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。     

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。     

化妆品性皮肤病341例临床分析

为了了解化妆品性皮肤病状况,对341例化妆品性皮肤病进行了临床观察。并对部分患者做了可疑致病化妆品与仿欧标准抗原的斑贴试验。结果,中青年女性患者居多,临床表现主要为接触性皮炎(78.59%),其次是色素沉着(10.26%)、痤疮样损害(9.97%)、光感性皮炎(0.59%)、接触性荨麻疹(0.59%)。可疑致病化妆品种类141种,大部分是一股护肤品(63.83%)。215例做了可疑化妆品斑试,阳性率61.86%,以接触性皮炎型和色素沉着型阳性率较高(63.75%与80.65%)。仿欧标准抗原斑试结果显示化妆品中常见的致敏原是香料和防腐剂。     

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...     

631例化妆品皮肤病回顾性分析

目的:探讨化妆品皮肤病发生的规律和特点,为监管化妆品皮肤病和开展健康教育活动提供数据支持.方法:收集我院2015年1月至2020年12月化妆品皮肤病患者一般资料、使用化妆品来源、化妆品不良反应等信息,汇总数据并进行统计分析.结果:化妆品皮肤病患者占皮肤科门诊患者总数的0.08％.631份报告中:发病以女性为主,占97....     

Cosmetic dermatitis - current perspectives

BACKGROUND: Increasing use of cosmetics by modern society has contributed alarming to an rise in the incidence of cosmetic dermatitis (CD). The causative agents are skin, hair, nail and eye cosmetics. Reported cases of cosmetic dermatitis represent only the tip of the iceberg, as most patients who experience an adverse reaction to cosmetics do not consult a physician but discontinue using the suspected items. METHODS: A comprehensive history followed by adequate clinical examination and patch test is important to diagnose reaction to cosmetics. In addition other tests like Repeated Open Application Test (ROAT), usage test, elimination test and safety test are important, as many cosmetics and their ingredients are either weak allergens or irritants. RESULTS: A wide variety of adverse reactions to cosmetics are seen which are of both irritant and allergic type. Pattern of CD varies in different parts of the world depending upon the type and frequency of different cosmetics used. Reactions are more commonly seen in females of younger age and the face is the most common site. CONCLUSIONS: Though prevention is better than cure, but cosmetics have definitely infiltrated into our life style. We cannot prevent use of cosmetics but can only limit their use by educating their users and helping them in judicious selection of the required cosmetics.     

Dermatitis alérgica de contacto por cosméticos

IntroductionContact dermatitis to cosmetics is a common problem in the general population, although its prevalence appears to be underestimated. We reviewed cases of allergic contact dermatitis to cosmetics diagnosed in our dermatology department over a 7-year period with a view to identifying the allergens responsible, the frequency of occurrence of these allergens, and the cosmetic products implicated.MethodsUsing the database of the skin allergy department, we undertook a search of all cases of allergic contact dermatitis to cosmetics diagnosed in our department from January 2000 through October 2007.ResultsIn this period, patch tests were carried out on 2,485 patients, of whom 740 were diagnosed with allergic contact dermatitis and the cause was cosmetics in 202 of these patients (170 women and 32 men), who accounted for 27.3 % of all cases. A total of 315 positive results were found for 46 different allergens. Allergens most often responsible for contact dermatitis in a cosmetics user were methylisothiazolinone (19 %), paraphenylenediamine (15.2 %), and fragrance mixtures (7.8 %). Acrylates were the most common allergens in cases of occupational disease. Half of the positive results were obtained with the standard battery of the Spanish Group for Research Into Dermatitis and Skin Allergies (GEIDAC). The cosmetic products most often implicated among cosmetics users were hair dyes (18.5 %), gels/soaps (15.7 %), and moisturizers (12.7 %).ConclusionMost patients affected were women. Preservatives, paraphenylenediamine, and fragrances were the most frequently detected cosmetic allergens, in line with previous reports in the literature. Finally, in order to detect new cosmetic allergens, cooperation between physicians and cosmetics producers is needed.     

Dermatitis alérgica de contacto a cosméticos

Contact dermatitis due to cosmetic products is a common dermatologic complaint that considerably affects the patient's quality of life. Diagnosis, treatment, and preventive strategies represent a substantial cost. This condition accounts for 2% to 4% of all visits to the dermatologist, and approximately 60% of cases are allergic in origin. Most cases are caused by skin hygiene and moisturizing products, followed by cosmetic hair and nail products. Fragrances are the most common cause of allergy to cosmetics, followed by preservatives and hair dyes; however, all components, including natural ingredients, should be considered potential sensitizers. We provide relevant information on the most frequent allergens in cosmetic products, namely, fragrances, preservatives, antioxidants, excipients, surfactants, humectants, emulsifiers, natural ingredients, hair dyes, sunscreens, and nail cosmetics.     

Multicenter study of preservative sensitivity in patients with suspected cosmetic contact dermatitis in Korea

As many new cosmetic products are introduced into the market, attention must be given to contact dermatitis, which is commonly caused by cosmetics. We investigate the prevalence of preservative allergy in 584 patients with suspected cosmetic contact dermatitis at 11 different hospitals. From January 2010 to March 2011, 584 patients at 11 hospital dermatology departments presented with cosmetic contact dermatitis symptoms. These patients were patch-tested for preservative allergens. An irritancy patch test performed on 30 control subjects using allergens of various concentrations showed high irritancy rates. Preservative hypersensitivity was detected in 41.1% of patients. Allergens with the highest positive test rates were benzalkonium chloride (12.1%), thimerosal (9.9%) and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) (5.5%). Benzalkonium chloride and chlorphenesin had the highest irritancy rate based on an irritancy patch test performed using various concentrations. Seven of 30 normal subjects had a positive irritant patch reading with 0.1% benzalkonium chloride and eight of 30 normal subjects had a positive irritant patch reading at 4 days with 0.5% chlorphenesin in petrolatum. Although benzalkonium chloride was highly positive for skin reactions in our study, most reactions were probably irritation. MCI/MI and thimerosal showed highly positive allergy reactions in our study. The optimum concentration of chlorphenesin to avoid skin reactions is less than 0.5%.     

Skin problems in workers using visual display terminals A study of 201 patients

201 patients with skin problems caused in their own opinion by working with visual display terminals (VDTs) were referred and examined. 18% claimed that their condition improved overnight and 21% that it did so over the weekend. In 25 patients, the skin problems occurred mainly on the cheek turned towards the VDT. Half the patients had rosacea, but their subjective skin symptoms were generally more severe than those in ordinary cases of rosacea, i.e., severe pain, itching and burning. The rest of the patients mainly had common facial dermatoses such as seborrhoeic eczema, acne vulgaris and atopic dermatitis. The patients' skin types, judged by their response to ultraviolet light, did not differ from those of a control population. 18% had non-specific skin problems, e.g., itching and redness. This latter group of patients most closely resembles those cases previously described amongst VDT-workers. An attempt to correlate skin problems with VDTs' electrostatic field strength was unsuccessful because of difficulties in eliminating it. Of 52 electrostatic shields placed in front of patients' VDTs, 38 were defective and 9 were wrongly earthed. The prevalence of migraine-like headache was 40%, which is much higher than in a control population. There was no great use of cosmetics by the study population. When followed up after an average of 8 months, 2/3 of the patients had fewer skin complaints. The question of whether the prevalence of skin problems in general is higher amongst individuals using VDTs than in a control population is addressed in a current study.     

2005—2009年四川大学华西医院化妆品不良反应回顾性分析

目的探讨化妆品引起皮肤各种不良反应的状况及远期影响。方法对四川大学华西医院2005—2009年门诊疑为化妆品不良反应的487例患者进行回顾性临床分析,并对接诊后观察时间6个月的患者进行随访。结果 487例患者以中青年女性居多,临床表现主要为化妆品接触性皮炎(65.3%),化妆品色素异常性皮肤病(10.9%),毛发损害(2.67%),化妆品痤疮(2.5%)。对281例患者行可疑化妆品斑贴试验,73例阳性。对169例进行了随访,87例(51.48%)经过治疗而痊愈,但是仍有近1/4患者症状反复出现,难以痊愈。结论选择化妆品应谨慎,相关卫生行政部门应重视化妆品的安全性监督和管理,各级临床医生对化妆品不良反应及时进行处理,减少并发症。     

Contact dermatitis in hairdressers'' clients

The aim of our study was to report the frequency of sensitization to hairdressing allergens in a group of patients with contact dermatitis, in whom previous treatments with hair dyes or permanent wave solutions were suspected to be the cause. 49 of 261 hairdressers' clients (18.7%), who were patch tested with the hairdressers' screening series in the years 1985-1990, showed one (27) or more (22) positive reactions to hairdressing chemicals. This study confirms hair dyeing to be the procedure associated with the highest risk of sensitization among hairdressers' clients. Among hair dye allergens, PPD is the most frequent sensitizer (7.3%). A low rate of sensitization to the PPD derivatives PAP, ONPPD and PTD was detected in these clients, there being no differences in the frequency of sensitization to the 3 substances (4.2%, 4.6% and 4.6%, respectively). Only 0.4% of clients were positive to resorcinol, while pyrogallol showed a 2.3% rate of sensitization. Sensitization to GMTG was found in 3.3% of patients. ATG was an infrequent sensitizer (1.1%). Allergic contact dermatitis due to APS is quite rare (2.7%), in view of the widespread use of this compound. A positive open patch test in 1 hairdressers' client, who complained of generalized urticaria after hair bleaching, confirmed the diagnosis of immediate contact reaction due to APS. Sensitization to hairdressing allergens among consumers (18.7%) is possibly more frequent than sensitization to other cosmetic ingredients. We previously detected a 14.3% rate of sensitization to cosmetic ingredients in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis caused by cosmetics. On the other hand, reactions to cosmetic ingredients were also common in our patients. This may indicate that hairdressers' clients make greater use of cosmetics than average.     

Adverse reactions to cosmetics

Adverse reaction to cosmetics constitute a small but significant number of cases of contact dermatitis with varied appearances. These can present as contact allergic dermatitis, photodermatitis, contact irritant dermatitis, contact urticaria, hypopigmentation, hyperpigmentation or depigmentation, hair and nail breakage. Fifty patients were included for the study to assess the role of commonly used cosmetics in causing adverse reactions. It was found that hair dyes, lipsticks and surprisingly shaving creams caused more reaction as compared to other cosmetics. Overall incidence of contact allergic dermatitis seen was 3.3% with patients own cosmetics. Patch testing was also done with the basic ingredients and showed positive results in few cases where casual link could be established. It is recommended that labeling of the cosmetics should be done to help the dermatologists and the patients to identify the causative allergen in cosmetic preparation.     

The allergens in cosmetics

The ingredients responsible for allergy to cosmetics were determined in 119 patients suffering from cosmetic-related contact dermatitis. Most reactions (56.3%) were caused by skin care products, followed by nail cosmetics (13.4%), perfumes (8.4%), and hair cosmetics (5.9%). Preservatives were most frequently implicated (32.0%), followed by fragrances (26.5%) and emulsifiers (14.3%). By far the most important cosmetic allergen was Kathon CG, (a preservative system containing, as active ingredients, a mixture of methylisothiazolinone and methyl chloroisothiazolinone) reacting in 33 patients (27.7%). Other frequent causes of cosmetic-related contact allergic reactions were toluenesulfonamide/formaldehyde resin in nail hardener and/or nail lacquer (15 patients [12.6%]), and oleamidopropyl dimethylamine, an emulsifier in baby body lotion (13 patients [10.9%]).     

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.     

Case of allergic contact dermatitis due to 1,3‐butylene glycol

1,3‐Butylene glycol (1,3‐BG) is widely used in cosmetics, including low‐irritant skin care products and topical medicaments, as an excellent and low‐irritation humectant. We report a case of allergic contact dermatitis caused by 1,3‐BG. A 28‐year‐old woman suffered from an itchy erythematous eruption on her face. By 2 days of closed patch testing, her own cosmetics and many of the hypo‐irritant skin care products showed positive results. A second patch testing showed positive reaction to 1,3‐BG (1% and 5%). 1,3‐BG was a common component in most of the products that had elicited a positive reaction in the first patch testing. Although allergic contact dermatitis due to 1,3‐BG is not so common, we have to consider 1,3‐BG as a possible contact allergen in the patients presenting with allergic contact dermatitis due to various cosmetics.     

Contact allergy to cosmetics: testing with patients' own products

In a 2-year period, 1527 patients with contact dermatitis were investigated in the patch-test clinic. In 531 patients, allergy to cosmetics was suspected from the history and they were tested with their own cosmetic products. 40 (7.5%) (of the 531 patients) had 1 or more positive reactions, 82 (15.4%) had doubtfully positive reaction(s) and 31 (5.8%) had irritant reaction(s). Skin-care products were tested most frequently and were also found to cause most positive, doubtfully positive and irritant reactions, 80% of the patients with positive reactions to their own products had no history of contact dermatitis prior to the presenting attack, and in 92.5% of the cases, the positive reaction was considered relevant or partly relevant. In patients with a positive reaction, ingredients that could be responsible were found in 60% of the cases by testing with the European standard series and a series of common cosmetic ingredients. Fragrance mix and formaldehyde were found to be the ingredients most often responsible and were significantly more frequent in patients with positive reactions to their own products, compared to a control group of eczema patients also seen in the patch-test clinic.     

IgA deposition in the skin of patients with alcoholic liver disease

In patients with alcoholic liver disease, IgA deposits are often found in the liver, kidneys and skin. The present study was undertaken to determine the specificity, sensitivity and characteristics of IgA deposition in the skin of a group of alcoholic patients with or without overt liver disease, and compare these with findings in non-alcoholic cirrhotics. Twenty-six out of 28 patients with alcoholic cirrhosis had IgA deposition in the skin. In contrast, only 6 out of 11 patients who were alcoholic without any clinical liver disease and 3 out of 13 patients with non-alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver had IgA deposition. In the control group, only 1 out of 52 patients with various dermatoses (excluding IgA dermatoses) had this IgA deposition. Unlike other IgA dermatoses, such as Henoch-Schoenlein pnrpura or dermatitis herpetiformis, IgA deposition in alcoholic liver disease is characterized by its presence in the basement membrane of the eccrine secretory coils. This particular pattern of IgA deposition can be helpful in the diagnosis of alcoholic liver disease or alcoholism since the specificity is 100% with a sensitivity of 75%.     

Contact allergy to cosmetics: causative ingredients

Of 1781 patients with contact dermatitis seen during a period of 6 years (1981-1986), 75 (4.2%) had allergy to cosmetic products. The face was most frequently affected. In many cases, the dermatitis was limited to the eyelids (18.7%) or the face (40.0%). Skin care products (moisturizing and cleansing cream/lotion/milk) accounted for more than half (52.3%), followed by nail cosmetics (8.0%), shaving preparations (8.0%) and deodorants (6.8%). The ingredients most often responsible were fragrances (45.1%), followed by the preservative Kathon CG (11.0%) and the emulsifier oleamidopropyl dimethylamine (9.8%). In 14 patients (18.7%), patch tests with the responsible cosmetic product were negative. In them, the diagnosis was made by use tests and/or repeated open application tests. Compulsory declaration of ingredients on cosmetic product labels in the EEC, analagous to the USA situation, would be of great benefit both to patients and to physicians.