|
1
|
Boonchai W, Pruksaeakanan C, Wongdama S, Bunyavaree M, Kumpangsin T, Chaiyabutr C. Trends in formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releaser contact allergies as compared with market exposure in Thailand. Contact Dermatitis 2022; 88:18-26. [PMID: 35838492 DOI: 10.1111/cod.14190] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/10/2022] [Revised: 07/12/2022] [Accepted: 07/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers (FRs) are common preservatives in cosmetics and household products. Their contact allergy trends are decreasing in Europe and America, but trend data for Asia are limited. OBJECTIVES The first objective was to determine the prevalences of and trends in contact allergies to formaldehyde and FRs. The second objective was to establish how often formaldehyde and FRs were mentioned on the labels of products sold in the Thai market. METHODS Twenty years of data on patch test results for formaldehyde and FRs were reviewed. Their frequency of mention on the labels of 5855 products was analyzed. RESULTS The trends in contact allergy to formaldehyde and FRs were decreasing. The overall prevalence of formaldehyde contact allergy was 2.5%. The most common FR to cause contact allergy was quaternium-15. Formaldehyde and FRs were identified as ingredients in 10.2% of the products surveyed. Dimethylol dimethyl hydantoin was the most common FR (5.2%). The highest use of formaldehyde and FRs (15.5%) was in hair care products. CONCLUSIONS Although contact allergy trends in Thailand were decreasing, the proportion of products with FRs remained high. Comprehensive and universal legislation is needed to control the presence of formaldehyde and FRs. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Waranya Boonchai
- Department of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Chutipon Pruksaeakanan
- Department of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Supisara Wongdama
- Department of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Monthathip Bunyavaree
- Department of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Titinun Kumpangsin
- Department of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Chayada Chaiyabutr
- Department of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Marmgren V, Mowitz M, Zimerson E, Hindsén M, Bruze M. Contact allergy to fragrance mix I and its components in individuals with photocontact allergy to ketoprofen. Contact Dermatitis 2021; 85:660-670. [PMID: 34414573 DOI: 10.1111/cod.13958] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2021] [Revised: 08/13/2021] [Accepted: 08/16/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Contact allergy to fragrance mix I (FM I) is over-represented in patients photoallergic to ketoprofen. The prevalence of contact allergy to two components of FM I, cinnamal and cinnamyl alcohol, in ketoprofen-photoallergic patients is higher than in dermatitis patients. OBJECTIVE To explore the prevalence of contact allergy to FM I and its individual components in patients with photocontact allergy to ketoprofen, and to compare with a dermatitis and the general population. METHODS Data on patch and photopatch tests performed between 2009-2018 were collected. Ketoprofen-photoallergic patients were compared with dermatitis patients and published data on the general population regarding the prevalence and the distribution of contact allergy to FM I and its components. RESULTS A higher prevalence of contact allergy to cinnamyl alcohol compared with cinnamal (23.3% vs 10.0%), and eugenol compared with isoeugenol (23.3% vs 6.7%), was observed in ketoprofen-photoallergic patients, while the relationship was the opposite in the dermatitis group (0.7% vs 1.05%; 0.4% vs 0.9%). The overall prevalence of contact allergy to several components of FM I was significantly higher in ketoprofen-photoallergic patients. CONCLUSIONS Contact allergy to FM I and many of its components is over-represented in patients photoallergic to ketoprofen compared with dermatitis patients and the general population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Victoria Marmgren
- Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.,Department of Dermatology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Martin Mowitz
- Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Erik Zimerson
- Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Monica Hindsén
- Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Magnus Bruze
- Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Johansen JD, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, Andersen KE, Bircher A, Bruze M, Cannavó A, Giménez-Arnau A, Gonçalo M, Goossens A, John SM, Lidén C, Lindberg M, Mahler V, Matura M, Rustemeyer T, Serup J, Spiewak R, Thyssen JP, Vigan M, White IR, Wilkinson M, Uter W. European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing - recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis 2015; 73:195-221. [PMID: 26179009 DOI: 10.1111/cod.12432] [Citation(s) in RCA: 915] [Impact Index Per Article: 101.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2015] [Revised: 04/29/2015] [Accepted: 05/06/2015] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
The present guideline summarizes all aspects of patch testing for the diagnosis of contact allergy in patients suspected of suffering, or having been suffering, from allergic contact dermatitis or other delayed-type hypersensitivity skin and mucosal conditions. Sections with brief descriptions and discussions of different pertinent topics are followed by a highlighted short practical recommendation. Topics comprise, after an introduction with important definitions, materials, technique, modifications of epicutaneous testing, individual factors influencing the patch test outcome or necessitating special considerations, children, patients with occupational contact dermatitis and drug eruptions as special groups, patch testing of materials brought in by the patient, adverse effects of patch testing, and the final evaluation and patient counselling based on this judgement. Finally, short reference is made to aspects of (continuing) medical education and to electronic collection of data for epidemiological surveillance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeanne D Johansen
- Department of Dermato-Allergology, National Allergy Research Centre, Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, 2900 Hellerup, Denmark
| | - Kristiina Aalto-Korte
- Occupational Medicine, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, 00250 Helsinki, Finland
| | - Tove Agner
- Department of Dermatology, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, 2400 Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Klaus E Andersen
- Department of Dermatology and Allergy Centre, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, 5000 Odense, Denmark
| | - Andreas Bircher
- Allergy Unit, Department of Dermatology, University Hospital and University of Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland
| | - Magnus Bruze
- Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, SE-20502 Malmö, Sweden
| | - Alicia Cannavó
- Hospital Municipal de Vicente López 'Profesor Bernard Houssay', Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Ana Giménez-Arnau
- Department of Dermatology, Hospital del Mar, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, 08003 Barcelona, Spain
| | - Margarida Gonçalo
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-075 Coimbra, Portugal
| | - An Goossens
- Contact Allergy Unit, Department of Dermatology, University Hospital K. U. Leuven, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Swen M John
- Department of Dermatology, Environmental Medicine, Health Theory, University of Osnabrueck, D-49069 Osnabrueck, Germany
| | - Carola Lidén
- Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, SE-17177 Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Magnus Lindberg
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Örebro, SE-70185 Örebro, Sweden
| | - Vera Mahler
- Allergy Unit, Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Erlangen, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
| | - Mihály Matura
- Unit of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, Centre for Occupational and Environmental Medicine, SLSO, SE-11365 Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Thomas Rustemeyer
- Department of Dermatology, VU University Medical Centre, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jørgen Serup
- Department of Dermatology, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, 2400 Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Radoslaw Spiewak
- Department of Experimental Dermatology and Cosmetology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 30-688 Krakow, Poland
| | - Jacob P Thyssen
- Department of Dermato-Allergology, National Allergy Research Centre, Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, 2900 Hellerup, Denmark
| | - Martine Vigan
- Department of Dermatology, CHRU Besançon, 25030 Besançon Cedex, France
| | - Ian R White
- Department of Cutaneous Allergy, St John's Institute of Dermatology, St Thomas' Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK
| | | | - Wolfgang Uter
- Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Erlangen/Nürnberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|