Lidocaine Contact Allergy Is Becoming More Prevalent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to lidocaine is rising in prevalence. This is due to a growing number of over-the-counter (OTC) products containing topical amide and ester anesthetics. The phenomenon poses a real threat to the authors' surgical anesthetic options. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the epidemiology of topical anesthetic ACD in British Columbia, Canada and provide an approach for clinicians to deal with this problem. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 1,819 patients who underwent patch testing at the University of British Columbia Contact Dermatitis Clinic between January 2009 and June 2013 was completed. The authors also performed a detailed review of Canadian OTC preparations containing lidocaine in 2013. RESULTS: The prevalence of ACD to local anesthetics is significant at 2.4%. The most common allergen is benzocaine (45%) followed by lidocaine (32%) and dibucaine (23%). CONCLUSION: The proportion of ACD caused by lidocaine is higher than expected. This is likely secondary to an increase in OTC medicaments containing lidocaine. Patients who are patch test-positive to a local anesthetic should be challenged intradermally to confirm clinical relevance. Because ACD is a delayed Type IV hypersensitivity reaction (localized dermatitis), the risk of anaphylaxis is not a concern.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".