Journals / Türkderm-Deri Hastalıkları ve Frengi Arşivi / 2010 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 4

Patch test results with standard and cosmetic series in patients with suspected cosmetic-induced contact dermatitis

Kozmetiklere bağlı kontakt dermatit şüpheli olgularda standart ve kozmetik seri yama testi sonuçları

Pages
193–199
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Patch testing with cosmetic series beside standard series would be more helpful in detecting the responsible allergen(s).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background and Design: Our aim was to evaluate the hypersensitivity to cosmetic chemicals in patients with clinically suspected cosmetic-induced contact dermatitis in Bursa and the South Marmara Region (Turkey) by patch testing with standard and cosmetic series.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The patch test results were analyzed as percentages. x2 test was used to demonstrate the relationship between cosmetic products and cosmetic allergens.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Patch testing with cosmetic series beside standard series would be more helpful in detecting the responsible allergen(s).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background and Design: Our aim was to evaluate the hypersensitivity to cosmetic chemicals in patients with clinically suspected cosmetic-induced contact dermatitis in Bursa and the South Marmara Region (Turkey) by patch testing with standard and cosmetic series. Material and Method: Seventy-three patients with clinically suspected contact dermatitis due to cosmetics were patch tested by the European standard series and cosmetic series. The patch test results were analyzed as percentages. x2 test was used to demonstrate the relationship between cosmetic products and cosmetic allergens. Results: 90.4% of patients in our study group were female and 9.6% were male; the median age was 37.5 (range 16-71) years. The most commonly involved parts of the body were the face (49.3%), hands (16.4%), periocular region (6.8%), lips (6.8%), and the neck (5.5%). The most common offending cosmetic products causing allergic contact dermatitis were soaps and cleansing lotions (32.8%), moisturizer creams (21.9%), make-up (15.0%), and hair dyes (9.6%). 41.0% of patients showed positive reaction to at least one cosmetic allergen included in either standard or cosmetic series. The cosmetic allergens in the standard series and the rates of positivity were as follows: fragrance mix (6.8%), lanolin alcohols (5.5%), paraphenylenedaimine (2.7%), colophony (1.4%), paraben mix (1.4%), formaldehyde (1.4%), and methylchloroisothiazolinone (Kathon CG) in descending order. The most common offending cosmetic allergen groups were preservatives (21.9%), antioxidants (8.2%) and fragrances (6.8%). Conclusion: Allergic or irritant contact dermatitis due to cosmetics should be considered in cases of eczema involving face, neck, eyelids, lips, scalp or hands. Patch testing with cosmetic series beside standard series would be more helpful in detecting the responsible allergen(s).

Özet

Amaç: Bursa ve Güney Marmara Bölgesi’nde kozmetiklere bağlı kontakt dermatitten kuşkulanılan olgularda kozmetik kimyasallara karşı hassasiyeti Avrupa standart yama testi (ASYT) ve kozmetik seri yama testi (KSYT) sonuçları ile değerlendirmek. Gereç ve Yöntem: Kozmetik kullanımına bağlı kontakt dermatit şüphesi olan 73 hastaya ASYT ve KSYT yapıldı. Yama testi sonuçları yüzdelik olarak analiz edildi. Kozmetik ürünler ile kozmetik alerjenlerin ilişkisini göstermek için x2 testi kullanıldı. Bulgular: Çalışmaya alınan hastaların %90,4’ü kadın, %9,6’sı erkek; yaş ortalaması 37,5 (16-71) idi. Alerjik kontakt dermatitin (AKD) en sık yerleşim yerleri yüz (%49,3), el (%16,4), göz çevresi (%6,8), dudak (%6,8) ve boyun (%5,5) idi. Bu bölgelerde gelişen AKD’lere en sık neden olan kozmetik ürünler ise sabunlar ve temizleyici tonikler (%32,8), nemlendiriciler (%21,9), makyaj malzemeleri (%15,0) ve saç boyaları (%9,6) idi. Hastaların %41,0’inde standart veya kozmetik seriye ait en az bir kozmetik alerjen ile yama testi pozitifliği saptandı. ASYT serisinin kozmetiklerle ilişkili maddeleri ve bunlarla görülen pozitiflik oranları sırasıyla: fragrans miks (%6,8), lanolin (%5,5), fenilendiamin (%2,7), kolofoni (%1,4), paraben miks (%1,4), formaldehit (%1,4) ve metilkloroizotiazolinon (Kathon CG) (%1,4) idi. KSYT alerjenlerinden en sık pozitiflik saptanan alerjenler ise lanolin (%5,5), oktil gallat (%5,5), metildibromoglutaronitril/ pentoksietanol (%5,5), timerosal (%4,1), kokamidopropil betain (%4,1) ve tert-bütilhidrokinon (%4,1) idi. En sık yama testi pozitifliği saptanan kozmetik alerjen grupları koruyucular (%21,9), antioksidanlar (%8,2) ve kokular (%6,8) oldu. Sonuç: Yüz, boyun, göz kapakları, dudaklar, saçlı deri ve ellerde yerleşen egzema olgularında kozmetiklere bağlı alerjik veya iritan kontakt dermatitler düşünülmelidir. ASYT’ye ek olarak KSYT yapmak sorumlu alerjenlerin ortaya çıkarılmasında daha yararlı olabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

HACIOĞLU, Ş., TUNALI, Ş., BAŞKAN, E. B., SARICAOĞLU, H. (2022). Patch test results with standard and cosmetic series in patients with suspected cosmetic-induced contact dermatitis. Türkderm-Deri Hastalıkları ve Frengi Arşivi, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 4, 193–199. https://ajindex.com/articles/622045

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Emmons WW, Marks JG Jr: Immediate and delayed reactions to cosmetic ingredients. Contact Dermatitis 1985;13:258-65
  2. Biebl K, Warshaw EM: Allergic contact dermatitis to cosmetics. Dermatol Clin 2006;24:215-32
  3. Kohl L, Blondeel A, Song M: Allergic Contact Dermatitis from Cosmetics Retropspective analysis of 819 patch tested patients. Dermatology 2002;204:334-7
  4. Warshaw EM, Buchholz HJ, Belsito DV et al: Allergic patch test reactions associated with cosmetics: retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2001- 2004. J Am Acad Dermatol 2009;60:23-38
  5. Orton D. I., Wilkinson J. D., Cosmetic Allergy. Incidance, diagnosis and mangement. Am J Clin Dermatol 2004;5:327-37
  6. Vázquez MG, Fernández-Redondo V, Toribio J: Allergic contact eczema/ dermatitis from cosmetics. Allergy 2002;57: 268-9
  7. Hillenbrand E A, Bayazıt E Ö: Patch test results in 542 patients with suspected contact dermatitis in Turkey. Contact Dermatitis, 2002;46:17-23
  8. Su O, Onsun N, Ozkaya DB, Arda H, Kural YB, Atılganoğlu U: Alerjik Kontakt Dermatit / Mukoziti Olan Hastaların Yama Testi Sonuçları. Türkderm 2008;42:13-7
  9. Akyol A, Boyvat A, Peksari Y, Gürgey E: Contact sensitivity to standart series allergens in 1038 patients with Contact Dermatitis in Turkey 2005;52:333-7
  10. Bangha E, Elsner P: Sensitization to allergens of the European standard series at the Department of Dermatology in Zurich (1990–94). Dermatology 1996:193:17-21
  11. Marks J G Jr, Belsito D V, DeLeo V A et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1998–2000. Am J Contact Dermat 2003: 14: 59-62
  12. Tunalı fi,Acar A, Sarıcaoğlu H, Palalı Z, Tokgöz N, Kontakt Dermatitli 400 hastada yama testi sonuçları, T Klin Dermatoloji.1995;5:71-7
  13. A. Nath & D. Mohan Thappa: Patch Testing In Cosmetic Dermatoses: A Report From South India. The Internet Journal of Dermatology. 2007 Volume 5 Number 1
  14. Eiermann HJ, Larsen W, Maibach HI, Taylor JS. Prospective study of cosmetic reactions: 1977-1980. J Am Acad Dermatol 1982;6:909-17
  15. Adams RM, Maibach HI. A five-year study of cosmetic reactions. J Am Acad Dermatol 1985;13:1062-9
  16. Wilkinson J D, Shaw S, Andersen KE: Monitoring levels of preservative sensitivity in Europe: a 10 year overview ( 1992- 2001). Contact Dermatitis 2002;46:207-210
  17. Strauss R M, Orton D I.: Allergic contact keilitis in the UK: a retrospective analysis Am J Contc Der