Contact allergy resulting from the use of acrylate nails is increasing in both users and those who are occupationally exposed

Is the Use of the Extended (Meth)acrylate Series - Nails Justified? Characterization of Nail Acrylate Allergy in a Tertiary Medical Centre

Methacrylate allergy is a common cause of allergic contact dermatitis, and its incidence has surged over the past decade. Consequently, the primary sensitizing agent, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, was recently added to the European Baseline Series of contact allergens. This study aimed to assess the added value of testing for allergens included in the (Meth)Acrylate Series - Nails, in addition to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, as well as to characterize patients who may benefit from more extensive testing. A retrospective analysis of medical records of patch-tested patients was conducted between June 2013 and July 2022. Among the 3,828 patients who underwent patch testing, 396 were tested with the (Meth)Acrylate Series - Nails; 153 (38.6%) of those patients tested positive for at least 1 acrylate. The most common hapten was 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (85.6%), followed by hydroxypropyl methacrylate (85.0%) and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (80.4%). In our study, 22/153 patients (14.4%) would have been missed if tested only for 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate. The analysis showed that including hydroxypropyl methacrylate and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate improved detection rate to 98%, rendering the use of the entire tray unnecessary in most cases.

Acrylates and Methacrylates Sensitization in Patients with Orthopedic and Dental Prostheses: Asymptomatic Pre-Implant and Symptomatic Post-Implant Testing

Acrylates and methacrylates are widely used in dental and orthopedic prostheses, false nails, adhesives, glues, and paints, and are strong sensitizers. The aim of our study was to assess the prevalence of acrylate sensitization in patients before the application of dental or orthopedic prostheses or after the application in case of potentially related contact dermatitis. Methods: The subjects were tested according to haptens reported in safety data sheets, including methyl methacrylate (MMA) 5%, methyl acrylate (MA) 1%, ethyl methacrylate (EMA) 2%, ethyl acrylate (EA) 1%, butylacrylate 0.1%, 2 hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) 5%, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate 2% (EGDMA), tetraethylene glycol dimethacrylate 2% (TEGDMA), and dimethyl amino ethyl methacrylate 0.2% (DAEMA). Multivariable logistic regression was used to study the factors associated with (meth)acrylate sensitization. Results: Six hundred sixty-five patients (75.4% of the total sample) without contact dermatitis before the placement of any dental or orthopedic prosthesis and 217 patients (24.6% of the total sample) with contact dermatitis potentially due to already placed prostheses were involved. In total, 37 cases of patch test positivity to at least 1 acrylate (4.2%) were found. In the pre-implant population, previous dermatitis and respiratory allergy were associated with increased sensitization to acrylates in multivariable regression analysis (odds ratio [OR] 2.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-5.39; OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.32-6.64, respectively). The prevalence of sensitization was 3.5% for EGDMA, 2.7% for EA, 1.5% for 2-HEMA, 1.4% for both MA and MMA, 1.28% for DAEMA, and 0.8% for EMA. No statistically significant difference was found in the prevalence of sensitization between the pre- and post-implant groups. Discussion: Our study found a similar profile of sensitization in pre-implant and post-implant patients, suggesting the need to better study the specificity and sensitivity of patch tests to (meth)acrylate and to define relevance considering a detailed history of exposure.

Artificial nail modelling systems in healthcare workers: An emerging risk of contact sensitization to a well-known occupational allergen in an alternative way

BACKGROUND

Artificial nail modelling systems (ANMS) pose a significant risk for nail stylists and their clients regarding acrylate sensitization, which might jeopardize the use of acrylate-containing medical devices.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the frequency of artificial nail practices among female healthcare workers (HCWs) compared with controls and assess ANMS-related side effects.

METHODS

In this comparative, cross-sectional, single-centre study, a face-to-face interview with 200 female HCWs and 200 age-matched female dermatology patients (controls) was conducted regarding the use of ANMS between March and November 2023.

RESULTS

Among 400 participants (median age: 25), 85 (21.3%) have applied ANMS at least once. The prevalence of ANMS application was significantly higher in HCWs (n = 54/200, 27%) compared with controls (n = 31/200, 15.5%) (p < 0.05). Long-lasting nail polish was the most commonly preferred technique (n = 82/85, 96.5%). ANMS were mainly performed in nail studios by nail stylists (n = 79/85, 92.9%), while three participants were using home kits. Nail brittleness was the most frequently reported side effect (n = 19/85, 22.4%). No case of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The popularity of ANMS among young female HCWs is growing. This striking trend might further put these individuals not only at risk of medical device-related adverse events but also occupational ACD.

2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA): A clinical review of contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis. Part 2. Cross- and co-sensitization, other skin reactions to HEMA, position of HEMA among (meth)acrylates, sensitivity as screening agent, presence of HEMA in commercial products and practical information on patch test procedures

This is the second part of a literature review of the clinical aspects of contact allergy to and allergic contact dermatitis from 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA). Topics include cross- and co-sensitization, atypical manifestations of contact allergy, frequency of positive patch tests to HEMA compared with other (meth)acrylates, sensitivity of HEMA as a screening agent, the presence of HEMA in commercial products, and practical information on patch testing procedures. Primary sensitization to methacrylates including HEMA may result in methacrylate and acrylate cross-sensitization. There is a strong cross-allergy between HEMA, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), and hydroxypropyl methacrylate; many reactions to EGDMA are cross-reactions to primary HEMA sensitization. Rare atypical manifestations of HEMA-allergy include lichen planus, lymphomatoid papulosis, systemic contact dermatitis, leukoderma after positive patch tests, and systemic side effects such as nausea, diarrhoea, malaise, and palpitations. The occurrence of respiratory disease caused by methacrylates such as asthma is not infrequent. HEMA is the most frequently patch test-positive methacrylate. It is a good screening agent for allergy to other (meth)acrylates. Patch test sensitization to HEMA 2% pet. is extremely rare. There are (some) indications that HEMA is frequently used in dental products and nail cosmetics.

2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA): A clinical review of contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis-Part 1. Introduction, epidemiology, case series and case reports

2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) has been increasingly recognised as a contact allergen and was added to the European baseline series in 2019. In this article (2 parts), the results of an extensive literature review of the clinical aspects of contact allergy/allergic contact dermatitis to HEMA are presented. In part 1, the epidemiology of HEMA contact allergy is discussed and detailed information on published case series and case reports presented. HEMA is an important cause of contact allergy/allergic contact dermatitis in North America and Europe with recent prevalences of >3% in the USA + Canada and 1.5%-3.7% in Europe. Currently, most cases are caused by nail cosmetics, both in consumers and professional nail stylists. In our literature review, we have found 24 studies presenting case series of patients with allergic contact dermatitis attributed to HEMA and 168 case reports. However, the presence of HEMA in the products causing ACD was established in only a minority. Part 2 will discuss cross- and co-sensitisation, and other skin reactions to HEMA, will assess whether HEMA is the most frequent (meth)acrylate allergen and how sensitive HEMA as a screening agent is, investigate the presence of HEMA in commercial products and provide practical information on patch testing procedures.

Allergic contact dermatitis caused by 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate and ethyl cyanoacrylate contained in cosmetic glues among hairdressers and beauticians who perform nail treatments and eyelash extension as well as hair extension applications: a systematic review

Current cosmetic regulations primarily focus on protecting consumers, not the professional user who is subjected to a partly different, and certainly more intense exposure to hazardous substances. Against this background, the present systematic review aims to compile and appraise evidence regarding skin toxicity of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA; CAS no. 212-782-2) and ethyl cyanoacrylate (ECA; CAS no. 7085-85-0) contained in cosmetic glues used among hairdressers and beauticians who perform nail treatments and eyelash extension as well as hair extension applications. This systematic review followed the PRISMA 2020 recommendations for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analysis. In total, 6 publications from 6 countries were eligible for this systematic review. Meta-analysis revealed that hairdressers and beauticians have a 9-fold increased risk of developing contact allergy to HEMA compared to controls who are not hairdressers and beauticians. Results for ECA are lacking. The present systematic review clearly shows that - regarding contact allergy to acrylates - it is not appropriate to apply risk assessment for consumers to hairdressers and beauticians who occupationally handle cosmetic glues. The regulations in existence do not adequately address occupational risks for hairdressers and beauticians connected with the use of acrylate-containing cosmetic substances and need reconsideration. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Contact Dermatitis in Nail Cosmetics

Many ingredients found within nail cosmetic products are capable of sensitizing patients’ immune systems and causing contact dermatitis (CD). These include but are not limited to tosylamide, (meth)acrylates, and formaldehyde. A clear temporal relationship between nail cosmetic procedures and an eczematous outbreak on the hands, face, or other ectopic body regions can be a key indicator of CD secondary to nail cosmetic exposure. Once an inciting allergen is identified through patch testing, elimination and avoidance becomes a mainstay of treatment alongside the use of emollients and topical anti-inflammatory therapies. Patients should be counselled to approach future nail cosmetic products and procedures with caution and careful attention to ingredients, regardless of whether or not it has a “hypoallergenic” label.

Ten years of contact allergy from acrylic compounds in an occupational dermatology clinic

BACKGROUND

Contact allergy from acrylic compounds is a "hot topic". Knowledge on the exact chemical composition of acrylic products is superficial.

AIMS

To retrospectively describe patients with allergic reactions to acrylic compounds.

METHODS

We included patients who had been tested with acrylate patch test series and displayed allergic reactions to at least one acrylic compound. Chemical analyses were often performed when safety data sheets of implicated products failed to reveal acrylic compounds to which the patient tested positive.

RESULTS

In 2010-2019 a total of 55 patients met the inclusion criteria. Eight cases of allergic contact dermatitis were due to anaerobic sealants, seven to dental products, three to windscreen glues, seven to eyelash glues and/or nail products in the beauty sector, three to UV-cured printing inks, two to paints/lacquers, and one to polyester resin system. The origin of these contact allergies was occupational with the exception of four beauty sector workers who had developed eyelid symptoms from eyelash extensions glued onto their own eyelashes. We invariably detected methacrylate monomers in 15 chemical analyses of 12 different anaerobic sealants.

CONCLUSIONS

Safety data sheets of anaerobic sealants often lack warnings for skin sensitization, although these products regularly contain sensitizing methacrylates.

Therapeutic potential of lipids obtained from γ-irradiated PBMCs in dendritic cell-mediated skin inflammation

BACKGROUND

Since numerous pathological conditions are evoked by unwanted dendritic cell (DC) activity, therapeutic agents modulating DC functions are of great medical interest. In regenerative medicine, cellular secretomes have gained increasing attention and valuable immunomodulatory properties have been attributed to the secretome of γ-irradiated peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs). Potential effects of the PBMC secretome (PBMCsec) on key DC functions have not been elucidated so far.

METHODS

We used a hapten-mediated murine model of contact hypersensitivity (CH) to study the effects of PBMCsec on DCs in vivo. Effects of PBMCsec on human DCs were investigated in monocyte-derived DCs (MoDC) and ex vivo skin cultures. DCs were phenotypically characterised by transcriptomics analyses and flow cytometry. DC function was evaluated by cytokine secretion, antigen uptake, PBMC proliferation and T-cell priming.

FINDINGS

PBMCsec significantly alleviated tissue inflammation and cellular infiltration in hapten-sensitized mice. We found that PBMCsec abrogated differentiation of MoDCs, indicated by lower expression of classical DC markers CD1a, CD11c and MHC class II molecules. Furthermore, PBMCsec reduced DC maturation, antigen uptake, lipopolysaccharides-induced cytokine secretion, and DC-mediated immune cell proliferation. Moreover, MoDCs differentiated with PBMCsec displayed diminished ability to prime naïve CD4+T-cells into TH1 and TH2 cells. Furthermore, PBMCsec modulated the phenotype of DCs present in the skin in situ. Mechanistically, we identified lipids as the main biomolecule accountable for the observed immunomodulatory effects.

INTERPRETATION

Together, our data describe DC-modulatory actions of lipids secreted by stressed PBMCs and suggest PBMCsec as a therapeutic option for treatment of DC-mediated inflammatory skin conditions.

FUNDING

This research project was supported by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (Vienna, Austria; grant "APOSEC" 862068; 2015-2019) and the Vienna Business Agency (Vienna, Austria; grant "APOSEC to clinic" 2343727).

Cyanoacrylate closure for peripheral veins: Consensus document of the Australasian College of Phlebology

Background

Cyanoacrylates are fast-acting adhesives used in procedural medicine including closure of superficial wounds, embolization of truncal vessels pre-operatively, vascular anomalies, visceral false aneurysms, endoleaks, gastrointestinal varices and gastrointestinal bleeding. More recently, catheter-directed cyanoacrylate adhesive closure was introduced as an alternative to endovenous thermal ablation (ETA) to occlude superficial veins of the lower limbs.

Objectives

To formulate policies for the safe and effective delivery of cyanoacrylate adhesive closure procedures in Australasia, based on current experience and evidence.

Methods

A panel of phlebologists including vascular surgeons, interventional radiologists, dermatologists and research scientists systematically reviewed the available data on cyanoacrylate products used in medicine and shared personal experience with the procedure. The reviewed material included bibliographic and biomedical data, material safety data sheets and data requested and received from manufacturers. Results and recommendations: Cyanoacrylate adhesive closure appears to be an effective treatment for saphenous reflux with occlusion rates at 36 months of 90–95%. We recommend a maximum dose of 10 mL of cyanoacrylate per treatment session. Serious complications are rare, but significant. Hypersensitivity to acrylates is reported in 2.4% of the population and is an important absolute contraindication to cyanoacrylate adhesive closure. 1 Post-procedural inflammatory reactions, including hypersensitivity-type phlebitis, occur in 10–20% of patients. 2 In the long term, cyanoacrylate adhesive closure results in foreign-body granuloma formation within 2–12 months of the procedure. We recommend against the use of cyanoacrylate adhesive closure in patients with uncontrolled inflammatory, autoimmune or granulomatous disorders (e.g. sarcoidosis). Caution should be exercised in patients with significant active systemic disease or infection and alternative therapies such as thermal ablation and foam sclerotherapy should be considered.

Conclusions

Cyanoacrylate adhesive closure appears to be an effective endovenous procedure, with short-term closure rates comparable to ETA and therefore greater efficacy than traditional surgery for treating superficial veins of the lower limbs. Ongoing data collection is required to establish the long-term safety.

Granuloma formation following cyanoacrylate glue injection in peripheral veins and arteriovenous malformation

Background

Cyanoacrylate adhesive closure is a technically simple alternative to endothermal ablation of peripheral veins. N-butyl cyanoacrylate is delivered via catheters or by percutaneous injection resulting in occlusion of target veins. The local tissue reaction or the systemic immune response that may follow have not been characterised.

Aim

To characterise the late local tissue reaction to N-butyl cyanoacrylate glue injected in peripheral vessels.

Methods

Biopsies were obtained from two patients. In patient one, distal tributaries of the great saphenous vein were injected with VenaBlock™ glue under ultrasound guidance. Ultrasound-guided incisional biopsies were performed at one week, six weeks and 12 months. In patient two, a peripheral arterio-venous malformation was injected with Venablock™ and biopsy was performed 12 months later. Histological analysis was performed using haematoxylin and eosin and immunofixation with CD-4, CD-31, CD-34, CD-68 and D2-40.

Results

Echogenic material with a strong shadow artefact consistent with the injected N-butyl cyanoacrylate was observed on ultrasound on all follow-up occasions. Biopsies taken at one week showed intravascular glue without histiocytes. Biopsies at six weeks showed isolated foreign body histiocytes coating intravascular fibrillary glue spicules but no granuloma formation. The one-year biopsies showed extravascular changes including fibrosis, lymphoid aggregates and multiple extravascular foreign body cavitated granulomas. Some vessel lumens contained residual spicules of glue but no intravascular granulomas. The extravascular granulomas were deeply located, asymptomatic and not complicated by clinical ulceration. Histologically, there was no evidence of transepidermal elimination.

Conclusion

Extravascular foreign body cavitated granulomas containing spicules of glue with fibrosis and lymphoid aggregates occur as a delayed finding following the use of N-butyl cyanoacrylate.

Determinants of Exposures to Hazardous Materials among Nail Cosmeticians in the Kampala City, Uganda

Globally, nail salons represent a fast expanding industry and often with low-income cosmeticians. In general, cosmeticians have limited access to safety information about the hazardous materials they handle, which would potentially enable them to minimize workplace exposures. The problem is much pronounced in low- and middle-income countries due to weaknesses in regulation of the industry. We investigated determinants of exposures to hazardous materials among nail cosmeticians in Kampala District, Uganda. We employed a cross-sectional study design among a random sample of 243 participants. The sociodemographic characteristics, education and training status, knowledge about routes of exposure to hazardous chemicals, and personal protective material use of cosmeticians were assessed through face-to-face interviews. Most cosmeticians were aged 18–34 years, and more males were engaged in this work than females. Also, 82.7% believed inhalation was the major exposure route for the chemicals they handled. Participants who had attained secondary-level education and above were over three times more likely to wear masks (AOR = 3.19, 95% CI 1.58–6.41) and gloves (AOR = 3.48, 95% CI 1.55–7.81) and over two times more likely to use aprons (AOR = 2.50, 95% CI 1.18–5.32). Participants who had ever received safety training on hazardous chemicals were more likely to wear all four personal protective equipment: masks (AOR = 3.21, 95% CI 1.61–6.42), gloves (AOR = 4.23, 95% CI 2.05–8.75), goggles (AOR = 4.14, 95% CI 1.25–13.65), and aprons (AOR = 2.73, 95% CI 1.25–5.96). Participants who had spent more than two years in the nail cosmetics business were more likely to wear masks (AOR = 3.37, 95% CI 1.64–6.95). With the increasing demand for nail cosmetics, and many people in urban areas of low-income countries engaging in this industry, there is need for training and better workplace policies to promote a healthier urban workforce dealing in cosmetics.

North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2015-2016

BACKGROUND

Patch testing is an important diagnostic tool for the assessment of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).

OBJECTIVE

This study documents the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) patch testing results from January 1, 2015, to February 28, 2017.

METHODS

At 13 centers in North America, patients were tested in a standardized manner with a screening series of 70 allergens. Data were manually verified and entered into a central database. Descriptive frequencies were calculated, and trends were analyzed using χ test.

RESULTS

A total of 5597 patients were tested. There were 3725 patients (66.6%) who had at least 1 positive reaction, and 2798 patients (50.2%) were ultimately determined to have a primary diagnosis of ACD. A total of 572 patients (10.2%) had occupationally related skin disease. There were 10,983 positive allergic reactions. Nickel remained the most commonly detected allergen (17.5%). Methylisothiazolinone, which was added to the screening series for the 2013-2014 cycle, had the second highest positive reaction rate of allergens tested (13.4%). Compared with the previous reporting periods (2013-2014) and (2005-2014), positive reaction rates for the top 35 screening allergens statistically increased for only 1 allergen: hydroxyethyl methacrylate (3.4%; risk ratios, 1.24 [confidence interval, 1.00-1.54] and 1.46 [confidence interval, 1.23-1.73]). Three newly added allergen preparations-ammonium persulfate (1.7%), chlorhexidine (0.8%), and hydroquinone (0.3%)-all had a reaction rate of less than 2%. Twenty-three percent of the tested patients had at least 1 relevant allergic reaction to an allergen not on the NACDG series; 12% of these were occupationally related. T.R.U.E. Test (SmartPractice Denmark, Hillerød, Denmark) would have hypothetically missed one quarter to almost 40% of reactions detected by the NACDG screening series.

CONCLUSIONS

These results confirm that the epidemic of sensitivity to methylisothiazolinone has continued in North America. Patch testing with allergens beyond a screening tray is necessary for a complete evaluation of occupational and nonoccupational ACD.

Contact Allergy: A Review of Current Problems from a Clinical Perspective

Contact allergy is common, affecting 27% of the general population in Europe. Original publications, including case reports, published since 2016 (inclusive) were identified with the aim of collating a full review of current problems in the field. To this end, a literature search employing methods of systematic reviewing was performed in the Medline^® and Web of Science™ databases on 28 January 2018, using the search terms (“contact sensitization” or “contact allergy”). Of 446 non-duplicate publications identified by above search, 147 were excluded based on scrutiny of title, abstract and key words. Of the remaining 299 examined in full text, 291 were deemed appropriate for inclusion, and main findings were summarised in topic sections. In conclusion, diverse sources of exposures to chemicals of widely-differing types and structures, continue to induce sensitisation in man and may result in allergic contact dermatitis. Many of the chemicals are “evergreen” but others are “newcomers”. Vigilance and proper investigation (patch testing) are required to detect and inform of the presence of these haptens to which our populations remain exposed.

A proposal to create an extension to the European baseline series

BACKGROUND

The current European baseline series consists of 30 allergens, and was last updated in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To use data from the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA) to propose an extension to the European baseline series in response to changes in environmental exposures.

METHODS

Data from departmental and national extensions to the baseline series, together with some temporary additions from departments contributing to the ESSCA, were collated during 2013-2014.

RESULTS

In total, 31689 patients were patch tested in 46 European departments. Many departments and national groups already consider the current European baseline series to be a suboptimal screen, and use their own extensions to it. The haptens tested are heterogeneous, although there are some consistent themes. Potential haptens to include in an extension to the European baseline series comprise sodium metabisulfite, formaldehyde-releasing preservatives, additional markers of fragrance allergy, propolis, Compositae mix, and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate.

CONCLUSION

In combination with other published work from the ESSCA, changes to the current European baseline series are proposed for discussion. As well as addition of the allergens listed above, it is suggested that primin and clioquinol should be deleted from the series, owing to reduced environmental exposure.

Eyelid Dermatitis Caused by Allergic Contact to Acrylates in Artificial Nails

Over the past few years, there has been an increase in cases of allergic contact dermatitis caused by acrylates, because of the growing popularity of artificial nails. Pathological reactions to artificial nails typically occur on or around the nail area. Eyelid contact dermatitis due to artificial nails is rarely seen, especially in a nonoccupational setting. The authors report the case of a 45-year-old female accountant who developed eyelid dermatitis due to artificial nails.

(Meth)Acrylate Occupational Contact Dermatitis in Nail Salon Workers: A Case Series

Background:

Recently, many cases of acrylate-associated allergic contact dermatitis have appeared among nail salon workers. Common acrylate-containing products in nail salons include traditional nail polish, ultraviolet-cured shellac nail polish, ultraviolet-cured gel nails, and press-on acrylic nails.

Methods:

Nail salon technicians seen in the occupational medicine clinic in 2015 and 2016 were identified, and their patch test results and clinical features were summarized. Patch testing was done with the Chemotechnique (Meth)Acrylate nail series, and either the North American Standard series or the North American Contact Dermatitis Group screening series.

Results:

Six patients were identified, all women, ages 38 to 58. Common presentations included erythematous dermatitis of the dorsa of the hands, palms, and forearms and fissures on the fingertips. Less common sites of eruptions included the periorbital region, cheeks, posterior ears, neck, sacral area, lateral thighs, and dorsa of the feet. All patients reacted to hydroxyethyl methacrylate, and 5 patients reacted to ethyl acrylate. Each patient also reacted to (meth)acrylates that are not found on either standard series, including ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate, 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate, and 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate.

Conclusions:

The authors report 6 cases of allergic contact dermatitis to acrylates in nail technicians seen over the past year, representing a new trend in their clinic. These cases are reflective of a growing trend of nail technicians with allergic contact dermatitis associated with occupational (meth)acrylate exposure. Efforts to improve prevention are needed.

Several cases of undesirable effects caused by methacrylate ultraviolet-curing nail polish for non-professional use

BACKGROUND

Ultraviolet (UV)-curing nail polishes based on acrylates or methacrylates are currently also available for non-professional use. The Swedish Medical Products Agency recently prohibited one brand of UV-curing polish, because several consumers reported undesirable effects after using it.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether consumers with undesirable effects after using the UV-curing nail polish that was later prohibited were contact allergic to the polish and its individual ingredients.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Eight patients who had reported severe skin reactions after the use of the UV-curing polish were patch tested with two coatings of the nail polish and its ingredients at five dermatology departments in Sweden.

RESULTS

All patients tested except one showed contact allergic reactions to one or several of the acrylate-based or methacrylate-based ingredients in the nail polish.

CONCLUSIONS

The non-professional use of UV-curing nail polishes poses a risk of sensitization from acrylates and methacrylates.