and management of metal hypersensitivity reactions. Given the paucity of robust evidence with which to guide our practices, we provide reasonable evidence and expert opinion-based guidelines for clinicians with regard to metal hypersensitivity reaction testing and patient management. Routine preoperative evaluation in individuals with no history of adverse cutaneous reactions to metals or history of previous implant-related adverse events is not necessary. Patients with a clear self-reported history of metal reactions should be evaluated by patch testing before device implant. Patch testing is only 1 element in the assessment of causation in those with postimplantation morbidity. Metal exposure from the implanted device can cause sensitization, but a positive metal test does not prove symptom causality. The decision to replace an implanted device must include an assessment of all clinical factors and a thorough risk-benefit analysis by the treating physician(s) and patient.

This US database provides multidisciplinary information on pediatric ACD, rates of PPT, and relevant RPPT reactions, validating the high rates of pediatric ACD previously reported in the literature. The registry database is the largest comprehensive collection of US-only pediatric patch test cases on which future research can be built. Continued collaboration between patients, health care providers, manufacturers, and policy makers is needed to decrease the most common allergens in pediatric consumer products.

An adverse cutaneous reaction to a systemically administered drug may rarely manifest as acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP). Several recent reports have documented positive patch test results in patients with a history of AGEP, while two have demonstrated drug-specific in vitro lymphocyte proliferative responses. These findings suggest that drug-specific T cells mediate AGEP. We describe two patients with a history of AGEP who each demonstrated positive patch test results specific for the inciting drug: Patient #1 to the antibiotic metronidazole, and Patient #2 to the calcium channel-blocker diltiazem. Histologic examination of biopsy specimens taken from the patch test sites of these patients revealed spongiotic dermatitis and perivascular lymphocytes consistent with a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction, rather than demonstrating subcorneal neutrophilic pustules more typical of AGEP. In vitro testing by measuring peripheral T cell proliferative responses to chemically purified drug correlated with the clinical response. In a direct cross-comparison, patch test results were shown to correlate with in vitro lymphocyte proliferative responses in two patients with a history of AGEP to different drugs. These findings provide additional evidence that the pathogenesis of AGEP involves a T cell-mediated immune response.