Analysis of patch testing with cocamidopropyl betaine and its impurities in patients with intractable scalp dermatitis in a single clinic in Japan.
CAS RN: 109-55-7
CAS RN: 3179-80-4
CAS RN: 61789-40-0
allergic contact dermatitis
cocamidopropyl betaine
dimethylaminopropylamine
impurities
lauramidopropyl dimethylamine
Journal
Contact dermatitis
ISSN: 1600-0536
Titre abrégé: Contact Dermatitis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7604950
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2023
Nov 2023
Historique:
revised:
23
07
2023
received:
30
05
2023
accepted:
26
07
2023
medline:
5
10
2023
pubmed:
8
8
2023
entrez:
7
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The allergen responsible for cocamidopropyl betaine (CAPB) allergies has been debated. To investigate the sensitizing agents of CAPB, the patch test positivity rates of impurities were examined in Japanese patients with CAPB-related allergic contact dermatitis. Thirty patients with scalp dermatitis and positive patch tests for CAPB and/or lauramidopropyl betaine (LAPB) were enrolled in this study. They were patch tested with the detergents that they had been using at the time of their first visit and with the impurities dimethylaminopropylamine (DMAPA) and lauramidopropyl dimethylamine (LAPDMA). The positivity rate in patch tests of the 37 detergents that the patients had been using was 78.4% (29/37). The positivity rates of DMAPA 1% pet., 1% aq. and 0.2% aq. were 32.1% (9/28), 14.3% (4/28) and 13.3% (4/30), respectively, whereas those of LAPDMA 0.1% and 0.05% were 30.0% (9/30) and 16.7% (5/30), respectively. Among the 30 patients, 6 exhibited positive results for both DMAPA and LAPDMA, 3 showed positive results for DMAPA alone and 6 produced positive results for LAPDMA alone. Patch tests produced an overall positivity rate for DMAPA, LAPDMA or both of 50.0% (15/30) in patients with scalp dermatitis and positive patch test results for CAPB and/or LAPB.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The allergen responsible for cocamidopropyl betaine (CAPB) allergies has been debated.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the sensitizing agents of CAPB, the patch test positivity rates of impurities were examined in Japanese patients with CAPB-related allergic contact dermatitis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Thirty patients with scalp dermatitis and positive patch tests for CAPB and/or lauramidopropyl betaine (LAPB) were enrolled in this study. They were patch tested with the detergents that they had been using at the time of their first visit and with the impurities dimethylaminopropylamine (DMAPA) and lauramidopropyl dimethylamine (LAPDMA).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The positivity rate in patch tests of the 37 detergents that the patients had been using was 78.4% (29/37). The positivity rates of DMAPA 1% pet., 1% aq. and 0.2% aq. were 32.1% (9/28), 14.3% (4/28) and 13.3% (4/30), respectively, whereas those of LAPDMA 0.1% and 0.05% were 30.0% (9/30) and 16.7% (5/30), respectively. Among the 30 patients, 6 exhibited positive results for both DMAPA and LAPDMA, 3 showed positive results for DMAPA alone and 6 produced positive results for LAPDMA alone.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Patch tests produced an overall positivity rate for DMAPA, LAPDMA or both of 50.0% (15/30) in patients with scalp dermatitis and positive patch test results for CAPB and/or LAPB.
Substances chimiques
cocamidopropyl betaine
5OCF3O11KX
Betaine
3SCV180C9W
Detergents
0
dimethylarsinopenicillamine
85653-38-9
Diamines
0
Allergens
0
Surface-Active Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
368-373Subventions
Organisme : Hoyu Co., Ltd.
Informations de copyright
© 2023 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Pham CT, Juhasz M, Lin J, Hashemi K, Honari G, Mesinkovska NA. Allergic contact dermatitis of the scalp associated with scalp applied products: a systematic review of topical allergens. Dermatitis. 2022;33:235-248.
Burnett CL, Bergfeld WF, Belsito DV, et al. Final report of the cosmetic ingredient review expert panel on the safety assessment of cocamidopropyl betaine (CAPB). Int J Toxicol. 2012;31(Suppl 1):77S-111S.
Angelini G, Foti C, Rigano L, Vena GA. 3-Dimethylamino propylamine: a key substance in contact allergy to cocamidopropylbetaine? Contact Dermatitis. 1995;32:96-99.
Van Haute N, Dooms-Goossens A. Shampoo dermatitis due to cocobetaine and sodium lauryl ether sulphate. Contact Dermatitis. 1983;9:169.
Mowad CM. Cocamidopropyl betaine allergy. Am J Contact Dermat. 2001;12(4):223-224.
Angelini G, Rigano L, Foti C, Rossi P, Vena GA. Pure cocamidopropylbetaine is not the allergen in patients with positive reactions to commercial cocamidopropylbetaine. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;35:352-353.
Foti C, Bonamonte D, Mascolo G, et al. The role of 3-dimethylamino propylamine and amidoamine in contact allergy to cocamidopropylbetaine. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48:194-198.
Pigatto PD, Bigardi AS, Cusano F. Contact dermatitis to Cocamidopropyl betaine is caused by residual amines: relevance, clinical, characteristics, and review of the literature. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 1995;6:13-16.
Fowler JF, Fowler LM, Hunter JE. Allergy to cocamidopropylbetaine may be due to amidoamine: a patch test and product use test study. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;37:276-281.
Fregert S. Manual of Contact Dermatitis. 2nd ed. Munksgaard; 1981:71-81.
Wang PG, Zhou W. Rapid determination of Cocamidopropyl betaine impurities in cosmetic products by core-shell hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A. 2016;1461:78-83.
Li L-F. A study of the sensitization rate to Cocamidopropyl betaine in patients patch tested in a university hospital of Beijing. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;58:24-27.
DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Zug KA, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2015-2016. Dermatitis. 2018;29(6):297-309.
Bizfak M, Adamic K, Bajrovic N, et al. Patch testing with the European baseline series and 10 added allergens: single-Centre study of 748 patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;87:439-446.
Cheng HS, Konya J, Lobel E, Fernandez-Peuas P. Australian baseline series allergens in assessment of allergic contact dermatitis in New South Wales. Australasian J Dermatol. 2022;63:e78-e111.
Warshaw EM, Ruggiero JL, DeKoven JG, et al. Contact dermatitis associated with hair care products: a retrospective analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 2001-2016. Dermatitis. 2022;33:91-102.
Uter W. Lack of patch test reactivity to 3-dimethylaminopropylmanine in German hairdressers. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;41:231.
Suuronen K, Pesonen M, Aalto-Korte K. Occupational contact allergy to Cocamidopropyl betaine and its impurities. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66:286-292.
Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Geier J, Uter W. Is Cocamidopropyl betaine a contact allergen? Analysis of network data and short review of the literature. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64:203-211.
Burnett CL, Boyer I, Bergfeld WF, et al. Safety assessment of fatty acid amidopropyl dimethylamines as used in cosmetics. Int J Toxicol. 2019;38(Suppl 1):39s-69s.