Cross-Reactivity Between Propylene Glycol and Butylene Glycol

Background: Propylene glycol (PG) and butylene glycol (BG) are not known to be cross-reactors. However, no large-scale studies have assessed the cross-reactivity rate (CRR) between these 2 structurally and functionally similar compounds. Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine whether PG and BG demonstrate cross-reactivity. Methods: This is a retrospective chart review of 893 patients who underwent patch testing for both PG and BG from 2020 to 2022. The frequencies of positive reactions and concomitant reaction rates were calculated. Results: In our cohort, 53 (5.94%) patients reacted to PG and 13 patients (1.46%) reacted to BG. Of the patients who reacted to PG, 6 reacted to BG representing a CRR of 11.3%, whereas the CRR to PG in BG-allergic patients was 46.2%. Conclusions: For those allergic to BG, PG should be considered a cross-reactor. This relationship is somewhat unidirectional, as patients allergic to PG demonstrated a CRR to BG of only 11.3%, significantly lower than the 46.2% CRR to PG among BG-allergic patients.

Patch Testing Results From the Massachusetts General Hospital Occupational and Contact Dermatitis Clinic, 2017-2022

Background: Patch testing is gold standard for identifying the source of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Objective: To report patch testing results from the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Occupational and Contact Dermatitis Clinic from 2017 to 2022. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients referred to MGH for patch testing, 2017-2022. Results: In total, 1438 patients were included. At least 1 positive patch test (PPT) reaction was observed in 1168 (81.2%) patients and at least 1 relevant PPT reaction was observed in 1087 (75.6%) patients. The most common allergen with a PPT was nickel (21.5%), followed by hydroperoxides of linalool (20.4%) and balsam of Peru (11.5%). Sensitization rates statistically increased over time for propylene glycol and decreased for 12 other allergens (all P values <0.0004). Limitations: Retrospective design, single institution tertiary referral population, and variations in allergens and suppliers across the study period. Conclusion: The field of ACD is constantly evolving. Regular analysis of patch test data is crucial to identify emerging and diminishing contact allergen trends.

Potential for Allergic Contact Dermatitis in Popular Hair Care Practices and Ingredients

The incidence of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) due to personal care products is rising in parallel with increasing product availability and consumer interest. Hair products specifically represent a significant source of potential allergens, including preservatives, surfactants, emulsifiers, fragrances, adhesives, and dyes. ACD due to hair care products can present as dermatitis in the distinctive "rinse-off" distribution, involving the neck, eyelids, and lateral face in addition to the scalp. Herein, the authors review ingredients in hair care products that can cause ACD and practical tips for allergen identification.

Allergic contact dermatitis from propylene glycol: A case series from Australia

BACKGROUND

Propylene glycol (PG) is used in a variety of cosmetics, food and pharmaceuticals. PG is a known sensitizer but also irritating when patch tested (PT).

OBJECTIVES

The aims were to investigate the frequency of contact sensitization to PG and to identify cases of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed on patients PT at the Skin Health Institute (SHI), Victoria, Australia to PG 5% pet. and PG 10% aq. between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2020.

RESULTS

In all, 6761 patients were PT to PG and 21 (0.31%) reacted. Of those 21 individuals, 9 (42.9%) had a relevant reaction. 75% of relevant positive reactions were in patients PT to PG 10% aq. The most common source of PG exposure was topical medicaments (77.8% of relevant reactions) and moisturizers, with the largest group being topical corticosteroids.

CONCLUSION

Contact sensitization to PG in the patch test population remains uncommon, although it is possible that testing with concentrations of 5%-10% PG did not identify all reactions. Topical corticosteroids were the most important cause. Patients with suspected contact dermatitis to topical corticosteroids should be PT to PG.

Propylene glycol, skin sensitisation and allergic contact dermatitis: A scientific and regulatory conundrum

Propylene glycol (PG) has widespread use in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, fragrances and personal care products. PG is not classified as hazardous under the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) but poses an intriguing scientific and regulatory conundrum with respect to allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), the uncertainty being whether and to what extent PG has the potential to induce skin sensitisation. In this article we review the results of predictive tests for skin sensitisation with PG, and clinical evidence for ACD. Patch testing in humans points to PG having the potential to be a weak allergen under certain conditions, and an uncommon cause of ACD in subjects without underlying/pre-disposing skin conditions. In clear contrast PG is negative in predictive toxicology tests for skin sensitisation, including guinea pig and mouse models (e.g. local lymph node assay), validated in vitro test methods that measure various key events in the pathway leading to skin sensitisation, and predictive methods in humans (Human Repeat Insult Patch and Human Maximisation Tests). We here explore the possible scientific basis for this intriguing inconsistency, recognising there are arguably no known contact allergens that are universally negative in, in vitro, animal and human predictive tests methods.

Patch Test Reactions Associated With Topical Medications: A Retrospective Analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data (2001-2018)

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Topical medications may lead to allergic contact dermatitis. This study characterized positive patch test reactions associated with medications in patients evaluated by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG).

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of the NACDG data (2001-2018). Patients with at least 1 positive patch test reaction associated with a medication source were included. Allergens, reaction characteristics, clinical relevance, and source details were tabulated.

RESULTS

Of 43,722 patients, 6374 (14.6%) had positive allergic patch test reactions associated with 1 or more topical medication sources. Patients with versus without allergic reactions to medications were more likely to be older than 40 years (P < 0.0001) and/or have primary sites of dermatitis on the legs, anal/genital region, or trunk (P < 0.0001). There were 8787 reactions to NACDG allergens; the most common were neomycin (29.4%), bacitracin (29.1%), propylene glycol 100% (10.6%), tixocortol-17-pivalate (10.0%), lidocaine (7.9%), budesonide (4.9%), and dibucaine (4.4%). Propylene glycol 100% was the most common inactive ingredient (10.6%). Current relevance was present in 61.0%. A total of 6.5% of the individuals with medication allergy would have had 1 or more positive patch test reactions missed if only tested to the NACDG screening series.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive patch test reactions associated with topical medications were common (14.6%), and most were clinically relevant. Patients with topical medication allergy were twice as likely to have anal/genital involvement. Active ingredients, especially neomycin, bacitracin, and tixocortol-17-pivalate, were frequent culprits.

Inter-rater variability in patch test readings and final interpretation using store-forward teledermatology

BACKGROUND

Data regarding teledermatology for patch testing are limited.

OBJECTIVES

Compare patch test readings and final interpretation by two in-person dermatologists (IPDs) with eight teledermatologists (TDs).

METHODS

Patch tested patients had photographs taken of 70 screening series of allergens at 48 hours and second readings. Eight TDs reviewed photos and graded reactions (negative, irritant, doubtful, +, ++, +++) at 48 hours and second readings; in addition, they coded a final interpretation (allergic, indeterminant, irritant, negative) for each reaction. TDs rated overall image quality and confidence level for each patient and patch test reaction, respectively. Percentage of TD-IPD agreement based on clinical significance (success, indeterminate, and failure) was calculated. Primary outcome was agreement at the second reading.

RESULTS

Data were available for 99, 101, and 66 participants at 48 hours, second reading, and final interpretation, respectively. Pooled failure (+/++/+++ vs negative) at second reading was 13.6% (range 7.9%-20.4%). Pooled failure at 48 hours and final interpretation was 5.4% (range 2.9%-6.8%) and 24.6% (range 10.2%-36.8%), respectively. Confidence in readings was statistically correlated with quality of images and disagreement.

CONCLUSION

For patch testing, teledermatology has significant limitations including clinically significant pooled failure percentages of 13.6% for second readings and 24.6% for final interpretation.

What Is New in Occupational Allergic Contact Dermatitis in the Year of the COVID Pandemic?

Purpose of Review

This article aims to summarize some recent trends in occupational allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), including dermatitis related to pandemic-level personal protective equipment in healthcare workers, hazards patients may experience when working from home, and occupational perspectives on the recent American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) allergens of the year and ACDS Core Allergen Series updates.

Recent Findings

Recent ACDS Allergens of the Year may be particularly relevant to healthcare workers, including isobornyl acrylate, which is present in glucose sensors and propylene glycol present in hand cleansers and disinfectants. Lavender, limonene, and linalool, all of which are new additions to the ACDS Core Allergen Series, have been reported as causes for occupational ACD in massage therapists and aromatherapists. Isothiazolinone allergy continues to rise in both consumer and occupational settings. Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a wave of occupational ACD in healthcare workers to personal protective equipment, and revealed new potential allergens for individuals working from home.

Summary

Occupational allergic contact dermatitis continues to exert a significant occupational disease burden. Remaining aware of the current trends in allergens may allow for earlier recognition, diagnosis, and treatment, subsequently helping our patients to work in healthier and safer environments.

A review of contact dermatitis

OBJECTIVE

To familiarize the reader with the mechanisms and causes of contact dermatitis.

DATA SOURCES

Recent research articles, relevant review articles, and case series/reports in English from PubMed database, mostly from 2010 onwards.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Most data were in the form of retrospective studies. Efforts were made to include clinical trials; however, for newer allergens and data on biologics, case series and case reports were included. Older studies regarding the mechanism were included if they were of particular importance.

RESULTS

An understanding of this review should enable the reader to approach the patient with unknown dermatitis with a better understanding of the cause and management.

CONCLUSION

Clinical suspicion for relevant allergens combined with the interpretation of patch tests are important in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with contact dermatitis.

Should we worry about children's exposure to third-hand by-products generated from electronic nicotine delivery systems?

Children and other individuals sharing spaces with END users frequently become exposed to first-, second- and third-hand chemicals. This editorial discusses the findings from a recent study exploring the impact of third-hand exposure. https://bit.ly/3cogiw0.

Allergens in Medical Hand Skin Cleansers

Health care workers may be at risk of occupational allergic contact dermatitis because of their frequent exposure to medical hand skin cleansers. We identified American Contact Dermatitis Society Core 80 Allergens found in medical hand skin cleansers (waterless skin soaps, water-needed skin soaps, and skin disinfectants) in the United States and developed a list of "low-allergen" medical hand skin cleansers. Waterless skin soaps most commonly contained fragrance, tocopherol, and sodium benzoate. Top allergens in water-needed skin soaps included fragrance, chloroxylenol, propylene glycol, and cocamidopropyl betaine. The most common allergens identified in skin disinfectants were chlorhexidine, cocamide diethanolamine, and fragrance. We identified 11 waterless skin soaps that were free of American Contact Dermatitis Society Core 80 Allergens. Low-allergen products were also identified for water-needed skin soaps (2 products) and skin disinfectants (4 products). This information is accurate as of the date of publication; product availability and ingredients may change over time.

Mixtures of betamethasone butyrate propionate ointments and heparinoid oil-based cream: Physical stability evaluation

Betamethasone butyrate propionate ointment (BBP_O) is mainly used for adult patients in dermatology and is often prescribed as a mixture containing a base or moisturizing cream for various reasons. However, in the case of a moisturizing cream, since this formulation is composed of various ingredients, a physical change is expected to occur by mixing it with an ointment. Therefore, in the present study, the physical stability of a mixture of four BBP_O formulations and heparinoid oily cream (HP_OC) was examined. Layer separation was observed in all mixtures following centrifugation. The near-infrared (NIR) measurement showed a peak at 5200 cm^-1 on the lower layer side, which strongly suggests the presence of water. The peak at 5200 cm^-1 in the middle layer was hardly observed in the mixtures of two BBP_O generic formulations and HP_OC, thus suggesting that the separation was more advanced in those mixtures than in the others. These two mixtures separated into a semisolid layer (upper side) and a liquid layer (lower side) after 3 h of storage at 37 °C. The NIR measurement of each layer revealed that most of the semisolid layer was oil while the liquid layer was water. Furthermore, backscattered light measurements were conducted to monitor the behavior of the mixture's layer separation. An evaluation using model formulations revealed that the layer separation of the mixtures was due to the propylene glycol (PG) and surfactant content of the two generic BBP_O formulations. Thus, these findings suggest that excipients need to be considered in selecting formulations for mixtures of skin preparations.

Wound-Related Allergic/Irritant Contact Dermatitis

PURPOSE

To provide information from a literature review about the prevention, recognition, and treatment for contact dermatitis.

TARGET AUDIENCE

This continuing education activity is intended for physicians and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care.

OBJECTIVES

After participating in this educational activity, the participant should be better able to:1. Identify signs and symptoms of and diagnostic measures for contact dermatitis.2. Identify causes and risks for contact dermatitis.3. Select appropriate treatment for contact dermatitis and its prevention.

ABSTRACT

Contact dermatitis to wound care products is a common, often neglected problem. A review was conducted to identify articles relevant to contact dermatitis.A PubMed English-language literature review was conducted for appropriate articles published between January 2000 and December 2015.Contact dermatitis is both irritant (80% of cases) or allergic (20% of cases). Frequent use of potential contact allergens and impaired barrier function of the skin can lead to rising sensitization in patients with chronic wounds. Common known allergens to avoid in wound care patients include fragrances, colophony, lanolin, and topical antibiotics.Clinicians should be cognizant of the allergens in wound care products and the potential for sensitization. All medical devices, including wound dressings, adhesives, and bandages, should be labeled with their complete ingredients, and manufacturers should be encouraged to remove common allergens from wound care products, including topical creams, ointments, and dressings.

Common Allergens Identified Based on Patch Test Results in Patients with Suspected Contact Dermatitis of the Scalp

BACKGROUND

Contact dermatitis of the scalp is common and might be caused by many chemicals including metals, ingredients of shampoos and conditioners, dyes, or other hair treatments. Eliciting a careful history and patch tests are necessary to identify the responsible allergen and prevent relapses.

OBJECTIVES

To identify allergens that may cause contact dermatitis of the scalp by reviewing patch test results.

METHODS

We reviewed the records of 1,015 patients referred for patch testing at the Dermatology Department of the University of Miami. A total of 226 patients (205 females and 21 males) with suspected scalp contact dermatitis were identified, and the patch test results and clinical data for those patients were analyzed. Most patients were referred for patch testing from a specialized hair clinic at our institution.

RESULTS

The most common allergens in our study population were nickel (23.8%), cobalt (21.0%), balsam of Peru (18.2%), fragrance mix (14.4%), carba mix (11.6%), and propylene glycol (PG) (8.8%). The majority of patients were females aged 40-59 years, and scalp itching or burning were reported as the most common symptom.

CONCLUSION

Frequent sources of allergens for metals include hair clasps, pins, and brushes, while frequent sources of allergens for preservatives, fragrance mix, and balsam of Peru include shampoos, conditioners, and hair gels. Frequent sources of allergens for PG include topical medications.

Immediate and Delayed Hypersensitivity Reactions to Corticosteroids: Evaluation and Management

Corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory medications used widely to treat allergic inflammation. Although the endocrine and gastrointestinal side effects of corticosteroids have been described, the occurrence of immediate hypersensitivity reactions and delayed contact dermatitis due to corticosteroids remains under-recognized. Hypersensitivity reactions can occur to a corticosteroid itself, or to the additives and vehicles in corticosteroid preparations. Skin testing and oral graded challenge can help confirm the suspected culprit agent in immediate hypersensitivity reactions and help identify an alternative tolerated corticosteroid. Patch testing can help identify the culprit agents in delayed hypersensitivity contact dermatitis. Cross-reactivity patterns have not been observed for immediate hypersensitivity reactions as they have been for delayed contact dermatitis. Sensitization in contact dermatitis exhibits cross-reactivity patterns based on corticosteroid structure. We review the current understanding regarding the clinical presentation, evaluation, and management of immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids.

Allergic and immunologic reactions to food additives

For centuries, food additives have been used for flavouring, colouring and extension of the useful shelf life of food, as well as the promotion of food safety. During the last 20 years, the studies implicating the additives contained in foods and medicine as a causative factor of allergic reactions have been proliferated considerably. In this review, we aimed to overview all of the food additives which were approved to consume in EU and find out how common and serious allergic reactions come into existence following the consuming of food additives.

Computer models versus reality: how well do in silico models currently predict the sensitization potential of a substance

National legislations for the assessment of the skin sensitization potential of chemicals are increasingly based on the globally harmonized system (GHS). In this study, experimental data on 55 non-sensitizing and 45 sensitizing chemicals were evaluated according to GHS criteria and used to test the performance of computer (in silico) models for the prediction of skin sensitization. Statistic models (Vega, Case Ultra, TOPKAT), mechanistic models (Toxtree, OECD (Q)SAR toolbox, DEREK) or a hybrid model (TIMES-SS) were evaluated. Between three and nine of the substances evaluated were found in the individual training sets of various models. Mechanism based models performed better than statistical models and gave better predictivities depending on the stringency of the domain definition. Best performance was achieved by TIMES-SS, with a perfect prediction, whereby only 16% of the substances were within its reliability domain. Some models offer modules for potency; however predictions did not correlate well with the GHS sensitization subcategory derived from the experimental data. In conclusion, although mechanistic models can be used to a certain degree under well-defined conditions, at the present, the in silico models are not sufficiently accurate for broad application to predict skin sensitization potentials.

Safety assessment of propylene glycol, tripropylene glycol, and PPGs as used in cosmetics

Propylene glycol is an aliphatic alcohol that functions as a skin conditioning agent, viscosity decreasing agent, solvent, and fragrance ingredient in cosmetics. Tripropylene glycol functions as a humectant, antioxidant, and emulsion stabilizer. Polypropylene glycols (PPGs), including PPG-3, PPG-7, PPG-9, PPG-12, PPG-13, PPG-15, PPG-16, PPG-17, PPG-20, PPG-26, PPG-30, PPG-33, PPG-34, PPG-51, PPG-52, and PPG-69, function primarily as skin conditioning agents, with some solvent use. The majority of the safety and toxicity information presented is for propylene glycol (PG). Propylene glycol is generally nontoxic and is noncarcinogenic. Clinical studies demonstrated an absence of dermal sensitization at use concentrations, although concerns about irritation remained. The CIR Expert Panel determined that the available information support the safety of tripropylene glycol as well as all the PPGs. The Expert Panel concluded that PG, tripropylene glycol, and PPGs ≥3 are safe as used in cosmetic formulations when formulated to be nonirritating.

Safety Assessment of 1,2-Glycols as Used in Cosmetics

Caprylyl glycol and related 1,2-glycols are used mostly as skin and hair conditioning agents and viscosity agents in cosmetic products, and caprylyl glycol and pentylene glycol also function as cosmetic preservatives. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel noted that, while these ingredients are dermally absorbed, modeling data predicted decreased skin penetration of longer chain 1,2-glycols. Because the negative oral toxicity data on shorter chain 1,2-glycols and genotoxicity data support the safety of the 1,2-glycols reviewed in this safety assessment, the Panel concluded that these ingredients are safe in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment.