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.

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.

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.

Improvement of objective ocular redness measured with Keratograph 5M in glaucoma patients after instilling brimonidine drops.

OBJECTIVE: To compare objective ocular redness measured using OCULUS Keratograph 5 M before and after 0.2% brimonidine instillation in glaucoma patients under topical hypotensive treatment. METHODS: 60 eyes from 60 subjects diagnosed with glaucoma or ocular hypertension under hypotensive ocular topical treatment were analyzed. Basal Ophthalmological examination was performed.Outcome variables were OCULUS Keratograph 5 M redness scores (RS) before and after 0.2% brimonidine instillation; overall, bulbar temporal (BT), bulbar nasal (BN), limbar temporal (LT), and limbar nasal (LN); non-invasive average tear film breakup time (Nia-BUT), non-invasive first tear film breakup time (Nif-BUT) and meibography. In addition, the following clinical data were collected: intraocular pressure, type, duration, amount, and preservatives/or not of hypotensive treatment, fluorescein corneal staining score and lower tear meniscus height. RESULTS: All eyes were under topical medication. All redness scores were reduced after brimonidine instillation, mean RS differences were BT 0.82 ± 0.62, BN hyperemia 1.03 ± 0.55, LN hyperemia 0.84 ± 0.49, LT hyperemia 0.71 ± 0.50 and total hyperemia 0.91 ± 0.52 (all p < 0.001). 30 min after brimonidine instillation mean overall RS reduction was 47.97 ± 12.39% (p < 0.001) and after 1 h there was a persistent reduction of overall RS of 45.92 ± 14.27% (p < 0.001). Hyperemia reduction was significant and comparable between preservative and preservative-free group 0.12 ± 0.14 (p > 0.392) and between patient with combination therapy and monotherapy 0.16 ± 0.14 (p > 0.258). CONCLUSION: A significant reduction of conjunctival hyperemia was objectively found in glaucoma patients under topical hypotensive treatment before and after brimonidine instillation. Its fast and long-lasting effect may be useful preoperatively in glaucoma patients to reduce intraoperative bleeding and associated complications.

The use of benzalkonium chloride in topical glaucoma treatment: An investigation of the efficacy and safety of benzalkonium chloride-preserved intraocular pressure-lowering eye drops and their effect on conjunctival goblet cells.

ENGLISH SUMMARY: Glaucoma is a leading cause of the global prevalence of irreversible blindness. The pathogenesis of glaucoma is not entirely known, but the major risk factors include advancing age, genetic predisposition, and increased intraocular pressure (IOP). The only evidence-based treatment is a lowering of IOP through the use of eye drops, laser procedures, or surgical interventions. Although laser treatment is gaining recognition as a first-choice treatment option, the most common approach for managing glaucoma is IOP-lowering eye drops. A major challenge in the treatment is the occurrence of adverse events and poor adherence. In this context, the ocular surface is an area of great concern, as most glaucoma patients have dry eye disease (DED), which is largely caused by eye drops. Preservation with benzalkonium chloride (BAK) is a controversial topic due to its potential role as a significant cause of DED. A systematic review and meta-analyses investigate potential differences in efficacy and safety between BAK-preserved and BAK-free anti-glaucomatous eye drops (I). Many of the included studies report on ocular surface damage caused by the application of BAK-preserved eye drops. However, the meta-analyses addressing hyperemia, number of ocular adverse events, and tear break-up time did not identify any significant differences. The latter is likely due to varying measurement methods, different endpoints, and study durations. It is, therefore, possible that the large variations between the studies conceal differences in the safety profiles. The efficacy meta-analysis finds that there are no differences in the IOP-lowering effect between BAK-preserved and BAK-free eye drops, indicating that BAK is not necessary for the effectiveness of eye drops. To promote more homogeneous choices of endpoints and methods when evaluating BAK-preserved and BAK-free glaucoma treatments, a Delphi consensus statement was performed. In this study, glaucoma experts and ocular surface disease experts reached consensus on the key factors to consider when designing such studies (II). The hope is to have more studies with comparable endpoints that can systematically show the potentially adverse effects of BAK. The preclinical studies in the current Ph.D. research focus on conjunctival goblet cells (GCs). GCs are important for the ocular surface because they release the mucin MUC5AC, which is an essential component of the inner layer of the tear film. BAK preservation may damage the GCs and result in a low GC density, leading to an unstable tear film and DED. The most commonly used IOP-lowering drugs are prostaglandin analogs (PGAs). Thus, the conducted studies investigate the effect of PGAs preserved in different ways on GCs. BAK-preserved latanoprost is cytotoxic to primary cultured human conjunctival GCs and results in a scattered expression of MUC5AC, in contrast to negative controls, where MUC5AC is localized around the cell nucleus (III). Preservative-free (PF) latanoprost is not cytotoxic and does not affect the MUC5AC expression pattern. Furthermore, BAK-preserved travoprost is found to be cytotoxic in a time-dependent manner, while Polyquad®-preserved travoprost does not affect GC survival at any measured time point (IV). Both Polyquad and BAK induce scattered expression of MUC5AC. The cytotoxicity of BAK-preserved PGA eye drops is higher compared to the safer profile of PF and Polyquad-preserved PGA eye drops (V). Additionally, PF latanoprost does not increase the release of the inflammatory markers interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-8, unlike BAK-preserved latanoprost. A review highlights the active and inactive components of IOP-lowering eye drops (VI). Several preclinical and clinical studies have identified adverse effects of BAK. Although other components, such as the active drug and phosphates, can also cause adverse events, the review clearly states that BAK alone is a major source of decreased tolerability. The conclusion of this thesis is that BAK preservation is unnecessary and harmful to the ocular surface. The preclinical studies demonstrate that GCs die when exposed to BAK. Furthermore, they find that BAK induces a pro-inflammatory response. The review included in the thesis concludes that BAK should be phased out of eye drops for chronic use. Overall, the inclusion of BAK poses a risk of developing DED and poor adherence, which can ultimately lead to disease progression and blindness.

Assessment of the eye surface and subjective symptoms after using 0.1% dexamethasone drops with and without preservatives in patients after cataract surgery.

Cataract surgery can cause dry eye symptoms. One of the many factors compromising the ocular surface is the use of benzalkonium chloride (BAC)-preserved topical eye drops administered during the postoperative period. In this open-label, prospective, randomized, comparative clinical trial, 40 patients not previously affected by dry eye disease were assigned to receive either preservative-free (PFD) or preserved (PD) dexamethasone 0.1% eye drops for two weeks after a standard phacoemulsification procedure. Fluorescein break-up time, ocular surface staining score, Schirmer test, Ocular Surface Disease Index and anterior chamber (AC) cells were evaluated at baseline prior to the surgery and 2 weeks after surgery. No statistically significant differences in baseline assessments were observed between groups. At week 2, a significant increase in corneal staining scores (p = 0.003) and foreign body sensation (p = 0.04) was observed for the PD group only. The conjunctival staining score was significantly higher in both groups. The mean AC cell grading was higher in the PFD group than in the PD group (0.28 ± 0.30 and 0.07 ± 0.18, respectively; p = 0.013). Preservative-free dexamethasone eye drops after cataract surgery caused milder dry eye symptoms as compared with preserved dexamethasone. The AC inflammation control comparison may require a larger study group. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05753787, 03/03/2023.

The molecular aspect of anti-glaucomatous eye drops - are we harming our patients?

Glaucoma is one of the leading causes of irreversible blindness. Progression is halted with a reduction in intraocular pressure (IOP), which is most often achieved with eye drops. A major challenge in the topical treatment of glaucoma patients is the many side effects and the resulting reduced adherence. Side effects may of course be due to the molecular properties of the active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs). There are currently six different APIs available: prostaglandin analogues, ß-adrenergic inhibitors, α-adrenergic agonists, carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, rho-kinase inhibitors and muscarinic 3 agonists. But the additives used in eye drops are also known to cause damage to the ocular surface and to some extent also to the deeper tissues. Said additives are considered inactive molecular components and are added to secure for instance viscosity and pH value, and to prevent contamination. There has been an increasing focus on the harmful effects of preservatives, with the most commonly used preservative benzalkonium chloride (BAK) being particularly controversial. BAK has long been recognized as a toxin that increases the risk of ocular discomfort. This can affect the adherence and ultimately result in lack of disease control. Other issues include the addition of certain buffers, such as phosphates, and varying pH values. This review will address the different molecular components of the IOP-lowering eye drops and what to be aware of when prescribing topical glaucoma treatment.

Comparisons of efficacy and safety between preserved and preservative-free brimonidine tartrate in glaucoma and ocular hypertension: a parallel-grouped, randomized trial.

This multicenter (four institutions), randomized, investigator-masked, parallel-group clinical trial evaluated and compared the efficacy and safety of preservative-free and preserved brimonidine tartrate 0.15% in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Sixty eyes of 60 patients with intraocular pressure (IOP) ≥ 15 mmHg diagnosed with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were randomized to preserved (n = 31) and preservative-free (n = 29) brimonidine groups. The enrolled eyes received brimonidine monotherapy three times daily. Main outcome measures were corneal/conjunctival staining score, ocular surface disease index, patient satisfaction score, drug tolerance, and drug adherence rate 12 weeks post first administration. Secondary outcome measurements included visual acuity, IOP, drug tolerance, tear-film break-up time, hemodynamic changes including blood pressure and heart rates, and ocular adverse events. After 12 weeks, both preserved and preservative-free groups showed similar IOP reduction, corneal and conjunctival staining scores, drug tolerance, and adherence rates. The preservative-free group showed significantly better tear-film break-up time and higher patient satisfaction regarding drug use and management. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure reductions during the 12 weeks were significantly lower in the preserved group than in the preservative-free group. Preservative-free brimonidine tartrate showed comparable efficacy and safety, better corneal tear film stability, and patient satisfaction than preserved brimonidine.

Use of a Cationic Emulsion of Latanoprost to Treat Glaucoma Patients with Ocular Surface Disease: A Preclinical Review.

Prostaglandin analogue topical medications are one of the most effective therapeutic approaches for the chronic management of glaucoma and ocular hypertension, through the reduction of elevated intra ocular pressure (IOP). While many of the first generations of anti-glaucoma eye drops were preserved with benzalkonium chloride, their repeated use may induce chronic ocular surface toxicity that leads to ocular surface disease (OSD) signs and symptoms. As a result, soft-preservatives and preservative-free formulations have been developed with the goal to avoid the long-term iatrogenic toxicity of the preservative agents. In addition, it has been suggested that OSD and its associated inflammation may negatively impact the efficacy of the IOP-lowering medications, including treatment adherence and compliance. Hence, it may be particularly interesting that glaucoma medications can concomitantly protect and "heal" the ocular surface and its environment while lowering elevated IOP, for the greater benefit of glaucoma patients. The objective of the present review is to briefly present the preclinical data of the cationic oil-in-water emulsion of latanoprost (latanoprost-CE) to shed some light on its mechanisms of action. It overall supports the following hypothesis: the restoration of a healthy ocular surface environment and treatment of the OSD signs and symptoms will allow for an improved elevated IOP reduction and glaucoma management. This would be achieved with a once daily dosing regimen to preserve glaucoma patients' vision, ocular surface, and quality-of-life and wellness.

Effect of Commonly Used Cosmetic Preservatives on Healthy Human Skin Cells.

Cosmetic products contain preservatives to prevent microbial growth. The various types of preservatives present in skincare products applied on the skin induce many side effects. We tested several types of preservatives such as phenoxyethanol, methyl paraben, propyl paraben, imidazolidinyl urea (IU), the composition of gluconolactone and sodium benzoate (GSB), diazolidinyl urea (DU), and two grapefruit essential oils, one of which was industrially produced and a second which was freshly distilled from fresh grapefruit peels. This study aimed to find the relationship between preservative concentration, cell growth, collagen secretion, and cell viability. We hypothesized that these products induced a decrease in collagen secretion from human dermal fibroblasts. Our research, for the first time, addressed the overall effect of other preservatives on skin extracellular matrix (ECM) by studying their effect on metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2) activity. Except for cytotoxicity and contact sensitivity tests, there are no studies of their effect on skin ECM in the available literature. These studies show potential antimicrobial activity, especially from the compounds IU and DU towards reference bacteria and the compounds methyl paraben and propyl paraben against reference fungi. The MTS test showed that fibroblasts are more sensitive to the tested group of preservatives than keratinocytes, which could be caused by the differences between the cells' structures. The grapefruit oils exhibited the most cytotoxicity to both tested cell lines compared to all considered preservatives. The most destructive influence of preservatives on collagen synthesis was observed in the case of IU and DU. In this case, the homemade grapefruit oil turned out to be the mildest one. The results from a diverse group of preservatives show that whether they are natural or synthesized compounds, they require controlled use. Appropriate dosages and evaluation of preservative efficacy should not be the only aspects considered. The complex effect of preservatives on skin processes and cytotoxicity is an important topic for modern people.

Preservatives in Pharmaceuticals: Are They Really Safe?

Preservatives are the ingredients that are utilized in order to improve the shelf life of products (Medicines, food). These tend to slow down or stop the degradation or decomposition processes, therefore, enhance the shelf life of the products. These agents either interfere with the chemical reaction or check the growth of microorganisms in the products. Preservatives are classified according to the mode of action or source or chemical nature. The preservation efficacy can be affected by various factors, e.g., interaction with other components, nature of preservatives, type of containers, type of micro-organism, and pH. Despite being vital for various types of products, these chemicals are not safe, if not used appropriately. The review will provide an updated detail of different types of preservatives along with their safety aspect. This review also highlighted the maximum safe concentration of preservatives that can be required to develop a formulation with maximum safety and low toxicity.

Ocular Surface Disease in Glaucoma Patients.

PURPOSE: To review the most recent studies in the literature regarding the ocular surface in glaucoma patients and treatment options aimed to reduce ocular surface disease in this population. METHODS: We performed a literature search in the electronic databases of PubMed CENT RAL, Google Scholar, EMBASE the Register of Controlled Trials, and Ovid MEDLINE using the following terms: "ocular surface", "dry eye", "glaucoma", "selective laser trabeculoplasty", "glaucoma surgery", "preservatives", "preservative free", "ocular surface disease index", "tear break up time", "MMP-9" and "conjunctival hyperemia". RESULTS: Over the last several years, several studies have demonstrated the changes to the ocular surface in the setting of glaucoma, the best tests for markers of dry eye, and how management can be altered to help address ocular surface disease routinely or in preparation for glaucoma surgery. CONCLUSION: Ocular surface disease in the glaucoma patient population is widely recognized. It should be addressed to maximize patient compliance and quality of life.

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.

Ocular Surface Disease and Anti-Glaucoma Medications: Various features, Diagnosis, and Management Guidelines.

PURPOSE: Assessment of ocular surface in patients using anti-glaucoma medications (AGM) is rarely a priority for clinicians since glaucoma management targets intraocular pressure and preserves vision. This review summarizes the various adverse effects of topical AGM on the ocular surface and highlights the importance of ocular surface assessment in these patients. METHODS: A literature search of articles (English only) on the subject matter was conducted focusing on recent articles published in the past 5 years. RESULTS: The use of multiple anti-glaucoma medications in glaucoma patients increases patients' exposure to the drug and the preservatives present in these medications. Long-term use of these medications has deleterious effects on the conjunctiva, cornea, eyelids, and periocular tissues like trichiasis, entropion, symblepharon, forniceal shortening, punctate keratopathy, non-healing epithelial defects, and pannus. Treatment requires drug withdrawal or substitution by oral or topical non-preserved and less toxic preparations of AGMs. The ocular surface and symptoms can improve if the condition is diagnosed early and after drug withdrawal in over 90% of eyes. However, stopping or changing AGMs can often present with its own unique set of challenges in intra-ocular pressure control which may often need glaucoma surgery in close to 20% of eyes for IOP control. CONCLUSION: Topical antiglaucoma medications (with their preservatives) can induce severe ocular surface and periorbital changes. Early identification and withdrawal of the offending drug/preservative can help to reverse the changes except in eyes with extensive cicatrization.

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.

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.