Probing the effectiveness of barrier creams against human skin penetration of nickel powder.

OBJECTIVE: Barrier creams (BCs) are marketed as locally applied medical devices or cosmetic products to protect the skin from exposure to chemicals and irritants. Generally, the mechanism of action of such products is mainly due to the formation of a superficial thin film between the skin and the irritant or sensitizer, thus reducing or totally blocking the cutaneous penetration of such agents. Specifically, studies focusing on the effectiveness of commercial protective creams to prevent nickel cutaneous penetration are extremely scarce. The aim of the current work, therefore, is to evaluate the protective role of a commercially available barrier cream for nickel and compare the results with a simple moisturizing, following exposure to Ni powder. METHODS: Marketed BCs were evaluated and tested. Human skin absorption of Ni was studied in vitro using static Franz diffusion cells. RESULTS: Our results demonstrate that the application of both formulations caused a reduction of Ni inside the skin (8.00 ± 3.35 µg cm-2 for the barrier cream and 22.6 ± 12.6 µg cm-2 for the general moisturizing product), with the specialized barrier cream being statistically (p = 0.015) more efficient on forming a protective barrier, thus evidencing the importance of some ingredients in such formulations on the nickel dermal accumulation. CONCLUSIONS: The composition of the formulations based on film-forming or chelating agents may play an imperative role in reducing the cutaneous penetration of Ni.

OBJECTIF: Les crèmes de barrière (CB) sont commercialisées en tant que dispositifs médicaux ou produits cosmétiques appliqués localement pour protéger la peau contre l'exposition aux produits chimiques et irritants. En général, le mécanisme d'action de ces produits est principalement dû à la formation d'un film mince superficiel entre la peau et l'irritant ou le sensibilisant, réduisant ainsi ou bloquant totalement la pénétration cutanée de ces agents. Plus précisément, les études portant sur l'efficacité des crèmes protectrices commercialisées pour prévenir la pénétration cutanée du nickel sont extrêmement rares. L'objectif du projet en cours est donc d'évaluer le rôle protecteur d'une crème barrière disponible dans le commerce contre le nickel et de comparer les résultats à un simple hydratant après une exposition à la poudre de Ni. MÉTHODES: Des CB commercialisées ont été évaluées et testées. L'absorption cutanée du Ni dans la peau humaine a été étudiée in vitro à l'aide de cellules de diffusion statiques de Franz. RÉSULTATS: Nos résultats démontrent que l'application des deux formulations a entraîné une réduction du taux de Ni à l'intérieur de la peau (8,00 ± 3,35 µg·cm-2 pour la crème barrière et 22,6 ± 12,6 µg·cm-2 pour le produit hydratant ordinaire), la crème barrière spécialisée étant statistiquement (p = 0,015) plus efficace pour former une barrière protectrice, démontrant ainsi l'importance de certains ingrédients dans ces formulations sur l'accumulation dermique du nickel. CONCLUSIONS: La composition des formulations basées sur des agents de formation de film ou de chélation peut jouer un rôle nécessaire pour réduire la pénétration cutanée du Ni.

Photoallergic contact dermatitis to 8-methoxypsoralen in Ficus carica.

BACKGROUND: Photocontact dermatitis to Ficus carica is induced by furocoumarins present in sap. These substances are generally considered to cause phototoxic reactions. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a patch test and histopathological study of patients with phytophoto contact dermatitis from the fig tree to evaluate the mechanism underlying the photoreaction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patch and photopatch testing with serial dilutions of two natural furocoumarins [5-methoxypsoralen and 8-methoxypsoralen (8-MOP)] contained in plant sap were performed in 47 patients. A synthetic furocoumarin, 4,5',8-trimethylpsoralen, was also tested. Histopathological analyses were made of some positive photoreactions. RESULTS: Positive photopatch tests reactions to 8-MOP were obtained in 12 of 47 patients, in 4 of them down to a concentration of 0.0001%. Patch tests and photopatch tests to the other two furocoumarins were negative. Histopathological findings on biopsies from positive photopatch tests to 8-MOP showed a dermatitis. CONCLUSIONS: Allergic photoreactions induced by contact with plants containing coumarins are generally regarded as chance findings. This study has demonstrated that phytophoto allergic contact dermatitis resulting from furocoumarins is not an exceptional finding, and should be suspected in subjects with diffuse clinical manifestations in photo-exposed but also non-exposed sites. To differentiate allergic from toxic photoreactions, patch tests need to be performed with serial dilutions of furocoumarins. Histological analysis of a biopsy sample from a positive test site will reveal alterations compatible with a photoallergic contact dermatitis.