Is there a goodin vivomethod to show whether gloves are sufficiently protective when a nail technician is exposed to (meth)acrylates? Anin vivopilot study

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.

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.

Allergic contact dermatitis caused by (meth)acrylates in long-lasting nail polish - are we facing a new epidemic in the beauty industry?

BACKGROUND

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by (meth)acrylates has been described both in occupational and in non-occupational settings.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical patterns, the most frequent allergens and the prognosis in patients sensitized to (meth)acrylates in long-lasting nail polish.

METHODS

The files of patients with ACD caused by (meth)acrylates in long-lasting nail polish diagnosed between January 2013 and June 2016 in four dermatology departments in Spain were reviewed. Patients were followed up by telephone interview.

RESULTS

Overall, 2353 patients were patch tested. Forty-three (1.82%) were diagnosed with ACD caused by (meth)acrylates in long-lasting nail polish during that period; all were female, and all had hand dermatitis. Patients were mostly less than 40 years old (72.1%), non-atopic (95.4%) and had an occupational cause of their dermatitis (93%), which developed ∼10.1 months after they had started to use this technique. The most frequent positive allergens were: 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, and tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate. Eight of the 22 interviewed patients were able to improve their working technique and used 4H® protective material (fingerstalls/gloves).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-lasting nail polishes have become widespread, and it is a matter of concern that we may be facing a new epidemic of ACD caused by these. Policies regulating their use are urgently needed.