Differences in consumer product availability, distribution, and use may lead to national differences in contact sensitization frequencies.
Objective
The aim of the study was to describe the differences in contact allergy between the United States (US) and Canada.
Methods
This is a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group data from 2005 to 2016. Frequencies of demographics, clinical characteristics, positive reactions, trends, and occupations were calculated.
Results
A total of 28,640 patients underwent patch testing. At least 1 positive patch test was observed in 18,599 patients (US, 11,641 [66.5%]; Canada, 6958 [62.5%]). When comparing the 2 groups, US positive reactions were more likely to occur in male patients (odds ratio [OR] = 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.31–1.49), older than 40 years (OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.22–1.38), Black (OR = 2.67, 95% CI = 2.24–3.19) or Hispanic race (OR = 3.53, 95% CI = 2.61–4.78), and/or patients with scattered generalized dermatitis (OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.80–2.13). They were less likely to occur in patients with eczema (OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.57–0.65) and Asian race (OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.44–0.56). Nickel (US, 16.0%; Canada, 22.4%) and methylisothiazolinone (US, 13.4%; Canada, 11.0%) were the top allergens. The third most frequent was neomycin (US, 11.7%) and fragrance mix I (Canada, 10.2%).
Conclusions
National differences in allergen prevalence and trends exist in North America.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Regulation (EC) N° 1223/2009. In: European Union, ed 2009.
2.
Cosmetic RegulationsC.R.C., c. 869. In: Canada, ed 2009.
3.
FD&C Act Chapter VI: Cosmetics. In: Food and Drug Administration, ed. 21. United States. 1938.
4.
De GrootAC, MaibachHI. Frequency of sensitization to common allergens: comparison between Europe and the USA. Contact Dermatitis, 2010; 62(6):325–329.
5.
ElliottJF, AbbasM, HullP, et al.Decreasing rates of neomycin sensitization in Western Canada. J Cutan Med Surg, 2016; 20(5):446–452.
6.
SchnuchA, GeierJ, UterW, et al.National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Population-adjusted frequencies of sensitization (PAFS) in 40,000 patients from a multicenter study (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis, 1997; 37(5):200–209.
7.
ThompsonTR, BelsitoDV. Regional variation in prevalence and etiology of allergic contact dermatitis. Am J Contact Dermat, 2002; 13(4):177–182.
8.
WarshawEM, SchramSE, BelsitoDV, et al.Patch-test reactions to topical anesthetics: retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data, 2001 to 2004. Dermatitis, 2008; 19(2):81–95.
9.
DeKovenJG, WarshawEM, ZugKA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2015–2016. Dermatitis, 2018; 29(6):297–309.
10.
UterW, SchwitullaJ, ThyssenJP, et al.The ‘overall yield’ with the baseline series—a useful addition to the array of MOAHLFA factors describing departmental characteristics of patch tested patients. Dermatitis, 2011; 65(6):322–328.
SchemanA, SeversonD. American Contact Dermatitis Society Contact Allergy Management Program: an epidemiologic tool to determine relative prevalence of contact allergens. Dermatitis, 2016; 27(1):9–10.
Garcia-RabascoAE, Zaragoza-NinetV, Garcia-RuizR, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis due to nickel: descriptive study in a tertiary hospital, 2000-2010. Actas Dermosifiliogr, 2014; 105(6):590–596.
18.
Rosholm ComstedtL, DahlinJ, BruzeM, et al.Prevalence of contact allergy to metals: nickel, palladium, and cobalt in Southern Sweden from 1995–2016. Contact Dermatitis, 2020; 82(4):218–226.
19.
RegistrationEvaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). In: Annex XVII. vol. 27. Europe: European Chemicals Agency; 2007.
20.
State Administration for Quality Supervision and Inspection and Quarantine. GB 28480. Adornment-Provision for Limit of Baneful Elements. China; 2012.
WilliamsonDA, CarterGP, HowdenBP. Current and emerging topical antibacterials and antiseptics: agents, action, and resistance patterns. Clin Microbiol Rev, 2017; 30(3):827–860.
23.
NolanBV, LevenderMM, DavisSA, et al.Trends in the use of topical over the counter products in the management of dermatologic disease in the United States. Dermatol Online J, 2012; 18(2):1.
24.
WeinhammerAP, SchemanA, ReederMJ. Prevalence of surfactant in the Contact Allergen Management Program. Dermatitis, 2019; 30(6):358–362.
25.
AnanthapadmanabhanKP, MooreDJ, SubramanyanK, et al.Cleansing without compromise: the impact of cleansers on the skin barrier and the technology of mild cleansing. Dermatol Ther, 2004; 17(Suppl 1):16–25.
26.
BreyNL, FowlerJFJr. Relevance of positive patch-test reactions to cocamidopropyl betaine and amidoamine. Dermatitis, 2004; 15(1):7–9.
27.
de GrootAC. Contact allergy to cosmetics: causative ingredients. Contact Dermatitis, 1987; 17(1):26–34.
28.
FotiC, RiganoL, VenaGA, et al.Contact allergy to oleamidopropyl dimethylamine and related substances. Contact Dermatitis, 1995; 33(2):132–133.
29.
DiepgenTL, NaldiL, BruzeM, et al.Prevalence of contact allergy to p-phenylenediamine in the European general population. J Invest Dermatol, 2016; 136(2):409–415.
RedlickF, DeKovenJ. Allergic contact dermatitis to paraphenylendiamine in hair dye after sensitization from black henna tattoos: a report of 6 cases. CMAJ, 2007; 176(4):445–446.
32.
McGowanMA, SchemanA, JacobSE. Propylene glycol in contact dermatitis: a systematic review. Dermatitis, 2018; 29(1):6–12.
33.
FiumeMM, BergfeldWF, BelsitoDV, et al.Safety assessment of propylene glycol, tripropylene glycol, and PPGs as used in cosmetics. Int J Toxicol, 2012; 31(Suppl 5):245S–260S.
34.
MarksJG, AndersonBE, DeLeoVA. Contact and Occupational Dermatology. St Louis, MO: Mosby; 2002.
35.
BarnettG. Lanolin and derivatives. Cosmet Toiletries, 1986; 101:21–44.
36.
WarshawEM, NelsenDD, MaibachHI, et al.Positive patch test reactions to lanolin: cross-sectional data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 1994 to 2006. Dermatitis, 2009; 20(2):79–88.
37.
MiestRY, YianniasJA, ChangYH, et al.Diagnosis and prevalence of lanolin allergy. Dermatitis, 2013; 24(3):119–123.
38.
American Contact Dermatitis Society Contact Allergen Management Program Safe Product List. Available at: http://www.acdscamp.org/Search_Allergen. Accessed June16, 2020.
