Jakob F Schwensen1, Wolfgang Uter2, Magnus Bruze3, Cecilia Svedman3, An Goossens4, Mark Wilkinson5, Ana Giménez Arnau6, Margarida Gonçalo7, Klaus E Andersen8,9, Evy Paulsen8, Tove Agner10, Caterina Foti11, Kristiina Aalto-Korte12, John McFadden13, Ian White13, Jeanne D Johansen1. 1. Department of Dermato-Allergology, National Allergy Research Centre, Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, 2900, Hellerup, Denmark. 2. Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Erlangen/Nürnberg, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. 3. Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, 205 02, Malmö, Sweden. 4. Contact Allergy Unit, Department of Dermatology, University Hospital KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. 5. Department of dermatology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, LS7 4SA, UK. 6. Department of Dermatology, Hospital del Mar, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08003, Barcelona, Spain. 7. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-075, Coimbra, Portugal. 8. Department of Dermatology and Allergy Centre, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, 5000, Odense, Denmark. 9. Centre for Innovative Medical Technology, Institute of Clinical Research, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, 5000, Odense, Denmark. 10. Department of Dermatology, University of Copenhagen, Bispebjerg Hospital, 2400, Copenhagen, Denmark. 11. Unit of Dermatology, Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, University of Bari, 70124, Bari, Italy. 12. Occupational Medicine, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, 00250, Helsinki, Finland. 13. St John's Institute of Dermatology, St Thomas' Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of methylisothiazolinone (MI) in cosmetic products has caused an unprecedented epidemic of MI contact allergy. Current data concerning exposures at a European level are required. OBJECTIVES: To describe demographics and MI exposures for European patients with MI contact allergy. METHODS: Eleven European dermatology departments from eight European countries prospectively collected data between 1 May and 31 October 2015 among consecutive patients who had positive patch test reactions to MI (2000 ppm aq.). RESULTS: A total of 6.0% (205/3434; range 2.6-13.0%) of patients had positive patch test reactions to MI. Dermatitis most frequently affected the hands (43.4%), face (32.7%), arms (14.6%), and eyelids (11.7%); 12.7% had widespread dermatitis. For 72.7% (149/205), MI contact allergy was currently relevant mainly because of exposure to cosmetic products (83.2%; 124/149). Of these 124 patients, 19.5% were exposed to leave-on and rinse-off cosmetic products, 24.8% only to leave-on cosmetic products and 38.9% only to rinse-off cosmetic products containing MI or methylchloroisothiazolinone/MI. The majority of these (79%) noted onset of their dermatitis between 2013 and 2015. Fifteen patients (7.3%) had previously experienced allergic reactions when they were in newly painted rooms. CONCLUSION: Clinically relevant MI contact allergy remains prevalent across European countries, mainly because of exposure to rinse-off and leave-on cosmetic products.
BACKGROUND: The use of methylisothiazolinone (MI) in cosmetic products has caused an unprecedented epidemic of MI contact allergy. Current data concerning exposures at a European level are required. OBJECTIVES: To describe demographics and MI exposures for European patients with MI contact allergy. METHODS: Eleven European dermatology departments from eight European countries prospectively collected data between 1 May and 31 October 2015 among consecutive patients who had positive patch test reactions to MI (2000 ppm aq.). RESULTS: A total of 6.0% (205/3434; range 2.6-13.0%) of patients had positive patch test reactions to MI. Dermatitis most frequently affected the hands (43.4%), face (32.7%), arms (14.6%), and eyelids (11.7%); 12.7% had widespread dermatitis. For 72.7% (149/205), MI contact allergy was currently relevant mainly because of exposure to cosmetic products (83.2%; 124/149). Of these 124 patients, 19.5% were exposed to leave-on and rinse-off cosmetic products, 24.8% only to leave-on cosmetic products and 38.9% only to rinse-off cosmetic products containing MI or methylchloroisothiazolinone/MI. The majority of these (79%) noted onset of their dermatitis between 2013 and 2015. Fifteen patients (7.3%) had previously experienced allergic reactions when they were in newly painted rooms. CONCLUSION: Clinically relevant MI contact allergy remains prevalent across European countries, mainly because of exposure to rinse-off and leave-on cosmetic products.