More than just methylisothiazolinone: Retrospective analysis of patients with isothiazolinone allergy in North America, 2017-2020.

BACKGROUND: Isothiazolinones are a common cause of allergic contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of positive patch test reactions to isothiazolinones from 2017-2020 and characterize isothiazolinone-allergic (Is+) patients compared with isothiazolinone nonallergic (Is-) patients. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 9028 patients patch tested to methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/methylisothiazolinone (MI) 0.02% aqueous, MI 0.2% aqueous, benzisothiazolinone (BIT) 0.1% petrolatum, and/or octylisothiazolinone (OIT) 0.025% petrolatum. Prevalence, reaction strength, concurrent reactions, clinical relevance, and source of allergens were tabulated. RESULTS: In total, 21.9% (1976/9028) of patients had a positive reaction to 1 or more isothiazolinones. Positivity to MI was 14.4% (1296/9012), MCI/MI was 10.0% (903/9017), BIT was 8.6% (777/9018), and OIT was 05% (49/9028). Compared with Is-, Is+ patients were more likely to have occupational skin disease (16.5% vs 10.3%, P <.001), primary hand dermatitis (30.2% vs 19.7%, P <.001), and be >40 years (73.1% vs 61.9%, P <.001). Positive patch test reactions to >1 isothiazolinone occurred in 44.1% (871/1976) of Is+ patients. Testing solely to MCI/MI would miss 47.3% (611/1292) of MI and 60.1% (466/776) of BIT allergic reactions. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective cross-sectional study design and lack of follow-up data. CONCLUSION: Sensitization to isothiazolinones is high and concurrent sensitization to multiple isothiazolinone allergens is common.

Photopatch testing: Clinical characteristics, test results, and final diagnoses from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2009-2020.

BACKGROUND: Photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD) is a delayed hypersensitivity reaction to allergens only in the presence of ultraviolet radiation in sunlight. Photopatch testing (PhotoPT) is necessary to confirm the diagnosis of PACD. There are few published studies of PhotoPT in North America. OBJECTIVE: To summarise the results of patients photopatch tested by members of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG), 2009-2020. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patient characteristics and PhotoPT results to 32 allergens on the NACDG Photopatch Test Series. RESULTS: Most of the 454 tested patients were female (70.3%), 21-60 years old (66.7%) and White (66.7%). There were a total of 119 positive photopatch tests. Sunscreen agents comprised 88.2% of those, with benzophenones responsible for over half of them. Final diagnoses included PACD in 17.2%, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in 44.5%, polymorphous light eruption (PMLE) in 18.9% and chronic actinic dermatitis (CAD) in 9.0% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In 454 patients with suspected photosensitivity referred for photopatch testing in North America, approximately one-fifth had PACD. Sunscreen agents, especially benzophenones, were the most common photoallergens. Other common diagnoses included ACD, PMLE and CAD. Photopatch testing is an important tool for differentiating these conditions.

Safety Assessment of Ginkgo biloba-Derived Ingredients as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of 10 Ginkgo biloba-derived ingredients, which are most frequently reported to function in cosmetics as skin conditioning agents or antioxidants. The Panel reviewed the available data to determine the safety of these ingredients. Because final product formulations may contain multiple botanicals, each containing the same constituents of concern, formulators are advised to be aware of these constituents and to avoid reaching levels that may be hazardous to consumers. The Panel was concerned about the presence of ginkgolic acid in cosmetics. Industry should use good manufacturing practices to limit impurities. The Panel concluded that 5 Ginkgo biloba leaf-derived ingredients are safe in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment when formulated to be non-sensitizing; data are insufficient to determine the safety of the remaining 5 ingredients under the intended conditions of use in cosmetic formulations.

Sodium Dehydroacetate and Dehydroacetic Acid.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) first published a safety assessment of Sodium Dehydroacetate and Dehydroacetic Acid in 1985. The Panel previously concluded that Sodium Dehydroacetate and Dehydroacetic Acid are safe as used in the present practices of use and concentration, as stated in that report. Upon re-review in 2003, the Panel reaffirmed the original conclusion, as published in 2006. The Panel reviewed updated frequency and concentration of use data again in 2023, in addition to any newly available, relevant safety data. Considering this information, as well as the information provided in the original safety assessment and the prior re-review document, the Panel reaffirmed the 1985 conclusion.

Safety Assessment of Alkanoyl Lactyl Lactate Salts as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) reviewed the safety of 10 alkanoyl lactyl lactate salts. These ingredients have the surfactant function in cosmetics in common. The Panel reviewed data relevant to the safety of these ingredients, and concluded that these 10 ingredients are safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in the safety assessment when formulated to be nonirritating and nonsensitizing, which may be based on a quantitative risk assessment (QRA) or other accepted methodologies.

Safety Assessment of Vinylpyrrolidone Polymers as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) reviewed the safety of 30 vinylpyrrolidone polymers as used in cosmetic products; most of these ingredients have the reported cosmetic function of film former in common. The Panel reviewed data relevant to the safety of these ingredients, and determined that 27 vinylpyrrolidone polymers are safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in the safety assessment. The Panel also concluded that the available data are insufficient to make a determination that 3 vinylpyrrolidone polymers (all urethanes) are safe under the intended conditions of use in cosmetic formulations.

Safety Assessment of Polyol Phosphates as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) reviewed the safety of 10 polyol phosphates. Some of the possible functions in cosmetics that are reported for this ingredient group are chelating agents, oral care agents, and skin conditioning agents. The Panel reviewed relevant data relating to the safety of these ingredients under the intended conditions of use in cosmetic formulations, and concluded that Sodium Phytate, Phytic Acid, Phytin, and Trisodium Inositol Triphosphate are safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in the safety assessment. The Panel also concluded that the data are insufficient to determine the safety of the following 6 ingredients as used in cosmetics: Disodium Glucose Phosphate, Manganese Fructose Diphosphate, Sodium Mannose Phosphate, Trisodium Fructose Diphosphate, Xylityl Phosphate, and Zinc Fructose Diphosphate.

Safety Assessment of Methylxanthines as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of three methylxanthines, Caffeine, Theobromine, and Theophylline, as used in cosmetics. All of these ingredients are reported to function as skin-conditioning agents in cosmetic products. The Panel reviewed the data relevant to the safety of these ingredients and concluded that Caffeine, Theobromine, and Theophylline are safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment.

Isobutane, Isopentane, Butane, and Propane.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) first published the Final Report of the safety of Isobutane, Isopentane, Butane, and Propane in 1982. The Panel previously concluded that these ingredients are considered safe as cosmetic ingredients under the present conditions of concentration and use, as described in that safety assessment. Upon re-review in 2002, the Panel reaffirmed the original conclusion, as published in 2005. The Panel reviewed update frequency and concentration of use data again in 2023, in addition to newly available, relevant safety data. Considering this information, as well as the information provided in the original safety assessment and the prior re-review document, the Panel reaffirmed the 1982 conclusion for Isobutane, Isopentane, Butane, and Propane.

Safety Assessment of Capryloyl Salicylic Acid as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) reassessed the safety of Capryloyl Salicylic Acid in cosmetic products; this ingredient is reported to function as a skin conditioning agent. The Panel reviewed relevant data relating to the safety of this ingredient in cosmetic formulations, and concluded that the available data are insufficient to make a determination that Capryloyl Salicylic Acid is safe under the intended conditions of use in cosmetic formulations.

Safety Assessment of Hydroxyethyl Urea as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of Hydroxyethyl Urea, which is reported to function as a humectant and a hair and skin conditioning agent. The Panel reviewed the available data to determine the safety of this ingredient. The Panel concluded that Hydroxyethyl Urea is safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in the safety assessment when formulated to be non-irritating.

Safety Assessment of Basic Red 76 as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of Basic Red 76, which is reported to function in cosmetics as a hair colorant and hair-conditioning agent. The Panel reviewed the available data to determine the safety of this ingredient. The Panel concluded that Basic Red 76 is safe for use as a hair dye ingredient in the present practices of use and concentration described in the safety assessment.

Laneth Acetates.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety reviewed newly available studies since their original assessment in 1982 and a previous re-review in 2002, along with updated information regarding product types and concentrations of use. Considering this information, the Panel confirmed that Laneth-9 Acetate and Laneth-10 Acetate are safe for topical application to humans in the present practices of use and concentration as described in this report.

Zinc Phenolsulfonate.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety reviewed newly available studies since their original assessment in 1986 and a previous re-review in 2004, along with updated information regarding product types and concentrations of use. Considering this information, the Panel confirmed that Zinc Phenolsulfonate is safe as a cosmetic ingredient in the present practices of use and concentration as described in this report.

Safety Assessment of Polysilicone-11 as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of Polysilicone-11 as used in cosmetic formulations. This ingredient is reported to function as a film former. The Panel considered the available data and concluded that Polysilicone-11 is safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment.

Safety Assessment of Palm-Derived Ingredients as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) reviewed the safety of 8 palm tree (Euterpe edulis (juçara) and Euterpe oleracea (açaí))-derived ingredients as used in cosmetic products; these ingredients are reported to function mostly as skin conditioning agents. The Panel reviewed relevant data relating to the safety of these ingredients in cosmetic formulations. Industry should continue to use good manufacturing practices to limit impurities. The Panel concluded that palm tree (açaí and juçara)-derived ingredients are safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment.

Safety Assessment of Triphenyl Phosphate as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of Triphenyl Phosphate, which is reported to function as a plasticizer in manicuring products. The Panel reviewed the available data to determine the safety of this ingredient. The Panel concluded that Triphenyl Phosphate is safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment.

Safety Assessment of Hops as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of Humulus Lupulus (Hops) Extract (reported functions include antimicrobial agent and hair conditioning agent) and Humulus Lupulus (Hops) Oil (reported function is fragrance). The Panel reviewed the relevant data related to these ingredients. Because final product formulations may contain multiple botanicals, each containing the same constituents of concern, formulators are advised to be aware of these constituents and to avoid reaching levels that may be hazardous to consumers. For these ingredients, the Panel was concerned about the presence of 8-prenylnaringenin, ß-myrcene, and quercetin in cosmetics, which could result in estrogenic effects, dermal irritation, and genotoxicity, respectively. Industry should use current good manufacturing practices to limit impurities and constituents of concern. The Panel concluded that Humulus Lupulus (Hops) Extract and Humulus Lupulus (Hops) Oil are safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration when formulated to be non-sensitizing.

Safety Assessment of Alkyl Sultaines as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of 13 alkyl sultaines, which are most frequently reported to function in cosmetics as antistatic agents, surfactants, and skin and hair conditioning agents. The Panel reviewed the available data to determine the safety of these ingredients. The Panel noted gaps in the available safety data for some of the alkyl sultaines in this safety assessment; the available data on some of the ingredients are sufficient, however, and can be read across to support the safety of other members of the group. The Panel concluded that these alkyl sultaines are safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment.

Safety Assessment of Adenosine as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of Adenosine, Adenosine Phosphate, Adenosine Triphosphate, Disodium Adenosine Phosphate, and Disodium Adenosine Triphosphate. These ingredients are reported to function in cosmetics as skin-conditioning agents - miscellaneous. The Panel considered the available data and concluded that the five adenosine ingredients reviewed in this report are safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment.