大连地区化妆品皮肤病890例分析

目的 探讨化妆品皮肤病的临床特点及其相关化妆品类型。方法 对890例化妆品皮肤病进行分析,对可疑化妆品行斑贴试验。结果 临床表现主要为接触性皮炎占90％,依次为色素沉着占3.93％、痤疮样损害占3.37%、光敏性皮炎占2.24％、接触性荨麻疹占0.56%。可疑致病化妆品种类2019种,以护肤品为主,占92%。890例患者中斑贴试验阳性者346例,阳性率39％。结论 化妆品皮肤病的发生原因是多方面的,应加强化妆品知识宣传,建立一个完整的化妆品皮肤病监测系统。     

化妆品皮肤病

化妆品皮肤病是指人们日常生活中由于使用化妆品而引起的皮肤及其附属器的病变，如红斑、丘疹、脱屑、皮肤及粘膜干燥、色素沉着、瘙痒或刺痛等。这些病变的出现，与人们使用化妆品保护皮肤、美化生活的主观愿望恰好相反。近十余年来随着我国经济发展和人们生活消费水平的...     

2007年广州监测点化妆品皮肤病发病情况分析

目的：探讨广州地区2007年化妆品皮肤病发病的流行病学特点。方法：采用回顾性分析方法,对到广州卫生部化妆品皮肤病诊断机构就诊的200例患者的资料进行分析。结果：发病以女性为主,20～39岁年龄段高发,占83%;职业以公司职员、自由职业及学生为主,占64.5%。临床表现主要为化妆品接触性皮炎（占89.50%）。共涉及化妆品355个品种,其中普通化妆品311种,以乳液水剂面霜护肤类为主,占87.6%,特殊化妆品44种,占12.4%,祛痘类产品的投诉突出,且引起的不良反应较为严重。结论：2007年广州地区化妆品皮肤病发病以接触性皮炎为主,主要涉及女性公司职员及学生,主要致病化妆品为普通护肤类产品,其中以祛痘类化妆品最为严重。     

658例化妆品皮肤不良反应临床分析

目的:明确化妆品引起皮肤各种不良反应的特征和致敏物.方法:对658例化妆品皮肤不良反应患者进行临床分析,并对部分患者进行可疑致病化妆品斑贴或光斑贴试验.结果:患者中女性占86.9％;21～45岁占76.7％.临床表现主要为接触性皮炎597例(90.7％),其他依次为化妆品痤疮15例,化妆品毛发损害5例,化妆品色素异常7例,化妆品甲损害2例,化妆品光感性皮炎5例,另外化妆品激素依赖性皮炎27例.大部分(59.8％)是由护肤类引起,其次为护发美发类(23.3％)、芳香类(7.2％).308例患者做了可疑化妆品原物斑贴试验,有165例阳性,阳性率达53.6％.部分阳性者行标准过敏原斑贴试验,过敏原阳性比例依次为对苯二胺占18.5％、硫酸镍占14.8％、硫柳汞占13.0％、重铬酸钾占11.1％,芳香混合物、甲醛、卡巴混合物各占7.4％等.结论:化妆品不良反应多发于中青年女性;化妆品接触性皮炎是最常见的化妆品皮肤病;护肤类为主要致病化妆品;标准过敏原斑贴试验阳性者依次为对苯二胺、硫酸镍、硫柳汞、重铬酸钾、芳香混合物、甲醛、卡巴混合物等.     

2003年度5城市化妆品皮肤病监测结果分析

目的：分析2003年度5个城市化妆品皮肤病监测结果。方法：以卫生部颁布的《化妆品皮肤病诊断标准及处理原则》(GB17149．1～7-1997)作为诊断标准,用统一的登记表格记录化妆品皮肤病患者的病史资料和相关化妆品的信息,对年度记录的结果进行统计分析。结果：2003年度5家卫生部化妆品皮肤病诊断机构共诊断和处理化妆品皮肤病565例,其中化妆品接触性皮炎486例,占86．02％;化妆品皮肤色素异常27例,占4．78％;化妆品痤疮23例,占4．07％;化妆品毛发损害20例,占3．54％;化妆品光感性皮炎8例,占1．42％;化妆品甲损害1例,占0．18％。涉及的化妆品共计有12类、693种,其中进口产品涉及32个品牌、196种产品,占28．28％;国产及合资企业产品涉及85个品牌、436种产品,占62．92％;美容院自制产品和“三无”产品61种,占8．8％。结论：化妆品皮肤病有持续增长的趋势,加强监测并采取措施减少和预防该类疾病的发生很有必要。     

化妆品接触性皮炎167例临床分析

化妆品引起的接触性皮炎是化妆品所致的常见皮肤病 ,现将我科诊治的 16 7例患者分析如下。1　临床资料　男 2 2例 ,女 14 5例。发病年龄 12～ 5 6岁 ,平均2 3.5岁。既往有化妆品过敏史者 5 9例。致敏化妆品包括美之知倍白霜、芦荟原汁洗面奶、比倩超炫护染发局油剂、黑霸发胶王、希施兰除臭剂、雅芳祛斑面膜、雅诗脱毛霜、甲油等。初次发病者 118例 ( 70 .7% ) ,2次或 2次以上发病者 49例( 2 9.3% ) ,发病达 5次者 6例 ( 3.6 % )。一种化妆品致敏者 94例 ( 5 6 .3% ) ,同时对 2种以上化妆品致敏者 73例 ( 4 3.7% )。首次发病者潜伏期为 4～ …     

面部化妆品接触性皮炎50例致病因素分析

化妆品接触性皮炎是指接触化妆品而引起的刺激性接触性皮炎和变应性接触性皮炎,是化妆品皮肤病的主要类型。这类损伤多发生在面部和颈部,表现为红斑、丘疹、瘙痒、灼热感、刺痛等,以成年女性多见。斑贴试验是诊断化妆品接触性皮炎的重要依据之一。我们对前来就诊的自述或可疑为化妆品过敏     

化妆品皮肤病诊断标准及处理原则化妆品接触性皮炎（报批稿）

GB17149（化妆品皮肤病诊断标准及处理原则》分为以下几部分：——总则；——化妆品接触性皮炎；——化妆品痤疮；     

重庆地区193例化妆品变应性接触性皮炎患者斑贴试验结果分析

 目的:分析重庆地区化妆品变应性接触性皮炎患者主要化妆品成分变应原,以便指导患者合理选择和使用化妆品,降低皮炎的发生率。方法:选取我院皮肤科门诊确诊为化妆品变应性接触性皮炎的193例患者进行化妆品成分斑贴试验,并对结果作统计学分析。结果:斑贴试验总阳性率为69.43%,合并2种及2种以上变应原的患者占50.26%,阳性率前5位的变应原分别为硫柳汞、十二烷基硫酸钠、尼泊金酯、三乙醇胺和乙二胺;女性斑贴试验阳性率为73.33%,明显高于男性,差异有统计学意义(X²=9.67,P<0.05）;青年组明显高于其他年龄组,差异有统计学意义（ X²=36.79,P<0.05）。结论：硫柳汞、十二烷基硫酸钠、尼泊金酯、三乙醇胺和乙二胺5种物质是重庆地区化妆品变应性接触性皮炎患者主要的致敏成分。化妆品变应性接触性皮炎患者以女性为主,中青年多见。     

特异性免疫治疗对变应性皮肤病患者血清总IgE、嗜酸粒细胞阳离子蛋白的影响

变态反应性皮肤病是临床上最常见的皮肤病,约占皮肤病总数的1/3,病因复杂<'1>.我科对2005年6月～2007年5月,诊治的60例变态反应性皮肤病患者进行特异性免疫治疗,现将结果报道如下.     

Frequency of dermatoses associated with cosmetics

The objectives of this study were (i) to determine the frequency of dermatoses caused by use of cosmetics in patients with specific complaints of reaction to cosmetic products, and (ii) to observe the main skin conditions frequently misunderstood by users as cosmetic reactions. 176 patients seen in a private office from 1999 to 2006, with complaint of dermatoses caused by cosmetics were examined. The clinical history, physical examination, relation between site of reaction and use of cosmetics were assessed. Of the patients examined, 154 (87.5%) were women and 22 (12.5%) men. About 90 (52%) patients had no skin condition related to cosmetics, 80 (45%) had dermatoses associated with cosmetics, and 6 patients (3%) had inconclusive results. Melasma, contact dermatitis to other products, and acne were the conditions that users associated more often to cosmetics. 14% of patients had skin lesions caused by inappropriate cosmetic use. To conclude, the true adverse reaction to cosmetics was not very common. In this study, dermatitis was associated with cosmetics in only 31% of patients with specific complaint of dermatitis caused by cosmetics. Therefore, 52% of patients misdiagnosed the condition and had other dermatoses, and 14% made inappropriate use of cosmetics.     

The role of contact allergy in the spectrum of adverse effects caused by cosmetics and toiletries

Of 982 female clients of beauticians interviewed, 254 (25.9%) claimed to have experienced adverse reactions to cosmetics and toiletries in the preceding 5 years. Most reactions were caused by skin-care products (36.6%), followed by personal cleanliness products (29.5%), eye cosmetics (24.0%), deodorants and antiperspirants (12.6%), and facial make-up products (8.3%). 150 women were patch tested. In the European standard series, only a few positive reactions were seen to possible cosmetic allergens: fragrance mix (n = 3), wool alcohols (n = 3), formaldehyde (n = 2), balsam of Peru (n = 1), and colophony (n = 1). In the cosmetic series, only Kathon CG elicited positive patch test reactions (n = 3). Cosmetic allergy was considered to be "proven" in 3 patients (2.0%), and "possible" in 7 (4.7%). It is concluded that contact allergy is responsible for a minority (less than 10%) of all reactions to cosmetics and toiletries. The majority of reactions are due to irritation from personal cleanliness products such as soaps, shampoos, bath foams and from deodorants, or worsening of pre-existing dermatoses such as seborrhoeic dermatitis and acne.     

面部皮炎的病因及加重因素分析

目的：分析总结面部皮炎患者的病因及可能加重因素。方法：对157例面部皮炎患者进．行斑贴试验、问卷调查并进行随访。结果：157例面部皮炎患者中，接触性皮炎占41．4％，其中化妆品引起者占86．2％，外用药引起者占10．8％；季节性和原因不明的面部皮炎分别占7．0％和51．6％。原因不明的面部皮炎加重因素包括日光（14．8％）、飘尘（16．0％）、干燥（12．3％）、潮湿（4．9％）、工作（8．6％）、牛羊肉（3．7％）、海鲜（9．9％）、辣椒（12．3％）、酒（13．6％）。结论：面部皮炎中接触性皮炎多见，化妆品是最常见的病因，外用药也较常见，约一半患者不能确定病因。     

甲基异噻唑啉酮在健康人群和化妆品接触性皮炎患者中引起皮肤反应的限量研究

目的 甲基异噻唑啉酮(MI)是一类常见的容易引发接触性皮炎的化妆品防腐剂.本研究旨在探讨MI在中国健康人群和化妆品接触性皮炎患者中引起皮肤不良反应的限量阈值.方法 通过梯度稀释不同浓度的MI,在124例健康人群和98例化妆品接触性皮炎患者背部进行人体皮肤斑贴试验.结果 0.2％、0.02％和0.01％MI在健康志愿者中...     

Adverse reactions to fragrances

This article reviews side-effects of fragrance materials present in cosmetics with emphasis on clinical aspects: epidemiology, type, of adverse reactions, clinical picture, diagnostic procedures, and the sensitizers. Considering the ubiquitous occurrence of fragrance materials, the risk of side-effects is small. In absolute numbers, however, fragrance allergy is common, affecting approximately 1% of the general population. Although a detailed profile of patients sensitized to fragrances needs to be elucidated, common features of contact allergy are: axillary dermatitis, dermatitis of the face (including the eyelids) and neck, well-circumscribed patches in areas of “dubbing-on” perfumes (wrists, behind the ears) and (aggravation of) hand eczema. Depending on the degree of sensitivity, the severity of dermatitis may range from mild to severe with dissemination and even erythroderma. Airborne or “connubial” contact dermatitis should always be suspected. Other less frequent adverse reactions to fragrances are photocontact dermatitis, immediate contact reactions and pigmentary changes. The fragrance mix, although very useful for the detection of sensitive patients, both causes False-positive and false-negative reactions, and detects only 70% of perfume-allergic patients. Therefore, future research should be directed at increasing the sensitivity and the specificity of the mix. Relevance is said to be established in 50–65% of positive reactions, but accurate criteria are needed. Suggestions are made for large-scale investigation of several fragrances on the basis of literature data and frequency of use in cosmetics. The literature on adverse reactions to balsam of Peru (an indicator for fragrance sensitivity), essential oils (which currently appear to be used more in aromatherapy than in perfumery) and on fragrances used as flavours and spices in foods and beverages is not discussed in detail, but pertinent side-effects data are tabulated and relevant literature is provided.     

Contact and photocontact sensitivity to sunscreens

This review summarizes published and unpublished data of our 15-year experience with sunscreen allergy and photoallergy. From 1981–1996. 402 patients with suspected clinical photosensitivity were patch and photopatch tested with the commercial sunscreens and facial cosmetics (hat they had used and with chemical UV absorbers, fragrance materials, preservatives, and emollients. Mi patients (20%) (28 men, 52 women) demonstrated allergic and/or photoallergic contact dermatitis to 1 or more UV absorber(s). In 47 patients with photodermatoses or photo-aggravated dermatoses and in 33 subjects with normal photosensitivity, 91 allergic and 84 photoallergic reactions to UV filters were observed. Over the years sunscreens were added lo the test series, which since 1989 comprised the following 10 UV absorbers and which induced allergic (a) and photoallergic (pa) reactions (number, type of reaction); 4 UVA absorbers – isopropyldibenzoylmethane (30a/32pa); butyl methoxydibenzoyl-methane (15a/13pa); henzophenone-3 (3a/9pa): benzophenone-4 (0a/0pa); and 6 UVB absorbers – PABA (2a/2pa); octyl dimethyl PABA (1a/2pa); methylbenzylidene camphor (32a/5pa); octyl methoxycinnamate (3a/4pa); isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate (4a/10pa); and phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid (1a/7pa). The frequent (photo)sensitization to isopropyldibenzoylmethane was the reason that its production was discontinued in 1993. 47 patients reacted to fragrance materials, 11 to preservatives and 2 to lanolin alcohol. These constituents were contained in the commercial sunscreens and cosmetics that they had used. Continuous revision of the UV absorber photopatch test series was necessary to be closer to the real frequency of exposure and of reported I photo (allergy to newer sunscreens. Clinicians should consider contact and photocontact allergy, especially in patients with photodermatoses and photo-aggravated dermatoses and they should perform photopatch testing. Once the culprit has been identified, its INCI (International Nomenclature Cosmetic Ingredients) designation should be given to the patient, who must be warned to avoid products containing the (photo)allergen.     

51例面部化妆品接触性皮炎的斑贴试验和光斑贴试验结果分析

目的:检测分析面部化妆品接触性皮炎患者常见致敏原。方法:回顾性分析我院面部化妆品接触性皮炎患者的临床资料、斑贴试验和光斑贴试验资料。结果:51例患者进行了斑贴试验,总体阳性率为96%。阳性率高的过敏源依次为：硫酸镍(47.1%)、氯化钴(35.3%)、甲基异噻唑啉酮(27.5%)、纺织染料混合物(19.6%)、没食子酸辛酯(19.6%)、松香(13.7%)、对苯二胺(13.7%)、硫柳汞(13.7%)、叔丁基氢醌(13.7%)、棓酸十二烷酯(13.7%)。46例患者完成光敏实验和光斑贴检查,14例存在光敏感(30.43%);其中UVA敏感7例(15.22%),UVB敏感8例(17.39%)。光斑贴阳性率19.6%,常见致敏原依次为：依托酚那酯(6.5%)、癸基葡糖苷(6.5%)、甲酚曲唑三硅氧烷(4.3%)。结论:防腐剂、香料、重金属、乳化剂、抗氧化剂、表面活化剂等原料均可能引起面部接触致敏。面部化妆品皮炎患者还可能存在光敏反应和光变态反应。全面的斑贴试验有助于更好的帮助患者查找致敏原。     

Investigation of reactions to dental materials

Patients undergoing dental treatment can be exposed to a wide range of potential allergens, but adverse events seem infrequent. Patients with symptoms or signs of stomatitis, burning, tingling, cheilitis, oral lichenoid lesions, lip and facial swelling may relate their problems to dental treatment or to the use of dental products. Investigation for immediate type or delayed type hypersensitivity is indicated using patch testing, prick testing and blood tests for allergen-specific IgE. The main allergic reactions found in patients include contact allergy to metals, cosmetics, food additives, flavours and acrylates, and immediate type allergy to latex. Adverse reactions following the administration of local anaesthetics are seen in about 0.5% of cases, but immediate type allergy to these agents is rare. In dental staff, occupationally related problems are common and usually take the form of hand or facial dermatitis or respiratory disease. The most common allergic reactions in dental staff are immediate type allergy to latex, and contact allergy to rubber additives, fragrances, acrylates and formaldehyde. Occupational irritant problems causing hand dermatitis are probably more common in dental personnel than is dermatitis caused by contact allergy. Patch testing and tests for immediate type allergy are useful investigative methods in the investigation of patients who present with oral or facial symptoms possibly related to dental treatments and are also beneficial in dental personnel who present with hand or facial dermatitis or respiratory symptoms.