Developing a cosmetic series: Results from the ESSCA network, 2009-2018.
Allergens
/ administration & dosage
Anti-Infective Agents, Local
/ administration & dosage
Antioxidants
/ administration & dosage
Cosmetics
/ adverse effects
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact
/ diagnosis
Emollients
/ administration & dosage
Emulsifying Agents
/ administration & dosage
Europe
/ epidemiology
Humans
Patch Tests
/ methods
Population Surveillance
Preservatives, Pharmaceutical
/ administration & dosage
Prevalence
Europe
antioxidant
antiseptic
contact allergy
cosmetic
emollient
emulsifier
patch testing
preservative
surfactant
Journal
Contact dermatitis
ISSN: 1600-0536
Titre abrégé: Contact Dermatitis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7604950
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2021
Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
01
05
2020
revised:
24
07
2020
accepted:
18
08
2020
pubmed:
28
8
2020
medline:
14
9
2021
entrez:
27
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is considerable variability across European patch test centres as to which allergens are included in local and national cosmetics series. To propose a standardized, evidence-based cosmetic series for Europe based on up-to-date analysis of relevant contact allergens. We collated data from the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA) from 2009 to 2018 to determine which cosmetic allergens produce a high yield of contact allergy. Contact allergens with a prevalence of >0.3% that were considered relevant were included. Rare contact allergens were excluded if deemed no longer relevant or added to a supplemental cosmetic series for further analysis. Sensitization prevalences of 39 cosmetic contact allergens were tabulated. Thirty of these allergens yielded >0.3% positive reactions and are therefore included in our proposed European cosmetic series. Six were considered no longer relevant and therefore excluded. Three were included in a supplementary European cosmetic series. An additional nine allergens were included in either the core or supplemental European cosmetic series following literature review. We have derived a potential European cosmetic series based upon the above methods. This will require ongoing investigation based upon the changing exposure profiles of cosmetic allergens as well as new and evolving substances.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There is considerable variability across European patch test centres as to which allergens are included in local and national cosmetics series.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To propose a standardized, evidence-based cosmetic series for Europe based on up-to-date analysis of relevant contact allergens.
METHODS
METHODS
We collated data from the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA) from 2009 to 2018 to determine which cosmetic allergens produce a high yield of contact allergy. Contact allergens with a prevalence of >0.3% that were considered relevant were included. Rare contact allergens were excluded if deemed no longer relevant or added to a supplemental cosmetic series for further analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Sensitization prevalences of 39 cosmetic contact allergens were tabulated. Thirty of these allergens yielded >0.3% positive reactions and are therefore included in our proposed European cosmetic series. Six were considered no longer relevant and therefore excluded. Three were included in a supplementary European cosmetic series. An additional nine allergens were included in either the core or supplemental European cosmetic series following literature review.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
We have derived a potential European cosmetic series based upon the above methods. This will require ongoing investigation based upon the changing exposure profiles of cosmetic allergens as well as new and evolving substances.
Substances chimiques
Allergens
0
Anti-Infective Agents, Local
0
Antioxidants
0
Cosmetics
0
Emollients
0
Emulsifying Agents
0
Preservatives, Pharmaceutical
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
82-94Informations de copyright
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S . Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Zirwas MJ. Contact dermatitis to cosmetics. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2019;56(1):119-128.
Misery L, Weisshaar E, Brenaut E, et al. Pathophysiology and management of sensitive skin: position paper from the special interest group on sensitive skin of the International Forum for the Study of Itch (IFSI). J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(2):222-229.
Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, et al. National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Population-adjusted frequencies of sensitization (PAFS) in 40,000 patients from a multicenter study (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis. 1997;37(5):200-209.
Uter W, Warburton K, Weisshaar E, et al. Patch test results with rubber series in the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA), 2013/14. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;75(6):345-352.
Warburton KL, Uter W, Geier J, et al. Patch testing with rubber series in Europe: a critical review and recommendation. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;76(4):195-203.
Horton E, Wilkinson M, Aalto-Korte K, et al. A survey of members of ESSCA and COST TD1206 to identify allergens tested in cosmetic series across Europe. Contact Dermatitis. 2020;82(3):195-200.
Owen E, Chowdhury MMU. The cosmetic series 8 years' review: what's in, what's out? Contact Dermatitis. 2016;79(suppl 1):92.
Wilkinson M, Gonçalo M, Aerts O, et al. The European baseline series and recommended additions: 2019. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80(1):1-4.
Uter W, Schnuch A, Wilkinson M, Dugonik A, Dugonik B, Ganslandt T. Registries in clinical epidemiology: the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA). Methods Inf Med. 2016;55(2):193-199.
Uter W, Arnold R, Wilkinson J, et al. A multilingual European patch test software concept: WinAlldat/ESSCA. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;49(5):270-271.
Gefeller O, Pfahlberg AB, Uter W. What can be learnt from nothing? - a statistical perspective. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69(6):350-354.
Bennike NH, Zachariae C, Johansen JD. Non-mix fragrances are top sensitizers in consecutive dermatitis patients - a cross-sectional study of the 26 EU-labelled fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;77(5):270-279.
Uter W, Bensefa-Colas L, Frosch P, et al. Patch testing with hair cosmetic series in Europe: a critical review and recommendation. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73(2):69-81.
Kerr AC, Ferguson J, Haylett AK, et al. A European multicentre photopatch test study. Br J Dermatol. 2012;166(5):1002-1009.
Bruze M, Condé-Salazar L, Goossens A, Kanerva L, White IR. Thoughts on sensitizers in a standard patch test series. The European Society of Contact Dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;41(5):241-250.
Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Geier J, Uter W. Contact allergy to preservatives. Analysis of IVDK data 1996-2009. Br J Dermatol. 2011;164(6):1316-1325.
Perez A, Basketter DA, White I, McFadden J. Positive rates to propyl gallate on patch testing: a change in trend. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;58(1):47-48.
Ito K, Fujimura N, Uchida T, Ikezawa Z, Aihara M. Contact dermatitis with systemic reactions caused by cetearyl isononanoate. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69(5):315-316.
Bhoyrul B, Solman L, Kirk S, Orton D, Wilkinson M. Patch testing with alkyl glucosides: concomitant reactions are common but not ubiquitous. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80(5):286-290.
Rajan JP, Cornell R, White AA. A case of systemic contact dermatitis secondary to edetate disodium. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2015;3(4):607-608.
Sánchez-Pedreño P, García-Bravo B, Frías-Iniesta J. Contact allergy to tetrasodium EDTA in a sunscreen. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;61(2):125-126.
Pruitt C, Warshaw EM. Allergic contact dermatitis from ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid. Dermatitis. 2010;21(2):121-122.
Raymond JZ, Gross PR. EDTA: preservative dermatitis. Arch Dermatol. 1969;100(4):436-440.
Soga F, Izawa K, Inoue T, Katoh N, Kishimoto S. Contact dermatitis due to disodium ethylenediamine- tetraacetic acid in cosmetics and shampoo. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;49(2):105.
Kimura M, Kawada A. Contact dermatitis due to trisodium ethylenediaminetetra-acetic acid (EDTA) in a cosmetic lotion. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;41(6):341.
Flyvholm MA, Menné T. Sensitizing risk of butylated hydroxytoluene based on exposure and effect data. Contact Dermatitis. 1990;23(5):341-345.
Le Coz CJ, Schneider GA. Contact dermatitis from tertiary-butylhydroquinone in a hair dye, with cross-sensitivity to BHA and BHT. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;39(1):39-40.
Adams AK, Connolly SM. Allergic contact dermatitis from vitamin E: the experience at Mayo Clinic Arizona, 1987 to 2007. Dermatitis. 2010;21(4):199-202.
Oleffe JA, Blondeel A, de Coninck A. Allergy to chlorocresol and propylene glycol in a steroid cream. Contact Dermatitis. 1979;5(1):53-54.
Lewis PG, Emmett EA. Irritant dermatitis from tri-butyl tin oxide and contact allergy from chlorocresol. Contact Dermatitis. 1987;17(3):129-132.
Hancock BW, Naysmith A. Hypersensitivity to chlorocresol-preserved heparin. Br Med J. 1975;3(5986):746-747.
Freitas JP, Brandão FM. Contact urticaria to chlorocresol. Contact Dermatitis. 1986;15(4):252.
Walker SL, Chalmers RJ, Beck MH. Contact urticaria due to p-chloro-m-cresol. Br J Dermatol. 2004;151(4):936-937.
Mehrtens SH, Reckling C. Contact urticaria with anaphylaxis caused by chlorocresol, chloroxylenol, and thiourea. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80(5):311-313.
Aerts O, Naessens T, Dandelooy J, Leysen J, Lambert J, Apers S. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by wet wipes containing steareth-10: is stearyl alcohol to blame? Contact Dermatitis. 2017;77(2):117-119.
Yesudian PD, King CM. Allergic contact dermatitis from stearyl alcohol in Efudix cream. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;45(5):313-314.
Oscoz-Jaime S, Hervella-Garcés M, de Espronceda-Ezquerro IM, Yanguas-Bayona JI. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by sodium cetearyl sulfate. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78(6):426-427.
Aakhus AE, Warshaw EM. Allergic contact dermatitis from cetyl alcohol. Dermatitis. 2011;22(1):56-57.
Kieć-Świerczyńska M, Kręcisz B, Świerczyńska-Machura D. Photoallergic and allergic reaction to 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone (sunscreen) and allergy to cetyl alcohol in cosmetic cream. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;53(3):170-171.
Soga F, Katoh N, Kishimoto S. Contact dermatitis due to lanoconazole, cetyl alcohol and diethyl sebacate in lanoconazole cream. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;50(1):49-50.
Oiso N, Fukai K, Ishii M. Concomitant allergic reaction to cetyl alcohol and crotamiton. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;49(5):261.
Knijp J, Bruynzeel DP, Rustemeyer T. Diagnosing lanolin contact allergy with lanolin alcohol and Amerchol L101. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80(5):298-303.
Clerens I, Goossens A. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by panthenol: a rare but relevant sensitizer. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;76(2):122-123.
Bregnbak D, Johansen JD, Zachariae C. Contact dermatitis caused by panthenol used for aftercare treatment of a new tattoo. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;75(1):50-52.
Chin MF, Hughes TM, Stone NM. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by panthenol in a child. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69(5):321-322.
Fernandes S, Macias V, Cravo M, Amaro C, Santos R, Cardoso J. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by dexpanthenol: report of two cases. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66(3):160-161.
Roberts H, Williams J, Tate B. Allergic contact dermatitis to panthenol and cocamidopropyl PG dimonium chloride phosphate in a facial hydrating lotion. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;55(6):369-370.
Stables GI, Wilkinson SM. Allergic contact dermatitis due to panthenol. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;38(4):236-237.
Fernandes RA, Santiago L, Gouveia M, Gonçalo M. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by dexpanthenol-probably a frequent allergen. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;79(5):276-280.
Coors EA, Seybold H, Merk HF, Mahler V. Polysorbate 80 in medical products and nonimmunologic anaphylactoid reactions. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2005;95(6):593-599.
Lessmann H, Uter W, Schnuch A, Geier J. Skin sensitizing properties of the ethanolamines mono-, di-, and triethanolamine. Data analysis of a multicentre surveillance network (IVDK) and review of the literature. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60(5):243-255.
Chu CY, Sun CC. Allergic contact dermatitis from triethanolamine in a sunscreen. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;44(1):41-42.
Schmutz JL, Barbaud A, Tréchot P. [Contact allergy to triethanolamine in ear drops and shampoo]. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2007;134(1):105.
Mahler V, Dickel H. Wichtigste Kontaktallergene beim Handekzem. Hautarzt. 2019;70(10):778-789.
Geier J, Weisshaar E, Lessmann H, et al. Bewertung von Epikutantestreaktionen auf "Problemallergene" mit vermehrt fraglichen oder schwach positiven Reaktionen. Dermatol Beruf Umwelt. 2010;58(01):34-38.
The European Multicentre Photopatch Test Study (EMCPPTS) Taskforce, Photopatch testing: recommendations for a European photopatch test baseline series. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68(4):239-243.
Gonçalo M, Ferguson J, Bonevalle A, et al. Photopatch testing: recommendations for a European photopatch test baseline series. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68(4):239-243.
Andrade P, Gonçalo M, Figueiredo A. Allergic contact dermatitis to decyl glucoside in Tinosorb M. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;62(2):119-120.
Rolls S, Owen E, Bertram CG, et al. What's in? What's out? Updating the British Society for Cutaneous Allergy Facial Series. Br J Dermatol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.19127. Online ahead of print.
Uter W, Gefeller O, John SM, Schnuch A, Geier J. Contact allergy to ingredients of hair cosmetics - a comparison of female hairdressers and clients based on IVDK 2007-2012 data. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;71(1):13-20.
Gonçalo M, Pinho A, Agner T, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by nail acrylates in Europe. An EECDRG study. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78(4):254-260.
Militello G. Contact and primary irritant dermatitis of the nail unit diagnosis and treatment. Dermatol Ther. 2007;20(1):47-53.
Orton DI, Wilkinson JD. Cosmetic allergy: incidence, diagnosis, and management. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2004;5(5):327-337.
Lazzarini R, Duarte I, de Farias DC, Santos CA, Tsai AI. Frequency and main sites of allergic contact dermatitis caused by nail varnish. Dermatitis. 2008;19(6):319-322.
Moffitt DL, Sansom JE. Allergic contact dermatitis from phthalic anhydride/trimellitic anhydride/glycols copolymer in nail varnish. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;46(4):236.
Gach JE, Stone NM, Finch TM. A series of four cases of allergic contact dermatitis to phthalic anhydride/trimellitic anhydride/glycols copolymer in nail varnish. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;53(1):63-64.
le Coz CJ, Nassif A, Collet E. Allergy to phthalic anhydride/ trimellitic anhydride/glycols copolymer in nail varnishes. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;50(3)::169.
Quartier S, Garmyn M, Becart S, Goossens A. Allergic contact dermatitis to copolymers in cosmetics - case report and review of the literature. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;55(5):257-267.
Eleftheriadou V, Roche L, Bourke JF, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis to non-methacrylate nail allergens in the UK. Br J Dermatol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.19116. Online ahead of print.
Sasseville D, Stanciu M. Allergic contact dermatitis to ethylhexylglycerin in a cream. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;57(3):193-194.
Sasseville D, Stanciu M. Allergic contact dermatitis from ethylhexylglycerin in sunscreens. Dermatitis. 2014;25(1):42-43.
Andersen KE. Ethylhexylglycerin - a contact allergen in cosmetic products. Dermatitis. 2012;23(6):291.