Cosmetic allergic contact dermatitis in facial dermatitis patients at the Institute of Dermatology, Thailand

Nutthicha Kannawat; Pailin Puangpet; Poohglin Tresukosol; Praneet Sajjachareonpong

Authors

Nutthicha Kannawat CONTACT AND OCCUPATINAL DERMATOLOGY UNIT, INSTITUTE OF DERMATOLOGY, BANGKOK, THAILAND
Pailin Puangpet CONTACT AND OCCUPATINAL DERMATOLOGY UNIT, INSTITUTE OF DERMATOLOGY, BANGKOK, THAILAND
Poohglin Tresukosol CONTACT AND OCCUPATINAL DERMATOLOGY UNIT, INSTITUTE OF DERMATOLOGY, BANGKOK, THAILAND
Praneet Sajjachareonpong CONTACT AND OCCUPATINAL DERMATOLOGY UNIT, INSTITUTE OF DERMATOLOGY, BANGKOK, THAILAND

Keywords:

cosmetic, allergic contact dermatitis, facial dermatitis, prevalence

Abstract

Background: The face is a common site for contact dermatitis comprising 6 to 10 percent of dermatologic patient in the US. At the institute of Dermatology, thirteen percent of patients who was patch testing has facial dermatitis. Cosmetics are believed to be one of the common causes of facial dermatitis. A study about prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from cosmetic in patients presenting with facial dermatitis had not been conducted in Thailand.

Objective: To determine the prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis and frequently positive patch test allergens in facial dermatitis patients.

Methods: During a 2-year period, facial dermatitis patients suspected allergic contact dermatitis were sent for patch testing. Patch testing with the European baseline series, cosmetic series, ammoniated mercury, toluene sulfonamide formaldehyde resin, thimerosal, cocamidopropylbetaine and personal care products was performed in each patient.

Results: A total of 76 (F=69, M=7) cases of facial dermatitis were included. Twenty three patients showed positive reaction to European baseline series alone. When we added patch testing with cosmetic series, number of patient with positive reaction increased to 28. Nevertheless patch testing with standard, cosmetic series and personal own products show positive reaction in 39 patients (51.3%). The most frequent relevant allergens is nickel (33.33%) and ammoniated mercury (8.64%) followed by fragrance mixed I (6.17%) and Myroxylon pereirae (4.94%).

Conclusion: The prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis in facial dermatitis patients is high (51.3%). Nickel and ammoniated mercury are the most common allergens causing facial allergic dermatitis. Patch testing with cosmetic series and substances supplied by the patient are an effective means to identify culprit allergens that might have been missed with only baseline patch test series (p value< 0.01).

References

Krob HA, Fleischer AB Jr, D'Agostino R Jr, Haverstock CL, Feldman S. Prevalence and relevance of contact dermatitis allergens: a meta-analysis of 15years of published T.R.U.E. test data. J Am Acad Dermatol 2004;51:349-53.

Boonchai W, Iamtharachai P, Sunthonpalin P. Prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis in Thailand. Dermatitis 2008;19:142-5.

Katz AS, Sherertz EF. Facial dermatitis: patch test results and final diagnoses. Am J Contact Dermatol 1999;10:153-6.

Edman B. Sites of contact dermatitis in relationship to particular allergens. Contact Dermatitis 1985;13:129-35.

Schubert H, Berova N, Czernielewski A, et al. Epidemiology of nickel allergy.Contact Dermatitis 1987;16:122-8.

Noiesen E, Munk MD, Larsen K, Johansen JD, Agner T. Difficulties in avoiding exposure to allergens in cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis 2007;57:105-9.

Sun CC. Allergic contact dermatitis of the face from contact with nickel and ammoniated mercury in spectacle frames and skin-lightening creams. Contact Dermatitis 1987;17:306-9.

Zhao B, Fan WX. Facial contact dermatitis. Pathogenetic factors in China. Int J Dermatol 1991;30:485-6.

Goh CL, Ng SK, Kwok SF. Allergic contact dermatitis from nickel in eyeshadow. Contact Dermatitis 1989;20: 380-1.

Zemba C, Romaguera C, Vilaplana J. Allergic contact dermatitis from nickel in an eye pencil. Contact Dermatitis 1992; 27: 116.

Van Ketek W G, Liem D H. Eyelid dermatitis from nickel contaminated cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis 1981: 7: 217.

Goossens A, Beck MH, Haneke E, et al. Adverse. cutaneous reactions to cosmetic allergens. Contact Dermatitis 1999;40:112-3.

Gupta N, Shenoi SD, Balachandran C.Fragrance sensitivity in allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1999;40:53-4.

Frosch PJ, Pirker C, Rastogi SC, et al. Patch testing with a new fragrance mix detects additional patients sensitive to perfumes and missed by the current fragrance mix. Contact Dermatitis 2005;52:207-15.

Penpun W, Natta R. Thimerosal Allergy and Clinical Relevance in Thailand. J Med Assoc Thai 2007; 90: 1775-8.

Santucci B, Cannistraci C, Cristaudo A, Picardo M. Thimerosal positivities: patch testing to methylmercury chloride in subjects sensitive to ethylmercury chloride. Contact Dermatitis 1999;40:8-13.

Santucci B, Cannistraci C, Cristaudo A, Camera E, Picardo M. Thimerosal positivities: the role of organomercury alkyl compounds. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;38:325-8.

Kohl L, Blondeel A, Song M.Allergic contact dermatitis from cosmetics. Retrospective analysis of 819 patch tested patients. Dermatology 2002; 204:334-7.

Shah M, Lewis FM, Gawkrodger DJ. Facial dermatitis and eyelid dermatitis: a comparison of patch test results and final diagnoses. Contact Dermatitis 1996; 34: 140-1.

Wolf R, Wolf D, Tu¨zu¨n B, Tu¨zu¨n Y. Contact dermatitis to cosmetics. Clin Dermatol 2001;19:502-15.