Youssef, Molly J.

Background: Acrylate allergy is rising, with many patients showing patch test positivity to multiple acrylates. Understanding acrylate sensitivity can guide avoidance and optimize screening. Objectives: To quantify acrylate patch test positivity, define subgroups using hierarchical clustering, and algorithmically optimize acrylate patch testing series. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of 27 acrylate allergens patch tested at 3 Mayo Clinic sites (Arizona, Florida, Minnesota) from 1997 to 2024; 14 had ≥1% positivity. Pairwise copositivity rates were background-corrected and analyzed using hierarchical clustering, followed by computational optimization for patch test screening. Results: Among 17,148 patients, 90,818 tests yielded 1,557 positives (1.71%). Most frequent positive reactions were 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate 0.1% (HEA, 5.4%), 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate 2% (HPMA, 5.0%), and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate 2% (HEMA, 4.6%). Clustering revealed 2 general subgroups, with ethyl cyanoacrylate 10% (ECA) showing minimal copositivity to other acrylates. Optimization analysis for screening showed that one allergen (HEMA) captured 49.4% of sensitized patients; 2 (HEMA + ECA) captured 72.2%. Four allergens, including HEMA, ECA, HEA, and diethylene glycol diacrylate 0.1% (DEGDA), captured >90%, and a 7-allergen series captured 100%, with no higher yield from additional acrylates in standard screening. Conclusions: Acrylate allergy is heterogeneous, comprising 2 subgroups, with cyanoacrylates co-reacting separately. Algorithm-guided series refinement improves diagnostic efficiency by prioritizing high-yield allergens for screening while minimizing unnecessary testing.

Objective This survey study assessed trainee attitudes and perceptions of the longitudinal public speaking curriculum at Mayo Clinic Pediatric and Adolescent Residency Program. Methods This 3-part survey of Mayo Clinic pediatric residents was conducted from 2013 to 2017 and utilized yes/no questions, Likert scales, and open-ended questions. Code book content analysis was used to analyze open-ended questions. Results A total of 121 participants (96.8%, n = 121/125) completed the survey. Most respondents (93.3%, n = 111/119) either agreed or strongly agreed that the public speaking requirement enabled them to be more effective in delivering information to large groups. Most respondents (89.2%, n = 107/120) agreed or strongly agreed that they incorporated feedback from previous public speaking feedback sessions into subsequent presentations. The 2 activities that respondents found most useful for preparing later presentations were setting goals for future presentations in a feedback session and discussing performance in a feedback session. Conclusions There was a perceived effectiveness of a longitudinal public speaking curriculum among pediatric residents at our program. Multidimensional feedback seems to be a critical aspect of a public speaking curriculum in graduate medical education.

Abstract: Background: Fragrances/botanicals are ubiquitous allergens. Patients allergic to one fragrance/botanical are frequently sensitive to other fragrances/botanicals and are typically counseled to avoid all fragrances/botanicals. However, broad avoidance of all fragrances/botanicals may not be clinically necessary. Objectives: We examined copositivity patterns in fragrance/botanical patch testing. Methods: The Mayo Clinic patch test database was queried for pairwise copositivity rates for fragrances/botanicals between 1997 and 2022, representing a total of 43 allergens. Data analyzed included 4706 positive reactions out of 252,485 total patches applied to 15,864 patients. After background correction for general positivity, copositivity rates were organized through unsupervised hierarchical clustering to determine copositivity subgroups and then evaluated through network analysis. Results: After background correction, clustering revealed distinct copositivity subgroups: Fragrance Mix I– Myroxylon pereirae –limonene hydroperoxides–linalool hydroperoxides; Compositae Mix–sesquiterpene lactone–parthenolide; Fragrance Mix II–Lyral; lichen acid mix–treemoss extract; menthol– Mentha piperita ; narcissus–dandelion; and Santalum album –trans-anethole–tea tree–lemongrass–clove–turpentine– Rosa damascena – Lavandula – Geranium – Cananga odorata –neroli–bergamot. In addition, there were further isolated intergroup copositivity reactions seen in network analysis. Conclusions: Background correction followed by hierarchical clustering demonstrated the fragrance/botanical group can be divided into multiple copositivity subgroups. Combined with network analysis, patients with a positive patch test to one fragrance/botanical allergen may be preferentially guided to use specific other fragrances/botanicals.

Abstract: Background: Extended patch testing beyond the standard series is commonly performed in patients with allergic contact dermatitis. This broader testing allows for more precise and complete allergen identification, ultimately leading to improved clinical outcomes. Objective: To report the Mayo Clinic Contact Dermatitis Group (MCCDG) patch testing results using a custom extended series from 2010 to 2023. Methods: A retrospective review of patch testing results using the MCCDG extended standard series at the Mayo Clinic was conducted. Data from 2010 to 2023 were analyzed. Results: Patch testing with the extended standard series was performed in 3,767 unique patients, with a total of 3834 extended standard patch tests administered (81.8% in women, 18.2% in men). The top 5 allergens eliciting positive reactions were gold (I) sodium thiosulfate (10.4%), benzisothiazolinone (10.4%), carmine (9.4%), thimerosal (9.3%), and hydroperoxides of linalool (8.8%). Conclusions: The extended standard series expands the diagnostic scope for patients in whom the standard series incompletely identifies relevant allergens. Preservatives and fragrances remain among the most common sensitizers, emphasizing the need for ongoing allergen surveillance, periodic review, and updates to patch test series to enhance diagnostic accuracy and patient care.

Abstract: Background: It is generally recommended that patients not be on immunosuppressive medications for patch testing, as these medications may suppress delayed-type hypersensitivity and lead to false negative results. There is a paucity of literature describing organ transplant recipients who underwent patch testing. Objective: The aim of this study is to examine patch testing results in solid organ transplant recipients over a 13-year period at our institution. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patch test data from adult transplant recipients at our institution. Transplant patients who underwent patch testing were identified from a clinical patch test database, and a chart review was conducted. Results: Eighteen patients were included in the study. Patients had received kidney, liver, or heart transplants. Seven patients (38.9%) had at least one positive reaction. The highest reaction rates were seen with methylisothiazolinone (12.5%), methyldibromo glutaronitrile (12.5%), and benzalkonium chloride (10.0%). Limitations included small sample size, data from a tertiary referral center, and retrospective analysis. Conclusions: Liver and kidney transplant recipients displayed allergic reactions during patch testing. Patients may benefit from patch testing even if receiving immunosuppressive therapy, but some reactions may be falsely negative because of immunosuppression.