Type I Hypersensitivity due to Basic Blue 99 in a Hair Colour Conditioning Agent

IF 4.6 1区 医学 Q2 ALLERGY Contact Dermatitis Pub Date : 2025-01-13 DOI:10.1111/cod.14755
Takafumi Numata, Kazuki Fujimori, Kana Kato, Tomonobu Ito, Kazutoshi Harada, Yukari Okubo
{"title":"Type I Hypersensitivity due to Basic Blue 99 in a Hair Colour Conditioning Agent","authors":"Takafumi Numata,&nbsp;Kazuki Fujimori,&nbsp;Kana Kato,&nbsp;Tomonobu Ito,&nbsp;Kazutoshi Harada,&nbsp;Yukari Okubo","doi":"10.1111/cod.14755","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Basic Blue 99 (BB99) is used as a direct, nonoxidative hair colourant in hair dyes [<span>1</span>]. Type I hypersensitivity to BB99 has rarely been reported [<span>2-5</span>]. We herein present a case of Type I hypersensitivity caused by BB99 and review four, previously reported cases.</p><p>A 54-year-old, female, Japanese patient visited our dermatology department following a recent episode of Type I hypersensitivity. She had a history of atopic dermatitis, cold urticaria, and contact dermatitis caused by <i>p-</i>phenylenediamine (PPD)-containing hair dye. Moreover, 4 years previously, following the self-application of a hair colour conditioning agent without PPD, she experienced a pruritic facial rash, which subsided overnight.</p><p>One month prior to her current presentation, she experienced a pruritic facial rash, throat irritation, sneezing, stomach pain, and vomiting 20 min after a non-PPD hair dye, a hair colour conditioning agent, and a hydrogen peroxide solution had been applied to her hair in a hair salon. She visited an emergency centre at a nearby hospital where Type I hypersensitivity reaction triggered by the hair dye or hair colour conditioning agent was diagnosed. A skin prick test carried out with the same hair colour conditioning agent which she used 4 years ago (Hair colour conditioning agent <b>A</b>) and the hair colour conditioning agent used most recently at the hair salon (Hair colour conditioning agent <b>B</b>), both at a 1% dilution in saline, as well as hair dye at a 1% dilution in saline and the hydrogen peroxide solution ‘as is’, was positive for both hair colour conditioning agents but was negative for the hair dye and hydrogen peroxide solution within 15 min after application (Figure 1A,B,D). A skin prick test later performed using the ingredients of the hair colour conditioning agents and the two hair colour conditioning agents was positive for BB99 and the two hair colour conditioning agents, but was negative for Basic Brown 16 and Basic Brown 17 within 15 min after application (Figure 1C,D). Both hair colour conditioning agents contained BB99, leading to the diagnosis of Type I hypersensitivity induced by BB99.</p><p>BB99 (3-[(4-amino-6-bromo-5,8-dihydro-1-hydroxy-8-imino-5-oxo-2-naphthalenyl) amino]-N,N,N-trimethyl benzenaminium chloride [Arianor Steel Blue; CAS no. 68123-13-7]) can cause Type I hypersensitivity, including contact urticaria and contact anaphylaxis. Besides the present case, only four other cases of Type I hypersensitivity caused by BB99 have been reported to date (Table 1). Interestingly, all the patients were older than 50 years, and most were female. Two patients had a history of an atopic disorder. The positive concentration used for the skin prick tests ranged from 0.1% to 1%.</p><p>In conclusion, hair dyes containing BB99 are commonly used worldwide, but BB99 itself has rarely been reported as a contact sensitizer. The skin prick test is a useful method of identifying the allergenic substances, such as BB99. The present study found that a 0.1% dilution was sufficient for a prick test with BB99 and BB99-containig hair colour conditioning agent.</p><p>\n <b>Takafumi Numata:</b> writing – original draft, methodology. <b>Kazuki Fujimori:</b> investigation. <b>Kana Kato:</b> investigation. <b>Tomonobu Ito:</b> investigation. <b>Kazutoshi Harada:</b> writing – review and editing. <b>Yukari Okubo:</b> writing – review and editing, supervision.</p><p>Informed written consent for the publication of the details of this case and the accompanying images was obtained from the patient.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"92 5","pages":"414-416"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cod.14755","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contact Dermatitis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cod.14755","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Basic Blue 99 (BB99) is used as a direct, nonoxidative hair colourant in hair dyes [1]. Type I hypersensitivity to BB99 has rarely been reported [2-5]. We herein present a case of Type I hypersensitivity caused by BB99 and review four, previously reported cases.

A 54-year-old, female, Japanese patient visited our dermatology department following a recent episode of Type I hypersensitivity. She had a history of atopic dermatitis, cold urticaria, and contact dermatitis caused by p-phenylenediamine (PPD)-containing hair dye. Moreover, 4 years previously, following the self-application of a hair colour conditioning agent without PPD, she experienced a pruritic facial rash, which subsided overnight.

One month prior to her current presentation, she experienced a pruritic facial rash, throat irritation, sneezing, stomach pain, and vomiting 20 min after a non-PPD hair dye, a hair colour conditioning agent, and a hydrogen peroxide solution had been applied to her hair in a hair salon. She visited an emergency centre at a nearby hospital where Type I hypersensitivity reaction triggered by the hair dye or hair colour conditioning agent was diagnosed. A skin prick test carried out with the same hair colour conditioning agent which she used 4 years ago (Hair colour conditioning agent A) and the hair colour conditioning agent used most recently at the hair salon (Hair colour conditioning agent B), both at a 1% dilution in saline, as well as hair dye at a 1% dilution in saline and the hydrogen peroxide solution ‘as is’, was positive for both hair colour conditioning agents but was negative for the hair dye and hydrogen peroxide solution within 15 min after application (Figure 1A,B,D). A skin prick test later performed using the ingredients of the hair colour conditioning agents and the two hair colour conditioning agents was positive for BB99 and the two hair colour conditioning agents, but was negative for Basic Brown 16 and Basic Brown 17 within 15 min after application (Figure 1C,D). Both hair colour conditioning agents contained BB99, leading to the diagnosis of Type I hypersensitivity induced by BB99.

BB99 (3-[(4-amino-6-bromo-5,8-dihydro-1-hydroxy-8-imino-5-oxo-2-naphthalenyl) amino]-N,N,N-trimethyl benzenaminium chloride [Arianor Steel Blue; CAS no. 68123-13-7]) can cause Type I hypersensitivity, including contact urticaria and contact anaphylaxis. Besides the present case, only four other cases of Type I hypersensitivity caused by BB99 have been reported to date (Table 1). Interestingly, all the patients were older than 50 years, and most were female. Two patients had a history of an atopic disorder. The positive concentration used for the skin prick tests ranged from 0.1% to 1%.

In conclusion, hair dyes containing BB99 are commonly used worldwide, but BB99 itself has rarely been reported as a contact sensitizer. The skin prick test is a useful method of identifying the allergenic substances, such as BB99. The present study found that a 0.1% dilution was sufficient for a prick test with BB99 and BB99-containig hair colour conditioning agent.

Takafumi Numata: writing – original draft, methodology. Kazuki Fujimori: investigation. Kana Kato: investigation. Tomonobu Ito: investigation. Kazutoshi Harada: writing – review and editing. Yukari Okubo: writing – review and editing, supervision.

Informed written consent for the publication of the details of this case and the accompanying images was obtained from the patient.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一种发色调理剂中的碱性蓝99引起的I型过敏。
Basic Blue 99 (BB99)是一种直接的、非氧化的染发剂。对BB99的I型超敏反应很少报道[2-5]。我们在此报告一例由BB99引起的I型超敏反应,并回顾了先前报道的4例病例。一名54岁的日本女性患者在最近发生I型过敏症后到我们的皮肤科就诊。患者有含对苯二胺(PPD)染发剂引起的特应性皮炎、寒性荨麻疹和接触性皮炎病史。此外,4年前,在自己使用一种没有PPD的发色调理剂后,她经历了瘙痒性面部皮疹,一夜之间消退。在本次报告前一个月,她在美发沙龙使用非ppd染发剂、发色调理剂和过氧化氢溶液20分钟后,出现瘙痒性面部皮疹、喉咙刺激、打喷嚏、胃痛和呕吐。她去了附近一家医院的急救中心,在那里诊断出由染发剂或染发剂引发的I型超敏反应。皮肤点刺试验用的是她4年前用过的染发剂(染发剂A)和最近在发廊用过的染发剂(染发剂B),都是1%稀释的生理盐水,以及1%稀释的染发剂和“原样”的双氧水溶液。两种染发剂均呈阳性,但在使用后15分钟内染发剂和双氧水溶液呈阴性(图1A,B,D)。随后使用染发调理剂和两种染发调理剂的成分进行皮肤点刺试验,结果显示BB99和两种染发调理剂呈阳性,但在使用后15分钟内,Basic Brown 16和Basic Brown 17呈阴性(图1C,D)。两种染发剂均含有BB99,诊断为BB99诱导的I型超敏反应。BB99(3-[(4-氨基-6-溴-5,8-二氢-1-羟基-8-亚胺-5-氧-2-萘基)氨基]-N,N,N-三甲基苯氯化胺[亚利阿诺钢蓝;化学文摘登记号[68123-13-7])可引起I型超敏反应,包括接触性荨麻疹和接触性过敏反应。除本例外,迄今为止仅报道了4例由BB99引起的I型超敏反应(表1)。有趣的是,所有患者年龄均在50岁以上,且大多数为女性。2例患者有特应性疾病史。皮肤点刺试验的阳性浓度范围为0.1%至1%。总之,含有BB99的染发剂在世界范围内普遍使用,但BB99本身很少被报道为接触致敏剂。皮肤点刺试验是鉴别致敏物质(如BB99)的有效方法。本研究发现0.1%的稀释度足以用于BB99和含有BB99的染发调理剂的点刺试验。Numata Takafumi:写作-原稿,方法论。藤森和之:调查。加藤假名:调查。伊藤友信:调查。原田和敏:写作-评论和编辑。大久保由卡利:写作-审查和编辑,监督。从患者处获得了发表本病例细节和随附图像的知情书面同意。作者声明无利益冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis 医学-过敏
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
30.90%
发文量
227
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Contact Dermatitis is designed primarily as a journal for clinicians who are interested in various aspects of environmental dermatitis. This includes both allergic and irritant (toxic) types of contact dermatitis, occupational (industrial) dermatitis and consumers" dermatitis from such products as cosmetics and toiletries. The journal aims at promoting and maintaining communication among dermatologists, industrial physicians, allergists and clinical immunologists, as well as chemists and research workers involved in industry and the production of consumer goods. Papers are invited on clinical observations, diagnosis and methods of investigation of patients, therapeutic measures, organisation and legislation relating to the control of occupational and consumers".
期刊最新文献
Old But Not Gone: Nitrofurazone-Induced Occupational Allergic Contact Dermatitis in a Racehorse Groom. Effectiveness of Cyclosporine in Parthenium Dermatitis: A Prospective Study to Evaluate Treatment Outcomes and Inflammatory Cytokine Levels. Allergic Contact Dermatitis From Dorzolamide Without Cross-Reactivity to Brinzolamide. Contact Sensitization in Patients With Frontal Fibrosing Alopecia: Patch Test Results With an Extended Baseline Series in Consecutive Patients. Patch Testing in Individuals With Diabetes Using Medical Devices. Part 2-Contact Allergy to Medical Device Allergens and New Patch Test Recommendations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1