Patch Testing to Methyldibromoglutaronitrile/Phenoxyethanol: North American Contact Dermatitis Group Experience, 1994-2018.
Journal
Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug
ISSN: 2162-5220
Titre abrégé: Dermatitis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101207335
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
pubmed:
7
3
2021
medline:
21
1
2022
entrez:
6
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Methyldibromoglutaronitrile/phenoxyethanol (MDBGN/PE) is a broad-spectrum preservative mixture used in consumer and industrial products. The aims of the study were (1) to characterize the prevalence and clinical relevance of patch test reactions to MDBGN/PE and the epidemiology of positive patients and (2) to determine the frequency of concomitant reactions of MDBGN/PE and its components. This study used a retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data compiled by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group from 1994 to 2018. Of 55,477 tested patients, 2674 (4.8%) had positive patch test reactions to MDBGN/PE (1.0%-2.5% petrolatum [pet]); most were + (63.3%) or ++ (22.3%). Clinical relevance was considered definite in 3.0% and probable in 19.3% of reactions. Common dermatitis sites included the hands (26.4%), scattered/generalized distribution (24.7%), and the face (18.3%). Patients with a positive reaction to MDBGN/PE and/or MDBGN and/or PE were significantly more likely to be male and older than 40 years and/or had hand dermatitis (P ≤ 0.0033). Positivity to MDBGN/PE 2.0% pet decreased significantly over time (from 6.0% in 1998-2000 to 2.5% in 2017-2018, P < 0.0001). Personal care products were the most common exposure source (53.2%). Over time, positivity to MDBGN/PE 2.0% pet decreased significantly from 6.0% (in 1998-2000) to 2.5% (in 2017-2018). The high proportion of weak (63.3%) reactions underscore the need for careful interpretation of patch test sites. Important demographic associations included male sex and age older than 40 years.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Methyldibromoglutaronitrile/phenoxyethanol (MDBGN/PE) is a broad-spectrum preservative mixture used in consumer and industrial products.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
The aims of the study were (1) to characterize the prevalence and clinical relevance of patch test reactions to MDBGN/PE and the epidemiology of positive patients and (2) to determine the frequency of concomitant reactions of MDBGN/PE and its components.
METHODS
METHODS
This study used a retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data compiled by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group from 1994 to 2018.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 55,477 tested patients, 2674 (4.8%) had positive patch test reactions to MDBGN/PE (1.0%-2.5% petrolatum [pet]); most were + (63.3%) or ++ (22.3%). Clinical relevance was considered definite in 3.0% and probable in 19.3% of reactions. Common dermatitis sites included the hands (26.4%), scattered/generalized distribution (24.7%), and the face (18.3%). Patients with a positive reaction to MDBGN/PE and/or MDBGN and/or PE were significantly more likely to be male and older than 40 years and/or had hand dermatitis (P ≤ 0.0033). Positivity to MDBGN/PE 2.0% pet decreased significantly over time (from 6.0% in 1998-2000 to 2.5% in 2017-2018, P < 0.0001). Personal care products were the most common exposure source (53.2%).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Over time, positivity to MDBGN/PE 2.0% pet decreased significantly from 6.0% (in 1998-2000) to 2.5% (in 2017-2018). The high proportion of weak (63.3%) reactions underscore the need for careful interpretation of patch test sites. Important demographic associations included male sex and age older than 40 years.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33675328
doi: 10.1097/DER.0000000000000732
pii: 01206501-900000000-99496
doi:
Substances chimiques
Ethylene Glycols
0
Nitriles
0
phenoxyethanol
HIE492ZZ3T
1,2-dibromo-2,4-dicyanobutane
YX089CPS05
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
256-266Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 American Contact Dermatitis Society. All Rights Reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
A.R.A. received a grant from Pfizer Independent Grant for Learning & Change and has consulted for Henkel. J.S.T. owns noncontrolling shares of stock in AstraZeneca, Cigna, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, and Opko Health. He has consulted for Kao Brands and Monsanto (Bayer), is a member of the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Steering Committee, and has a nondependent child employed by Pfizer. E.M.W. has received an investigator-initiated grant from and served as a consultant for Wen by Chaz Dean. She has also served as a consultant for Noven Pharmaceuticals. D.S. receives royalties from UpToDate (Wolters Kluwer Health). The other authors have no funding or conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
De Groot AC, Van Ginkel CJW, Weijland JW. Methyldibromoglutaronitrile (Euxyl K 400): an important “new” allergen in cosmetics. J Am Acad Dermatol 1996;35(5):743–747.
Aakhus AE, Warshaw EM. Allergy to methyldibromoglutaronitrile/phenoxyethanol (Euxyl K 400): regulatory issues, epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and management. Dermatitis 2011;22(3):127–140.
Bruze M, Gruvberger B, Agrup G. Sensitization studies in the guinea pig with the active ingredients of Euxyl® K 400. Contact Dermatitis 1988;18:37–39.
Ramlogan D, Basketter DA, Beck MH. Methyldibromoglutaronitrile: an increasingly important allergen in the UK. Exogenous Dermatol 2003;2(4):184–189.
Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (SCCP): methyldibromoglutaronitrile (sensitisation only). SCCP/0863/05. Adopted by SCCP during 3rd plenary meeting; 2005. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_sccp/docs/sccp_o_00f.pdf. Accessed November 18, 2020.
Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel. Final report on the safety assessment of methyldibromo gluatronitrile. J Am Coll Toxicol 1996;15:140–165.
Senff H, Exner M, Gortz J, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from Euxyl K 400. Contact Dermatitis 1989;20:381–382.
Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, et al. Patch testing with preservatives, antimicrobials and industrial biocides. Results from a multicentre study. Br J Dermatol 1998;138(3):467–476.
Wilkinson JD, Shaw S, Andersen KE, et al. Monitoring levels of preservative sensitivity in Europe. A 10-year overview (1991–2000). Contact Dermatitis 2002;46(4):207–210.
Uter W, Rämsch C, Aberer W, et al. The European baseline series in 10 European countries, 2005/2006—results of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA). Contact Dermatitis 2009;61(1):31–38.
Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Geier J, et al. Contact allergy to preservatives. Analysis of IVDK data 1996–2009. Br J Dermatol 2011;164(6):1316–1325.
Wentworth AB, Yiannias JA, Keeling JH, et al. Trends in patch-test results and allergen changes in the standard series: a Mayo Clinic 5-year retrospective review (January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2010). J Am Acad Dermatol 2014;70(2):269–275.
Cheng S, Leow YH, Goh CL, et al. Contact sensitivity to preservatives in Singapore: frequency of sensitization to 11 common preservatives 2006–2011. Dermatitis 2014;25(2):77–82.
Toholka R, Wang YS, Tate B, et al. The first Australian baseline series: recommendations for patch testing in suspected contact dermatitis. Australas J Dermatol 2015;56(2):107–115.
Giménez-Arnau AM, Deza G, Bauer A, et al. Contact allergy to preservatives: ESSCA* results with the baseline series, 2009–2012. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2017;31(4):664–671.
Uter W, Amario-Hita JC, Balato A, et al. European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA): results with the European baseline series, 2013/14. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2017;31(9):1516–1525.
Veverka KK, Hall MR, Yiannias JA, et al. Trends in patch testing with the Mayo Clinic Standard Series, 2011–2015. Dermatitis 2018;29(6):310–315.
Kreft B, Geier J. Preservative allergy: an enduring issue [in German]. Hautarzt 2020;71(3):190–196.
DeKoven J, Warshaw E, Zug K, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2015–2016. Dermatitis 2018;29(6):297–309.
Javvaji S, Belsito DV. Patch testing with methyldibromoglutaronitrile in a localized population in the United States. Dermatitis 2010;21(6):321–326.
Uter W, Schnuch A, Gefeller O, et al. Guidelines for the descriptive presentation and statistical analysis of contact allergy data. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51(2):47–56.
Maouad M, Fleischer AB Jr., Sherertz EF, et al. Significance-prevalence index number: a reinterpretation and enhancement of data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group. J Am Acad Dermatol 1999;41(4):573–576.
Tosti A, Vincenzi C. Euxyl K 400: incidence of sensitization, patch test concentration and vehicle. Contact Dermatitis 1995;33:193–195.
Jackson JM, Fowler JF. Methyldibromoglutaronitrile (Euxyl K400): a new and important sensitizer in the United States? J Am Acad Dermatol 1998;38:934–937.
Gruvberger B, Andersen KE, Brandao FM, et al. Patch testing with methyldibromo glutaronitrile, a multicentre study within the EECDRG. Contact Dermatitis 2005;52:14–18.
Johansen JD, Veien N, Laurberg G, et al. Decreasing trends in methyldibromo glutaronitrile contact allergy—following regulatory intervention. Contact Dermatitis 2008;59:48–51.
Filon FL, Bongiorni L, Prodi A, et al. Effectiveness of European regulation on Euxyl K400 sensitization in Northeastern Italy from 1996 to 2012 and occupation. Dermatitis 2017;28(5):327–328.
Thyssen JP, Engkilde K, Lundov MD, et al. Temporal trends of preservative allergy in Denmark (1985–2008). Contact Dermatitis 2010;62:102–108.
Fuchs T, Enders F, Przybilla B, et al. Contact allergy to Euxyl K 400. Dermatosen 1991;39:151–153.
Maoua M, Aroui H, Kacem I, et al. Contact dermatitis to methyldibromoglutaronitrile: emergence of sensitization in the central region of Tunisia. Euro Mediterr Biomed J 2018;13(15):73–77.
Boonstra MB, Christoffers WA, Coenraads PJ, et al. Patch test results of hand eczema patients: relation to clinical types. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2015;29:940–947.
Pesonen M, Jolanki R, Larese F, et al. Patch test results of the European baseline series among patients with occupational contact dermatitis across Europe—analyses of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergy Network, 2002–2010. Contact Dermatitis 2015;72(3):154–163.
Warshaw EM, Ahmed RL, Belsito DV, et al. Contact dermatitis of the hands: cross-sectional analyses of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1994–2004. J Am Acad Dermatol 2007;57:301–314.
Geier J, Uter W, Lessmann H, et al. The positivity ratio—another parameter to assess the diagnostic quality of a patch test preparation. Contact Dermatitis 2003;48(5):280–282.
Brasch J, Henseler T. The reaction index: a parameter to assess the quality of patch test preparations. Contact Dermatitis 1992;27(3):203–204.
Gruvberger B, Andersen KE, Brandao FM, et al. Repeated open application test with methyldibromo glutaronitrile, a multicentre study within the EECDRG. Contact Dermatitis 2005;52:19–23.
Isaksson M, Gruvberger B, Bruze M. Repeated open application tests with methyldibromoglutaronitrile in dermatitis patients with and without hypersensitivity to methyldibromoglutaronitrile. Dermatitis 2007;18:203–207.
Schnuch A, Kelterer D, Bauer A, et al. Quantitative patch and repeated open application testing in methyldibromo glutaronitrile–sensitive patients. Contact Dermatitis 2005;52:197–206.
Schnuch A, Schubert S, Geier J. Clinicians vs. epidemiologists: patch testing with methyldibromo glutaronitrile as a controversial issue. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2019;33:e242–e244.
Burnett C. Methyldibromo glutaronitrile. Int J Toxicol 2017;36(2):39S–41S.
US National Institutes of Health Consumer Product Information Database [online database]. Available at: https://www.whatsinproducts.com/chemicals/view/1/963/035691-65-7. Accessed November 18, 2020.
EWG's Skin Deep® database [online database]. Available at: http://www.ewg.org/skindeep. Accessed October 18, 2020.