Non-occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by long-lasting nail polish kits for home use: ‘the tip of the iceberg’

[Nail cosmetics-risks and opportunities]

The use of nail cosmetics has experienced a strong upswing in recent years, particularly due to product innovations and the increasing popularity in social media. The market value of nail cosmetics amounted to USD 24.55 billion in 2024 with a forecast annual growth rate of almost 5%. It is therefore also important for dermatologists to be aware of the most common complications, risks, and areas of application associated with nail cosmetics and to provide appropriate guidance and care to affected patients.

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.

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.

Nail cosmetology

Nail cosmetics is enjoying growing success due to recent technological advances. Manicures can be responsible for mechanical, infectious or allergic adverse effects. Nail cosmetics (e.g., nail varnishes, acrylic false nails, light-curing gels, and adhesive false nails) incorporate substances that harden after solvent evaporation or after polymerization. Allergic reactions can occur, remotely with conventional varnishes and locally with polymerizing substances. Artificial nails incur a risk of carrying infectious agents which can cause serious infection, and should not be used by caregivers. Recently, there has been a worrisome increase in the frequency of acrylate allergy, due to the appearance of home kits and lack of information in the general public. The infectious, allergic and toxic risks incurred by consumers and professionals regarding manicure or pedicure treatments and the application of nail cosmetics are the subject of recommendations and monitoring measures.

Acrylates in artificial nails-Results of product analyses and glove penetration studies

BACKGROUND

Artificial nail materials are mixtures that are prone to contain several sensitizing (meth)acrylates. It is not known whether the listing of (meth)acrylates is correct in these products' packages. Protective gloves suited for nail work are needed.

OBJECTIVES

To analyse (meth)acrylates in gel nail and acrylic nail products chemically and to compare the results with the information in the product labels, and to study penetration of artificial nail materials through selected disposable gloves.

METHODS

We analysed 31 gel nail products and 6 acrylic nail products for their (meth)acrylate content by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). We tested the penetration of two nail products through three disposable gloves: nitrile rubber, neoprene rubber and polyvinyl chloride (PVC).

RESULTS

Altogether 32/37 products contained (meth)acrylates. In all of them, there was discrepancy between the listed (meth)acrylates and those discovered in the analysis. The commonest (meth)acrylates were hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA, 20/37 samples) and hydroxypropyl methacrylate (HPMA, 9/37 samples), but many of the product packages failed to declare them. Isobornyl acrylate (IBA) was discovered in nine gel nail products. The neoprene glove could withstand nail gel for 20 min and thin nitrile glove and PVC glove for 5 min. Acrylic nail liquid penetrated through disposable gloves quickly.

CONCLUSIONS

Labelling of artificial nail products was notably incorrect on most products. Requirements for product labelling must be updated so that the risk of sensitization associated with artificial nail products is clearly indicated. Disposable gloves can probably be used short-term in gel nail work, whereas disposable gloves do not protect the user from acrylic nail liquids.

Contact allergy to acrylate-containing nail cosmetics: A retrospective 8-year study

BACKGROUND

Over the last 10 years, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from acrylate-containing nail cosmetics (acrylic nails, gel nails, gel nail polish) has been reported repeatedly.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the frequency and clinical features of ACD in nail cosmetics in a university hospital in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study in patients diagnosed with ACD from acrylate-containing nail cosmetics at the Amsterdam University Medical Centers between January 2015 and August 2023.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients, all women, were diagnosed with ACD from nail cosmetics, representing 1.6% of all individuals and 2.3% of all women patch tested in this period. Sixty-five of sixty-seven (97%) subjects had a positive patch test to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA). Forty-nine patients (73%) were consumers and 18 (27%) were professional nail stylists. The sites most frequently affected with dermatitis were the fingers (79%), hands (40%) and the head and/or neck. Avoidance of contact with acrylate-containing products resulted in complete clearing of dermatitis in 80% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

ACD from acrylate-containing nail cosmetics is frequent in women patch tested in Amsterdam. Nearly all were identified by a positive patch test to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate in the (meth)acrylate series or the European baseline series.

A Survey of Skin Reactions Associated With Acrylic Nail Cosmetics, With a Focus on Home Kits: Is There a Need for Regulation?

Background: Sensitization to (meth)acrylates, the most common nail cosmetic allergens, is rising. In recent years, home acrylic nail kits have become easily available. Objective: To investigate the characteristics of individuals reporting skin reactions associated with acrylic nail cosmetics, particularly home kits. Methods: Cross-sectional survey of Facebook nail allergy support groups. Inclusion criteria were self-reported skin reactions associated with acrylic nails and age ≥18 years. Results: There were 199 respondents, nearly all female (99%), mostly white (83%), and 25-54 years old (83%). Seventy-eight percent reported using home acrylic kits, more than half for the first time during COVID-19. They predominantly learned about kits through social media (68%) and received training through websites/online videos (74%). Most home users (83%) first developed skin reactions after starting to use home kits. Compared with nonhome users, significantly more home users reported skin reaction onset within 1 year of use, as well as nail damage (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Among online nail allergy support group members, home acrylic nail kit use was common and associated with earlier development of skin reactions and more frequent nail damage than professional acrylic manicures. These findings raise important questions about the need to regulate home acrylic nail kits.

Presence of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) and other (meth)acrylates in nail cosmetics, and compliance with EU legislation: An online market survey

BACKGROUND

During the last 15-20 years, allergic contact dermatitis from acrylates-containing nail cosmetics (acrylic nails, gel nails, gel nail polish) has been increasingly reported. 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) is considered to be the major allergenic culprit; few data on its presence in nail cosmetics are available.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate (1) the frequency in which HEMA and di-HEMA trimethylhexyl dicarbamate are present in nail cosmetics; (2) whether nail cosmetics comply with EU regulations; (3) which other (meth)acrylates are present in nail cosmetics and how often.

METHODS

One-line market survey.

RESULTS

HEMA was present in nearly 60% of 394 cosmetic nail products and di-HEMA trimethylhexyl dicarbamate in 34%. Mandatory warnings on the packages of products containing HEMA were absent in 35% ('For professional use only') resp. 55% ('Can cause an allergic reaction'). Forty-five other (meth)acrylates were identified, of which the most frequent were hydroxypropyl methacrylate (25%), isobornyl methacrylate (16%) and trimethylolpropane triacrylate (12%). Some ingredient lists mentioned non-INCI names or non-specific names.

CONCLUSIONS

HEMA was by far the most common ingredient of nail cosmetics, being present in nearly 60% of the products. Violations of EU legislation occurred in >30% (mandatory warnings missing) resp. 10% (mislabelling) of nail cosmetics.

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.

Methacrylate Ester Monomers

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety reviewed newly available studies since their original assessment in 2005, along with updated information regarding product types and concentrations of use, and confirmed that these 22 methacrylate ester monomers are safe as used in nail enhancement products in the practices of use and concentration as described in this report, when skin contact is avoided.

Prognosis and sequelae of meth(acrylate) sensitization in beauticians and consumers of manicure materials

BACKGROUND

Allergic contact dermatitis from (meth)acrylic monomers (ACDMA) in manicure products is increasing.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prognosis, work performance impairment and sequelae of a cohort of beauticians and manicure consumers with ACDMA sensitized from the exposure to manicure products.

METHODS

We conducted a telephone survey with patients diagnosed with ACDMA.

RESULTS

One hundred and six patients were evaluated, including 75 (70.8%) beauticians and 31 (29.2%) consumers. All were women with a mean age of 39 (19-62). Thirty-seven of 75 beauticians (49.3%) continued to work. Twenty-seven of 106 (25.5%) patients continued to use manicure products with (meth)acrylates regularly. Seventeen of 51 (33.3%) patients who discontinued the exposure described ongoing nail/periungual changes. Nine of 58 (15.5%) patients who required dental restoration, orthodontic or occlusal splint materials recalled reactions from them; and, 25 of 96 (26%) who used sanitary napkins recalled intolerance to them starting after the diagnosis of ACDMA. Fifteen of 25 (60%) discontinued the use of sanitary napkins.

CONCLUSION

49.3% beauticians continued to work; most patients stopped wearing acrylic manicure materials; reactions from dental materials were not uncommon, however, removal of dental materials was never required; and, reactions to sanitary napkins developing after the diagnosis of ACDMA were common most leading to discontinuation of use.

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.

Artificial Nails and Long-lasting Nail Polish in Danish Hairdressers: Self-use, Occupational Exposure and Related Eczema

Artificial nail modelling systems (ANMS), encompassing artificial nails and long-lasting nail polish, are sources of acrylate exposure in beauticians and users of ANMS. Hairdressers' exposure to ANMS from self-use and occupational exposure is currently unknown. In 2020 a questionnaire was sent to all hairdressers graduating during 2008 to 2018 in Denmark (n = 4,830). Self-use of ANMS was reported by 87.6% of respondents (1,251/1,428), and application of ANMS to others was reported by 22.1% (316/1,428). Of these, application to others was performed in a salon by 37.1% (109/294), privately by 51.0% (150/294) and in both settings by 11.9% (35/294). Compliance with glove use was seen in 23.0% (67/291) among those applying ANMS to others. Among hairdressers exposed to ANMS, 4.3% (52/1,218) reported ANMS-related hand eczema. Being a trained beautician (adjusted odds ratio 3.26, 95% confidence interval 1.06-9.99) and having had a positive patch-test to acrylates (adjusted odds ratio 7.70, 95% confidence interval 1.44-41.13) were associated with ANMS-related hand dermatitis. In conclusion, hairdressers have a high prevalence of exposure to ANMS and ANMS-related hand dermatitis. Compliance with glove use when applying ANMS to others is poor. Patch-testing with acrylates is valuable in the diagnostic work-up of hand eczema in hairdressers.

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.

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.

Acrylates as a significant cause of allergic contact dermatitis: new sources of exposure

Acrylate monomers have a wide range of applications. Since the 1950s, many reports of occupational origin allergic contact dermatitis due to (meth)acrylate monomers have been published. During last decades, (meth)acrylate allergy has undergone an occupational shift from dentistry toward beauty industry and medical devices. The aim of the study was to conduct a literature review on acrylates as a cause of allergic contact dermatitis, current sources of exposure as well as identification of professional groups with an increased risk of this allergy and methods of effective prevention. Database review: Medline search (PubMed), Wiley Online Library and Web of Science base in years 1956–2019 using the following keywords: acrylates, manicurists, dentists, dental technicians, medical devices, occupational exposure, and allergic contact dermatitis. 204 346 articles containing the term ‘acrylates‘ have been found. They include 2 042 articles with the word ‘manicurists’, 169 919 – ‘dentists’, 218 236 – ‘dental technicians’, 2 427 418 – ‘medical devices’. Fifty-nine articles were chosen based on analysis of abstracts and full texts. In the past allergy to acrylates was mainly of occupational origin and dental technicians were the most often affected professional group. Since the long-lasting manicure has become popular, this problem concerns both manicurists and their customers. Moreover, the new significant trend is non-occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by medical devices especially dedicated to diabetes patients.

Patch test results of the European baseline series among 1309 patients in Turkey between 2013 and 2019

BACKGROUND

Prevalences of sensitivity to contact allergens change over time as a result of variations in allergen exposure.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to describe trends in sensitisation to allergens of the European baseline series in Turkey between 2013 and 2019.

METHODS

The patch test results of 1309 patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) were analysed retrospectively, and the prevalence of contact allergies to European baseline series allergens was compared with previous data (for 1998-2005).

RESULTS

A total of 534 (40.8%) patients exhibited one or more positive patch test reaction. The five most frequent allergens were nickel sulfate (19.6%), potassium dichromate (6.5%), cobalt chloride (6%), Myroxylon pereirae resin (5%), and p-phenylenediamine (PPD; 3.7%). Statistically significant increases in the prevalence of sensitisation to methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI; P < .001), Myroxylon pereirae resin (P < .001), PPD (P = .008), and fragrance mix I (P = .036) were observed in the 2013 to 2019 period compared with the 1998 to 2005 period. Conversely, positive reactions to neomycin sulfate (P = .029), clioquinol (P = .031), and primin (P = .001) decreased significantly.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a comprehensive profile of ACD in Turkey. The remarkable increase in the MI and MCI/MI contact allergy observed underlines the urgent need for regulatory measures to reduce exposure to MI and MCI/MI in Turkey.

Contact Allergy-Emerging Allergens and Public Health Impact

Contact allergy (sensitisation) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) resulting from it have a considerable public health impact. For the present review, all pertinent articles were systematically searched via Medline and Web of Science™; additionally, all available issues of the journals "Contact Dermatitis" and "Dermatitis" were manually searched, covering the years 2018-2019, thereby extending and re-focusing a previous similar review. New allergens, or previously described allergens found in a new exposure context or of other current importance, are described in sections according to substance classes, e.g., metals, preservatives, fragrances. As a common finding in many investigations, a lack of information on product composition has been noted, for instance, regarding a newly described allergen in canvas shoes (dimethylthiocarbamylbenzothiazole sulfide) and, most notably, absence of co-operation from manufacturers of glucose-monitoring devices and insulin pumps, respectively. These latter devices have been shown to cause severe ACD in a considerable number of diabetic patients caused by the liberation of isobornyl acrylate and N,N'-dimethylacrylamide, respectively, as demonstrated by an international collaboration between dermatologists and chemists. Improved and complete ingredient labelling for all types of products, and not just cosmetics, must be put on the legislative agenda.

Nail health in women

Healthy nails are functionally and cosmetically important to the daily work of women. The globally increasing market for nail cosmetics reflects the importance of the appearance of nails. This article details the composition of a healthy nail, diagnosis and treatment of nail disorders, use of nail cosmetics and their risks, the impact of the aging process on nails, and the relative risks to nail salon workers. Knowledge of these issues will prepare health care providers and patients to maintain healthy nails throughout their lives.

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.