Contact dermatitis associated with preservatives: Retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1994 through 2016 - 09/02/21
Cet article a été publié dans un numéro de la revue, cliquez ici pour y accéder
Abstract |
Background |
Preservatives are often necessary components of commercial products. Large-scale North American studies on preservative allergy are limited.
Objective |
To evaluate demographics, positive patch test reactions (PPTRs), clinical relevance, and trends for preservatives tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group.
Methods |
We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch testing results of preservatives from 1994 through 2016.
Results |
A total of 50,799 patients were tested; 11,338 (22.3%) had a PPTR to at least 1 preservative. The most frequent reactions were to methylisothiazolinone 0.2% aqueous (aq) (12.2%), formaldehyde 2% aq (7.8%), formaldehyde 1% aq (7.8%), quaternium-15 2% petrolatum (pet) (7.7%), and methyldibromo glutaronitrile/phenoxyethanol 2% pet (5.1%). Paraben mix 12% pet (1%), iodopropynyl butylcarbamate 0.1% pet (0.4%), benzyl alcohol 1% pet (0.3%), and phenoxyethanol 1% pet (0.2%) had the lowest PPTRs. Linear regression analysis of preservatives tested showed that only methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone 0.01% aq (parameter estimate, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.17-0.66; P < .005) had a significant increase in PPTRs over time.
Limitations |
Collected variables are dependent on clinical judgment. Results may be prone to referral selection bias.
Conclusions |
This large North American study provides insight on preservative PPTRs and trends from 1994 through 2016.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Key words : allergic contact dermatitis, benzyl alcohol, contact dermatitis, formaldehyde, formaldehyde releaser, iodopropynyl butylcarbamate, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, methyldibromo glutaronitrile/phenoxyethanol, methylisothiazolinone, NACDG, paraben, patch test, phenoxyethanol, preservative, preservative allergy
Abbreviations used : ACDS, aq, CIR, DMDM, FR, IPBC, MCI, MDBGN, MI, NACDG, OP, pet, PP, ppm, PPTR, SPIN
Plan
Funding sources: Supported in part by Duke Dermatology, which provided statistical funding. This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The contents do not represent the views of the US Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government. |
|
Disclosure: Dr Atwater received a Pfizer Independent Grant for Learning & Change. Dr Taylor owns noncontrolling shares of common stock in Cigna, Merck, Johnson and Johnson, and Opko Health; has consulted for Bayer and Kao Brands; has a nondependent child who is an employee of Pfizer; is a steering committee member of Cosmetic Ingredient Review; and is a US Food and Drug Administration special government employee for the Center for Devices and Radiologic Health. Author Petty and Drs Liu, Green, Silverberg, DeKoven, Belsito, Reeder, Sasseville, Maibach, Zirwas, Marks, Zug, Fowler, Pratt, DeLeo, and Warshaw have no conflicts of interest to declare. |
|
IRB approval status: Reviewed and approved by the Duke University IRB (approval no. 00092478). |
|
Reprints not available from the authors. |
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?