Literature DB >> 9412750

Contact and photocontact sensitivity to sunscreens. Review of a 15-year experience and of the literature.

S Schauder1, H Ippen.   

Abstract

This review summarizes published and unpublished data of our 15-year experience with sunscreen allergy and photoallergy. From 1981-1996, 402 patients with suspected clinical photosensitivity were patch and photopatch tested with the commercial sunscreens and facial cosmetics that they had used and with chemical UV absorbers, fragrance materials, preservatives, and emollients. 80 patients (20%) (28 men, 52 women) demonstrated allergic and/or photoallergic contact dermatitis to 1 or more UV absorber(s). In 47 patients with photodermatoses or photo-aggravated dermatoses and in 33 subjects with normal photosensitivity, 91 allergic and 84 photoallergic reactions to UV filters were observed. Over the years sunscreens were added to the test series, which since 1989 comprised the following 10 UV absorbers and which induced allergic (a) and photoallergic (pa) reactions (number, type of reaction): 4 UVA absorbers--isopropyldibenzoylmethane (30a/32pa); butyl methoxydibenzoyl-methane (15a/13pa); benzophenone-3 (3a/9pa); benzophenone-4 (0a/0pa); and 6 UVB absorbers--PABA (2a/2pa); octyl dimethyl PABA (1a/2pa); methylbenzylidene camphor (32a/5pa); octyl methoxycinnamate (3a/4pa); isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate (4a/10pa); and phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid (1a/7pa). The frequent (photo)sensitization to isopropyldibenzoylmethane was the reason that its production was discontinued in 1993. 47 patients reacted to fragrance materials, 11 to preservatives and 2 to lanolin alcohol. These constituents were contained in the commercial sunscreens and cosmetics that they had used. Continuous revision of the UV absorber photopatch test series was necessary to be closer to the real frequency of exposure and of reported (photo)allergy to newer sunscreens. Clinicians should consider contact and photocontact allergy, especially in patients with photodermatoses and photo-aggravated dermatoses, and they should perform photopatch testing. Once the culprit has been identified, its INCI (International Nomenclature Cosmetic Ingredients) designation should be given to the patient, who must be warned to avoid products containing the (photo)allergen.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9412750     DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1997.tb02439.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contact Dermatitis        ISSN: 0105-1873            Impact factor:   6.600


  12 in total

1.  Comparison of Marketed Cosmetic Products Constituents with the Antigens Included in Cosmetic-related Patch Test.

Authors:  Seung Hyun Cheong; You Won Choi; Ki Bum Myung; Hae Young Choi
Journal:  Ann Dermatol       Date:  2010-08-05       Impact factor: 1.444

2.  Brazilian consensus on photoprotection.

Authors:  Sérgio Schalka; Denise Steiner; Flávia Naranjo Ravelli; Tatiana Steiner; Aripuanã Cobério Terena; Carolina Reato Marçon; Eloisa Leis Ayres; Flávia Alvim Sant'anna Addor; Helio Amante Miot; Humberto Ponzio; Ida Duarte; Jane Neffá; José Antônio Jabur da Cunha; Juliana Catucci Boza; Luciana de Paula Samorano; Marcelo de Paula Corrêa; Marcus Maia; Nilton Nasser; Olga Maria Rodrigues Ribeiro Leite; Otávio Sergio Lopes; Pedro Dantas Oliveira; Renata Leal Bregunci Meyer; Tânia Cestari; Vitor Manoel Silva dos Reis; Vitória Regina Pedreira de Almeida Rego
Journal:  An Bras Dermatol       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.896

3.  [When sunscreens do not help: allergic contact dermatitis to UV filters].

Authors:  L Ludriksone; J Tittelbach; S Schliemann; S Goetze; P Elsner
Journal:  Hautarzt       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 0.751

4.  Comprehensive review of ultraviolet radiation and the current status on sunscreens.

Authors:  Brummitte Dale Wilson; Summer Moon; Frank Armstrong
Journal:  J Clin Aesthet Dermatol       Date:  2012-09

5.  Magnetic Nanoparticle-Based Dispersive Solid-Phase Microextraction of Three UV Blockers Prior to Their Determination by HPLC-DAD.

Authors:  Suad E Abughrin; Usama Alshana; Sezgin Bakirdere
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-05-16       Impact factor: 4.614

6.  Ultraviolet Extinction and Visible Transparency by Ivy Nanoparticles.

Authors:  Quanshui Li; Lijin Xia; Zhili Zhang; Mingjun Zhang
Journal:  Nanoscale Res Lett       Date:  2010-06-16       Impact factor: 4.703

7.  In vitro and in vivo estrogenicity of UV screens.

Authors:  M Schlumpf; B Cotton; M Conscience; V Haller; B Steinmann; W Lichtensteiger
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 9.031

8.  New combination of ultraviolet absorbers in an oily emollient increases sunscreen efficacy and photostability.

Authors:  Florence L'alloret; Didier Candau; Sophie Seité; Marie-Jocelyne Pygmalion; Laetitia Ruiz; Martin Josso; Hélène Meaudre; Lydie Gauchet; Ana-Maria Pena; Anne Colonna
Journal:  Dermatol Ther (Heidelb)       Date:  2012-04-17

9.  Formation of chlorinated breakdown products during degradation of sunscreen agent, 2-ethylhexyl-4-methoxycinnamate in the presence of sodium hypochlorite.

Authors:  Alicja Gackowska; Maciej Przybyłek; Waldemar Studziński; Jerzy Gaca
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2015-09-26       Impact factor: 4.223

Review 10.  Photostability of Topical Agents Applied to the Skin: A Review.

Authors:  Agata Kryczyk-Poprawa; Anna Kwiecień; Włodzimierz Opoka
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2019-12-20       Impact factor: 6.321

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.