Contact Dermatitis最新文献

{"title":"Sensitisation to the acrylate co-polymers glyceryl acrylate/acrylic acid co-polymer, sodium polyacrylate and acrylates/C10-30 alkyl acrylate cross-polymer (Carbopol®) is rare","authors":"Livia F. Soriano,&nbsp;M. M. U. Chowdhury,&nbsp;Philippa Cousen,&nbsp;Simon Dawe,&nbsp;Sharizan A. Ghaffar,&nbsp;Adam Haworth,&nbsp;Catherine R. Holden,&nbsp;Aoife Hollywood,&nbsp;Graham A. Johnston,&nbsp;Stephen Kirk,&nbsp;Avad A. Mughal,&nbsp;David I. Orton,&nbsp;Robin Parker,&nbsp;Asha Rajeev,&nbsp;Krisztina Scharrer,&nbsp;Aparna Sinha,&nbsp;Natalie M. Stone,&nbsp;Donna Thompson,&nbsp;Sarah Wakelin,&nbsp;Heather Whitehouse,&nbsp;Catriona Wootton,&nbsp;Deirdre A. Buckley","doi":"10.1111/cod.14679","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.14679","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Acrylate polymers and cross-polymers (ACPs) are frequently used cosmetic ingredients. The British Society for Cutaneous Allergy (BSCA) and the UK Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association (CTPA) collaborated to investigate the allergenic potential of three commonly-used ACPs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The objective of this study is to determine the prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to three ACPs: glyceryl acrylate/acrylic acid co-polymer, sodium polyacrylate, and acrylates/C10-30 alkyl acrylate cross-polymer (Carbopol®).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The BSCA prospectively audited data collected from 20 centres in the UK and Ireland between 1st September 2021 and 1st September 2022. Patients with suspected ACD to (meth)acrylates, with facial dermatitis, or consecutive patients, were patch tested to glyceryl acrylate/acrylic acid co-polymer 10% aqueous (aq.) sodium polyacrylate 2% aq., and to acrylates/C10-30 alkyl acrylate cross-polymer 2% aq. (Carbopol®). The frequencies of positive, irritant, and doubtful reactions were recorded.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In total, 1302 patients were patch tested. To glyceryl acrylate/acrylic acid co-polymer, there was one doubtful reaction in a patient allergic to multiple (meth)acrylates, and one irritant. To sodium polyacrylate, there were four irritant reactions, one doubtful, and one positive reaction; in all cases, relevance was unknown and there was no demonstrable (meth)acrylate allergy. There were no reactions to Carbopol®.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Sensitisation to these concentrations of the three tested ACPs is rare. Elicitation of dermatitis in (meth)acrylate-sensitised patients by exposure to these three ACPs appears unlikely.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"91 6","pages":"491-496"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142072230","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"In vitro characterisation of a novel rubber contact allergen in protective gloves","authors":"Renato Ivan de Ávila,&nbsp;Linda Ljungberg Silic,&nbsp;Sofía Carreira-Santos,&nbsp;Gábor Merényi,&nbsp;Ola Bergendorff,&nbsp;Kathrin S. Zeller","doi":"10.1111/cod.14682","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.14682","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from protective gloves is often caused by rubber additives, such as accelerators. However, while accelerator-free rubber gloves are available, they still cause ACD in some individuals.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A new allergen, 2-cyаnоethyl dimethyldithiocarbamate, (CEDMC), has recently been identified in accelerator-free gloves, and we here provide a first in vitro characterisation of CEDMC in a dendritic cell (DC)-like cell model along with three reference sensitizer rubber chemicals, consisting of tetraethylthiuram disulfide (TETD) and two xanthogenates.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Cellular responses after the exposure to the rubber chemicals were assessed using a transcriptomic approach, multiplex cytokine secretion profiling, and flow cytometry to determine DC model activation marker expression and apoptosis induction.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>CEDMC and all other sensitizers were classified as strong skin sensitizers with the transcriptomic approach. They all significantly increased IL-8 secretion and exposure to all except one increased CD86 DC activation marker expression. When tested, CEDMC induced apoptosis, however, delayed compared to TETD.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The in vitro data corroborate CEDMC, TETD, and investigated xanthogenates as skin sensitizers. Transcriptomic analyses further reveal unique cellular responses induced by CEDMC, which together with future study can contribute to better understanding of cellular mechanisms underlying the sensitising capacity of rubber chemicals.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"92 1","pages":"61-71"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11669566/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142055158","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Pandemic of sensitivity to acrylate containing nail cosmetic among young Israeli women? Result of patch testing 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate in the European baseline series","authors":"D. Hilewitz,&nbsp;A. Trattner,&nbsp;O. Reiter,&nbsp;V. Uvaidov,&nbsp;Y. Noyman,&nbsp;E. Solomon Cohen,&nbsp;A. Hackett,&nbsp;D. Mimouni,&nbsp;I. Snast","doi":"10.1111/cod.14683","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.14683","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) was added into the European baseline series (EBS) in 2019. There is limited data regarding the frequency, relevance, and sources of exposure to HEMA.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To investigate the frequency and clinical relevance of positive reactions to HEMA in the EBS in Israel, and explore sources of exposure.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Retrospective cohort study that included all patients who underwent patch testing with the EBS in a tertiary center in Israel between 2020 and 2023. Positive reactions to HEMA were stratified by sex, six age groups, and year of study. Sources of exposure to HEMA as well as occupational data were recorded.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 1671 consecutive patients underwent HEMA patch testing, with 135 (8.1%) showing positive reactions to HEMA (130 females, 5 males). The prevalence in women (11.0%) was significantly higher compared to men (1.0%) (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Stratification by age and sex revealed the highest frequency of HEMA sensitivity of 16.7% among women younger than 30 years of age, with odds ratio of 2.3 (95%CI: 1.6–3.3, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) compared to older women. There was an increase in frequency among women between the years 2022 and 2023 when compared to 2020–2021 (OR 1.7, 95%CI: 1.5–2.1, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01) attributable to COVID-19 pandemic and social restrictions. Among men the frequency fluctuations over the study period and age categories were nonsignificant. 111 (84%) were judged to be of clinical relevance and nail cosmetics was responsible for 95% of them. Of 111 patients with relevant reaction (110 females, 1 males), 20 (18%) had occupational contact dermatitis (18 nails stylists, 2 dentists). Other culprit products included sanitary pads (<i>n</i> = 4), medical adhesives (<i>n</i> = 3), and paints (<i>n</i> = 2).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We report the highest frequency of HEMA sensitivity to date of 8.1%, that was most common among young women and in vast majority of cases was attributable to nail cosmetics. Our findings reflect the popularity of nail cosmetics in Israel as well as the global trend of increasing sensitivity to (meth)acrylates.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"91 6","pages":"485-490"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cod.14683","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142046431","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Photopatch testing: Clinical characteristics, test results, and final diagnoses from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2009–2020","authors":"Vincent A. DeLeo,&nbsp;Brandon L. Adler,&nbsp;Donald V. Belsito,&nbsp;Melanie D. Pratt,&nbsp;Denis Sasseville,&nbsp;Margo J. Reeder,&nbsp;Erin M. Warshaw,&nbsp;Amber R. Atwater,&nbsp;James S. Taylor,&nbsp;Frances Storrs,&nbsp;James G. Marks Jr,&nbsp;Joel G. DeKoven,&nbsp;Jonathan Silverberg,&nbsp;JiaDe Yu,&nbsp;Nina Botto,&nbsp;Marie-Claude Houle,&nbsp;Christen M. Mowad,&nbsp;Cory A. Dunnick","doi":"10.1111/cod.14677","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.14677","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD) is a delayed hypersensitivity reaction to allergens only in the presence of ultraviolet radiation in sunlight. Photopatch testing (PhotoPT) is necessary to confirm the diagnosis of PACD. There are few published studies of PhotoPT in North America.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To summarise the results of patients photopatch tested by members of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG), 2009–2020.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Retrospective analysis of patient characteristics and PhotoPT results to 32 allergens on the NACDG Photopatch Test Series.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Most of the 454 tested patients were female (70.3%), 21–60 years old (66.7%) and White (66.7%). There were a total of 119 positive photopatch tests. Sunscreen agents comprised 88.2% of those, with benzophenones responsible for over half of them. Final diagnoses included PACD in 17.2%, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in 44.5%, polymorphous light eruption (PMLE) in 18.9% and chronic actinic dermatitis (CAD) in 9.0% of patients.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In 454 patients with suspected photosensitivity referred for photopatch testing in North America, approximately one-fifth had PACD. Sunscreen agents, especially benzophenones, were the most common photoallergens. Other common diagnoses included ACD, PMLE and CAD. Photopatch testing is an important tool for differentiating these conditions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"91 6","pages":"465-473"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cod.14677","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142016560","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Results of patch testing propolis in the European baseline series: A 4-year retrospective study","authors":"Gizem Kocabas,&nbsp;Norbertus A. Ipenburg,&nbsp;Anton de Groot,&nbsp;Thomas Rustemeyer","doi":"10.1111/cod.14678","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.14678","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Propolis was added to the European baseline series (EBS) in 2019.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To investigate the frequency and relevance of positive patch tests to propolis in the EBS and to study co-reactivities.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Patients and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Retrospective study in patients patch tested between June 2019 and November 2023 in a university hospital in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Of 3134 consecutive patients, 299 (9.5%) had a positive reaction to propolis 10% pet. Only nine reactions (3%) were judged to be clinically relevant. There were significant co-reactivities to <i>Myroxylon pereirae</i> resin (balsam of Peru), colophonium, fragrance mixes 1 and 2, and to limonene and linalool hydroperoxides. A steep increase in rates of positive reactions to propolis was observed from 2020 to 2023. This was highly likely the result of the replacement of Chinese propolis with Brazilian propolis by the manufacturer.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Positive patch tests for propolis are very frequent in Amsterdam, but only a few of these reactions are relevant. Most are probably (pseudo-)cross-reactions in patients with fragrance allergies. Propolis in the EBS has very limited value for dermatologists and patients in The Netherlands. Changes in patch test materials should be provided to all users to avoid misinterpretation of patch test results.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"91 5","pages":"375-378"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cod.14678","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142016561","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Tert-butylhydroquinone and tert-butylcatechol positivity as warning lights of skin sensitization to tert-butylphenol derivatives in adhesives and diabetes devices","authors":"Ella Dendooven,&nbsp;Tania Naessens,&nbsp;Kenn Foubert,&nbsp;Nina Hermans,&nbsp;Olivier Aerts","doi":"10.1111/cod.14670","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.14670","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Tert-butylphenol (TBP) derivatives, antioxidants in adhesives and diabetes devices, may provoke allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The objective of this study is to report sensitization to TBP derivatives in medical devices and to highlight that tert-butylhydroquinone (BHQ) and tert-butylcatechol (TBC) are potential screeners in this regard.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Fifteen patients with ACD from adhesives and diabetes devices were patch tested to different TBPs: BHQ 1% pet., TBC 0.25% pet., BHA 2% pet., BHT 2% pet., 4-tert-butylphenol (TBP) 1% pet. and 2,4-di-tert-butylphenol (di TBP) 1% pet. The culprit devices (medical adhesives, sanitary pads, diabetes devices) and TBP patch preparations were analysed using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC–MS).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>BHQ (9/13), TBC (7/13), and to a lesser extent BHT (3/15), BHA (2/15) and TBP (2/13) gave positive reactions. Seven patients had developed ACD from adhesives and diabetes devices, respectively, and one patient from sanitary pads. GC–MS analyses of the medical devices and patch test materials confirmed the presence of the patch-test positive TBPs, or chemically related derivatives, or, interestingly, tert-butylbenzoquinones (BBQ) were found, that is, spontaneously formed, highly reactive TBP metabolites, likely (pseudo-) cross reacting with the patch tested TBPs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>TBPs might be overlooked sensitizers in medical devices, and BHQ and TBC are potential screeners in this regard.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"91 5","pages":"387-391"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142016562","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"An emerging epidemic of allergic contact dermatitis due to phytonadione epoxide (oxidised vitamin K1)","authors":"María E. Gatica-Ortega,&nbsp;María A. Pastor-Nieto,&nbsp;Ana María Giménez-Arnau,&nbsp;Pedro Mercader-García,&nbsp;Esther Serra-Baldrich,&nbsp;Violeta Zaragoza-Ninet,&nbsp;Tatiana Sanz-Sánchez,&nbsp;Araceli Sánchez-Gilo,&nbsp;David Pesqué,&nbsp;Fátima Tous-Romero,&nbsp;Francisco Javier Ortiz-de-Frutos,&nbsp;Eduardo de la Rosa-Fernández,&nbsp;Sara Dorta-Alom,&nbsp;Marta Elosua-González,&nbsp;Ricardo González-Pérez,&nbsp;José Manuel Carrascosa-Carrillo,&nbsp;Mónica Munera-Campos,&nbsp;Juan Francisco Silvestre-Salvador,&nbsp;Javier Miquel-Miquel,&nbsp;Antonio de Mateo Minguez,&nbsp;Leopoldo Borrego","doi":"10.1111/cod.14675","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.14675","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Reports of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to phytonadione epoxide (PE) in cosmetics suggest that PE is as powerful a sensitiser as its parent compound phytonadione.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To evaluate a case series of ACD to PE in Spain.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We reviewed the records of 20 patients with ACD to cosmetics containing PE diagnosed across Spain between January 2019 and June 2023.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>All 20 patients developed patch test (PT) or repeated open application test (ROAT) reactions to cosmetics containing PE. All involved women with eyelid eczema. PT or ROAT with PE preparations were positive in 17/20 (85%). PE at 1%, 5%, 10% and 20% in pet. was patch-tested in 8/17, 14/17, 11/17 and 8/17 patients; being positive in 6/8 (75%), 13/14 (92.85%), 11/11 (100%) and 8/8 (100%), respectively.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Regulators should, not only ban the specific dangerous cosmetic ingredients, but also consider to ban or keep under close surveillance those closely related products or derivatives that might potentially cause similar harmful effects. PTs with PE are suggested to be performed at a 5% concentration in pet. Higher concentrations (10% pet.) should be tested whenever PTs with 5% pet. PE are negative.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"91 5","pages":"379-386"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142008407","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Allergic contact dermatitis to sodium metabisulphite in a rotigotine transdermal therapeutic system","authors":"Sofia Antunes-Duarte,&nbsp;Lanyu Sun,&nbsp;Diogo Sousa,&nbsp;Miguel Alpalhão","doi":"10.1111/cod.14676","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.14676","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"91 6","pages":"528-529"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142003790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Hidden formaldehyde in cosmetic products","authors":"Rebekka Søgaard,&nbsp;Pia Brunn Poulsen,&nbsp;Rikke Munch Gelardi,&nbsp;Susann Geschke,&nbsp;Jakob Ferløv Baselius Schwensen,&nbsp;Jeanne Duus Johansen","doi":"10.1111/cod.14669","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.14669","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Formaldehyde is a common cause of contact allergy. Hidden formaldehyde, that is, formaldehyde in products without formaldehyde releasers, has previously been detected in cosmetic products.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The objective of this study was to investigate the content and causes of hidden formaldehyde in leave-on cosmetic products.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The formaldehyde release from 142 cosmetic products, primarily creams, was analysed using the chromotropic acid (CA) method. The study included 130 products with no formaldehyde releasers on the ingredient list and 12 products with formaldehyde releasers. Products without formaldehyde releasers positive to CA, that is, with formaldehyde ≥2.5 ppm, were additionally analysed using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Formaldehyde release from selected raw materials and packaging were also investigated.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Hidden formaldehyde was found in 23 of the 130 products (18%) without formaldehyde releasers on the ingredient list. The average formaldehyde content was 105 ppm (range: 0.5–507 ppm) in products with hidden formaldehyde and 355 ppm (range: 75–637 ppm) in eight products with formaldehyde releasers, selected for HPLC analysis. Impurities of formaldehyde in dihydroxyacetone may be a cause of hidden formaldehyde in self-tanners. No clear pattern was found for the other products with hidden formaldehyde.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Changes in regulation are needed to prevent allergic contact dermatitis from hidden formaldehyde in cosmetic products.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"91 6","pages":"497-502"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cod.14669","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141999550","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"An update on the performance of the Australian Baseline Series in detecting allergic contact dermatitis","authors":"James Fuller,&nbsp;Amanda Palmer,&nbsp;Rosemary Nixon","doi":"10.1111/cod.14673","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.14673","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"91 6","pages":"526-527"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141975301","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}