Hyun Kyoung Lee MBChB, Harriet Kennedy BHB, MBChB, MPhil, FRACP
{"title":"新西兰的甲基异噻唑啉酮过敏现象正在减少。","authors":"Hyun Kyoung Lee MBChB, Harriet Kennedy BHB, MBChB, MPhil, FRACP","doi":"10.1111/ajd.14301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background/Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>In the last 10 years methylisothiazolinone (MI) emerged as a global cause of preservative-related ACD. New Zealand has liberal regulations for the MI concentration limit in cosmetic products compared to Europe and Australia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of MI sensitisation in New Zealand, explore sources of MI exposure and make recommendations on New Zealand regulations for MI use.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This retrospective study included data from patients who underwent patch testing with MI from 2008 to 2021 in a tertiary hospital dermatology clinic and a private dermatology clinic in Auckland, New Zealand. Patient baseline characteristics were recorded along with results of patch testing. Sources of MI exposure were identified from medical records.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Over the study period, 1049 patch tests were performed in 1044 patients. MI was only tested as a stand-alone allergen from 2015; positive reactions to MI increased from 5.3% in 2015 to a peak of 11.9% in 2017 and then decreased to 6.4% in 2021. The most common source of MI exposure was shampoo or conditioner (27.7% of all relevant reactions) followed by occupational exposures to paints, biocides or glue (19.1%).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Both sensitisation and ACD to MI appear to be decreasing, likely secondary to changes in product compounding due to stricter concentration limits internationally. We recommend New Zealand adopt lower MI concentration limits for cosmetics to match the limits of Australia and Europe.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":8638,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Dermatology","volume":"65 5","pages":"423-427"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methylisothiazolinone sensitisation in New Zealand is decreasing\",\"authors\":\"Hyun Kyoung Lee MBChB, Harriet Kennedy BHB, MBChB, MPhil, FRACP\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ajd.14301\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background/Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>In the last 10 years methylisothiazolinone (MI) emerged as a global cause of preservative-related ACD. New Zealand has liberal regulations for the MI concentration limit in cosmetic products compared to Europe and Australia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of MI sensitisation in New Zealand, explore sources of MI exposure and make recommendations on New Zealand regulations for MI use.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This retrospective study included data from patients who underwent patch testing with MI from 2008 to 2021 in a tertiary hospital dermatology clinic and a private dermatology clinic in Auckland, New Zealand. Patient baseline characteristics were recorded along with results of patch testing. Sources of MI exposure were identified from medical records.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Over the study period, 1049 patch tests were performed in 1044 patients. MI was only tested as a stand-alone allergen from 2015; positive reactions to MI increased from 5.3% in 2015 to a peak of 11.9% in 2017 and then decreased to 6.4% in 2021. The most common source of MI exposure was shampoo or conditioner (27.7% of all relevant reactions) followed by occupational exposures to paints, biocides or glue (19.1%).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Both sensitisation and ACD to MI appear to be decreasing, likely secondary to changes in product compounding due to stricter concentration limits internationally. We recommend New Zealand adopt lower MI concentration limits for cosmetics to match the limits of Australia and Europe.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8638,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australasian Journal of Dermatology\",\"volume\":\"65 5\",\"pages\":\"423-427\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australasian Journal of Dermatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajd.14301\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DERMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal of Dermatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajd.14301","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景/目的:在过去 10 年中,甲基异噻唑啉酮(MI)已成为全球防腐剂相关急性呼吸道感染的致病原因。与欧洲和澳大利亚相比,新西兰对化妆品中的甲基异噻唑啉酮浓度限制有宽松的规定。这项研究的目的是评估MI过敏症在新西兰的发病率,探索MI暴露的来源,并就新西兰有关MI使用的法规提出建议:这项回顾性研究包括2008年至2021年期间在新西兰奥克兰一家三甲医院皮肤科诊所和一家私人皮肤科诊所接受MI贴片测试的患者数据。患者的基线特征和斑贴测试结果均被记录在案。从医疗记录中确定了接触 MI 的来源:在研究期间,对 1044 名患者进行了 1049 次斑贴测试。从 2015 年起,只将 MI 作为一种独立的过敏原进行检测;对 MI 的阳性反应从 2015 年的 5.3% 增加到 2017 年的峰值 11.9%,然后在 2021 年降至 6.4%。最常见的MI接触源是洗发水或护发素(占所有相关反应的27.7%),其次是职业性接触油漆、杀菌剂或胶水(19.1%):结论:MI 的致敏性和 ACD 似乎都在下降,这可能是由于国际上更严格的浓度限制导致产品配方发生了变化。我们建议新西兰在化妆品中采用较低的 MI 浓度限值,以与澳大利亚和欧洲的限值保持一致。
Methylisothiazolinone sensitisation in New Zealand is decreasing
Background/Objectives
In the last 10 years methylisothiazolinone (MI) emerged as a global cause of preservative-related ACD. New Zealand has liberal regulations for the MI concentration limit in cosmetic products compared to Europe and Australia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of MI sensitisation in New Zealand, explore sources of MI exposure and make recommendations on New Zealand regulations for MI use.
Methods
This retrospective study included data from patients who underwent patch testing with MI from 2008 to 2021 in a tertiary hospital dermatology clinic and a private dermatology clinic in Auckland, New Zealand. Patient baseline characteristics were recorded along with results of patch testing. Sources of MI exposure were identified from medical records.
Results
Over the study period, 1049 patch tests were performed in 1044 patients. MI was only tested as a stand-alone allergen from 2015; positive reactions to MI increased from 5.3% in 2015 to a peak of 11.9% in 2017 and then decreased to 6.4% in 2021. The most common source of MI exposure was shampoo or conditioner (27.7% of all relevant reactions) followed by occupational exposures to paints, biocides or glue (19.1%).
Conclusion
Both sensitisation and ACD to MI appear to be decreasing, likely secondary to changes in product compounding due to stricter concentration limits internationally. We recommend New Zealand adopt lower MI concentration limits for cosmetics to match the limits of Australia and Europe.
期刊介绍:
Australasian Journal of Dermatology is the official journal of the Australasian College of Dermatologists and the New Zealand Dermatological Society, publishing peer-reviewed, original research articles, reviews and case reports dealing with all aspects of clinical practice and research in dermatology. Clinical presentations, medical and physical therapies and investigations, including dermatopathology and mycology, are covered. Short articles may be published under the headings ‘Signs, Syndromes and Diagnoses’, ‘Dermatopathology Presentation’, ‘Vignettes in Contact Dermatology’, ‘Surgery Corner’ or ‘Letters to the Editor’.