Madhur Kant Rastogi1, Astha Gupta2, Puneet Singh Soodan1, Nitin Mishra3, Pratik Gahalaut4. 1. Resident, Department of Dermatology, SRMSIMS , Bareilly, India . 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Dermatology, SRMSIMS , Bareilly, India . 3. Associate Professor, Department of Dermatology, SRMSIMS , Bareilly, India . 4. Professor, Department of Dermatology, SRMSIMS , Bareilly, India .
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Awareness about skin beauty or cosmetic elegance has received worldwide attention in the present day youth oriented society. Along with careful detailed history and thorough examination patch test is considered cornerstone in diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients suspected clinical diagnosis of contact facial dermatitis due to attended the Department of Dermatology, were included in a hospital based study. The patch test was applied on the upper back of using 32 allergens present in Indian cosmetic series and 20 known allergens in Indian standard battery series procured from Systopic Pharmaceutical Ltd, after applying the patch test, the patient was asked to come after 48h and 72h for reading the results of the patch test. RESULTS: Out of 50 patients there were 32 (64%) females (housewives 36%) patients and 18 (36%) male (farmers 12%). Itching was the most common presenting symptom in 39 patients (78%) least was hypopigmentation and pain in 2%. Forehead was the most common site of involvement in 25 patients (50%) least were cheeks in 15 patients (30%). Erythema was the commonest morphological presentation seen in 36 patients (72%). Hair dye was suspected in maximum number of patients that is 13 (26%). Most common antigen showing patch test positivity was paraphenylenediamine in nine patients (18%). There are significantly more chances of developing positive test reaction with Indian standard series compared to cosmetic series. (p=.0053 using Fischer Exact test). CONCLUSION: In India there is no legislation regarding labeling ingredients on cosmetics as in the western countries, so labelling of the contents of cosmetic products should be the main challenge in cosmetic dermatitis is to identify.
INTRODUCTION: Awareness about skin beauty or cosmetic elegance has received worldwide attention in the present day youth oriented society. Along with careful detailed history and thorough examination patch test is considered cornerstone in diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients suspected clinical diagnosis of contact facial dermatitis due to attended the Department of Dermatology, were included in a hospital based study. The patch test was applied on the upper back of using 32 allergens present in Indian cosmetic series and 20 known allergens in Indian standard battery series procured from Systopic Pharmaceutical Ltd, after applying the patch test, the patient was asked to come after 48h and 72h for reading the results of the patch test. RESULTS: Out of 50 patients there were 32 (64%) females (housewives 36%) patients and 18 (36%) male (farmers 12%). Itching was the most common presenting symptom in 39 patients (78%) least was hypopigmentation and pain in 2%. Forehead was the most common site of involvement in 25 patients (50%) least were cheeks in 15 patients (30%). Erythema was the commonest morphological presentation seen in 36 patients (72%). Hair dye was suspected in maximum number of patients that is 13 (26%). Most common antigen showing patch test positivity was paraphenylenediamine in nine patients (18%). There are significantly more chances of developing positive test reaction with Indian standard series compared to cosmetic series. (p=.0053 using Fischer Exact test). CONCLUSION: In India there is no legislation regarding labeling ingredients on cosmetics as in the western countries, so labelling of the contents of cosmetic products should be the main challenge in cosmetic dermatitis is to identify.
Authors: Sheena Patel; David A Basketter; Donna Jefferies; Ian R White; Richard J G Rycroft; John P McFadden; Stephanie Y Ho Journal: Contact Dermatitis Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 6.600