Korean journal of dermatology (대한피부과학회지)

Korean Dermatological Association (대한피부과학회)
권호 표지

A Study of the Patch Test Results with Preservative Antigens for Patients with Suspected Cosmetic Contact Dermatitis

화장품에 의한 접촉피부염이 의심되는 환자에서 방부제 성분에 대한 첩포검사 결과에 대한 고찰

  • Jung, Jae-Yoon (Department of Dermatology, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Jugee, Narmandakh (Department of Dermatology, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Hong, Jong-Soo (Department of Dermatology, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Eun, Hee-Chul (Department of Dermatology, Seoul National University College of Medicine)
  • 정재윤 (서울대학교 의과대학 피부과학교실) ;
  • 나르만다흐 (서울대학교 의과대학 피부과학교실) ;
  • 홍종수 (서울대학교 의과대학 피부과학교실) ;
  • 은희철 (서울대학교 의과대학 피부과학교실)
  • Received : 2009.11.16
  • Accepted : 2010.01.28
  • Published : 2010.02.28
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Preservatives are important contact allergens. However, any reports that have focused on them are relatively scanty in Korea. Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate the prevalence of preservative allergy in patients with suspected cosmetic contact dermatitis. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the patch test results and medical recordings of the patients who were suspected of having cosmetic contact dermatitis from January 2003 to December 2008 and who visited Seoul National University Hospital. A total of 330 patients (males: 69, females: 261) were enrolled in our study and the medical records included the patients' demographic information, the site of contact dermatitis, the past dermatologic diseases and the duration of the disease. We used 30 cosmetic preservative antigens. Results: The mean age of the patients was 42.5 years and the most common age of the group with contact dermatitis was in the forties. The most prevalent site for contact dermatitis was the face (60.3%). Forty nine patients (14.8%) had a past history of atopic dermatitis. A hundred thirty nine patients (42.1%) showed at least one positive patch test result. Thiomerosal showed the highest patch test rate (10.6%), followed by cocamidopropylbetaine (8.1%), Euxyl K400 (7.8%), Dodecyl gallate (6.9%) and Octyl gallate (6.6%). Conclusion: As the positive rate of a patch test with preservative antigens was relatively high, certain preservative antigens contained in the cosmetic series should be included in the patch test for patients with suspected cosmetic contact dermatitis.

Keywords

References

  1. Korea Food and Drug Administration Notification 2009-52, supplement table 3
  2. Korea Food and Drug Administration Notification 2009-42, supplement table 8
  3. de Groot AC, Bruynzeel DP, Bos JD, van der Meeren HL, van Joost T, Jagtman BA, et al. The allergens in cosmetics. Arch Dermatol 1988;124:1525-1529 https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.124.10.1525
  4. Kohl L, Blondeel A, Song M. Allergic contact dermatitis from cosmetics. Retrospective analysis of 819 patch-tested patients. Dermatology 2002;204:334-337 https://doi.org/10.1159/000063379
  5. Wilkinson JD, Shaw S, Andersen KE, Brandao FM, Bruynzeel DP, Bruze M, et al. Monitoring levels of preservative sensitivity in Europe. A 10-year overview (1991-2000). Contact Dermatitis 2002;46:207-210 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0536.2002.460404.x
  6. Jong CT, Statham BN, Green CM, King CM, Gawkrodger DJ, Sansom JE, et al. Contact sensitivity to preservatives in the UK, 2004-2005: results of multicentre study. Contact Dermatitis 2007;57:165-168 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01181.x
  7. Kiec-Swierczynska M, Krecisz B, Swierczynska-Machura D. Contact allergy to preservatives contained in cosmetics. Med Pr 2006;57:245-249
  8. Armstrong DK, Smith HR, Ross JS, White IR. Sensitization to cocamidopropylbetaine: an 8-year review. Contact Dermatitis 1999;40:335-336
  9. Jackson JM, Fowler JF. Methyldibromoglutaronitrile (Euxyl K400): a new and important sensitizer in the United State? J Am Acad Dermatol 1998;38:193-195
  10. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ. Patch testing with preservatives, antimicrobials and industrial biocides. Results from a multicentre study. Br J Dermatol 1998;138:467-476 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2133.1998.02126.x
  11. Lundov MD, Moesby L, Zachariae C, Johansen JD. Contamination versus preservation of cosmetics: a review on legislation, usage, infections, and contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis 2009;60:70-78 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2008.01501.x
  12. Zoller L, Bergman R, Weltfriend S. Preservatives sensitivity in Israel: a 10-year overview (1995-2004). Contact Dermatitis 2006;55:227-229 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.00902.x
  13. Boyvat A, Akyol A, Gurgey E. Contact sensitivity to preservatives in Turkey. Contact Dermatitis 2005;52:329-332 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00607.x
  14. Reinhard E, Waeber R, Niederer M, Maurer T, Maly P, Scherer S. Preservation of products with MCI/MI in Switzerland. Contact Dermatitis 2001;45:257-264 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0536.2001.450501.x
  15. de Groot AC. Labeling cosmetics with their ingredients. Br Med J 1990;300:1636-1638 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.300.6740.1636
  16. Reitschel RL, Flower JF. Practical aspect of patch testing. Fischer's contact dermatitis. 5th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001:9-26
  17. An S, Lee AY, Lee CH, Kim DW, Hahm JH, Kim KJ, et al. Fragrance contact dermatitis in Korea: a joint study. Contact Dermatitis 2005;53:320-323 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00720.x
  18. Kim DH, Kim HI, Park HY, Lee S. Patch test in the suspected cosmetic contact dermatitis. Korean J Dermatol 1987;25:161-168
  19. Moon KC, Eun HC, Kim HO, Kim KJ, Hong CG, Lee CH, et al. An epidemiological study of contact dermatitis in Korea (1986-1993). Korean J Dermatol 1995;33:445-452
  20. Kim BJ, Kwon HB, Lee JH, Lee SH, Lee AY. An epidemiologic study on patch test positivities for patients with allergic contact dermatitis. Korean J Dermatol 2008;46:1362-1368
  21. Lee JH, Park HJ, Lee JY, Kim HO, Cho BK, Kim CW. Study of the patch tests results in patients with contact dermatitis due to cosmetics. Korean J Dermatol 2005;43:599-605