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.

Increased rates of contact allergy to selected preservatives in patients with allergic contact dermatitis in Turkey.

BACKGROUND: Preservatives are a frequent cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and have caused numerous epidemics. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to determine the prevalence of preservative sensitivity, assess the change in the frequency of sensitivity, identify new preservatives with increased sensitivity rates, and evaluate the situation in Turkey by comparing our findings with current literature. METHODS: A total of 201 patients diagnosed with ACD between 2018 and 2020, were patch tested with the European baseline series and additional seven preservative haptens. The change in the prevalence of sensitivity to each preservative hapten was investigated by comparing the data from the study conducted in our department between 2000 and 2004. RESULTS: Results showed that 17.4% (n = 35) of the patients were positive to preservatives. Comparison with previous data from 2000 to 2004 revealed an increase in the frequency of sensitization. The most prevalent allergen was methyldibromo glutaronitrile (9.5%), followed by methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (6.5%), and methylisothiazolinone (5%). CONCLUSION: The increase in preservative sensitivity in Turkey is the most remarkable finding. Although MDBGN was prohibited in cosmetic products, MCI/MI and MI are still widely used. Our findings suggest that awareness of preservative sensitivity should be increased and additional precautions should be taken, also in Turkey, regarding the use of preservatives.

Analysis of preservatives and fragrances in topical medical devices: The need for more stringent regulation.

INTRODUCTION: Medical devices (MDs) have a long history of use, and come with regulatory frameworks to ensure user safety. Although topically applied MDs in the form of gels and creams might be used on damaged skin, their composition is often similar to that of cosmetic products applicable to intact skin, especially in terms of preservatives and fragrances. However, unlike cosmetics, these products are not subject to compound-specific restrictions when used in MDs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify and quantify preservatives and fragrances in topically applied MDs and assess their safety towards the Cosmetic Regulation (EC) 1223/2009. METHOD: Sixty-nine MDs available on the EU market were subjected to previously validated liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) methods to identify and quantify occurring preservatives and fragrances. RESULTS: Findings revealed that 32% of the examined MDs did not provide comprehensive ingredient lists, leaving users uninformed about potential risks associated with product use. Furthermore, 30% of these MDs would not meet safety standards for cosmetic products and, most significantly, 13% of the analysed samples contained ingredients that are prohibited in leave-on cosmetics. CONCLUSION: Results highlight the pressing demand for more stringent requirements regarding the labelling and composition of MDs to enhance patient safety. Improved regulation and transparency can mitigate potential risks associated with the use of topically applied MDs.

Increasing non-cosmetic exposure and sensitization to isothiazolinones require action for prevention: Review.

Frequent use of methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) and MI in cosmetic products has been the main cause of widespread sensitization and allergic contact dermatitis to these preservatives (biocides). Their use in non-cosmetic products is also an important source of sensitization. Less is known about sensitization rates and use of benzisothiazolinone (BIT), octylisothiazolinone (OIT), and dichlorooctylisothiazolinone (DCOIT), which have never been permitted in cosmetic products in Europe. BIT and OIT have occasionally been routinely patch-tested. These preservatives are often used together in chemical products and articles. In this study, we review the occurrence of contact allergy to MI, BIT, OIT, and DCOIT over time, based on concomitant patch testing in large studies, and case reports. We review EU legislations, and we discuss the role of industry, regulators, and dermatology in prevention of sensitization and protection of health. The frequency of contact allergy to MI, BIT, and OIT has increased. The frequency of contact allergy to DCOIT is not known because it has seldom been patch-tested. Label information on isothiazolinones in chemical products and articles, irrespective of concentration, is required for assessment of relevance, information to patients, and avoidance of exposure and allergic contact dermatitis.

Contact sensitization and self-reported eczema in Swedish painters with occupational exposure to isothiazolinones.

BACKGROUND: Due to an increasing occupational usage of isothiazolinone (IT)-containing preservatives, and their potential to cause skin sensitization and allergic contact dermatitis, that is, chronic disease, there is a need for more knowledge on how highly exposed workers are affected. OBJECTIVES: The overall objective was to explore dermatological symptoms of potentially long-lasting or chronic character in Swedish painters. METHODS: Building painters from western and southern Sweden were initially invited to perform a questionnaire on occurrence of skin symptoms. Participants with affirmative responses, and the right inclusion criteria, were further invited to patch testing with four different ITs: benzisothiazolinone (BIT), methylisothiazolinone, methylchloroisothiazolinone and octylisothiazolinone. RESULTS: There was a tendency towards higher occurrence of positive patch test reactions among the painters compared with occupationally unexposed registry patients; however, not statistically significant differences. BIT was the substance most frequently causing positive test results in both groups. The occurrence of adult-onset eczema was higher in painters than in the control group of electricians, and just shy of statistical significance concerning any of several skin locations (face/legs/arms/hands). CONCLUSION: Building painters present with positive patch test reactions to common paint preservatives (ITs), and they report adult-onset eczema more often than do less occupationally exposed groups.

Methylisothiazolinone sensitisation in New Zealand is decreasing.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: In the last 10 years methylisothiazolinone (MI) emerged as a global cause of preservative-related ACD. New Zealand has liberal regulations for the MI concentration limit in cosmetic products compared to Europe and Australia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of MI sensitisation in New Zealand, explore sources of MI exposure and make recommendations on New Zealand regulations for MI use. METHODS: This retrospective study included data from patients who underwent patch testing with MI from 2008 to 2021 in a tertiary hospital dermatology clinic and a private dermatology clinic in Auckland, New Zealand. Patient baseline characteristics were recorded along with results of patch testing. Sources of MI exposure were identified from medical records. RESULTS: Over the study period, 1049 patch tests were performed in 1044 patients. MI was only tested as a stand-alone allergen from 2015; positive reactions to MI increased from 5.3% in 2015 to a peak of 11.9% in 2017 and then decreased to 6.4% in 2021. The most common source of MI exposure was shampoo or conditioner (27.7% of all relevant reactions) followed by occupational exposures to paints, biocides or glue (19.1%). CONCLUSION: Both sensitisation and ACD to MI appear to be decreasing, likely secondary to changes in product compounding due to stricter concentration limits internationally. We recommend New Zealand adopt lower MI concentration limits for cosmetics to match the limits of Australia and Europe.

Sensitization to isothiazolinones in the Spanish Contact Dermatitis Registry (REIDAC): 2019-2021 epidemiological situation.

BACKGROUND: Current frequency and risk factors for sensitization to methylisothiazolinone (MI), methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI), benzisothiazolinone (BIT) and octylisothiazolinone (OIT) in Spain are not well known. OBJECTIVES: To study the frequency of sensitization, risk factors and simultaneous sensitization between the four isothiazolinones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed all 2019-2021 consecutive patients patch-tested with MI (0.2% aq.), MCI/MI (0.02% aq.), BIT (0.1% pet.) and OIT (0.1% pet) within the Spanish Contact Dermatitis Registry (REIDAC). RESULTS: A total of 2511 patients were analysed. Frequencies of sensitization were: any isothiazolinone 15.7%, MI 6.8%, MCI/MI 4.8%, BIT 3.5% and OIT 0.5%. MI and MCI/MI sensitization was associated with being occupationally active, hand dermatitis, detergents and age over 40. BIT sensitization was associated with leg dermatitis and age over 40. About one in nine MI-positive patients were positive to BIT, whereas one in five BIT-positive patients were positive to MI. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitization to MI, MCI/MI and BIT is still common in Spain, while sensitization to OIT is rare. Currently, sensitization to MI and MCI/MI seems to be occupationally related. Although its origin is unknown, sensitization to BIT is more frequent in patients aged over 40 years. Simultaneous sensitization between MI and BIT is uncommon.

Trends in formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releaser contact allergies as compared with market exposure in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers (FRs) are common preservatives in cosmetics and household products. Their contact allergy trends are decreasing in Europe and America, but trend data for Asia are limited. OBJECTIVES: The first objective was to determine the prevalences of and trends in contact allergies to formaldehyde and FRs. The second objective was to establish how often formaldehyde and FRs were mentioned on the labels of products sold in the Thai market. METHODS: Twenty years of data on patch test results for formaldehyde and FRs were reviewed. Their frequency of mention on the labels of 5855 products was analysed. RESULTS: The trends in contact allergy to formaldehyde and FRs were decreasing. The overall prevalence of formaldehyde contact allergy was 2.5%. The most common FR to cause contact allergy was quaternium-15. Formaldehyde and FRs were identified as ingredients in 10.2% of the products surveyed. Dimethylol dimethyl hydantoin was the most common FR (5.2%). The highest use of formaldehyde and FRs (15.5%) was in hair care products. CONCLUSION: Although contact allergy trends in Thailand were decreasing, the proportion of products with FRs remained high. Comprehensive and universal legislation is needed to control the presence of formaldehyde and FRs.

Review of aluminum, paraben, and sulfate product disclaimers on personal care products.

BACKGROUND: Product disclaimers listed on personal care products face limited regulation. These disclaimers may be helpful or may mislead the public. OBJECTIVE: Review the evidence supporting the potential harms of 3 compounds commonly addressed by product disclaimers: parabens, aluminum, and sulfates. METHODS: Reported cases of adverse events to these compounds were identified. Trends in allergic contact dermatitis reactions to chemicals used in place of these compounds were also identified. RESULTS: There is limited evidence that parabens and aluminum pose a threat to human health; there is even less evidence that topical sulfate-containing products pose a danger to consumers. In the setting of paraben avoidance, there has been a steady increase in cases of allergic contact dermatitis to preservatives that are more allergenic, specifically the isothiazolinones. LIMITATIONS: Assessment of the toxicology of these compounds is ongoing and may change with new data. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence that parabens, aluminum, and sulfates used in personal care products pose a health risk. There is evidence that avoidance of parabens has resulted in an epidemic of allergic contact dermatitis to isothiazolonine preservatives.

Dermatological adverse effects of anti-glaucoma eye drops: a review.

Many patients are treated for glaucoma. Like other drugs, anti-glaucoma eye drops may induce dermatological adverse effects. We aim to review the dermatological adverse effects secondary to the active agents in anti-glaucoma eye drops through a literature review. In January 2020, we queried PubMed using the following MeSH terms: glaucoma/drug therapy or glaucoma, open angle/drug therapy cross-referenced with parasympathomimetics/adverse effects or adrenergic agonists/adverse effects or carbonic anhydrase inhibitors/adverse effects or prostaglandins F, synthetic/adverse effects or adrenergic beta antagonists/adverse effects or ophthalmic solutions/adverse effects. The initial search identified 1128 studies, of which 49 were excluded for being in a foreign language, 15 for not involving eye drops, 968 for not focusing on adverse dermatological effects, and 11 for insufficient documentation or redundancy. After adding 38 linked studies, we finally analyzed 123 studies. The ocular and periocular dermatological adverse effects of eye drops are contact dermatitis, hyperpigmentation, prostaglandin analog periorbitopathy, mucous membrane pemphigoid, eyelash depigmentation, skin hypertrichosis, and rare cases of melanoma and skin depigmentation. The reported distant dermatological adverse effects are psoriasis, excessive sweating, lichen planus, alopecia, toxic epidermal necrolysis, erythema multiforme, erythroderma, subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus, nail pigmentation, and bullous pemphigoid. Most of the cutaneous adverse effects of anti-glaucoma eye drops are ocular and periocular and induced by prostaglandin analogs. Distant adverse effects are rare and sometimes questionable but should be kept in mind, especially mucous membrane pemphigoid, which could lead to blindness. The role of preservatives, such as benzalkonium chloride, should also be considered.

Is benzyl alcohol a significant contact sensitizer?

BACKGROUND: Benzyl alcohol is a widely used preservative, solvent and fragrance material. According to published data, it is a rare sensitizer in humans. OBJECTIVES: To identify characteristics and sensitization patterns of patients with positive patch test reactions to benzyl alcohol and to check the reliability of the patch test preparation benzyl alcohol 1% pet. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 2010-2019. RESULTS: Of 70 867 patients patch tested with benzyl alcohol 1% pet., 146 (0.21%) showed a positive reaction, most of them (89%) only weakly positive. The number of doubtful and irritant reactions significantly exceeded the number of positive reactions. Reproducibility of positive test reactions was low. Among benzyl alcohol-positive patients, compared to benzyl alcohol-negative patients, there were significantly more patients with leg dermatitis (17.8% vs. 8.6%), more patients aged 40 years or more (81.5% vs. 70.5%) and more patients who were tested because of a suspected intolerance reaction to topical medications (34.9% vs. 16.6%). Concomitant positive reactions were mainly seen to fragrances, preservatives and ointment bases. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitization to benzyl alcohol occurs very rarely, mainly in patients with stasis dermatitis. In view of our results, benzyl alcohol cannot be regarded as a significant contact allergen, and therefore marking it as skin sensitizer 1B and labelling it with H 317 is not helpful.

Quantification of preservatives in tattoo and permanent make-up inks in the frame of the new requirements under the REACH Regulation.

BACKGROUND: According to the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) restriction, tattoo and permanent make-up (PMU) inks placed on the European Union market after January 4, 2022, shall not contain methylisothiazolinone, benzisothiazolinone (BIT), octylisothiazolinone (OIT), or other skin sensitizers in concentrations of 10 mg/kg or higher and phenoxyethanol (PE) or other eye irritants or damaging substances in concentrations of 100 mg/kg or higher. In addition, preservatives and other substances enlisted in Annex II to Cosmetic Product Regulation shall not be present in concentrations of 0.5 mg/kg or higher. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to quantify 14 preservatives in 99 tattoo and 39 PMU inks from the Italian market and presents a comparison with concentration limits set by the REACH restriction. METHODS: Inks were analysed by applying validated analytical methods based on liquid chromatography techniques. RESULTS: About 24.0%, 15.2% and 1.5% of the overall samples contained BIT, PE and OIT, respectively, at concentrations exceeding REACH concentration limits. The number of noncompliant tattoo inks (49.5%) would be significantly greater than that of the PMU inks (17.9%). CONCLUSIONS: About 40.6% of the samples would be noncompliant with the restriction for the presence of preservatives above the permitted level. Additional concentration limits will apply to skin sensitizing preservatives for proper labelling of inks under CLP (Classification, Labelling and Packaging) Regulation.

Cosmetic preservative labeling in Philippine products in accordance with Philippine regulations.

BACKGROUND: Preservatives are usually added to a wide array of consumer products to prevent growth of microbes and to prevent product destabilization and degradation. However, many of these preservatives are common skin sensitizers and may cause allergic contact dermatitis. The amount of preservatives may vary per country or region according to their respective legislation and may be reported in differences in prevalence rates of contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVE: To examine and identify preservatives in consumer products in accordance with Philippine legislation. To verify the accuracy of the list of ingredients of Philippine cosmetic products as legislated by the Philippine Bureau of Food and Drug Administration. METHODS: A total of 65 commonly used Philippine consumer products ranging from liquid facial and body washes, bar soaps, laundry detergents, feminine hygiene washes and wipes, shampoos and conditioners, sunblock, and moisturizers were selected. Ingredients noted on labels were documented. Products were subsequently investigated chemically for the presence of methylchloroisothiazolinone, methylisothiazolinone, or formaldehyde. RESULTS: The preservatives most commonly used in cosmetic products in the Philippine market are methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI), methylisothiazolinone (MI), and/or formaldehyde. In accordance with Philippine legislation, almost all products provided a detailed ingredient list as printed on the packaging. Measurements of MCI/MI ranged from less than 1 ppm to 16 ppm, and MI ranged from only less than 1 ppm to 66 ppm, whereas formaldehyde was noted to range from less than 2.5 ppm to greater than 40 ppm in the products tested. Most products are manufactured by international brands, with a few products being manufactured locally. CONCLUSIONS: The preservatives found in cosmetic products were MCI, MI, and formaldehyde. Discrepancies were found in the preservatives and labeling of these products, with a majority of investigated Philippine products labeled inaccurately with varying concentrations of preservatives.

Patch testing with the Japanese baseline series 2015: A 4-year experience.

BACKGROUND: The Japanese baseline series (JBS), established in 1994, was updated in 2008 and 2015. The JBS 2015 is a modification of the thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous (TRUE) test (SmartPractice Denmark, Hillerød, Denmark). No nationwide studies concerning the TRUE test have previously been reported. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of sensitizations to JBS 2015 allergens from 2015 to 2018. METHODS: We investigated JBS 2015 patch test results using the web-registered Skin Safety Care Information Network (SSCI-Net) from April 2015 to March 2019. RESULTS: Patch test results of 5865 patients were registered from 63 facilities. The five allergens with the highest positivity rates were gold sodium thiosulfate (GST; 25.7%), nickel sulfate (24.5%), urushiol (9.1%), p-phenylenediamine (PPD; 8.9%), and cobalt chloride (8.4%). The five allergens with the lowest positivity rates were mercaptobenzothiazole (0.8%), formaldehyde (0.9%), paraben mix (1.1%), mercapto mix (1.1%), and PPD black rubber mix (1.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Nickel sulfate and GST had the highest positivity rates. The JBS 2015, including a modified TRUE test, is suitable for baseline series patch testing.

Contact allergy to haptens in the Swedish baseline series: Results from the Swedish Patch Test Register (2010 to 2017).

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis has considerable public health impact and causative haptens vary over time. OBJECTIVES: To report the prevalence of contact allergy to allergens in the Swedish baseline series 2010 to 2017, as registered in the Swedish Patch Test Register. METHODS: Results and demographic information for patients tested with the Swedish baseline series in 2010 to 2017 were analysed. RESULTS: Data for 21 663 individuals (females 69%) were included. Females had significantly more positive patch tests (54% vs 40%). The reaction prevalence rates were highest for nickel sulfate (20.7%), fragrance mix I (7.1%), Myroxylon pereirae (6.9%), potassium dichromate (6.9%), cobalt chloride (6.8%), methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI; 6.4%), MI (3.7%), colophonium (3.5%), fragrance mix II (3.2%), and formaldehyde (3.2%). Myroxylon pereirae reaction prevalence increased from 5% in 2010 to 9% in 2017 and that for methyldibromo glutaronitrile from 3.1% to 4.6%. MCI/MI and MI reactions decreased in prevalence after 2014. Nickel reaction prevalence decreased among females aged 10 to 19 years. CONCLUSIONS: Nickel remains the most common sensitizing agent, with reaction prevalence decreasing among females younger than 20 years. The changes in MCI/MI and MI reaction prevalence mirrored those in Europe. The register can reveal changes in contact allergy prevalence over time among patients patch tested in Sweden.

Preservatives in non-cosmetic products: Increasing human exposure requires action for protection of health.

The widespread use of skin sensitizing preservatives is well-known. Contact allergy to preservatives is often caused by their presence in cosmetic products. Preservative use in non-cosmetic products is less well-known. We have reviewed European Union (EU) legislations on classification and labelling, biocides and cosmetics, concerning conditions for use of the most used sensitizing preservatives (including formaldehyde-releasing substances, isothiazolinones and parabens). We have analysed temporal trends in their use in non-cosmetic products (tonnes, number of products, concentrations), based on annual reports to the Swedish Products Register 1995-2018; and we discuss implications for stakeholders. Major changes over time are that the use of most of the preservatives has increased by tonnes and/or by number of products, and that several use concentrations have declined following harmonized classification as a skin sensitizer with low concentration limits for this classification. We conclude that the massive increase in use of preservatives is alarming, and that urgent action is needed for protection of health. Their use in non-cosmetic products is broad, increasing and often undisclosed. In the EU, legislations concerning chemicals can provide relevant restrictions to reduce their use and associated health risks, monitored by efficient surveillance. Prevention would be benefited by better coordination between legislations.

Topical ophthalmic beta-blockers are associated with ocular pseudopemphigoid: A pharmacovigilance study of antiglaucoma medications utilising the FDA adverse event reporting system.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The association between antiglaucoma medications and the development of ocular pseudopemphigoid (OPP) has been described; however, the independent risk of each medication has not been quantified. METHODS: Case/non-case analyses were performed in the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) using data from 2010-2020 to examine the reporting odds ratio (ROR) signal for OPP for all classes of antiglaucoma medications under multiple conditions: (i) comparison to all other drugs in FAERs, (ii) comparison to other antiglaucoma medications, (iii) comparison to vehicle/hydrating eye drops with cases of OPP and (iv) comparison to vehicle/hydrating eyedrops with and without cases of OPP to control for topical irritant and preservative effects. RESULTS: A statistically significant ROR for OPP was found for aggregate antiglaucoma medications under the first condition but not the third or fourth (i.96.97 (95% CI 52.54-178.98). The largest signal for OPP when compared to other glaucoma drugs and eye drops was seen with unoprostone (ii.68.96 (95% CI 8.35-569.50, iii.39.85 (95% CI 4.14-383.33), iv.581.67 (95% CI 49.38-6851.57) followed by carteolol (ii.32.51(95% CI 9.02-117.67), iii.10.67 (95% CI 1.77-64.13), iv.77.84 (95% CI 12.95-467.78) and betaxolol (ii.23.38 (95% CI 7.28-74.46), iii.6.94 (95% CI 1.27-38.01), iv.50.67 (95% CI 9.26-277.25). A statistically significant ROR was noted only for the beta-blockers class aggregate under conditions ii and iv. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support an association between OPP and antiglaucoma medications; under the most stringent control for topical irritant/preservative effect by of comparison to topical eye drops, unoprostone, carteolol, betaxolol and timolol all had a significant ROR for OPP.

Contact dermatitis associated with preservatives: Retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1994 through 2016.

BACKGROUND: Preservatives are often necessary components of commercial products. Large-scale North American studies on preservative allergy are limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate demographics, positive patch test reactions (PPTRs), clinical relevance, and trends for preservatives tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch testing results of preservatives from 1994 through 2016. RESULTS: A total of 50,799 patients were tested; 11,338 (22.3%) had a PPTR to at least 1 preservative. The most frequent reactions were to methylisothiazolinone 0.2% aqueous (aq) (12.2%), formaldehyde 2% aq (7.8%), formaldehyde 1% aq (7.8%), quaternium-15 2% petrolatum (pet) (7.7%), and methyldibromo glutaronitrile/phenoxyethanol 2% pet (5.1%). Paraben mix 12% pet (1%), iodopropynyl butylcarbamate 0.1% pet (0.4%), benzyl alcohol 1% pet (0.3%), and phenoxyethanol 1% pet (0.2%) had the lowest PPTRs. Linear regression analysis of preservatives tested showed that only methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone 0.01% aq (parameter estimate, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.17-0.66; P < .005) had a significant increase in PPTRs over time. LIMITATIONS: Collected variables are dependent on clinical judgment. Results may be prone to referral selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: This large North American study provides insight on preservative PPTRs and trends from 1994 through 2016.

Eyelid dermatitis in patients referred for patch testing: Retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1994-2016.

BACKGROUND: Eyelid dermatitis is a common dermatologic complaint. OBJECTIVE: To characterize patients with eyelid dermatitis. METHODS: Retrospective analysis (1994-2016) of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data. RESULTS: Of 50,795 patients, 2332 (4.6%) had eyelid dermatitis only, whereas 1623 (3.2%) also had dermatitis of the eyelids and head or neck. Compared with patients without eyelid involvement (n = 26,130), groups with eyelid dermatitis only and dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck were significantly more likely to be female, white, and older than 40 years, and to have a history of hay fever, atopic dermatitis, or both (P < .01). Final primary diagnoses included allergic contact dermatitis (eyelid dermatitis only: 43.4%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 53.5%), irritant contact dermatitis (eyelid dermatitis only: 17.0%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 9.8%), and atopic dermatitis (eyelid dermatitis only: 13.1%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 13.8%). Top 5 currently relevant allergens included nickel sulfate (eyelid dermatitis only: 18.6%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 22.5%), fragrance mix I (eyelid dermatitis only: 16.5%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 18.3%), methylisothiazolinone (eyelid dermatitis only: 16.5%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 17.7%), gold sodium thiosulfate (eyelid dermatitis only: 14.7%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 11.4%), and balsam of Peru (eyelid dermatitis only: 11.9%; dermatitis of the eyelid and head or neck: 12.6%). Both eyelid-involvement groups were significantly more likely to react to gold sodium thiosulfate, carmine, shellac, dimethylaminopropylamine, oleamidopropyl dimethylamine, and thimerosal (P < .05) compared with the no eyelid involvement group. LIMITATIONS: Lack of specific distribution patterns of eyelid dermatitis and no long-term follow-up data. CONCLUSION: Patch testing remains a critical tool in evaluating patients with eyelid dermatitis.

Hand dermatitis in adults referred for patch testing: Analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 2000 to 2016.

BACKGROUND: Hand eczema (HE) is a heterogeneous and burdensome disorder. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the clinical characteristics, etiologies and allergen relevance in adults with HE referred for patch testing. METHODS: Retrospective analysis (2000-2016) of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data (n = 37,113). RESULTS: Overall, 10,034 patients had HE, with differences of overlap between allergic contact, irritant contact, and atopic dermatitis. Allergic contact HE fluctuated, whereas atopic HE steadily increased, and irritant HE decreased over time. HE was associated with higher proportions of positive patch tests (67.5% vs 63.8%; χ2, P < .0001). The five most common clinically relevant allergens were methylisothiazolinone, nickel, formaldehyde, quaternium-15, and fragrance mix I. HE was associated with significantly higher odds of positive patch test reactions and clinical relevance in 13 and 16 of the 25 most common allergens, respectively, including preservatives, metals, topical medications, and rubber accelerators. LIMITATIONS: No data on HE phenotype. CONCLUSION: HE in adults was associated with higher proportions of positive patch tests, with a heterogeneous profile of allergens. Patch testing remains an important tool in the evaluation of patients with HE.