Contact Dermatitis Associated With Skin Cleansers: Retrospective Analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data 2000–2014
Publication: Dermatitis
Volume 29, Issue Number 1
Abstract
Background
There is limited information regarding contact dermatitis (CD) associated with skin cleansers (SCs).
Objective
The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of allergic patch test (APT) reactions and irritant CD (ICD) associated with SCs.
Methods
A retrospective cross-sectional analysis was performed using North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 2000–2014.
Results
Of 32,945 tested patients, 1069 (3.24%) had either APT reaction or ICD associated with SCs. Of these, 692 (64.7%) had APT reaction only, 350 (32.7%) had ICD only, and 27 (2.5%) had both. Individuals with APT reaction and/or ICD were more likely to have occupationally related skin disease (relative risk [RR] = 3.8 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 3.3–4.5] for APT reaction and 10.0 [95% CI = 8.2–12.2] for ICD, respectively, P < 0.0001). As compared with those without APT reaction to SC, individuals with APT reaction had significantly higher frequencies of hand (RR = 2.4 [95% CI = 2.1–2.7]) and arm dermatitis (RR = 1.3 [95% CI = 1.1–1.6], P 0.001). Irritant CD was strongly associated with hand dermatitis (RR = 6.2 [95% CI = 5.2–7.3], P < 0.0001). More than 50 allergens were associated with SCs including quaternium-15 (11.2%), cocamidopropyl betaine (9.5%), methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (8.4%), coconut diethanolamide (7.9%), fragrance mix I (7.7%), Myroxylon pereirae (5.9%), 4-chloro-3,5-xylenol (5.8%), amidoamine (5.5%), and formaldehyde (4.4%).
Conclusions
Many allergens, especially preservatives and surfactants, were associated with SCs. Most cases involved the hands and were occupationally related.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
REFERENCES
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hand Hygiene Guideline. March 25, 2016. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/handhygiene/providers/guideline.html. Accessed April 13, 2017.
2. US Food & Drug Administration. Retail Food Protection: Employee Health and Personal Hygiene Handbook. March 9, 2017. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/IndustryandRegulatoryAssistanceandTrainingResources/ucm113827.htm. Accessed April 13, 2017.
3. Meysman T, Goossens A. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by benzisothiazolinone in printing ink and soap. Contact Dermatitis 2017;76(1):51–53.
4. Aerts O, van Dyck F, van Tichelen W, et al. The many faces of coconut oil derivatives: occupational hand dermatitis caused by a liquid soap containing cocamidopropylamine oxide. Contact Dermatitis 2016;74(4):248–251.
5. Hamann CR, Brankov N, Hamann D, et al. Chronic areolar dermatitis due to methylisothiazolinone-containing bodywash. Clin Exp Dermatol 2016;41(1):114–115.
6. Hagvall L, Bråred-Christensson J, Inerot A. Occupational contact dermatitis caused by sodium cocoamphopropionate in a liquid soap used in fast-food restaurants. Contact Dermatitis 2014;71(2):122–124.
7. Concha-Garzón MJ, Solano-López G, Montes A, et al. Follicular allergic contact dermatitis due to methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) in a rinse-off soap product. Clin Exp Dermatol 2015;40(6):690–691.
8. Palmer MJ, Nixon R. Polysensitisation in a laboratory scientist associated with allergic contact dermatitis from methylisothiazolinone in skin cleansers. Australas J Dermatol 2015;56(1):56–58.
9. Kanerva L, Vanhannen M, Elsner P, et al. Handbook of Occupational Dermatology. 1st ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2000:906–909.
10. Dooms-Goossens A, Blockeel I. Allergic contact dermatitis and photoallergic contact dermatitis due to soaps and detergents. Clin Dermatol 1996;14(1):67–76.
11. Rothenborg HW, Hjorth N. Allergy to perfumes from toilet soaps and detergents in patients with dermatitis. Arch Dermatol 1968;97(4):417–421.
12. Epstein JH, Wuepper KD, Maibach HI. Photocontact dermatitis to halogenated salicylanilides and related compounds: a clinical and histological review of 26 patients. Arch Dermatol 1968;97(3):236–244.
13. Lakshmi C, Srinivas CR, Anand CV, et al. Irritancy ranking of 31 cleansers in the Indian market in a 24-h patch test. Int J Cosmet Sci 2008;30(4):277–283.
14. Lodén M, Buraczewska I, Edlund F. The irritation potential and reservoir effect of mild soaps. Contact Dermatitis 2003;49(2):91–96.
15. Goldman L. The skin reactions of infants and children to soaps. JAMA 1937;108(16):1317–1320.
16. De Groot AC, Nater JP, Lender R, et al. Adverse effects of cosmetics and toiletries: a retrospective study in the general population. Int J Cosmet Sci 1987;9(6):255–259.
17. Broeckx W, Blondeel A, Dooms-Goossens A, et al. Cosmetic intolerance. Contact Dermatitis 1987;16(4):189–194.
18. De Groot AC, Beverdam EG, Ayong CT, et al. The role of contact allergy in the spectrum of adverse effects caused by cosmetics and toiletries. Contact Dermatitis 1988;19(3):195–201.
19. Dekoven JG, Warshaw EM, Belsito DV, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results 2013–2014. Dermatitis 2017;28(1): 33–46.
20. Pratt MD, Belsito DV, Deleo VA, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 2001–2002 study period. Dermatitis 2004;15(4): 176–183.
21. Zug KA, Warshaw EM, Fowler JF Jr, et al. Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005–2006. Dermatitis 2009;20(3):149–160.
22. Warshaw EM, Maibach HI, Taylor JS, et al. North American contact dermatitis group patch test results: 2011–2012. Dermatitis 2015;26(1):49–59.
23. Warshaw EM, Belsito DV, Taylor JS, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2009 to 2010. Dermatitis 2013;24(2):50–59.
24. Warshaw EM, Belsito DV, Deleo VA, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 2003–2004 study period. Dermatitis 2008;19(3):129–136.
25. Fransway AF, Zug KA, Belsito DV, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for 2007–2008. Dermatitis 2013;24(1):10–21.
26. Marks JG, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermat 2003;14(2):59–62.
27. Klein G, Grubauer G, Fritsch P. The influence of daily dish-washing with synthetic detergent on human skin. Br J Dermatol 1992;127(2):131–137.
28. Austoria A, Lakshmi C, Srinivas C, et al. Irritancy potential of 17 detergents used commonly by the Indian household. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2010;76(3):249–253.
29. Robinson MK, Kruszewski FH, Al-Atrash J, et al. Comparative assessment of the acute skin irritation potential of detergent formulations using a novel human 4-h patch test method. Food Chem Toxicol 2005;43(12):1703–1712.
30. Cahill JL, Williams JD, Matheson MC, et al. Occupational skin disease in Victoria, Australia. Australas J Dermatol 2016;57(2):108–114.
31. Anderson JL, Warren CA, Perez E, et al. Gender and ethnic differences in hand hygiene practices among college students. Am J Infect Control 2008;36(5):361–368.
32. Miko BA, Cohen B, Conway L, et al. Determinants of personal and household hygiene among college students in New York City, 2011. Am J Infect Control 2012;40(10):940–945.
33. United States Department of Labor. Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey. February 8, 2017. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm. Accessed April 13, 2017.
34. Keegel TG, Nixon RL, Lamontagne AD. Exposure to wet work in working Australians. Contact Dermatitis 2012;66(2):87–94.
35. Diepgen TL, Ofenloch RF, Bruze M, et al. Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population in different European regions. Br J Dermatol 2016;174(2):319–329.
36. Diepgen TL, Ofenloch R, Bruze M, et al. Prevalence of fragrance contact allergy in the general population of five European countries: a cross-sectional study. Br J Dermatol 2015;173(6):1411–1419.
37. Fall S, Bruze M, Isaksson M, et al. Contact allergy trends in Sweden—a retrospective comparison of patch test data from 1992, 2000, and 2009. Contact Dermatitis 2015;72(5):297–304.
38. Warshaw EM, Ahmed RL, Belsito DV, et al. Contact dermatitis of the hands: cross-sectional analyses of North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 1994–2004. J Am Acad Dermatol 2007;57(2):301–314.
39. Vindenes HK, Svanes C, Lygre SHL, et al. Prevalence of, and work-related risk factors for, hand eczema in a Norwegian general population (the HUNT study). Contact Dermatitis 2017;77(4):214–223.
40. Luckhaupt SE, Dahlhamer JM, Ward BW, et al. Prevalence of dermatitis in the working population, United States, 2010 National Health Interview Survey. Am J Ind Med 2013;56(6):625–634.
41. Warshaw EM, Kwon GP, Mathias CG, et al. Occupationally related contact dermatitis in North American food service workers referred for patch testing, 1994 to 2010. Dermatitis 2013;24(1):22–28.
42. Warshaw EM, Schram SE, Maibach HI, et al. Occupation-related contact dermatitis in North American health care workers referred for patch testing: cross-sectional data, 1998 to 2004. Dermatitis 2008;19(5):261–274.
43. McDonald JC, Beck MH, Chen Y, et al. Incidence by occupation and industry of work-related skin diseases in the United Kingdom, 1996–2001. Occup Med (Lond) 2006;56(6):398–405.
44. Siegel JA, Mounessa JS, Dellavalle RP, et al. Comparison of contact allergens in bar soaps and liquid body washes. Dermatitis 2017.
45. Aalto-Korte K, Kuuliala O, Suuronen K, et al. Occupational contact allergy to formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers. Contact Dermatitis 2008;59(5):280–289.
46. Vauhkala AR, Pesonen M, Suomela S, et al. Occupational contact allergy to methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone. Contact Dermatitis 2015;73(3):150–156.
47. Castanedo-Tardana M, Zug KA. Methylisothiazolinone. Dermatitis 2013;24(1):2–6.
48. Aerts O, Baeck M, Constandt L, et al. The dramatic increase in the rate of methylisothiazolinone contact allergy in Belgium: a multicentre study. Contact Dermatitis 2014;71(1):41–48.
49. Hosteing S, Meyer N, Waton J, et al. Outbreak of contact sensitization to methylisothiazolinone: an analysis of French data from the REVIDAL-GERDA network. Contact Dermatitis 2014;70(5):262–269.
50. Madsen JT, Andersen KE. Further evidence of the methylisothiazolinone epidemic. Contact Dermatitis 2014;70(4):246–247.
51. Lammintausta K, Aalto-Korte K, Ackerman L, et al. An epidemic of contact allergy to methylisothiazolinone in Finland. Contact Dermatitis 2014;70(3):184–185.
52. Johnston GA. The rise in prevalence of contact allergy to methylisothiazolinone in the British Isles. Contact Dermatitis 2014;70(4):238–240.
53. Official Journal of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on Cosmetic Products. Vol 2017. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1491943649483&uri=CELEX:32009R1223.
54. Zirwas MJ, Hamann D, Warshaw EM, et al. Epidemic of isothiazolinone allergy in North America: prevalence data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2013–2014. Dermatitis 2017;28(3):204–209.
55. Scheman A, Severson D. American Contact Dermatitis Society Contact Allergy Management Program: an epidemiologic tool to quantify ingredient usage. Dermatitis 2016;27(1):11–13.
56. Sasseville D. Alkyl glucosides: 2017 “Allergen of the Year”. Dermatitis 2017;28(4):296.
57. Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Geier J, et al. Is cocamidopropyl betaine a contact allergen? Analysis of network data and short review of the literature. Contact Dermatitis 2011;64(4):203–211.
58. Suuronen K, Pesonen M, Aalto-Korte K. Occupational contact allergy to cocamidopropyl betaine and its impurities. Contact Dermatitis 2012;66(5):286–292.
59. Mertens S, Gilissen L, Goossens A. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by cocamide diethanolamine. Contact Dermatitis 2016;75(1):20–24.
60. Aalto-Korte K, Pesonen M, Kuuliala O, et al. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by coconut fatty acids diethanolamide. Contact Dermatitis 2014;70(3):169–174.
61. Buckley DA. Fragrance ingredient labelling in products on sale in the U.K. Br J Dermatol 2007;157(2):295–300.
62. Yazar K, Johnsson S, Lind ML, et al. Preservatives and fragrances in selected consumer-available cosmetics and detergents. Contact Dermatitis 2011;64(5):265–272.
63. Nardelli A, Drieghe J, Claes L, et al. Fragrance allergens in ‘specific’ cosmetic products. Contact Dermatitis 2011;64(4):212–219.
64. European Parliament and of the Council on Cosmetic P. Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/1198 amending Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products. Vol 20172016. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2016.198.01.0010.01.ENG.
65. US Food & Drug Administration. Fragrances in Cosmetics. December 29, 2015. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/productsingredients/ingredients/ucm388821.htm. Accessed April 13, 2017.
66. Canada H. Labeling of Cosmetics; 2006. Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/indust/cosmetics-cosmetiques/index-eng.php#eight34. Accessed June 5, 2017.
67. Adams RM, Maibach HI, Clendenning WE, et al. A five-year study of cosmetic reactions. J Am Acad Dermatol 1985;13(6):1062–1069.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2018 American Contact Dermatitis Society. All Rights Reserved.
History
Published in print: January/February 2018
Published online: 1 February 2018
Topics
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citation
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.
View Options
Get Access
Access content
To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.⚠ Society Access
If you are a member of a society that has access to this content please log in via your society website and then return to this publication.