Clinical manifestations and impact on daily life of allergy to polyethylene glycol (PEG) in ten patients.

BACKGROUND: Polyethylene glycols (PEGs) are widely used as excipients in drugs, cosmetics and household products. Immediate-type allergy to PEGs including anaphylaxis is rare. The recent introduction of the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines has led to an increased focus on PEG as a possible culprit of allergic reactions to the vaccines. A low awareness of the allergenic potential of PEG among consumers, manufacturers and doctors leads to under-diagnosis and under-reporting of allergy to PEGs, putting patients at risk of repeated severe reactions. OBJECTIVES: To investigate clinical manifestations, time to diagnosis and impact of a PEG allergy diagnosis on the daily life of patients diagnosed with allergy to PEG from 2010 to 2019. METHOD: Ten patients diagnosed with allergy to PEG were included. Detailed clinical history was obtained, and allergy investigations had been performed at the time of diagnosis. All patients were contacted and asked to retrospectively complete a questionnaire about causes and impact on daily life of an allergy to PEG, scored on a likert scale (0-10) before and after diagnosis. RESULTS: Eight patients had experienced at least one anaphylactic reaction requiring adrenaline treatment. Anaphylaxis was primarily caused by antibiotic/analgesic tablets, depot-steroids, antacids and laxatives. Seven patients reported repeated reactions before diagnosis (median 3, range 2-6). Median time from first reaction to diagnosis was 20 months (range 2-120). None of the patients experienced severe allergic reactions after the diagnosis. Median likert score of the impact on daily life before diagnosis was 7 compared with 4 after diagnosis. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The clinical manifestations of PEG allergy are often dramatic. Improved awareness about the clinical presentation and common culprits, clear product labelling and a standardized nomenclature is needed to ensure the timely diagnosis of PEG allergy to prevent repeated anaphylactic reactions with severe impact on patients' lives.

Facial contact dermatitis caused by cosmetic-relevant allergens.

BACKGROUND: Facial allergic contact dermatitis caused by cosmetic products is common. New allergens in cosmetics continuously emerge. OBJECTIVES: To investigate characteristics of patients with facial dermatitis (FD) between 2010 and 2019 including patch test results from cosmetic-related allergens and a new test series with cosmetic-relevant natural ingredients (CRNIs). METHODS: This is a retrospective study analysing demographics, clinical characteristics according to MOAHLFA index (male; occupation; atopic dermatitis; hand; leg; face; age ≥ 40 years), and patch test results to 27 cosmetic-relevant allergens in FD patients. A prospective study evaluating a screening test series with CRNIs in consecutive FD patients for 1 year was also conducted. These patients received a questionnaire for collecting extra characteristics (eg, concerning quality of life). RESULTS: Of 8740 tested patients, 2292 (26.2%) had FD. Of these, 30.6% had cosmetic-induced FD. The most common cosmetic-related allergens were fragrances and preservatives. The most common patch test-positive CRNIs were hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool, and propolis. Potato and peanut were rare, but the most common prick test-positive CRNIs, however, without any relation to the use of cosmetic products. FD affected nearly all patients' quality of life and caused limitations to their daily life. CONCLUSIONS: Updated management and quick diagnosis of FD is important to avoid negative impact on patients' quality of life.

Natural ingredients in cosmetic products-A suggestion for a screening series for skin allergy.

BACKGROUND: Naturally derived cosmetic product ingredients of both plant and animal origin are being included increasingly in product formulations in order to cater to consumer preferences. They may be an overlooked cause of reactions to cosmetic products in some patients with dermatitis. OBJECTIVES: To identify naturally derived cosmetic product ingredients with allergenic potential (type I and type IV) and propose a cosmetic screening test series. METHODS: The study was conducted in two steps. The first step was a market survey using a nonprofit application helping consumers avoid problematic substances in cosmetic products. The application contained 10 067 cosmetic products that were label checked for naturally derived cosmetic product ingredients. The second step was a literature search to examine how frequently the naturally derived ingredients were described and related to allergic reactions in cosmetics or other topically administered products. RESULTS: We identified 121 different naturally derived cosmetic product ingredients that were included in at least 30 cosmetic products. In total, 22 ingredients were selected for a screening test series. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a supplemental patch test and a prick test screening series with naturally derived cosmetic product ingredients for patients with skin reactions to cosmetic products, aiming to identify a cause in more patients than is currently possible.

Anaphylaxis to Excipients in Current Clinical Practice: Evaluation and Management.

Excipients are the inactive ingredients in a drug or product that help to stabilize, preserve, or enhance the pharmacokinetics and bioavailability of the active ingredients. Excipient allergy is rare and hence often missed or misdiagnosed due to lack of awareness of the need to carefully review all drug ingredients. For the patient, excipient allergy can be frightening and potentially disruptive to health care delivery. This narrative review provides a clinically oriented, international, collaborative perspective on excipient allergy testing, management of future health care safety, limitations in our testing modalities, and barriers to optimal care.