Cosmetic allergic contact dermatitis: an update

References

• Code of US Federal Regulation. Title 21, Section 321.
   Google Scholar
• Marks JG, Elsner P, DeLeo V. Cosmetics and Fragrances. In: Contact and Occupational Dermatology (3rd Edition). Mosby Publishers, PA, USA, 172–200 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Engasser PG. Cosmetics and contact dermatitis. Dermatol. Clin.9(1), 69–80 (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Fisher AF. Part I: status cosmeticus: a cosmetic intolerance syndrome. Cutis46, 109–110 (1990).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pratt M, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results 2001–2002 study period. Dermatitis15(4), 176–183 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nielsen NH, Linnenberg A, Menne T et al. Allergic contact sensitization in an adult Danish population: two cross-sectional surveys eight years apart (the Copenhagen Allergy Study). Acta Derma. Venereol.81, 31–34 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams RM, Maibach HI. A five-year study of cosmetic reactions. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol.13, 1062–1069 (1985).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleming CJ, Burden AD, Forsyth A. Accuracy of questions related to allergic contact dermatitis. Am. J. Contact Dermat.11(4), 218–221 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Larkin A, Rietschel RL. The utility of patch tests using larger screening series of allergens. Am. J. Contact Dermat.9(3), 142–145 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Saripalli Y, Achen F, Belsito DV. The detection of clinically relevant contact allergens using a standard screening tray of twenty-three allergens. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol.49, 65–69 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen DE, Brancaccio RR, Andersen D, Belsito DV. Utility of a standard allergen series alone in the evaluation of allergic contact dermatitis: a retrospective study of 732 patients. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol.36, 914–918 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Rietschel RL, Adams RM, Maibach HI. The case for patch test reading beyond day 2. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol.18, 42–45 (1988).
   Google Scholar
• Katz BE, Fisher AA. Bacitracin: a unique topical antibiotic sensitizer. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol.17, 1016–1024 (1987).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeman S. Corticosteroid allergy. Contact Dermatitis33, 240–242 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Pratt M, Taraska V. Disperse blue dyes 106 and 124 are common causes to textile dermatitis and should serve as screening allergens for this condition. Am. J. Contact Dermat.11(1), 30–41 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Larsen WG. Perfume dermatitis. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol.12, 1–9 (1985).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen WG, Nakayama H. Lindberg M, et al. Fragrance contact dermatitis: a worldwide multicenter investigation (Pt I). Am. J. Contact Dermat.7(2), 77–83 (1996).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Johansen JD. Fragrance contact allergy: a clinical review. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol.4(11), 789–798 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeGroot AC. Patch Testing: Test Concentrations and Vehicle for 3700 Chemicals. Elsevier Publishing, USA (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Code of Federal Regulation. Title 21, Vol 7, Section 700.3 (d).
   Google Scholar
• Scheinman P. Exposing covert fragrance chemicals. Am. J. Contact Dermat.12(4), 225–228 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Marks JG, Elsner P, DeLeo V. Preservatives and vehicles. In: Contact and Occupational Dermatology (3rd Edition). Mosby Publishers, PA, USA, 140–171 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Marks JG, Elsner P, DeLeo V. Standard allergens. In: Contact and Occupational Dermatology (3rd Edition). Mosby Publishers, PA, USA, 140–171 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• DeGroot AC, Van Ginkel CJW, Weyland JW. Methyldibromo glutaronitrile (Euxyl K 400): an important new allergen in cosmetics. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol.35, 743–747 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Geier J, Schnuch A, Brasch J et al. Patch testing with methyldibromoglutaronitrile. Am. J. Contact Dermat.11(4), 207–212 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Hausen BM. The sensitizing potential of Euxyl K 400 and its components 1,2-dibromo-2,4-dicyanobutane and 2-phenoxyethanol. Contact Dermatitis28, 149–153 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zachariae C, Johansen JD, Menne R. Allergic contact dermatitis from methyldibromoglutaronitrile – clinical cases from 2003. Contact Dermatitis52, 6–8 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Mowad CM. Methylchloroisothiazolinone revisited. Am. J. Contact Dermat.11(2), 115–118 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Menne T, Frosch PJ, Veien NK et al. Contact sensitization to 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one and 2- methyl-4-isothiazollin-3-one (MCI/MI). Contact Dermatitis24, 334–341 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasan T, Rantanen T, Alanko K et al. Patch test reactions to cosmetic allergens in 1995–1997 and 2000–2002 in Finland: a multicenter study. Contact Dermatitis53, 40–45 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Badreshia S, Marks JG. Iodopropynyl butylcarbamate. Am. J. Contact Dermat.13(2), 77–79 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Schnuch A, Geier J, Brasch J et al. The preservative iodopropynyl butylcarbamate: frequency of allergic reactions and diagnostic considerations. Contact Dermatitis46, 153–156 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Fowler JF. Cocamidopropyl betaine. Dermatitis15(1), 3–4 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Brey NL, Fowler JF. Relevance of positive patch-test reactions to cocamidopropyl betaine and amidoamine. Dermatitis15(1), 7–9 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Goncalo M, Ruas E, Figueiredo A et al. Contact and photocontact sensitivity to sunscreens. Contact Dermatitis33, 278–280 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Sosted H, Basketter DA, Estrada E et al. Ranking of hair dye substances according to predicted sensitization potency: quantitative structure-activity relationships. Contact Dermatitis51, 241–254 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLeo VA. P-phenylenediamine. Dermatitis17(2), 53–55 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• LeCoz CJ, Lefebure C, Keller F et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by skin painting (pseudotatooing) with black henna, a mixture of hemp-paraphenylenediamine and its derivatives. Arch. Dermatol.136, 1515–1517 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Uter W, Lessmann H, Geier J et al. Contact allergy to ingredients in hair cosmetics in female hairdressers and clients – an 8-year analysis of IVDK data. Contact Dermatitis49, 236–240 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paltzik RL, Enscoe I. Oncycholysis secondary to toluene sulfonamide formaldehyde resin used in a nail hardener mimicking onychomycosis. Cutis25, 647–648 (1980).
   Google Scholar
• Guin JD, Baas K, Nelson-Adesokan P. Contact sensitization to cyanoacrylate adhesive as a cause of severe onychodystrophy. Int. J. Dermatol.37, 21–26 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Fisher AA. Permanent loss of fingernails due to allergic reaction to an acrylic nail preparation: a sixteen-year follow–up study. Cutis43, 404–406 (1989).
   Google Scholar
• Fisher AA. Adverse nail reactions and paresthesia from photobonded acrylate sculptured nails. Cutis45, 293–294 (1990).
   Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald DA, English JS. Widespread contact dermatitis from sculptured nails. Contact Dermatitis30, 118 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Koppulaa SV, Fellman JH, Storrs FJ. Screening allergens for acrylate dermatitis associated with artificial nails. Am. J. Contact Dermat.6, 78–85 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Bazzano C, DeAngeles S, Kleist G, Maedo N. Allergic contact dermatitis from topical vitamins A and E. Contact Dermatitis35, 261–262 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Kiken D, Cohen D. Contact dermatitis to botanical extracts. Am. J. Contact Dermat.13(3), 148–152 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Crawford GH, Sciacca JR, James WD. Tea tree oil: cutaneous effects of the extracted oil of Melaleuca alternifolia. Dermatitis15(2), 59–66 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Simpson EL, Law SV, Storrs FJ. Prevalence of botanical extract allergy in patients with contact dermatitis. Dermatitis15(2), 67–72 (2004).
   Google Scholar