The economic burden of cosmetics, such as moisturizers, has been increasing. Despite the high price of some market moisturizers, there have been no studies evaluating the allergenicity of these products.
Objective
The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential allergens within moisturizers based on economic value, by analyzing the substances found in moisturizers available online at the largest drugstore chain—CVS Health (CVS Health, Woonsocket, RI).
Methods
In this cross-sectional study, ingredients found in 50 expensive and 50 inexpensive moisturizers were matched with sensitizers within the Core Allergen Series published by the American Contact Dermatitis Society and the North American Contact Dermatitis Group. Student t test was used to compare the mean number of allergens present in each group. A χ2 test or Fisher exact test, where necessary, was used to compare the rates of specific allergen groups between the expensive and inexpensive products.
Results
Twenty-six allergenic substances were present overall in the 100 total products surveyed. The expensive moisturizers averaged significantly more allergens per product (8.28 vs 5.60, P = 0.003) than the inexpensive products.
Conclusions
The sensitizing potential of expensive moisturizers may be higher than that of inexpensive moisturizers. Physicians may counsel cosmetic-induced allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) patients that monetary value is not a suitable proxy for evaluating the risk of ACD.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
De GrootAC, BruynzeelDP, BosJD, et al.The allergens in cosmetics. Arch Dermatol, 1988; 124(10):1525–1529.
2.
De GrootAC, WeylandJ, NaterJP. Nail cosmetics. In: Unwanted Effects of Cosmetics and Drugs Used in Dermatology. 3rd ed. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier; 1994:524–529.
3.
ThyssenJP, LinnebergA, MenneT, et al.The epidemiology of contact allergy in the general population—prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis, 2007; 57(5):287–299.
4.
WolfR, WolfD, TuzunB, et al.Contact dermatitis to cosmetics. Clin Dermatol, 2001; 19(4):502–515.
5.
RossiE, PrlicA, HoffmanR. Study of the European Cosmetics Industry. Lexington, MA: Global Insight; 2007.
6.
YuJ, TreatJ, ChaneyK, et al.Potential allergens in disposable diaper wipes, topical diaper preparations, and disposable diapers: under-recognized etiology of pediatric perineal dermatitis. Dermatitis, 2016; 27(3):110–118.
7.
AschenbeckKA, WarshawEM. Allergenic ingredients in personal hygiene wet wipes. Dermatitis, 2017; 28(5):317–322.
SchalockPC, DunnickCA, NedorostS, et al.American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series: 2017 update. Dermatitis, 2017; 28(2):141–143.
11.
DeKovenJG, WarshawEM, BelsitoDV, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results 2013–2014. Dermatitis, 2017; 28(1):33–46.
12.
PolánskaA, Dańczak-PazdrowskaA, SilnyW, et al.Evaluation of selected skin barrier functions in atopic dermatitis in relation to the disease severity and pruritus. Postep Derm Allergol, 2012; 29(5):373–377.
13.
FriedmanMP. Quality and price considerations in rational consumer decision making. J Consumer Aff, 1967; 1(1):13–23.
MarksJG, AndersonBE, DeLeoVA. Allergens. In: Contact & Occupational Dermatology. 4th ed. New Delhi, India: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers; 2016:163.
16.
ArribasMP, SoroP, SilvestreJF. Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances: part 2. Actas Dermosifiliogr, 2013; 104(1):29–37.
17.
BonefeldCM, NielsenMM, RubinIM, et al.Enhanced sensitization and elicitation responses caused by mixtures of common fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis, 2011; 65(6):336–342.
18.
UterW, JohansenJD, BorjeA, et al.Categorization of fragrance contact allergens for prioritization of preventive measures: clinical and experimental data and consideration of structure-activity relationships. Contact Dermatitis, 2013; 69(4):196–230.
19.
WarshawEM, BuchholzHJ, BelsitoDV, et al.Allergic patch test reactions associated with cosmetics: retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2001–2004. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2009; 60(1):23–38.
20.
WetterDA, YianniasJA, PrakashAV, et al.Results of patch testing to personal care product allergens in a standard series and a supplemental cosmetic series: an analysis of 945 patients from the Mayo Clinic Contact Dermatitis Group, 2000–2007. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2010; 63(5):789–798.
21.
JohnsonW, BergfeldWF, BelsitoDV, et al.Safety assessment of benzyl alcohol, benzoic acid and its salts, and benzyl benzoate. Int J Toxicol, 2017; 36(Suppl 3):5S–30S.
22.
De GrootAC, VeenstraM. Formaldehyde-releasers in cosmetics in the USA and in Europe. Contact Dermatitis, 2010; 62(4):221–224.
23.
De GrootA, WhiteIR, FlyvholmMA, et al.Formaldehyde-releasers in cosmetics: relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy. Part 2. Patch test relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy, experimental provocation tests, amount of formaldehyde released, and assessment of risk to consumers allergic to formaldehyde. Contact Dermatitis, 2010; 62(1):18–31.
24.
YuSH, SoodA, TaylorJS. Patch testing for methylisothiazolinone and methylchloroisothiazolinone-methylisothiazolinone contact allergy. JAMA Dermatol, 2016; 152(1):67–72.
SchnuchA, LessmannH, GeierJ, et al.Contact allergy to preservatives. Analysis of IVDK data 1996–2009. Br J Dermatol, 2011; 164(6):1316–1325.
30.
RalphN, VermaS, MerryS, et al.What is the relevance of contact allergy to sodium metabisulfite and which concentration of the allergen should we use?. Dermatitis, 2015; 26(4):162–165.
31.
CashmanAL, WarshawEM. Parabens: a review of epidemiology, structure, allergenicity, and hormonal properties. Dermatitis, 2005; 16(2):57–66; quiz 55–56.
32.
RoutledgeEJ, ParkerJ, OdumJ, et al.Some alkyl hydroxy benzoate preservatives (parabens) are estrogenic. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 1998; 153(1):12–19.
33.
OishiS. Effects of propyl paraben on the male reproductive system. Food Chem Toxicol, 2002; 40(12):1807–1813.
34.
OkuboT, YokoyamaY, KanoK, et al.ER-dependent estrogenic activity of parabens assessed by proliferation of human breast cancer MCF-7 cells and expression of ERalpha and PR. Food Chem Toxicol, 2001; 39(12):1225–1232.
35.
IsaacJ, ScheinmanPL. Benzalkonium chloride: an irritant and sensitizer. Dermatitis, 2017; 28(6):346–352.
36.
SpencerA, GazzaniP, ThompsonDA. Acrylate and methacrylate contact allergy and allergic contact disease: a 13-year review. Contact Dermatitis, 2016; 75(3):157–164.
37.
Aalto-KorteK, AlankoK, KuulialaO, et al.Methacrylate and acrylate allergy in dental personnel. Contact Dermatitis, 2007; 57(5):324–330.
38.
ReiderN, KomerickiP, HausenBM, et al.The seamy side of natural medicines: contact sensitization to arnica (Arnica montana L.) and marigold (Calendula officinalis L.). Contact Dermatitis, 2001; 45(5):269–272.
SugiuraM, HayakawaR, KatoY, et al.Results of patch testing with lavender oil in Japan. Contact Dermatitis, 2000; 43(3):157–160.
41.
CorazzaM, BorghiA, LauriolaMM, et al.Use of topical herbal remedies and cosmetics: a questionnaire-based investigation in dermatology out-patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol, 2009; 23(11):1298–1303.
42.
FerreiraM, TeixeiraM, SilvaE, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis to Aloe vera. Contact Dermatitis, 2007; 57(4):278–279.
43.
HosodaH, Takatsu. Precision of dental models taken with agar-alginates. Hotetsu Rinsho, 1983; 16(3):359–364.
De GrootAC. Propolis: a review of properties, applications, chemical composition, contact allergy, and other adverse effects. Dermatitis, 2013; 24(6):263–282.
46.
RajparaS, WilkinsonMS, KingCM, et al.The importance of propolis in patch testing—a multicentre survey. Contact Dermatitis, 2009; 61(5):287–290.
47.
PaulsenE, ChistensenLP, AndersenKE. Cosmetics and herbal remedies with Compositae plant extracts—are they tolerated by Compositae-allergic patients?. Contact Dermatitis, 2008; 58(1):15–23.
48.
SchemanA, SchemanN, RakowskiEM. European Directive fragrances in natural products. Dermatitis, 2014; 25(2):51–55.
49.
ToyodaT, WatanabeS, KawasakiM, et al.Dihydrodi-isoeugenol found in ylang ylang oil. Skin Res, 1989; 31(7):35–43.
SrivastavaP, BajajA. Ylang-ylang oil not an uncommon sensitizer in India. Indian J Dermatol, 2014; 59(2):200–201.
52.
AbererW. Contact allergy and medicinal herbs. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges, 2008; 6(1):15–24.
53.
PaulsenE. Contact sensitization from Compositae-containing herbal remedies and cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis, 2002; 47(4):189–198.
54.
AsarchA, ScheinmanPL. Sorbitan sesquioleate, a common emulsifier in topical corticosteroids, is an important contact allergen. Dermatitis, 2008; 19(6):323–327.
55.
WarshawEM, BelsitoDV, TaylorJS, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2009 to 2010. Dermatitis, 2013; 24(2):50–59.
TostiA, GuerraL, MorelliR, et al.Prevalence and sources of sensitization to emulsifiers: a clinical study. Contact Dermatitis, 1990; 23(2):68–72.
58.
Lanolin allergy. Br Med J, 1973; 2(5863):379–380.
59.
WarshawEM, BottoNC, MaibachHI, et al.Positive patch-test reactions to propylene glycol: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 1996 to 2006. Dermatitis, 2009; 20(1):14–20.
60.
AdamsAK, ConnollySM. Allergic contact dermatitis from vitamin E: the experience at Mayo Clinic Arizona, 1987 to 2007. Dermatitis, 2010; 21(4):199–202.
61.
DissanayakeM, PowellSM. Allergic contact dermatitis from BHT in leg ulcer patients. Contact Dermatitis, 1989; 21(3):195.
62.
WhiteIR, LovellCR, CroninE. Antioxidants in cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis, 1984; 11(5):265–267.
63.
TomarJ, JainVK, AggarwalK, et al.Contact allergies to cosmetics: testing with 52 cosmetic ingredients and personal products. J Dermatol, 2005; 32(12):951–955.
64.
TatebayashiM, OisoN, WadaT, et al.Possible allergic contact dermatitis with reticulate postinflammatory pigmentation caused by hydroquinone. J Dermatol, 2014; 41(7):669–670.
65.
SteenkampJ. The relationship between price and quality in the marketplace. Economist, 1988; 136(4):491–507.
