Deodorants: an experimental provocation study with isoeugenol

Combinative ex vivo studies and in silico models ProTox-II for investigating the toxicity of chemicals used mainly in cosmetic products

Human data on remains sparse and of varying quality and reproducibility. Ex vivo experiments and animal experiments currently is the most preferred way to predict the skin sensitization approved by the regulatory agencies across the world. However, there is a constant need and demand to reduce animal experiments and provide the scope of alternative methods to animal testing. In this study, we have compared the predictive performance of the published computational tools such as ProTox-II, SuperCYPsPred with the data obtained from ex-vivo experiments. From the results of the retrospective analysis, it can be observed that the computational predictions are in agreement with the experimental results. The computational models used here are generative models based on molecular structures and machine learning algorithms and can be applied also for the prediction of skin sensitization. Besides prediction of the toxicity endpoints, the models can also provide deeper insights into the molecular mechanisms and adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) associated with the chemicals used in cosmetic products.

Validation of questionnaire algorithm based on repeated open application testing with the constituents of fragrance mix II: the EDEN Fragrance Study

BACKGROUND

In a European study on contact allergy in the general population, it has been hypothesized that the combination of contact allergy to a fragrance together with a history indicating dermatitis at exposure and thereafter subsequent avoidance of scented products implied a diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this study was to validate this hypothesis/algorithm. The secondary aim was to investigate whether there was any association between the outcome of the recent repeated open application test (ROAT) and the patch test reactivity.

METHODS

One hundred nine subjects with and without contact allergy to fragrance mix II (FM II) were recruited. Volunteers from six European dermatology clinics participated in the study including a patch test and a ROAT.

RESULTS

Twenty-four positive ROAT reactions were noted in total including 20 of those 32 with contact allergy to FM II. None of the volunteers reacted to the vehicle (P < 0.001). More individuals with a positive algorithm had positive ROATs when compared with those with a negative algorithm. However, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.12). The lower the patch test concentration eliciting a positive test reaction, the more likely was a positive ROAT and the more likely that the positive ROAT appeared early during the investigative period.

CONCLUSIONS

The algorithm used in this study was not validated but it was indicated in this ROAT setup. The stronger the patch test reactivity the more likely was a positive ROAT and the more likely it was that the positive ROAT appeared early during the application period.

Contact dermatitis: a practice parameter-update 2015

This parameter was developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, which represents the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. The AAAAI and the ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "Contact Dermatitis: A Practice Parameter-Update 2015." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is changing and not all recommendations will be appropriate or applicable to all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including members serving on the Joint Task Force, are authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information or interpretation of this practice parameter by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. These parameters are not designed for use by the pharmaceutical industry in drug development or promotion. Previously published practice parameters of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters for Allergy & Immunology are available at http://www.JCAAI.org or http://www.allergyparameters.org.

Skincare products containing low concentrations of formaldehyde detected by the chromotropic acid method cannot be safely used in formaldehyde-allergic patients

BACKGROUND

Formaldehyde is a well-known contact sensitizer. Formaldehyde releasers are widely used preservatives in skincare products. It has been found that formaldehyde at concentrations allowed by the European Cosmetics Directive can cause allergic contact dermatitis. However, we still lack information on whether formaldehyde at low concentrations affects dermatitis in formaldehyde-allergic individuals.

OBJECTIVES

To study the effects of low concentrations of formaldehyde on irritant contact dermatitis in formaldehyde-allergic individuals.

METHODS

Fifteen formaldehyde-allergic individuals and a control group of 12 individuals without contact allergy to formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers were included in the study. The individuals performed the repeated open application test (ROAT) during 4 weeks with four different moisturizers releasing formaldehyde in concentrations that had been determined as > 40, 20-40, 2·5-10 and 0 p.p.m. by the chromotropic acid (CA) spot test. Dimethyloldimethylhydantoin was used as a formaldehyde releaser in the moisturizers. The ROAT was performed on areas of experimentally induced sodium lauryl sulfate dermatitis. The study was double blind, controlled and randomized.

RESULTS

Nine of the 15 formaldehyde-allergic individuals had reappearance or worsening of dermatitis on the areas that were treated with moisturizers containing formaldehyde. No such reactions were observed in the control group (P < 0·001) or for the moisturizers without formaldehyde in the formaldehyde-allergic individuals (P < 0·001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that the low concentrations of formaldehyde often found in skincare products by the CA method are sufficient to worsen an existing dermatitis in formaldehyde-allergic individuals.

Fragrance allergic contact dermatitis

Fragrances are a common cause of allergic contact dermatitis in Europe and in North America. They can affect individuals at any age and elicit a spectrum of reactions from contact urticaria to systemic contact dermatitis. Growing recognition of the widespread use of fragrances in modern society has fueled attempts to prevent sensitization through improved allergen identification, labeling, and consumer education. This review provides an overview and update on fragrance allergy. Part 1 discusses the epidemiology and evaluation of suspected fragrance allergy. Part 2 reviews screening methods, emerging fragrance allergens, and management of patients with fragrance contact allergy. This review concludes by examining recent legislation on fragrances and suggesting potential additions to screening series to help prevent and detect fragrance allergy.

The hazard communication of fragrance allergens must be improved

Contact allergy is a global health problem that could be alleviated considerably if the general public could reduce contact to sensitizers. Efficient hazard communication would be a valuable instrument to achieve this. What do current regulations concerning fragrance sensitizers in cosmetic products in Europe contribute? For example, there are bans and restrictions according to the Cosmetic Regulation, there is the "26 allergens rule" that requires that the names of some allergenic fragrance ingredients are listed on the containers, there is labeling and classification of hazardous products according to Regulation 1272/2008, and there is the regulation concerning the registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals (REACH). Do these regulations increase consumer protection by suitable hazard communication instruments? Four main problems were identified. First, according to the 26 allergens rule, consumers carry a very large part of the responsibility for risk reduction management. They need to be capable and motivated to recognize the names of strong allergens listed in the ingredient list and decide for themselves whether they want to run the risk or not, provided that they are aware of their responsibility. Second, cosmetic products do not need to be classified and labeled like other consumer goods, according to the European Commission Regulation 1272/2008, if they contain hazardous substances. Third, some pictograms for hazardous substances, for example, the exclamation mark for sensitizers, are not well understood by the majority of the general public. Fourth, very often, the design of cosmetic containers implies health and well being, even if the respective products contain sensitizers or other hazardous substances. Against this background, the following improvements are proposed: 1) the 26 allergens rule needs revision, 2) the exception for cosmetic products from labeling and classification should be abolished, 3) a new self-explanatory pictogram for skin sensitizers and skin irritants should become mandatory for consumer products containing allergens, and 4) packaging of products containing hazardous substances should not be allowed to be attractive and evoke feelings that the products were harmless. Labeling of consumer products can be a very efficient tool for risk communication, however, the addressees must be sufficiently trained to understand the system and know the consequences of their behavior. Transparent labeling will increase the credibility of manufacturers and can lead to a subsequent improved risk management with a benefit for all stakeholders.

The relationships between exposure dose and response in induction and elicitation of contact hypersensitivity in humans

Like all physiological systems, the human immune system exhibits dose-response relationships in its reactions. The strength of sensitization is related to the potency of the immunogen and the dose that reaches the immune system. In skin, as sensitizing dose per unit area (mug cm(-2)) is increased on a log scale, there is a sigmoid dose-response curve for subsequent reactivity. Similarly, the response to elicitation shows a classical sigmoid response to increasing challenge dose, with the dose per unit area again being the determinant. There is a clear inverse correlation between the strength of sensitization and the subsequent dose of antigen to which an individual will respond. This is reflected in the different challenge systems used to diagnose the existence of allergic contact sensitization to a given allergen. The occluded patch test aims to use the highest concentration possible to detect the weakest degrees of allergy, whereas the repeated open application test uses much lower concentrations similar to those encountered in real life, applied repeatedly but without occlusion, to assess clinical relevance. Many authors have attempted to use the lowest concentrations to which rare, highly sensitized individuals can react to define the concentrations which might be free of risk in terms of inducing allergic sensitization. However, it is clear that the dose-response relationships for induction of sensitivity by repeated low-dose exposures must be carefully defined in future studies. This article reviews the dose-response relationships of human contact sensitization.

Sensitization to 26 fragrances to be labelled according to current European regulation

To study the frequency of sensitization to 26 fragrances to be labelled according to current European regulation. During 4 periods of 6 months, from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2004, 26 fragrances were patch tested additionally to the standard series in a total of 21 325 patients; the number of patients tested with each of the fragrances ranged from 1658 to 4238. Hydroxymethylpentylcyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HMPCC) was tested throughout all periods. The following frequencies of sensitization (rates in %, standardized for sex and age) were observed: tree moss (2.4%), HMPCC (2.3), oak moss (2.0), hydroxycitronellal (1.3), isoeugenol (1.1), cinnamic aldehyde (1.0), farnesol (0.9), cinnamic alcohol (0.6), citral (0.6), citronellol (0.5), geraniol (0.4), eugenol (0.4), coumarin (0.4), lilial (0.3), amyl-cinnamic alcohol (0.3), benzyl cinnamate (0.3), benzyl alcohol (0.3), linalool (0.2), methylheptin carbonate (0.2), amyl-cinnamic aldehyde (0.1), hexyl-cinnamic aldehyde (0.1), limonene (0.1), benzyl salicylate (0.1), gamma-methylionon (0.1), benzyl benzoate (0.0), anisyl alcohol (0.0). 1) Substances with higher sensitization frequencies were characterized by a considerable number of '++/+++' reactions. 2) Substances with low sensitization frequencies were characterized by a high number of doubtful/irritant and a low number of stronger (++/+++) reactions. 3) There are obviously fragrances among the 26 which are, with regard to contact allergy, of great, others of minor, and some of no importance at all.

Experimental elicitation with hydroxyisohexyl-3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde-containing deodorants

Hydroxyisohexyl-3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC) known as Lyral is a frequent allergen. It is used in more than 50% of marketed deodorants. The aim of the present study was to determine elicitation thresholds for HICC under simulated conditions of deodorant use. 15 patients with previously diagnosed contact allergy to HICC were patch tested with 5 solutions of HICC-scented and HICC-unscented deodorants. Patients and 10 healthy controls performed a use test in the axillae using deodorants scented with HICC in increasing concentrations and unscented deodorants as control. The concentration of HICC was increased every second week (200, 600, and 1800 p.p.m.) until either a reaction developed or for 6 weeks. 14 patients completed the study, and all developed unilateral eczema from the HICC-containing deodorant, while controls were all negative (P= 0.004). In 9/14 patients, a positive use test developed during the first 2 weeks to the deodorant containing 200 p.p.m. HICC. Positive correlations were found between the day of positive use and patch test threshold concentration of the HICC solutions (r= 0.71, P= 0.01) as well as the patch test thresholds of the HICC-scented deodorants (r= 0.74, P= 0.007). In conclusion, HICC elicits allergic contact dermatitis in a high proportion of sensitized individuals at common usage concentrations in deodorants.

Allergic contact dermatitis from pimecrolimus in a patient with tacrolimus allergy

A 15-year-old male with previously documented allergic contact dermatitis from tacrolimus was allergic to pimecrolimus. This was demonstrated by double-blinded, right-versus-left provocative use testing with pimecrolimus cream 1% versus inactive vehicle applied twice daily to normal skin. The active cream but not its vehicle caused preauricular dermatitis starting after 1 week and caused isolated papules on the extensor wrist starting after 2 weeks. Patch testing on the patient's back was weakly positive (1+) with pimecrolimus cream 1% and negative with the vehicle. Higher concentrations of pimecrolimus were not available for testing. Patch tests on 30 control patients with pimecrolimus cream 1% were negative.

The impact of exposure variables on the induction of skin sensitization

Whereas many investigations of the variables associated with the elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis have been undertaken, to the point where we can begin to predict the likelihood of elicitation occurring in a given situation, the same is not true for the induction of skin sensitization. Studies have demonstrated that increasing dose has an impact; in an experimental setting, a number of variables received attention some decades ago. However, in the work reported here, the relative importance of the frequency and the duration of exposure is highlighted. In an investigation using a human repeated insult patch test, it was demonstrated that reduction of the exposure duration from 48 hr to 5 min decreased the rate of sensitization to 1% p-phenylenediamine (PPD) from 54% to 3%. However, in an extended clinical study, it was observed that infrequent but longer duration and higher concentration exposure to PPD was significantly less likely to induce sensitization compared to more frequent, short duration, and lower concentration exposure. Detailed statistical analysis of the results indicated that the most important factor driving the induction of skin sensitization was the number of exposures.