Contact Dermatitis最新文献

{"title":"Contact Allergy and Allergic Contact Dermatitis From Propylene Glycol and Related Glycols: Cosmetic Skin Sensitisers After All?","authors":"Silada Kanokrungsee,&nbsp;Ella Dendooven,&nbsp;Olivier Aerts","doi":"10.1111/cod.70211","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.70211","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Propylene glycol (PG) is widely used in cosmetic and pharmaceutical products, yet data on the prevalence of contact allergy to PG and related glycols, and their potential cross-reactivity, remain limited.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To determine the prevalence of glycol contact allergy, describe clinical characteristics and assess potential cross-reactivity.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We retrospectively analysed 1979 patients patch tested at Antwerp University Hospital between January 2021 and December 2024 who were tested with at least one glycol.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Fifty-five patients (2.79%) were allergic to PG. Detection rates for PG increased with concentration: 5% petrolatum (1.06%), 10% aqueous (0%), 20% aqueous (0.66%), 30% aqueous (2.19%) and 100% (7.82%, selectively tested). Pentylene glycol allergy was found in 6.74% (6/89) and caprylyl glycol in 0.77% (5% petrolatum) and 0.12% (1% petrolatum). Concomitant reactions to PG occurred in 4/6 pentylene glycol–allergic and 2/9 caprylyl glycol–allergic patients. PG-allergic patients were predominantly female (63.6%), with dermatitis mainly affecting the face and hands. Cosmetics (67.3%) were the most common exposure source, followed by topical pharmaceuticals (41.8%).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Thirty percent aqueous PG appears more suitable for screening than lower concentrations, and 100% PG may improve detection in selected cases. Cross-reactivity seems limited and is most evident among structurally similar short-chain glycols.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"95 5","pages":"450-460"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148359924","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Severe Allergic Contact Dermatitis From Wound Care Products and Medical Devices Containing Tert-Butylphenols and Isocyanates in a Child","authors":"Ella Dendooven,&nbsp;Jeff Lens,&nbsp;Katrien Goos,&nbsp;Silada Kanokrungsee,&nbsp;Titinun Kumpangsin,&nbsp;Kenn Foubert,&nbsp;Tania Naessens,&nbsp;Emmy Tuenter,&nbsp;Nina Hermans,&nbsp;Olivier Aerts","doi":"10.1111/cod.70218","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.70218","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"95 5","pages":"508-510"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148435373","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Occupational Hand Eczema and Contact Sensitization Among Dental Healthcare Students in an Italian University Center","authors":"Ilaria Trave,&nbsp;Ilaria Salvi,&nbsp;Guglielmo Dini,&nbsp;Loris E. Scipioni,&nbsp;Lucia Mandolini,&nbsp;Federica Lombardini,&nbsp;Paolo Durando,&nbsp;Emanuele C. Cozzani","doi":"10.1111/cod.70221","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.70221","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"95 5","pages":"498-500"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148688623","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Tacrolimus Ointment as a Hidden Source of Beeswax Exposure in Allergic Contact Dermatitis: Report of Two Cases","authors":"Antoine Badaoui","doi":"10.1111/cod.70230","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.70230","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"95 5","pages":"514-516"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148672996","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Gaultheria procumbens (Wintergreen) Essential Oil Mimicking Prosthesis-Related Dermatitis","authors":"Antoine Badaoui","doi":"10.1111/cod.70223","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.70223","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"95 5","pages":"506-507"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148548099","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reply to Formaldehyde Emissions From 2-Octyl Cyanoacrylate: Quantified Risk for Allergic Contact Dermatitis","authors":"Mehrdad Mark Mofid","doi":"10.1111/cod.70235","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.70235","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;We thank Tomaszewski and colleagues for their careful reading of our study [&lt;span&gt;1&lt;/span&gt;]. To clarify, our two independently prepared airborne replicates agree to within 10%, demonstrating reproducibility rather than population variability. The chamber values describe two-hour device emissions, so comparison with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) eight-hour limit is extrapolated. Humidity and equilibration time went unreported, though temperature and air exchange did not. Our scenarios assume emission does not decay, making the constant-flux case an upper bound. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1 μg/cm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; value is a precautionary screening benchmark, not a device acceptance criterion, and our study was never framed as an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 10993 biological evaluation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Three objections by Tomaszewski et al. are invalid. The first concerns benchmarks. The letter treats EPA and human elicitation data as a single comparator. The EPA figure is a precautionary benchmark, whereas Flyvholm et al. [&lt;span&gt;2&lt;/span&gt;] and Fischer et al. [&lt;span&gt;3&lt;/span&gt;] report observed elicitation doses from controlled dose–response studies in patch-test-confirmed formaldehyde-allergic patients. Both are peer-reviewed human dose–response studies, and Fischer et al. standardized the TRUE Test formaldehyde patch still used clinically. They are the appropriate comparator here.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The second concerns ventilation. The letter's comparators are the operating room, where ANSI/ASHRAE/ASHE Standard 170 [&lt;span&gt;4&lt;/span&gt;] requires at least 20 air changes per hour, and the recovery area. Dermabond Prineo remains on the skin for 7–14 days per its instructions for use, of which only a few hours fall in the operative and recovery period. The remainder is spent in domestic settings, where measured residential air exchange has a median near 0.7 air changes per hour, representative of our testing [&lt;span&gt;5&lt;/span&gt;].&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The third concerns hydrolysis. The letter treats the formaldehyde we measured as an artefact of the humidified chamber, assuming skin would not supply comparable moisture. Water both initiates polymerization and liberates formaldehyde from the cured polymer, a process Park et al. [&lt;span&gt;6&lt;/span&gt;] measured in vitro. A fresh incision beneath an occlusive film is supplied continuously with serous exudate, transepidermal water loss, and perspiration, so our chamber likely understated both the available water and the formaldehyde released.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Moving to clinical data, Richter et al. [&lt;span&gt;7&lt;/span&gt;] used a split-incision design to compare the mesh system and intradermal sutures in Prineo's initial trial. Equivalence was declared on wound approximation. There was no hypersensitivity endpoint, and the inflammatory response instrument scored erythema, edema, pain and temperature, with no vesicular component. Blistering was tabulated separately and only for the device arm: none at 24 h, two","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"95 5","pages":"528-529"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cod.70235","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148910886","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"From Music to Eczema: Dermatitis Caused by Para-Phenylenediamine in a Violinist","authors":"Nuria Piquer Prades,&nbsp;David Fabregat-Safont,&nbsp;María Mata-Pesquera,&nbsp;Alba Llorens López,&nbsp;Jose Antonio de Mateo Mínguez,&nbsp;Francisco Javier Miquel Miquel","doi":"10.1111/cod.70213","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.70213","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"95 5","pages":"501-503"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148396099","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Finger Allergic Contact Dermatitis by Proxy Induced by Feline Thiamazole Cream","authors":"Gabriela Blanchard,&nbsp;Ophélie Marchal,&nbsp;Olivier Sorg,&nbsp;Emmanuel Laffitte,&nbsp;Pierre Piletta-Zanin","doi":"10.1111/cod.70216","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.70216","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Thiamazole (also called methimazole, CAS no. 60-56-0) is a potent peroxidase inhibitor used to treat hyperthyroidism [&lt;span&gt;1&lt;/span&gt;]. Transdermal application of thiamazole has been used in hyperthyroid cats as an alternative to oral therapy [&lt;span&gt;2&lt;/span&gt;].&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;We present the case of a 50-year-old female who developed localised erythematous, scaly plaques with fissures on the right index and middle fingers, consistent with eczema (Figure 1A,B). No inflammatory lesions were present elsewhere on the body. The patient was right-handed. Further history revealed that, for the last 6 years, she had been using these fingers to apply a thiamazole-containing cream to the ears of her hyperthyroid cat. The cat did not exhibit any cutaneous signs suggestive of allergic contact dermatitis. A Repeated Open Application Test with the thiamazole-containing cream was positive (Figure 1C). Patch tests were performed using the European baseline, preservative and emulsifier series (supplied by Chemotechnique Diagnostics, Vellinge, Sweden) using IQ Ultra chambers (Chemotechnique Diagnostics) and the thiamazole-containing cream, including its individual ingredients, kindly provided by the manufacturer. Readings performed on Day (D) 2 and D4 according to the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group (ICDRG) criteria showed a single positive reaction to thiamazole (thiamazole pure and thiamazole 20% in petrolatum: D2++, D4+++; thiamazole 20% in alcohol: D2+, D4++) (Figure 1D). Five unexposed controls were negative to thiamazole 20% in petrolatum. Avoidance of direct contact with the thiamazole-containing cream with the application of topical clobetasol led to a rapid and complete clinical remission.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;To the best of our knowledge, we describe the first case of allergic contact dermatitis caused by thiamazole. In such cases, avoidance of thiamazole, as well as the remaining thionamide antithyroid drugs (thiamazole prodrug carbimazole and propylthiouracil), should be recommended due to potential class cross-reactivity and the risk of systemic contact dermatitis [&lt;span&gt;3&lt;/span&gt;]. Cases of thiamazole-induced vasculitis [&lt;span&gt;4&lt;/span&gt;], cutaneous lupus erythematosus [&lt;span&gt;5&lt;/span&gt;], erythema nodosum [&lt;span&gt;6&lt;/span&gt;] and maculopapular exanthema [&lt;span&gt;7&lt;/span&gt;] have been reported following systemic use of thiamazole. Topical thiamazole has been increasingly used not only in veterinary medicine, but also as an emerging depigmenting agent [&lt;span&gt;8, 9&lt;/span&gt;]. Allergic contact dermatitis by proxy, also known as consort or connubial allergic contact dermatitis, is an uncommon form of allergic contact dermatitis resulting from indirect exposure to an allergen carried by another individual [&lt;span&gt;10&lt;/span&gt;] or, rarely, by an animal. Pets may act as vectors for allergens such as plant resins, topical veterinary medications or grooming products. The use of protective gloves when applying topical medications to animals is recommended to minimize inadvertent allergen ","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"95 5","pages":"517-518"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cod.70216","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148618577","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Rouhani et al. ‘Formaldehyde Emissions From 2-Octyl Cyanoacrylate: Quantified Risk for Allergic Contact Dermatitis’","authors":"Jörg Tomaszewski,&nbsp;Monica Posgai,&nbsp;Julian Quintero","doi":"10.1111/cod.70236","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.70236","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;We read with interest the article by Rouhani et al. [&lt;span&gt;1&lt;/span&gt;] reporting formaldehyde emissions from 2-octyl-cyanoacrylate mesh based adhesive systems. While this work presents initial quantitative data, we believe that several methodological and interpretive limitations materially limit the relevance of the findings for clinical medical device safety assessment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;From a medical device toxicological perspective, the study design does not align with the principles of ISO 10993-1 risk based biological evaluation. The authors apply a microchamber method (ASTM D7706) as a surrogate for patient and healthcare provider exposure. However, this method is intended for comparative screening of volatile organic compounds from indoor products, not for quantifying clinically relevant dermal or inhalation exposure from externally applied medical devices. Although this distinction is critical, it remains insufficiently addressed when extrapolating laboratory outputs to clinical risk.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Formaldehyde emission estimates are derived from only two small area samples, without statistical characterization of variability or reproducibility, limiting confidence in both absolute values and downstream exposure modelling. Furthermore, hydrolysis was artificially initiated by a humidified chamber environment rather than the natural hydrolysis that may occur on human skin, introducing uncertainty regarding polymerization kinetics and degradation pathways that are not addressed in the manuscript.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The microchamber was operated at 1 air change per hour, a condition that does not reflect clinical environments such as operating rooms or recovery areas, where substantially higher ventilation rates are standard. No effort was made to model clinically relevant ventilation conditions. Consequently, the reported airborne concentrations cannot be considered representative of realistic patient or provider exposure. Nevertheless, these values are compared directly with occupational or health protective benchmarks, without adequate discussion of the disconnect between static laboratory conditions and dynamic clinical and post-clinical settings.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Equally important, the dermal exposure evaluation relies on benchmarks that are not intended as device safety limits. The EPA 1 μg/cm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; ‘health-protective’ value used as a comparator is a conservative screening benchmark derived from occluded patch-test data in formaldehyde-sensitized individuals, incorporating precautionary uncertainty factors. Comparisons to occupational exposure limits are made without time-weighting, breathing-zone modelling, or adjustment for clinical ventilation, potentially overstating inhalation relevance. These are not regulatory acceptance criteria for medical devices and are not used by the FDA as stand-alone determinants of safety. Under ISO 10993-17 and FDA toxicological risk-assessment frameworks, such screening values must be interpreted in the context of dose magnitude, durati","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"95 5","pages":"526-527"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cod.70236","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148910849","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Post-Occlusion Application of Skin Protective Creams Does Not Affect Occlusion-Induced Barrier Changes: A Randomized Controlled Experimental Study","authors":"Michal Gina,&nbsp;Katharina Wichert,&nbsp;Thomas Behrens,&nbsp;Thomas Brüning,&nbsp;Julia Krabbe","doi":"10.1111/cod.70220","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.70220","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Glove occlusion increases skin susceptibility to irritants (‘occlusion effect’). Previous experimental data showed that applying protective creams (PCs) before glove occlusion does not prevent this effect and may even aggravate irritant responses.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To assess whether the application of PCs after glove occlusion modifies the occlusion effect.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In a randomized, single-blind (participants were blinded) study, 68 healthy volunteers were examined over 10 days. Two commercially available PCs (A, B) and one standardized model cream (C) were applied after occlusion for over 4 h to defined forearm sites. On day 8, sites were exposed to 0.5% sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS) for 24 h to evaluate skin irritation susceptibility. Additional conditions included (I) daily application of cream C without occlusion until day 7 or (II) until Day 8, with the final application 10 min before SLS exposure. Skin responses were assessed by TEWL, corneometry, colourimetry and clinical scoring. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare control areas to sides after PC application.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Post-occlusion application of the PCs did not demonstrate a consistent protective effect. Cream A slightly reduced SLS-induced TEWL (10.88 g/m²/h after application following glove use vs. 12.13 g/m²/h without application; adjusted <i>p</i> &gt; 0.05), whereas cream B increased TEWL (13.44 vs. 12.42 g/m²/h; adjusted <i>p</i> &gt; 0.05). Cream C showed no significant effect on TEWL (11.99 vs. 12.38 g/m²/h; <i>p</i> &gt; 0.05). In contrast, application of cream C shortly before SLS exposure in the absence of occlusion (condition II) significantly reduced TEWL (7.09 vs. 12.38 g/m²/h; adjusted <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001) and erythema. However, earlier application (condition I) did not yield a protective effect (11.92 vs. 12.38 g/m²/h).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In the majority of study scenarios, application of PCs after glove occlusion did not have a clinically relevant positive effect on the skin responses studied. Protective efficacy probably depends on formulation and timing, underscoring the need for evidence-based recommendations.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"95 5","pages":"437-449"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cod.70220","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148454821","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}