Contact cheilitis caused by candelilla wax contained in lipstick

Barrientos, Nuria; Abajo, P; Vega, María Moreno de; Dominguez, J.D.

doi:10.1111/cod.12080

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4 Our case also highlights that other cosmetically used oils, fats, and waxes, although rare, may occasionally be relevant culprits. Candelilla cera (E. cerifera) has been previously published as a relevant culprit in lip balms, 5 and other cosmetics, 6 whereas contact allergy to cosmetically used butyrospermum parkii (shea butter) and helianthus annuus seed oil…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our case also highlights that other cosmetically used oils, fats, and waxes, although rare, may occasionally be relevant culprits. Candelilla cera ( E. cerifera ) has been previously published as a relevant culprit in lip balms, 5 and other cosmetics, 6 whereas contact allergy to cosmetically used butyrospermum parkii (shea butter) and helianthus annuus seed oil has not yet been convincingly documented. Other examples of possible culprit ‘lipid’ allergens in cases of allergic contact cheilitis include ricinus communis seed oil (castor oil) 7 and lanolin, 3 both negative in our patient, as well as Copernicia cerifera (Carnauba wax), 8 which, although present in one of the lip balms, could not be tested.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Severe contact cheilitis from cera alba and other cosmetic oils, fats and waxes in lip balms

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Severe contact cheilitis from cera alba and other cosmetic oils, fats and waxes in lip balms

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…With this case we confirm the sensitization potential of Candelilla Cera (INCI; synonym Euphorbia cerifera Cera, CAS no. 8006‐44‐8), only once previously described as a sensitizing agent in a lipstick, and we report a first case of contact allergy due to sucrose (di)stearate, a new and unexpected cosmetic sensitizer. Of the three retested substances that eventually failed to show any reactions, only xanthan gum has been previously reported as an unusual cosmetic sensitizer in a young child .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

A peculiar case of sensitization to Candelilla Cera and sucrose (di)stearate in a toddler

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although some moisturizing creams are specifically formulated for use by atopic dermatitis patients, they may still contain ingredients that provoke contact allergy. CASE REPORTAn 11-month-old boy had been prescribed an unscented emollient cream to treat dry skin accompanying his atopic dermatitis. Two weeks later, he developed a generalized papular, itchy rash. Hence, the cream was stopped and topical corticosteroid treatment was initiated. In the years thereafter the parents experienced difficulties to find suitable, hydrating creams and sunscreens the child could tolerate, and therefore, at the age of 4, the pediatrician referred him to the Contact Allergy Unit of the University Hospital Antwerp.Patch tests were performed with an in-house baseline series for children, with a selection of allergens from the European baseline series, 1 and with the previously used emollient cream "as is". Test preparations (Chemotechnique Diagnostics, Vellinge, Sweden) were applied on allergEAZE chambers (SmartPractice, Calgary, Canada) and covered with Fixomull (BSN Medical, Hamburg, Germany). Following an occlusion of 2 days, readings were performed according to ESCD guidelines. These showed positive patch tests to the emollient cream (++) (Figure 1) as well as to fragrance mix I (+) and Myroxylon pereirae resin (+). As the culprit emollient cream was unscented, additional patch tests were performed with its ingredients, kindly provided by the manufacturer. For practical reasons, readings were performed by a private dermatologist (E.V.), and photographs of the reactions were sent to the patch test clinic. Strong positive reactions were again observed to the emollient cream (different batch, same formula;++), as well as to two ingredients: Candelilla Cera 41% pet. (++) and sucrose distearate 10% pet.(++) (Figure 2). Weak reactions (+) were observed to sucrose stearate 10% pet. and to xanthan gum 10% aq., whereas doubtful reactions (?+) were observed to ceramide NP 1% pet. and 1,2-hexanediol 2% aq. Twenty control patients showed no reactions to these substances. After discussion at a REVIDAL-GERDA meeting, a French group of dermatologists interested in new and peculiar findings in the field of contact allergy, it was suggested to retest xanthan gum, ceramide NP, and 1.2-hexanediol, which, on this occasion, failed to elicit any skin reaction. Cosmetics without fragrances, Candelilla Cera, and sucrose (di)stearate were eventually advised and well tolerated by the child. DISCUSSIONWith this case we confirm the sensitization potential of Candelilla Cera (INCI; synonym Euphorbia cerifera Cera, CAS no. 8006-44-8), only once previously described as a sensitizing agent in a lipstick, 2 and we report a first case of contact allergy due to sucrose (di)stearate, a new and unexpected cosmetic sensitizer. Of the three retested substances that eventually failed to show any reactions, only xanthan gum has been previously reported as an unusual cosmetic sensitizer in a young child. 3 The present case illustrates that some cosmetic ingredients, ...

show abstract

“…Examples of natural ingredients, such as plant extracts or other natural substances [58,59] having caused contact allergy are: Glycyrrhetinic acid and castor oil [60], argan oil [61,62], carnauba [63] and candelilla [64] inducing cheilitis, chondroïtine sulfate [65] and other oligosaccharide derivatives [66]. There are, however, several problems involved regarding the allergenic behaviour of natural products: These are complex mixtures of many chemical ingredients, the exact nature of which is, in most cases, not known; their chemical nature, hence, their allergenic potency may vary from batch to batch according to their origin, which also influences patch testing since standardization is not possible; moreover, there is the role of autoxidation, skin penetration, and/or skin metabolization [9].…”

Section: The Allergensmentioning

confidence: 99%