Contact Dermatitis最新文献

Background: Cosmetics have been suggested as sources of exposure in patients with positive patch tests to propolis. It has also been proposed that beeswax in cosmetic products may cause allergic contact dermatitis due to contamination with propolis.

Objectives: To assess how often propolis is listed in cosmetics and to review evidence on the propolis-beeswax relationship, including whether residual propolis in beeswax can elicit dermatitis in propolis-sensitised individuals.

Materials and methods: Market survey of ingredient lists for 500 cosmetics and a literature review on allergy to beeswax and its association with propolis allergy.

Results: None of the 500 cosmetics contained propolis. Evidence on the propolis-beeswax relationship is inconsistent, but occasional co-reactivity is reported.

Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, propolis is not or only rarely used in conventional cosmetics on the European market and is therefore unlikely to be a relevant exposure source for patients with positive patch tests to propolis. Reactions to beeswax in propolis-sensitised individuals from residual propolis cannot be fully excluded but appear uncommon and mainly involve allergic contact cheilitis from lip balms. Within the scope of the present data, patients with positive patch tests to propolis do not need to avoid all cosmetics containing beeswax.

Background: Peristomal skin reactions due to irritant exposure are a common complication of ostomies, whereas contact allergy to stoma care products seems rare. However, knowledge is limited and predominantly based on a few case reports.

Objective: This study evaluated the prevalence of contact allergy to stoma care products and selected contact allergens. Furthermore, reactions were evaluated in relation to demographic and concomitant dermatitis.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of patch test results and clinical data was performed among 98 ostomy patients patch-tested with their own stoma care products and selected contact allergens between 1992 and 2024 at the Dept. of Dermatology and Allergy Centre, Odense University Hospital, Denmark.

Results: Seven of 98 patch-tested patients had contact allergy to stoma care products, primarily to ostomy paste (n = 3). Further, four of 97 patients had a concomitant clinically relevant sensitization to fragrances and preservatives. The prevalence of positive patch test sensitizations did not increase throughout the study period, although approximately fivefold as many patients were patch-tested in 2018-2024 compared to 1992-2005.

Conclusion: Contact allergy to stoma care products was rare. Despite an increase in the number of patients patch-tested over a 32-year period, no increase in the prevalence of contact allergy was observed.

Background: Fragrance allergy is difficult to define, with thousands of known fragrance-related compounds. Whether certain botanicals should be considered 'fragrance' and whether fragrance-allergic patients should avoid these ingredients remains unclear, with minimal published data on the topic.

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate whether there is cross-reactivity between fragrance and various botanicals commonly found in personal-care products, such as aloe, coconut oil and shea butter, among others.

Methods: A cohort of fragrance-allergic patients was identified using data from 2038 patients patch-tested at a tertiary referral centre from 2020-2024. Cross-reactivity rates to botanicals commonly found in personal-care products were calculated, and statistical significance was determined using Fisher's exact test. Cross-reactivity was defined as > 10% reaction incidence.

Results: In patients with fragrance allergy, there was no significant cross-reactivity to any of the investigated botanical compounds.

Conclusions: The low concomitant rates of reaction between fragrance and the investigated substances suggest that patients allergic to fragrance do not need to avoid certain common botanicals. Many products contain these compounds, including ones marked as 'fragrance-free'. Dermatologists can safely reassure fragrance-allergic patients of the safety of many botanicals commonly used in personal-care products.

Background: Limonene and linalool are widely used fragrances in cosmetic and household products. Upon air exposure, they autoxidise into potent sensitisers - hydroperoxides of limonene (Lim-OOH) and linalool (Lin-OOH).

Objectives: The objective of this study is to investigate patch test reactions to Lim-OOH and Lin-OOH, and associated characteristics, reaction patterns, including doubtful reactions and co-reactivity with other fragrance allergens.

Method: A retrospective analysis was conducted using registry data from 6719 consecutively patch-tested patients at Gentofte Hospital, Denmark (2014-2025). Doubtful reactions were clinically subclassified as erythematous, only (E) or infiltrated (I).

Results: The prevalence of positive patch test reactions was 1.6% for Lim-OOH and 3.1% for Lin-OOH. Positive Lim-OOH reactions were less likely in men and in patients with atopic, occupational or hand dermatitis, whilst positive Lin-OOH reactions were more likely in those > 40 years and less in atopic dermatitis. Most reactions peaked on day 3/4 and were weakly positive. Doubtful I reactions more frequently progressed to positive than doubtful E. Co-reactivity was observed between Lim-OOH, Lin-OOH and other fragrance allergens. Lower test concentrations reduced diagnostic sensitivity.

Conclusion: Co-reactivity with other fragrance allergens supports true allergenicity. The currently recommended patch test concentrations (0.3% Lim-OOH and 1.0% Lin-OOH) seem optimal and qualify for inclusion in the European baseline series.

Background: Despite the increasing prevalence of cosmetic-related adverse reactions, their potential prognoses and associated risk factors have received limited attention within the medical community.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 7794 cases of cosmetics-related adverse reactions reported in Wuhan, China, from 2017 to 2023. Data were collected from multiple sources, including medical institutions, cosmetic manufacturers, distributors, individual consumers and regulatory agencies. Demographic characteristics, clinical diagnoses, symptom profiles and allergy histories were systematically analysed using descriptive statistics. Cases were stratified by recovery outcome into complete versus incomplete groups to identify prognostic factors. Comparative analyses were performed using χ2 tests, with statistically significant variables (p < 0.05) further evaluated through multivariate logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 25.0, with a significance level set at p < 0.05.

Results: Among the 7794 patients, the majority (76.56%) achieved complete recovery, while a substantial proportion (23.44%) experienced persistent or permanent symptoms, such as post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH), atrophic scarring and other forms of skin damage. Statistical analysis identified age and a history of allergies as significant risk factors for long-term skin damage. Patients under 20 years of age were 2.06 times more likely to suffer persistent or permanent symptoms compared to those over 50 years (p = 0.000). Additionally, individuals with a history of food allergy were 3.16 times more prone to long-term skin damage (p < 0.05). A history of drug allergy also significantly increased the risk, with an OR of 1.887 (95% CI: 1.34, 2.66; p = 0.000).

Conclusion: This study identified younger age (< 20 years) and a history of food or drug allergies as significant risk factors for long-term symptoms following cosmetic adverse reactions. These insights assist dermatologists in recognising high-risk individuals and guiding tailored preventive strategies. Integrating these indicators into clinical evaluation and patient counselling may enhance early intervention, ultimately reducing the likelihood of persistent or irreversible cutaneous sequelae. Overall, the findings highlight the importance of individualised risk assessment and proactive management in ensuring cosmetic safety and optimising dermatological and public health outcomes.