Home > Journals > Medicine > European Journal of Dermatology > Full text
 
      Advanced search    Shopping cart    French version 
 
Latest books
Catalogue/Search
Collections
All journals
Medicine
European Journal of Dermatology
- Current issue
- Archives
- Subscribe
- Order an issue
- More information
Biology and research
Public health
Agronomy and biotech.
My account
Forgotten password?
Online account   activation
Subscribe
Licences IP
- Instructions for use
- Estimate request form
- Licence agreement
Order an issue
Pay-per-view articles
Newsletters
How can I publish?
Journals
Books
Help for advertisers
Foreign rights
Book sales agents



 

Texte intégral de l'article
 
  Printable version
  Version PDF

Photoallergic contact dermatitis in a pig farmer, caused by cotrimoxazole


European Journal of Dermatology. Volume 19, Number 5, 526-7, September-October 2009, Correspondence

DOI : 10.1684/ejd.2009.0753


Author(s) : Tessin Watanabe, Hiromi Higaki, Nanako Yamada, Yuichi Yoshida, Osamu Yamamoto , Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine of Sensory and Motor Organs, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, 86 Nishi-cho, Yonago 683-8503, Japan.

Pictures

ARTICLE

Auteur(s) : Tessin Watanabe, Hiromi Higaki, Nanako Yamada, Yuichi Yoshida, Osamu Yamamoto

Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine of Sensory and Motor Organs, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, 86 Nishi-cho, Yonago 683-8503, Japan

Several antibiotics and growth promoters are used widely in pig farming. They rarely cause allergic or photoallergic contact dermatitis [1-3]. We describe a case of photoallergic contact dermatitis in a pig farmer, caused by cotrimoxazole.

A 53-year-old man, with no atopic history, had a 1-year history of skin lesions on his face, neck, ears, forearms and dorsal hands. He had been working as a pig farmer for the past 20 years and had used oxytetracycline, tylosin and cotrimoxazole (sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim) for preventing infectious diseases in pigs. He handled dry pig foods containing these drugs without using protective clothing or gloves for 2 months before the development of skin lesions. The pattern developed was lichenified erythema on sun-exposed areas, including his forehead, cheeks, neck, ears, forearms and hands (figure 1). Topical steroids were ineffective for treating these lesions. Blood biochemistry was within normal limits. Histopathologically, the cutaneous lesions of his dorsal hand showed hyperkeratosis, acanthosis and superficial perivascular lymphocyte infiltration. His skin lesions improved slightly but became worse again. We suspected that the lesions were caused by contact or photocontact allergy to the antibiotic used in pig feed. Minimal erythema doses for UVA and UVB of the patient were within normal ranges. Patch testing was performed with oxytetracycline, tylosin and cotrimoxazole at 1% and 10% in petrolatum. The patch testing only yielded positive reactions for tylosin at 1% and 10% (++), both at D3 and D4. Photopatch tests using oxytetracycline and cotrimoxazole with 5 J/cm2 UVA were also performed at the same concentrations as those used in patch testing. Positive results were obtained with cotrimoxazole at 10% (+) at D3 and D4. Drug-induced lymphocyte stimulating tests (DLST) revealed positive reactions to tylosin with a stimulating index of 431% and to cotrimoxazole with a stimulating index of 213% (normal < 180%). The skin lesions improved with topical steroid treatment after hospitalization for tests. Therefore, we advised the patient to avoid handling these antibiotics in the future.

Based on the clinical history, positive DLST index and positive results of patch and photopatch tests, we made a diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis to tylosin and photoallergic contact dermatis due to cotrimoxazole. In the present case, both allergic contact dermatitis to tylosin and photoallergic contact dermatis due to cotrimoxazole in a pig farmer were demonstrated.

Tylosin and Olaquindox are well-known contact allergens for pig farmers. Fixed drug eruptions and toxic epidermal necrolysis have been reported as adverse skin reaction to cotrimoxazole [4, 5]. However, photoallergic skin reactions to cotrimoxazole (sulfamides) are extremely rare [6]. In addition, photoallergic contact dermatitis due to cotrimoxazole in a pig farmer has not been reported as far as we know. A persistent dermatitis of sun-exposed areas in a pig farmer should be studied as a possible photoallergic contact dermatitis, possibly induced by antibiotics.

Acknowledgements

Financial support: none. Conflict of interest: none.

References

1 Belhadjali H, Marguery MC, Journé F, et al. Allergic and photoallergic contact dermatitis to Olaquindox in a pig breeder with prolonged photosensitivity. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 2002; 18: 52-3.

2 Tuomi ML, Räsänen L. Contact allergy to tylosin and cobalt in a pig-farmer. Contact Dermatitis 1995; 33: 285.

3 Pirkis JE, O’Regan KK, Bailie R. Contact dermatitis and in-feed exposure to antibiotics among pig feed handlers. Aust J Rural Health 1997; 5: 76-9.

4 Ozkaya-Bayazit E, Bayazit H, Ozarmagan G. Topical provocation in 27 cases of cotrimoxazole-induced fixed drug eruption. Contact Dermatitis 1999; 41: 185-9.

5 Buslau M. Case report: TEN in a patient with black skin–blister fluid for rapid diagnosis. Dermatol Online 2008; 14: 14.

6 Affronti M, Malta R, Di Rosa S, et al. Photo-sensitization by sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim through the skin: a case report. J Chemother 1989; 1: 627.


 

About us - Contact us - Conditions of use - Secure payment
Latest news - Conferences
Copyright © 2007 John Libbey Eurotext - All rights reserved
[ Legal information - Powered by Dolomède ]