Adverse Effects of Do-It-Yourself Nail Cosmetics: A Literature Review

Background

As self-applied manicures have gained popularity, it is important for physicians to remain informed about potential associated side effects. Traditional polish remains most popular among nail enthusiasts, but the pursuit of durability and convenience accelerated development of other nail cosmetic products, including gel polish, acrylic nails, and press-on nails. Despite documented adverse effects among beauty professionals and salon customers, individuals practicing at-home nail care routines may face similar, if not more, frequent complications due to misinformation, inadequate training, and social media trends.

Summary

This review provides an overview of adverse effects associated with different at-home nail cosmetics. Allergic contact dermatitis is the most prevalent adverse event, primarily attributed to (meth)acrylates found in nail glue, gel polish, and acrylic nails. Other adverse effects include infections, chemical burns, and complications from ultraviolet nail lamps.

Key Message

The review highlights the importance of transparent product labeling and appropriate warning labels from manufacturers, as well as physician education and awareness for minimizing risks related to at-home nail cosmetic applications.

The new Italian SIDAPA Baseline Series for patch testing (2023): an update according to the new regulatory pathway for contact allergens

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a common inflammatory skin disease caused by delayed hypersensitivity to chemical and biotic contact allergens. ACD significantly affects the patients' quality of life negatively impacting both occupational and non-occupational settings. Patch testing is the gold standard diagnostic in vivo test to precise the ACD etiology and to correctly perform prevention. According to the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) legislative decree no. 178 of 29th May 1991, allergens are defined as medicines and therefore they are subject to strict regulation. In 2017, AIFA (decree no. 2130/2017) started a procedure to regulate contact allergens on the Italian market and actually the contact allergens temporarily authorized are reported in AIFA decree no. 98/2022, valid until November 2023. The availability on the market of contact allergens to diagnose ACD and continuous updating on the basis of new epidemiological trends are mandatory, jointly with the continuous update of the baseline and integrative series for patch testing. For this reason, the scientific community represented in Italy by the Skin Allergies Study Group of SIDeMaST (Italian Society of Dermatology and Venereology) and SIDAPA (Italian Society of Allergological, Occupational and Environmental Dermatology) are constantly working, in close relationship with the European scientific communities with large expertise in this important sector of the modern Dermatology. Herein, we report the setting up of regulatory legislation by AIFA and the new Italian Adult Baseline Series for patch testing.

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.

Advancing the understanding of allergic contact dermatitis: from pathophysiology to novel therapeutic approaches

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a common inflammatory skin disease that, especially when the condition becomes chronic, has a high impact on the quality of life and represents a significant disease burden. ACD represents a type IV delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction that is triggered by contact with an allergen in previously sensitized individuals through the activation of allergen-specific T cells. In the acute phase, it is characterized by eczematous dermatitis, which presents with erythema, edema, vesicles, scaling, and intense itch. Non-eczematous clinical forms are also described (lichenoid, bullous, and lymphomatosis). Lichenification is the most common clinical picture in the chronic phase if the culprit allergen is not found or eliminated. ACD can be associated with both occupational and non-occupational exposure to allergens, representing approximately 90% of occupational skin disorders along with irritant contact dermatitis. Patch testing with suspected allergens is required for a diagnosis. Metals, especially nickel, fragrance mix, isothiazolinones, and para-phenylenediamine, are the most commonly positive allergens in patients patch tested for suspected ACD. The treatment goal is to avoid contact with the culprit agent and use topical and/or systemic corticosteroid therapy.

Side effects of gel nail polish: A systematic review

Gel nail polish (GNP) has recently gained worldwide popularity. We have conducted a comprehensive summary of the complications of GNP through a literature search using the PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases to identify eligible contributions. Complications were divided into mechanical and traumatic nail disorders, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), and ultraviolet (UV)-induced lesions. A total of 12 contributions were included, identifying 88 patients, all of whom were women. Six of the reports described ACD (62 cases, 70.5%), 3 concerned mechanical nail damage (23 cases, 26.1%), and 3 reported UV-induced skin lesions (3 cases, 3.4%). ACD developed an average of 30 months after GNP initiation. The most frequent culprit allergens were 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate. Pterygium inversum unguis was the most frequent mechanical lesion (n = 17). Squamous cell carcinoma was reported in 3 cases. The delay between UV exposure and the diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma ranged from 11 to 15 years. Scant literature and a lack of education among consumers and beauticians have led to the uncontrolled use of GNP. The principle of managing nail cosmetic problems is prevention through education. There is a need for understanding the processes involved and the associated complications to facilitate appropriate treatment and safe use.

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.

Differences between hairdressers and consumers in skin exposure to hair cosmetic products: a review

Hairdressers are at high risk of developing occupational hand eczema. Opinions on the health and safety concerns of non-food consumer products, such as cosmetics and their ingredients, consider the exposure of a 'common consumer', which may not account for occupational exposure of hairdressers. As result, there is a parlous scenario in which serious safety concerns about occupational exposures are present. The purpose of this review is to compare the frequency of exposure to various types of hair cosmetic products among hairdressers and consumers. Database searches for this review yielded a total of 229 articles. 7 publications were ultimately included. The analysis showed that - dependent on the task - hairdressers were exposed 4 to 78 times more than consumers regarding a wide spectrum of hair cosmetic products used in the daily working life ranging from shampoo, conditioner, oxidative and non-oxidative hair colours, and bleaching agents. The highest frequency was found for colouring hair with oxidative hair colour. Consumer usage frequency does not appear to be appropriate for representing hairdresser exposure. The current standards do not effectively address the occupational risks associated with hairdressers' use of cosmetics. The findings of this study should cause current risk assessment procedures to be reconsidered. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Postoperative contact dermatitis caused by skin adhesives used in orthopedic surgery: Incidence, characteristics, and difference from surgical site infection

Skin adhesives are used to close clean surgical wounds. We aimed to investigate the incidence of skin adhesive-related contact dermatitis and the characteristics that differentiate it from a surgical site infection.We retrospectively analyzed patients whose surgical wound was closed using a liquid skin adhesive (Dermabond Prineo skin closure system, Ethicon, NJ) by a single surgeon between March 2018 and June 2020. Medical records were reviewed to evaluate complications indicating contact dermatitis, including wound infections and hematomas.We included 143 patients (men, 59; women, 84; mean age, 60.8 years). No patient had an early surgical site infection or wound dehiscence, but 4 (2.8%) developed postoperative contact dermatitis (week 7, 1; week 4, 2; day 9, 1). Manifestations included eczema and pruritus, without local heat or wound discharge. All cases resolved without complications, including infection.Contact dermatitis occurred in 2.8% of patients who received liquid skin adhesive, and the symptoms differed from those of surgical site infection. Patients should be informed about the risk of contact dermatitis before applying a liquid skin adhesive.

Pediatric allergic contact dermatitis. Part I: Clinical features and common contact allergens in children

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), a delayed hypersensitivity skin reaction to environmental allergens, has a prevalence that is similar in children and adults. However, diagnostic testing for ACD in pediatric populations accounts for less than one tenth of all patch tests. The relative infrequency of pediatric patch testing may be attributed to the difficulty in testing in this population, which includes a smaller surface area for patch test placement and maintaining cooperation during patch testing, especially in younger children. Diagnosis can be difficult in children because the appearance of ACD can mimic other common pediatric skin conditions, particularly atopic dermatitis and irritant contact dermatitis. Comprehensive history taking, guided by patient presentation, age group, and location of dermatitis, helps build clinical suspicion. Such clinical suspicion is one of the major reasons behind patch testing, with additional indications being recalcitrant dermatitis and dermatitis with atypical distribution. US pediatric data have shown the top allergens to be metals, fragrances, topical antibiotics, preservatives, and emollients. These trends are important to recognize to guide management and accurate diagnosis, because ACD tends to persist if the allergen is not identified and can affect patients' quality of life.