There is limited information regarding contact dermatitis (CD) associated with skin cleansers (SCs).
Objective
The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of allergic patch test (APT) reactions and irritant CD (ICD) associated with SCs.
Methods
A retrospective cross-sectional analysis was performed using North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 2000–2014.
Results
Of 32,945 tested patients, 1069 (3.24%) had either APT reaction or ICD associated with SCs. Of these, 692 (64.7%) had APT reaction only, 350 (32.7%) had ICD only, and 27 (2.5%) had both. Individuals with APT reaction and/or ICD were more likely to have occupationally related skin disease (relative risk [RR] = 3.8 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 3.3–4.5] for APT reaction and 10.0 [95% CI = 8.2–12.2] for ICD, respectively, P < 0.0001). As compared with those without APT reaction to SC, individuals with APT reaction had significantly higher frequencies of hand (RR = 2.4 [95% CI = 2.1–2.7]) and arm dermatitis (RR = 1.3 [95% CI = 1.1–1.6], P ≤ 0.001). Irritant CD was strongly associated with hand dermatitis (RR = 6.2 [95% CI = 5.2–7.3], P < 0.0001). More than 50 allergens were associated with SCs including quaternium-15 (11.2%), cocamidopropyl betaine (9.5%), methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (8.4%), coconut diethanolamide (7.9%), fragrance mix I (7.7%), Myroxylon pereirae (5.9%), 4-chloro-3,5-xylenol (5.8%), amidoamine (5.5%), and formaldehyde (4.4%).
Conclusions
Many allergens, especially preservatives and surfactants, were associated with SCs. Most cases involved the hands and were occupationally related.
MeysmanT, GoossensA. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by benzisothiazolinone in printing ink and soap. Contact Dermatitis, 2017; 76(1):51–53.
4.
AertsO, van DyckF, van TichelenW, et al.The many faces of coconut oil derivatives: occupational hand dermatitis caused by a liquid soap containing cocamidopropylamine oxide. Contact Dermatitis, 2016; 74(4):248–251.
5.
HamannCR, BrankovN, HamannD, et al.Chronic areolar dermatitis due to methylisothiazolinone-containing bodywash. Clin Exp Dermatol, 2016; 41(1):114–115.
6.
HagvallL, Bråred-ChristenssonJ, InerotA. Occupational contact dermatitis caused by sodium cocoamphopropionate in a liquid soap used in fast-food restaurants. Contact Dermatitis, 2014; 71(2):122–124.
7.
Concha-GarzónMJ, Solano-LópezG, MontesA, et al.Follicular allergic contact dermatitis due to methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) in a rinse-off soap product. Clin Exp Dermatol, 2015; 40(6):690–691.
8.
PalmerMJ, NixonR. Polysensitisation in a laboratory scientist associated with allergic contact dermatitis from methylisothiazolinone in skin cleansers. Australas J Dermatol, 2015; 56(1):56–58.
9.
KanervaL, VanhannenM, ElsnerP, et al.Handbook of Occupational Dermatology. 1st ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2000:906–909.
10.
Dooms-GoossensA, BlockeelI. Allergic contact dermatitis and photoallergic contact dermatitis due to soaps and detergents. Clin Dermatol, 1996; 14(1):67–76.
11.
RothenborgHW, HjorthN. Allergy to perfumes from toilet soaps and detergents in patients with dermatitis. Arch Dermatol, 1968; 97(4):417–421.
12.
EpsteinJH, WuepperKD, MaibachHI. Photocontact dermatitis to halogenated salicylanilides and related compounds: a clinical and histological review of 26 patients. Arch Dermatol, 1968; 97(3):236–244.
13.
LakshmiC, SrinivasCR, AnandCV, et al.Irritancy ranking of 31 cleansers in the Indian market in a 24-h patch test. Int J Cosmet Sci, 2008; 30(4):277–283.
14.
LodénM, BuraczewskaI, EdlundF. The irritation potential and reservoir effect of mild soaps. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 49(2):91–96.
15.
GoldmanL. The skin reactions of infants and children to soaps. JAMA, 1937; 108(16):1317–1320.
16.
De GrootAC, NaterJP, LenderR, et al.Adverse effects of cosmetics and toiletries: a retrospective study in the general population. Int J Cosmet Sci, 1987; 9(6):255–259.
17.
BroeckxW, BlondeelA, Dooms-GoossensA, et al.Cosmetic intolerance. Contact Dermatitis, 1987; 16(4):189–194.
18.
De GrootAC, BeverdamEG, AyongCT, et al.The role of contact allergy in the spectrum of adverse effects caused by cosmetics and toiletries. Contact Dermatitis, 1988; 19(3):195–201.
19.
DekovenJG, WarshawEM, BelsitoDV, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results 2013–2014. Dermatitis, 2017; 28(1): 33–46.
20.
PrattMD, BelsitoDV, DeleoVA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 2001–2002 study period. Dermatitis, 2004; 15(4): 176–183.
21.
ZugKA, WarshawEM, FowlerJFJr, et al.Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005–2006. Dermatitis, 2009; 20(3):149–160.
22.
WarshawEM, MaibachHI, TaylorJS, et al.North American contact dermatitis group patch test results: 2011–2012. Dermatitis, 2015; 26(1):49–59.
23.
WarshawEM, BelsitoDV, TaylorJS, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2009 to 2010. Dermatitis, 2013; 24(2):50–59.
24.
WarshawEM, BelsitoDV, DeleoVA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 2003–2004 study period. Dermatitis, 2008; 19(3):129–136.
25.
FranswayAF, ZugKA, BelsitoDV, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for 2007–2008. Dermatitis, 2013; 24(1):10–21.
26.
MarksJG, BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermat, 2003; 14(2):59–62.
27.
KleinG, GrubauerG, FritschP. The influence of daily dish-washing with synthetic detergent on human skin. Br J Dermatol, 1992; 127(2):131–137.
28.
AustoriaA, LakshmiC, SrinivasC, et al.Irritancy potential of 17 detergents used commonly by the Indian household. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol, 2010; 76(3):249–253.
29.
RobinsonMK, KruszewskiFH, Al-AtrashJ, et al.Comparative assessment of the acute skin irritation potential of detergent formulations using a novel human 4-h patch test method. Food Chem Toxicol, 2005; 43(12):1703–1712.
30.
CahillJL, WilliamsJD, MathesonMC, et al.Occupational skin disease in Victoria, Australia. Australas J Dermatol, 2016; 57(2):108–114.
31.
AndersonJL, WarrenCA, PerezE, et al.Gender and ethnic differences in hand hygiene practices among college students. Am J Infect Control, 2008; 36(5):361–368.
32.
MikoBA, CohenB, ConwayL, et al.Determinants of personal and household hygiene among college students in New York City, 2011. Am J Infect Control, 2012; 40(10):940–945.
33.
United States Department of Labor. Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey. February 8, 2017. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm. Accessed April13, 2017.
34.
KeegelTG, NixonRL, LamontagneAD. Exposure to wet work in working Australians. Contact Dermatitis, 2012; 66(2):87–94.
35.
DiepgenTL, OfenlochRF, BruzeM, et al.Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population in different European regions. Br J Dermatol, 2016; 174(2):319–329.
36.
DiepgenTL, OfenlochR, BruzeM, et al.Prevalence of fragrance contact allergy in the general population of five European countries: a cross-sectional study. Br J Dermatol, 2015; 173(6):1411–1419.
37.
FallS, BruzeM, IsakssonM, et al.Contact allergy trends in Sweden—a retrospective comparison of patch test data from 1992, 2000, and 2009. Contact Dermatitis, 2015; 72(5):297–304.
38.
WarshawEM, AhmedRL, BelsitoDV, et al.Contact dermatitis of the hands: cross-sectional analyses of North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 1994–2004. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2007; 57(2):301–314.
39.
VindenesHK, SvanesC, LygreSHL, et al.Prevalence of, and work-related risk factors for, hand eczema in a Norwegian general population (the HUNT study). Contact Dermatitis, 2017; 77(4):214–223.
40.
LuckhauptSE, DahlhamerJM, WardBW, et al.Prevalence of dermatitis in the working population, United States, 2010 National Health Interview Survey. Am J Ind Med, 2013; 56(6):625–634.
41.
WarshawEM, KwonGP, MathiasCG, et al.Occupationally related contact dermatitis in North American food service workers referred for patch testing, 1994 to 2010. Dermatitis, 2013; 24(1):22–28.
42.
WarshawEM, SchramSE, MaibachHI, et al.Occupation-related contact dermatitis in North American health care workers referred for patch testing: cross-sectional data, 1998 to 2004. Dermatitis, 2008; 19(5):261–274.
43.
McDonaldJC, BeckMH, ChenY, et al.Incidence by occupation and industry of work-related skin diseases in the United Kingdom, 1996–2001. Occup Med (Lond), 2006; 56(6):398–405.
44.
SiegelJA, MounessaJS, DellavalleRP, et al.Comparison of contact allergens in bar soaps and liquid body washes. Dermatitis 2017.
45.
Aalto-KorteK, KuulialaO, SuuronenK, et al.Occupational contact allergy to formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers. Contact Dermatitis, 2008; 59(5):280–289.
46.
VauhkalaAR, PesonenM, SuomelaS, et al.Occupational contact allergy to methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone. Contact Dermatitis, 2015; 73(3):150–156.
AertsO, BaeckM, ConstandtL, et al.The dramatic increase in the rate of methylisothiazolinone contact allergy in Belgium: a multicentre study. Contact Dermatitis, 2014; 71(1):41–48.
49.
HosteingS, MeyerN, WatonJ, et al.Outbreak of contact sensitization to methylisothiazolinone: an analysis of French data from the REVIDAL-GERDA network. Contact Dermatitis, 2014; 70(5):262–269.
50.
MadsenJT, AndersenKE. Further evidence of the methylisothiazolinone epidemic. Contact Dermatitis, 2014; 70(4):246–247.
51.
LammintaustaK, Aalto-KorteK, AckermanL, et al.An epidemic of contact allergy to methylisothiazolinone in Finland. Contact Dermatitis, 2014; 70(3):184–185.
52.
JohnstonGA. The rise in prevalence of contact allergy to methylisothiazolinone in the British Isles. Contact Dermatitis, 2014; 70(4):238–240.
ZirwasMJ, HamannD, WarshawEM, et al.Epidemic of isothiazolinone allergy in North America: prevalence data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2013–2014. Dermatitis, 2017; 28(3):204–209.
55.
SchemanA, SeversonD. American Contact Dermatitis Society Contact Allergy Management Program: an epidemiologic tool to quantify ingredient usage. Dermatitis, 2016; 27(1):11–13.
56.
SassevilleD. Alkyl glucosides: 2017 “Allergen of the Year”. Dermatitis, 2017; 28(4):296.
57.
SchnuchA, LessmannH, GeierJ, et al.Is cocamidopropyl betaine a contact allergen? Analysis of network data and short review of the literature. Contact Dermatitis, 2011; 64(4):203–211.
58.
SuuronenK, PesonenM, Aalto-KorteK. Occupational contact allergy to cocamidopropyl betaine and its impurities. Contact Dermatitis, 2012; 66(5):286–292.
Aalto-KorteK, PesonenM, KuulialaO, et al.Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by coconut fatty acids diethanolamide. Contact Dermatitis, 2014; 70(3):169–174.
61.
BuckleyDA. Fragrance ingredient labelling in products on sale in the U.K. Br J Dermatol 2007;157(2):295–300.
62.
YazarK, JohnssonS, LindML, et al.Preservatives and fragrances in selected consumer-available cosmetics and detergents. Contact Dermatitis, 2011; 64(5):265–272.
63.
NardelliA, DriegheJ, ClaesL, et al.Fragrance allergens in ‘specific’ cosmetic products. Contact Dermatitis, 2011; 64(4):212–219.
