Contact allergy to acrylates/methacrylates in the acrylate and nail acrylics series in southern Sweden: simultaneous positive patch test reaction patterns and possible screening allergens

Increased Rates of Gold and Acrylate Allergy in Individuals with Fibromyalgia Tested with an Extended Dental Patch Test Series

Fibromyalgia is a common chronic pain condition. Rates of contact allergy in individuals with fibromyalgia have not been widely studied. Systemic contact allergy can present with muscle and joint pain and general malaise. The aim of this study is to investigate contact allergy rates in individuals with fibromyalgia to the sensitizers in an extended dental series and compare with control groups. Contact allergy to gold was significantly more common in the fibromyalgia group than the dermatitis control group. When corrected for patch test system, contact allergy to gold was significantly more common in the fibromyalgia group than the dental control group. Contact allergy to hydroxyethyl methacrylate and grouped acrylates and methacrylates was significantly more common in the fibromyalgia group than the dental control group. In conclusion, individuals with fibromyalgia may have a propensity to sensitization to gold, either via an increased exposure or an alteration in the oral environment. Gold is also implicated in systemic contact dermatitis and may be a factor in elicitation of symptoms in individuals with fibromyalgia. Acrylate allergy is also common in the fibromyalgia population and may be a consequence of occupational exposure or dental treatment.

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.

Occupational contact dermatitis in a manicurist

We report a case of a manicurist who developed an allergic skin reaction to acrylates, manifested by itchy erythema, papules, vesicles and fissures on her hands, fingertips, forearm and eyelids. Patch tests showed positive reactions to three nail products used: ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, ethyl acrylate and 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate in (meth)acrylate series. By using gel nail products, our patient became sensitized to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate. We assume that this had been the trigger, leading to the occurrence of cross-reactions between numerous acrylates including ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, ethyl acrylate and 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate. When handling nail products, it is necessary to prevent airway sensitization, contact sensitization and cross-reaction between various acrylates.

Risks of Allergic Contact Dermatitis Elicited by Nickel, Chromium, and Organic Sensitizers: Quantitative Models Based on Clinical Patch Test Data

Risks of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from consumer products intended for extended (nonpiercing) dermal contact are regulated by E.U. Directive EN 1811 that limits released Ni to a weekly equivalent dermal load of ≤0.5 μg/cm² . Similar approaches for thousands of known organic sensitizers are hampered by inability to quantify respective ACD-elicitation risk levels. To help address this gap, normalized values of cumulative risk for eliciting a positive ("≥+") clinical patch test response reported in 12 studies for a total of n = 625 Ni-sensitized patients were modeled in relation to observed ACD-eliciting Ni loads, yielding an approximate lognormal (LN) distribution with a geometric mean and standard deviation of GM_Ni = 15 μg/cm² and GSD_Ni = 8.0, respectively. Such data for five sensitizers (including formaldehyde and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) were also ∼LN distributed, but with a common GSD value equal to GSD_Ni and with heterogeneous sensitizer-specific GM values each defining a respective ACD-eliciting potency GM_Ni /GM relative to Ni. Such potencies were also estimated for nine (meth)acrylates by applying this general LN ACD-elicitation risk model to respective sets of fewer data. ACD-elicitation risk patterns observed for Cr(VI) (n = 417) and Cr(III) (n = 78) were fit to mixed-LN models in which ∼30% and ∼40% of the most sensitive responders, respectively, were estimated to exhibit a LN response also governed by GSD_Ni . The observed common LN-response shape parameter GSD_Ni may reflect a common underlying ACD mechanism and suggests a common interim approach to quantitative ACD-elicitation risk assessment based on available clinical data.

Safety and Efficacy of Nail Products

Over the past several decades, the commercialization of nail cosmetics has increased. From nail polishes to artificial nails, different methods of nail beautification have become popularized. However, the impact of these products remains largely unknown. Governments have passed legislation in attempts to regulate nail cosmetics, but these regulations may not be adequate and are difficult to enforce. Knowledge of the safety and efficacy of nail products remains limited due to the relative dearth of literature published on the topic. This review serves to summarize and interpret the data available regarding common nail products and their safety and efficacy. Nail products such as nail polish, nail polish removers, and artificial nails have shown to have some adverse effects through case reports and studies. Harmful substances such as toluenesulfonamide-formaldehyde resin and methacrylates have been identified in commercial nail products, leading to several adverse effects, but in particular, allergic contact dermatitis. Exposure to substances such as acetonitrile found in removers may have more toxic and caustic effects, especially if ingested. In addition, for nail technicians there are negative effects linked with occupational exposure. Compounds used in nail products may become aerosolized and lead to asthma, eye and throat irritation, and even neurocognitive changes.

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.

Resin monomers act as adjuvants in Ni-induced allergic dermatitis in vivo

Resin monomers (RMs) are inflammatory agents and are thought to cause allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). However, mouse models are lacking, possibly because of the weak antigenicities of RMs. We previously reported that inflammatory substances can promote the allergic dermatitis (AD) induced by intradermally injected nickel (Ni-AD) in mice. Here, we examined the effects of RMs on Ni-AD. To sensitize mice to Ni, a mixture containing non-toxic concentrations of NiCl2 and an RM [either methyl methacrylate (MMA) or 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA)] was injected intraperitoneally or into ear-pinnae intradermally. Ten days later, a mixture containing various concentrations of NiCl2 and/or an RM was intradermally injected into ear-pinnae, and ear-swelling was measured. In adoptive transfer experiments, spleen cells from sensitized mice were transferred intravenously into non-sensitized recipients, and 24 h later NiCl2 was challenged to ear-pinnae. Whether injected intraperitoneally or intradermally, RM plus NiCl2 mixtures were effective in sensitizing mice to Ni. AD-inducing Ni concentrations were greatly reduced in the presence of MMA or HEMA (at the sensitization step from 10 mM to 5 or 50 µM, respectively, and at the elicitation step from 10 µM to 10 or 100 nM, respectively). These effects of RMs were weaker in IL-1-knockout mice and in macrophage-depleted mice. Cell-transfer experiments in IL-1-knockout mice indicated that both the sensitization and elicitation steps depended on IL-1. Challenge with an RM alone did not induce allergic ear-swelling in mice given the same RM + NiCl2 10 days before the challenge. These results suggest that RMs act as adjuvants, not as antigens, to promote Ni-AD by reducing the AD-inducing concentration of Ni, and that IL-1 and macrophages are critically important for the adjuvant effects. We speculate that what were previously thought of as "RM-ACD" might include ACD caused by antigens other than RMs that have undergone promotion by the adjuvant effects of RMs.

Allergic patch test reactions associated with cosmetics: retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2001-2004

BACKGROUND

Allergy to cosmetics is common.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to characterize patients with positive patch test reactions associated with a cosmetic source, to identify common allergens; and to explore gender and occupational associations.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis.

RESULTS

Of 6621 female and 3440 male patients, 1582 female (23.8%) and 611 of male (17.8%) patients had at least one allergic patch test reaction associated with a cosmetic source. Of "allergic" patients (>1 allergic reaction, n = 6815), females were 1.21 times more likely to have an allergic reaction associated with a cosmetic source than were male patients (p < .0001, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.31). Within the "cosmetic allergic" group (n = 2243), head and neck involvement was significantly higher in female than in male patients (49.3% vs 23.7%, p < .0001). One hundred twenty-five patients had occupationally related allergic reactions associated with a cosmetic.

LIMITATIONS

This study is limited by its cross-sectional, retrospective design.

CONCLUSION

Of all patients studied, 21.8% had an allergic reaction associated with a cosmetic. Site of dermatitis, cosmetic categories, and specific allergens differed somewhat by gender.