Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology 1/2019

01-02-2019

Contact Dermatitis to Cosmetics

Author: Matthew J. Zirwas

Published in: Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to cosmetics is extremely common—probably the most common reason patients present for patch testing. The diagnosis should initially be suspected based on the patient history and the distribution of the dermatitis. Once the diagnosis is suspected, empiric recommendations for low allergenicity products should be implemented until patch testing is performed. The face is exposed to greatest number of cosmetics, and as a result, facial dermatitis is the prototypical presentation of cosmetic contact dermatitis. In particular, the eyelids are frequently involved, with common sources including shampoo, conditioner, facial cleansers, makeup remover, mascara, nail polish, acrylic nails, makeup sponges, eyelash curlers, and allergens transferred from the hands. Other typical facial distributions include lateral facial dermatitis, central facial dermatitis, and generalized facial dermatitis, each with its own unique set of most likely causes. Lateral facial and/or neck dermatitis is often a “rinse-off” pattern, with shampoo and/or conditioner rinsing down over these areas. Central facial dermatitis, when due to ACD, can be due to gold being released from gold rings and contaminating makeup foundation or to ingredients in moisturizers, wrinkle creams, topical medications, or makeup. Sparing of the lateral face is largely due to the fact that patients are more assiduous about applying the aforementioned substances to the central face than to the lateral face. Generalized facial dermatitis should trigger consideration of airborne contactants, facial cleansers, makeup foundation, and moisturizers and medications that are being applied confluently. Once adequate patch testing has been performed, there are a number of extremely helpful resources to help patients find products that are safe for use, such as the American Contact Dermatitis Society’s “Contact Allergen Management Program” app.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Amin KA, Belsito DV (2006) The aetiology of eyelid dermatitis: a 10-year retrospective analysis. Contact Dermatitis 55(5):280–285CrossRefPubMed Amin KA, Belsito DV (2006) The aetiology of eyelid dermatitis: a 10-year retrospective analysis. Contact Dermatitis 55(5):280–285CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Pascher F (1982) Adverse reactions to eye area cosmetics and their management. J Soc Cosmet Chem 33:249 Pascher F (1982) Adverse reactions to eye area cosmetics and their management. J Soc Cosmet Chem 33:249
3.
go back to reference Mohajerin AH (1972) Common cutaneous disorders of the eyelids. Cutis 10:279 Mohajerin AH (1972) Common cutaneous disorders of the eyelids. Cutis 10:279
4.
go back to reference Rietschel RL, Warshaw EM, Sasseville D, Fowler JF, DeLeo V, Belsito DV, Taylor JS, Storrs FJ, Mathias CG, Maibach HI, Marks JG, Zug KA, Pratt M, North American Contact Dermatitis Group (2007) Common contact allergens associated with eyelid dermatitis: data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2003-2004 study period. Dermatitis 18(2):78–81CrossRefPubMed Rietschel RL, Warshaw EM, Sasseville D, Fowler JF, DeLeo V, Belsito DV, Taylor JS, Storrs FJ, Mathias CG, Maibach HI, Marks JG, Zug KA, Pratt M, North American Contact Dermatitis Group (2007) Common contact allergens associated with eyelid dermatitis: data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2003-2004 study period. Dermatitis 18(2):78–81CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Dejobert Y, Delaporte E, Piette F, Thomas P (2005) Eyelid dermatitis with positive patch test to coconut diethanolamide. Contact Dermatitis 52(3):173CrossRefPubMed Dejobert Y, Delaporte E, Piette F, Thomas P (2005) Eyelid dermatitis with positive patch test to coconut diethanolamide. Contact Dermatitis 52(3):173CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Gallo R, Marro I, Pavesi A (2005) Allergic contact dermatitis from shellac in mascara. Contact Dermatitis 53(4):238CrossRefPubMed Gallo R, Marro I, Pavesi A (2005) Allergic contact dermatitis from shellac in mascara. Contact Dermatitis 53(4):238CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Le Coz CJ et al (2002) Allergic contact dermatitis from shellac in mascara. Contact Dermatitis 46(3):149–152CrossRefPubMed Le Coz CJ et al (2002) Allergic contact dermatitis from shellac in mascara. Contact Dermatitis 46(3):149–152CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Saxena M, Warshaw E, Ahmed DD (2001) Eyelid allergic contact dermatitis to black iron oxide. Am J Contact Dermat 12(1):38–39PubMed Saxena M, Warshaw E, Ahmed DD (2001) Eyelid allergic contact dermatitis to black iron oxide. Am J Contact Dermat 12(1):38–39PubMed
9.
10.
go back to reference Guin JD (2000) Eyelid dermatitis from benzophenone used in nail enhancement. Contact Dermatitis 43(5):308–309PubMed Guin JD (2000) Eyelid dermatitis from benzophenone used in nail enhancement. Contact Dermatitis 43(5):308–309PubMed
11.
go back to reference Moffitt DL, Sansom JE (2002) Allergic contact dermatitis from phthalic anhydride/trimellitic anhydride/glycols copolymer in nail varnish. Contact Dermatitis 46(4):236CrossRefPubMed Moffitt DL, Sansom JE (2002) Allergic contact dermatitis from phthalic anhydride/trimellitic anhydride/glycols copolymer in nail varnish. Contact Dermatitis 46(4):236CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Frosch PJ, Kligman AM (1977) A method for appraising the stinging capacity of topically applied substances. J Soc Cosmet Chem 28:197 Frosch PJ, Kligman AM (1977) A method for appraising the stinging capacity of topically applied substances. J Soc Cosmet Chem 28:197
13.
14.
go back to reference Lahti A, Oikarinen A, Viinikka L, Ylikorkala O, Hannuksela M (1983) Prostaglandins in contact urticaria induced by benzoic acid. Acta Derm Venereol 63(5):425–427PubMed Lahti A, Oikarinen A, Viinikka L, Ylikorkala O, Hannuksela M (1983) Prostaglandins in contact urticaria induced by benzoic acid. Acta Derm Venereol 63(5):425–427PubMed
15.
go back to reference Lahti A, Väänänen A, Kokkonen EL, Hannuksela M (1987) Acetylsalicylic acid inhibits non-immunologic contact urticaria. Contact Dermatitis 16(3):133–135CrossRefPubMed Lahti A, Väänänen A, Kokkonen EL, Hannuksela M (1987) Acetylsalicylic acid inhibits non-immunologic contact urticaria. Contact Dermatitis 16(3):133–135CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Maibach HI, Engasser P (1988) Management of cosmetic intolerance syndrome. Clin Dermatol 6(3):102–107CrossRefPubMed Maibach HI, Engasser P (1988) Management of cosmetic intolerance syndrome. Clin Dermatol 6(3):102–107CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Sugai T, Takahashi Y, Takagi T (1977) Pigmented cosmetic dermatitis and coal tar dyes. Contact Dermatitis 3(5):249–256CrossRefPubMed Sugai T, Takahashi Y, Takagi T (1977) Pigmented cosmetic dermatitis and coal tar dyes. Contact Dermatitis 3(5):249–256CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Nakavama H, Hanaoka H, Ohshiro A (1974) Allergen controlled system (ACS). Kanehara Shuppan Co, Tokyo Nakavama H, Hanaoka H, Ohshiro A (1974) Allergen controlled system (ACS). Kanehara Shuppan Co, Tokyo
19.
go back to reference Jacob SE, Castanedo-Tardan MP (2008) A diagnostic pearl in allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances: the atomizer sign. Cutis 82(5):317–318PubMed Jacob SE, Castanedo-Tardan MP (2008) A diagnostic pearl in allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances: the atomizer sign. Cutis 82(5):317–318PubMed
20.
go back to reference Britz MB, Maibach HI (1979) Human cutaneous vulvar reactivity to irritants. Contact Dermatitis 5(6):375–377CrossRefPubMed Britz MB, Maibach HI (1979) Human cutaneous vulvar reactivity to irritants. Contact Dermatitis 5(6):375–377CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Lewis FM, Harrington CI, Gawkrodger DJ (1994) Contact sensitivity in pruritus vulvae: a common and manageable problem. Contact Dermatitis 31(4):264–265CrossRefPubMed Lewis FM, Harrington CI, Gawkrodger DJ (1994) Contact sensitivity in pruritus vulvae: a common and manageable problem. Contact Dermatitis 31(4):264–265CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Lewis FM, Shah M, Gawkrodger DJ (1997) Contact sensitivity in pruritus vulvae: patch test results and clinical outcome. Am J Contact Dermat 8(3):137–140PubMed Lewis FM, Shah M, Gawkrodger DJ (1997) Contact sensitivity in pruritus vulvae: patch test results and clinical outcome. Am J Contact Dermat 8(3):137–140PubMed
23.
go back to reference Petersen CS (1997) Lack of contact allergy in consecutive women with vulvodynia. Contact Dermatitis 37(1):46–47CrossRefPubMed Petersen CS (1997) Lack of contact allergy in consecutive women with vulvodynia. Contact Dermatitis 37(1):46–47CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Nunns D, Ferguson J, Beck M, Mandal D (1997) Is patch testing necessary in vulval vestibulitis? Contact Dermatitis 37(2):87–89CrossRefPubMed Nunns D, Ferguson J, Beck M, Mandal D (1997) Is patch testing necessary in vulval vestibulitis? Contact Dermatitis 37(2):87–89CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
27.
go back to reference Paley K, English JC 3rd, Zirwas MJ (2008) Pterygium inversum unguis secondary to acrylate allergy. J Am Acad Dermatol 58(2 Suppl):S53–S54CrossRefPubMed Paley K, English JC 3rd, Zirwas MJ (2008) Pterygium inversum unguis secondary to acrylate allergy. J Am Acad Dermatol 58(2 Suppl):S53–S54CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Ramos L, Cabral R, Goncalo M (2014) Allergic contact dermatitis caused by acrylates and methacrylates—a 7-year study. Contact Dermatitis 71(2):102–107CrossRefPubMed Ramos L, Cabral R, Goncalo M (2014) Allergic contact dermatitis caused by acrylates and methacrylates—a 7-year study. Contact Dermatitis 71(2):102–107CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Drucker AM, Pratt MD (2011) Acrylate contact allergy: patient characteristics and evaluation of screening allergens. Dermatitis 22(2):98–101PubMed Drucker AM, Pratt MD (2011) Acrylate contact allergy: patient characteristics and evaluation of screening allergens. Dermatitis 22(2):98–101PubMed
Metadata
Title
Contact Dermatitis to Cosmetics
Author
Matthew J. Zirwas
Publication date
01-02-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology / Issue 1/2019
Print ISSN: 1080-0549
Electronic ISSN: 1559-0267
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12016-018-8717-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology 1/2019 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.