The European baseline series and recommended additions: 2023

Wilkinson, S. M.; Gonçalo, Margarida; Aerts, Olivier; Bădulici, Sonia; Gallo, Rosella; García-Abujeta, José Luis; Giménez‐Arnau, Ana M.; Hamman, Curt; Hervella, Marcos; Isaksson, Marléne; Johansen, Jeanne Duus; Mahler, Vera; Niklasson, Bo; Pigatto, Paolo D.; Pónyai, Györgyi; Rustemeyer, Thomas; Schuttelaar, Marie L A; Śpiewak, Radosław; Stingeni, Luca; Thyssen, Jacob P.; Uter, Wolfgang

doi:10.1111/cod.14255

Cited by 37 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This provided sound evidence that the addition of HEMA to the baseline series was certainly well‐justified, in terms of the overall frequency of sensitisation 37,236 . Indeed, the rate of positive reactions to HEMA found since 2019 was high enough for continued inclusion in the 2023 European baseline series 237 . Previously, HEMA had already been added to the British baseline series (July 2018 27 ) and the Italian SIDAPA (Società Italiana Dermatologia Allergologica Professionale Ambientale) baseline series (2016 40 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…37,236 Indeed, the rate of positive reactions to HEMA found since 2019 was high enough for continued inclusion in the 2023 European baseline series. 237 Previously, HEMA had already been added to the British baseline series (July 2018 27 ) and the Italian SIDAPA (Società Italiana Dermatologia Allergologica Professionale Ambientale) baseline series (2016 40 ). The Spanish baseline series followed in 2022.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

2‐Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA): A clinical review of contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis—Part 1. Introduction, epidemiology, case series and case reports

de Groot,

Rustemeyer

2023

Contact Dermatitis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract2‐Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) has been increasingly recognised as a contact allergen and was added to the European baseline series in 2019. In this article (2 parts), the results of an extensive literature review of the clinical aspects of contact allergy/allergic contact dermatitis to HEMA are presented. In part 1, the epidemiology of HEMA contact allergy is discussed and detailed information on published case series and case reports presented. HEMA is an important cause of contact allergy/allergic contact dermatitis in North America and Europe with recent prevalences of >3% in the USA + Canada and 1.5%–3.7% in Europe. Currently, most cases are caused by nail cosmetics, both in consumers and professional nail stylists. In our literature review, we have found 24 studies presenting case series of patients with allergic contact dermatitis attributed to HEMA and 168 case reports. However, the presence of HEMA in the products causing ACD was established in only a minority. Part 2 will discuss cross‐ and co‐sensitisation, and other skin reactions to HEMA, will assess whether HEMA is the most frequent (meth)acrylate allergen and how sensitive HEMA as a screening agent is, investigate the presence of HEMA in commercial products and provide practical information on patch testing procedures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

2‐Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA): A clinical review of contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis—Part 1. Introduction, epidemiology, case series and case reports

de Groot,

Rustemeyer

2023

Contact Dermatitis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…as an addition to the European baseline series despite rare cases of sensitisation to this mix in earlier reports. 40,95,96 In conclusion, the SL mix remains a safe and reliable patch test preparation with a relatively high number of relevant reactions. It has been included in the routine screening almost worldwide, and in the majority of studies, especially in Europe and North America, the prevalence of positive reactions was high enough to maintain inclusion in the baseline series.…”

Section: Future Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…seems to be a safe, but insufficient supplement to the SL mix, as it did not yield significantly higher numbers of allergic reactions. 46,49,95 Thus, it was recently recommended to use the Compositae mix II 5% pet. as an addition to the European baseline series despite rare cases of sensitisation to this mix in earlier reports.…”

Section: Future Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The sesquiterpene lactone mix: A review of past, present and future aspects

Paulsen

2023

Contact Dermatitis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sesquiterpene lactones (SLs) are secondary plant metabolites, which are widespread in the Compositae/Asteraceae plant family. The first SLs were detected more than 100 years ago, and allergic contact dermatitis from Compositae has been reported since the beginning of the 1900s, but it was not until the late 1960s and early 1970s that a collaboration between dermatologists, chemists and botanists led to the detection of SLs as the main allergens of Compositae plants. In the 1980s, the SL mix, consisting of equimolar amounts of alantolactone, costunolide and dehydrocostus lactone, was developed as a screening agent for Compositae sensitisation. Today, after inclusion of SL mix in the baseline series, the mean prevalence of reactions in Europe is around 1%, and in North America 0.8%. In countries outside Europe and North America, the prevalence ranges between 0% and 10.7%. The detection rate of SL mix is lower than that of some plant extracts, and ideally, SL mix should be supplemented with a mix of SLs from locally prevalent allergenic plants. The prevalence of positive reactions to SL mix suggests continued baseline testing in most European countries, North America, New Zealand, Australia and probably some Chinese centres.

show abstract

“…Baseline series, i.e., sets of haptens most frequently used in both applications, consist of haptens that most frequently sensitize people in a given geographical area and period of time. Reflecting on the epidemiological trends, the participation of cosmetic ingredients steadily grows in the series, e.g., the present European Baseline Series includes 28 cosmetic ingredients—either separate or in mixes of 4–8 components [ 33 ]. However, cosmetics were less present in past epidemiological studies.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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?

Kalicińska

Wiśniowska

Polak

et al. 2023

IJMS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the current study was to develop an in silico model to predict the sensitizing potential of cosmetic ingredients based on their physicochemical characteristics and to compare the predictions with historical animal data and results from “omics”-based in vitro studies. An in silico model was developed with the use of WEKA machine learning software fed with physicochemical and structural descriptors of haptens and trained with data from published epidemiological studies compiled into estimated odds ratio (eOR) and estimated attributable risk (eAR) indices. The outcome classification was compared to the results of animal studies and in vitro tests. Of all the models tested, the best results were obtained for the Naive Bayes classifier trained with 24 physicochemical descriptors and eAR, which yielded an accuracy of 86%, sensitivity of 80%, and specificity of 90%. This model was subsequently used to predict the sensitizing potential of 15 emerging and less-studied haptens, of which 7 were classified as sensitizers: cyclamen aldehyde, N,N-dimethylacrylamide, dimethylthiocarbamyl benzothiazole sulphide, geraniol hydroperoxide, isobornyl acrylate, neral, and prenyl caffeate. The best-performing model (NaiveBayes eAR, 24 parameters), along with an alternative model based on eOR (Random Comittee eOR, 17 parameters), are available for further tests by interested readers. In conclusion, the proposed infotechnomics approach allows for a prediction of the sensitizing potential of cosmetic ingredients (and possibly also other haptens) with accuracy comparable to historical animal tests and in vitro tests used nowadays. In silico models consume little resources, are free of ethical concerns, and can provide results for multiple chemicals almost instantly; therefore, the proposed approach seems useful in the safety assessment of cosmetics.

show abstract

The European baseline series and recommended additions: 2023

Abstract: The European baseline series was last updated in 2019. This article discusses the reasoning behind a further iteration of the series for 2023.

Cited by 37 publications

References 43 publications

2‐Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA): A clinical review of contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis—Part 1. Introduction, epidemiology, case series and case reports

2‐Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA): A clinical review of contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis—Part 1. Introduction, epidemiology, case series and case reports

The sesquiterpene lactone mix: A review of past, present and future aspects

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?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About