1
|
Warshaw EM, Xiong M, Belsito DV, Adler BL, Atwater AR, DeKoven JG, Taylor JS, Reeder MJ, Houle MC, Silverberg JI, Pratt MD, Dunnick CA, Botto N, DeLeo VA, Mowad CM, Maibach HI, Yu J, Fowler JF. Patch Testing With Benzophenone-3 and -4: The North American Contact Dermatitis Group Experience, 2013-2020. Dermatitis 2023; 34:105-112. [PMID: 36917534 DOI: 10.1089/derm.2022.29013.ewa] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/27/2023]
Abstract
Background: Benzophenone (BZP)-3 and BZP-4 are ultraviolet (UV) absorbers used in sunscreens and personal care products (PCPs) and may cause allergic contact dermatitis. Objective: To characterize positive patch test reactions to BZP-3 (10% in petrolatum [pet]) and BZP-4 (2% pet) in a screening allergen series. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients tested to BZP-3 and BZP-4 was conducted by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group from 2013 to 2020. Results: Of 19,618 patients patch tested to BZP-3 and BZP-4, 103 (0.5%) and 323 (1.6%) had positive reactions, respectively: 413 (2.1%) reacted to at least 1 BZP (BZP-positive patient). As compared with BZP-negative patients, BZP-positive patients were significantly more likely to have a history of hay fever (39.3% vs 33.4%, P = 0.0134), history of atopic dermatitis (39.8% vs 30.7%, P = 0.0001), and facial involvement (37.4% vs 32.2%, P = 0.0272). Most reactions were currently clinically relevant (BZP-3: 90.4%; BZP-4: 65.8%). Common identified sources included PCPs and sunscreens. Coreactivity between BZP-3 and BZP-4 was low: 13.5% (14/104) of BZP-3-positive patients were allergic to BZP-4 and 4.3% (14/322) of BZP-4-positive patients were allergic to BZP-3. Conclusions: Eight-year prevalence of BZP positivity was 2.1%. Reactions were frequently clinically relevant and linked to PCPs and sunscreens.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erin M Warshaw
- From the Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet/Health Partners Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
- Department of Dermatology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
- Department of Dermatology, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Michelle Xiong
- From the Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet/Health Partners Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
- Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA
| | - Donald V Belsito
- Department of Dermatology, Columbia University Irving Medical School, New York, New York, USA
| | - Brandon L Adler
- Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Amber R Atwater
- Department of Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Joel G DeKoven
- Division of Dermatology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - James S Taylor
- Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Margo J Reeder
- Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Marie-Claude Houle
- Division of Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec, Laval University, Québec, Canada
| | - Jonathan I Silverberg
- Department of Dermatology, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Melanie D Pratt
- Division of Dermatology, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Cory A Dunnick
- Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA
| | - Nina Botto
- Department of Dermatology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Vincent A DeLeo
- From the Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet/Health Partners Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Christen M Mowad
- Division of Dermatology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Howard I Maibach
- Department of Dermatology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - JiaDe Yu
- Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Joseph F Fowler
- Division of Dermatology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Roh J, Cheng H. Ultraviolet filter, fragrance and preservative allergens in New Zealand sunscreens. Australas J Dermatol 2021; 63:e21-e25. [PMID: 34751433 DOI: 10.1111/ajd.13748] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2021] [Accepted: 10/25/2021] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES Allergic contact dermatitis, photoallergic contact dermatitis and irritant reactions to sunscreens are common reasons for dermatology consultation. Patch testing for contact allergy relies on up-to-date knowledge of allergen exposures. The aim of this study was to investigate contact allergens and photoallergens in sunscreens commercially sold on the shelves of supermarkets and pharmacies in New Zealand. METHODS A comprehensive market data review of suppliers' websites was performed from March to August 2019 to obtain a list of the commonly sold sunscreens in our region. Ingredients were collated and analysed according to International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI) names. Ultraviolet (UV) filters, preservatives and fragrances were included for analysis. Place of sale and cost of sunscreens were also recorded. RESULTS Ninety-five sunscreens were analysed: 36% sold in supermarkets, 43% in pharmacies and the remainder available in both. The most frequent UV filters were butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane (contained in 70% of products) followed by octocrylene (63%) and homosalate (50%). The common photoallergen benzophenone 3 was found in 19% of products. Phenoxyethanol was the most common preservative (68%) followed by disodium EDTA (30%) and propylparaben (26%). Two sunscreens contained methylisothiazolinone. Sixty-one per cent contained at least one fragrance, the most frequent being limonene (17%) and linalool (13%). There was an average of 1.1 New Zealand baseline series allergens per product (range 0 to 6, standard deviation 1.27). CONCLUSION Common allergens including those with high sensitising potential were frequently found in New Zealand sunscreen. Knowledge of ingredients used by manufacturers is useful in dermatological assessment of skin contact reactions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juhee Roh
- Department of General Medicine, Waitematā District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Harriet Cheng
- Department of Dermatology, Auckland District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand.,Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Kawakami T, Isama K, Ikarashi Y. Determination of benzotriazole UV absorbers in textile products made of polyurethane fibers by high-performance liquid chromatography with a photo diode array detector. J LIQ CHROMATOGR R T 2018. [DOI: 10.1080/10826076.2018.1516674] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Tsuyoshi Kawakami
- Division of Environmental Chemistry, National Institute of Health Sciences, Kawasaki, Japan
| | - Kazuo Isama
- Division of Environmental Chemistry, National Institute of Health Sciences, Kawasaki, Japan
- Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Teikyo Heisei University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Yoshiaki Ikarashi
- Division of Environmental Chemistry, National Institute of Health Sciences, Kawasaki, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Valbuena Mesa MC, Hoyos Jiménez EV. Photopatch testing in Bogota (Colombia): 2011-2013. Contact Dermatitis 2015; 74:11-7. [PMID: 26086895 DOI: 10.1111/cod.12421] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2015] [Revised: 04/15/2015] [Accepted: 04/22/2015] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Photopatch tests are used to diagnose photoallergic contact dermatitis and identify the causal agents. The frequencies of positive results and associated allergens vary by country; therefore, it is necessary to know the information specific to each country. OBJECTIVE To establish the frequency of positive photopatch test results, and their relevance, in patients with suspected photoallergic contact dermatitis in a national dermatology centre located in Bogota, Colombia. MATERIALS AND METHODS One hundred patients investigated for possible photoallergic contact dermatitis were enrolled in the study. They were photopatch tested with a selected group of allergens, and occluded for 48 hours; the duplicate right-hand panel was irradiated with 5 J/cm(2) ultraviolet (UV)A. The readings were performed on day (D)2, D4, and D6, in accordance with the guidelines of the ICDRG, and the relevance was evaluated with the COADEX system. RESULTS There were a total of 20 photopatch reactions in 15 patients, 95% of which were caused by UV filters, most frequently benzophenone-3 (55%). Eight of the positive reactions (53.3%) appeared on D6. CONCLUSIONS UV filters continue to be the most common causes of photoallergic contact dermatitis in our patients. Readings up to D6 (96 h after irradiation) are important to identify delayed positive reactions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Martha C Valbuena Mesa
- Photodermatology Unit, Centro Dermatologico Federico Lleras Acosta (Colombian National Institute of Dermatology), 111511, Bogota D.C., Colombia
| | - Elsa V Hoyos Jiménez
- Photodermatology Unit, Centro Dermatologico Federico Lleras Acosta (Colombian National Institute of Dermatology), 111511, Bogota D.C., Colombia
| |
Collapse
|