Irritant patch test reactions to cosmetic ingredients

Abstract

Introduction:The use of cosmetics and skin care products is on a steady increase, especially in developed countries. Despite increasingly strict regulations, ingredients with irritant potential are still widely used in cosmetic products. On patch tests, irritant reactions may be mistaken for allergic reactions, leading to misdiagnoses.Aim: To compile and analyze available data on irritant reactions to cosmetic ingredients from patch test studies in humans. Material and methods: Data on irritant reactions to cosmetic ingredients in patch tests were extracted from published patch test studies indexed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science or Google Scholar. The available data were pooled to assess the frequency and create a ranking list of irritant cosmetic ingredients. Results: Data on the prevalence of irritant reactions among people undergoing patch testing (routine or experimental) were available for 47 cosmetic ingredients. Among ingredients routinely tested in the European Baseline Series, the highest rates of irritant reactions were reported for Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru, irritant reactions in 3.40% of patch test patients), followed by Fragrance mix II (2.83%), Fragrance mix I (2.34%), colophonium (1.14%), p-phenylenediamine 1% (0.99%), hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (0.70%), Paraben mix (0.48%) and Quaternium 15 (0.29%). Conclusions: A range of widely used cosmetic ingredients possess irritative properties, which may contribute to irritant contact dermatitis in the consumers. In routine patch testing, irritant reactions to cosmetic ingredients may emerge in as many as one in ten patients. As irritant reactions to cosmetic ingredients in patch tests may contribute to false diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis, doctors should be aware of the risk and able to single out such reactions.

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis induced by ceftriaxone with positive patch testing

“…Diagnostic procedures involve controlled exposure to the causative factor and therefore carry the risk of inducing hypersensitivity symptoms [9]. Adherence to the rules of good clinical practice of patch testing along with proper training are necessary for reducing such risk [10]. Patch testing should be performed no sooner than 6 weeks after the resolution of the eruption, ideally approximately 3 months after, with the drug at various recommended concentrations and in different vehicles [1,11,12].…”

Artificial Intelligence That Predicts Sensitizing Potential of Cosmetic Ingredients with Accuracy Comparable to Animal and In Vitro Tests—How Does the Infotechnomics Compare to Other “Omics” in the Cosmetics Safety Assessment?

“…Another possible source of bias is that the pooled data on the prevalence of contact sensitization among ACD patients and the general population might have originated from different countries and time periods, although we always attempted to select best fits available. Further on, some cosmetic ingredients used in routine patch testing possess certain irritant potential that might lead to false-positive reactions and overdiagnosis of allergy to a given hapten [ 28 ]. The simplistic dichotomy (sensitizer vs. non-sensitizer) should be taken with a proper dose of caution.…”