Allergic contact dermatitis caused by nail acrylates in Europe. An EECDRG study

Margarida Gonçalo; André Pinho; Tove Agner; Klaus E. Andersen; Magnus Bruze; Thomas Diepgen; Caterina Foti; Ana Giménez-Arnau; An Goossens; Jeanne D. Johanssen; Evy Paulsen; Cecilia Svedman; Mark Wilkinson; Kristiina Aalto-Korte

doi:10.1111/cod.12942

Allergic contact dermatitis caused by nail acrylates in Europe. An EECDRG study

Margarida Gonçalo^*, André Pinho, Tove Agner, Klaus E. Andersen, Magnus Bruze, Thomas Diepgen, Caterina Foti, Ana Giménez-Arnau, An Goossens, Jeanne D. Johanssen, Evy Paulsen, Cecilia Svedman, Mark Wilkinson, Kristiina Aalto-Korte

^*Corresponding author af dette arbejde

Institut for Klinisk Medicin

35 Citationer (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by nail acrylates, also including methacrylates and cyanoacrylates here, is being increasingly reported. Methods: A retrospective study in 11 European Environmental Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG) clinics collected information on cases of ACD caused by nail acrylates diagnosed by aimed testing between 2013 and 2015. Results: Among 18 228 studied patients, 136 had ACD caused by nail acrylates (0.75%; 95%CI: 0.60–0.90), representing 67.3% (95%CI: 60.4–73.7) of ACD cases caused by acrylates. There were 135 females and 1 male, with a mean age ± standard deviation of 36.7 ± 12.2 years; 59 (43.4%) were exposed as consumers, and 77 (56.6%) were occupationally exposed. Occupational cases were more frequent in southern Europe (83.7%), and were younger (mean age of 33.4 ± 8.9 years); most developed ACD during the first year at work (65.0%), and at least 11.7% had to leave their jobs. Skin lesions involved the hands in 121 patients (88.9%) and the face in 50 (36.8%), with the face being the only affected site in 14 (10.3%). Most patients reacted to two or more acrylates on patch testing, mainly to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) (92.5%), 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate (88.6%), ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (69.2%), and ethyl cyanoacrylate (9.9%). Conclusions: Nail cosmetics were responsible for the majority of ACD cases caused by acrylates, affecting nail beauticians and consumers, and therefore calling for stricter regulation and preventive measures. As HEMA detects most cases, and isolated facial lesions may be overlooked, inclusion of this allergen in the baseline series may be warranted.

Originalsprog	Engelsk
Tidsskrift	Contact Dermatitis
Vol/bind	78
Udgave nummer	4
Sider (fra-til)	254-260
Antal sider	7
ISSN	0105-1873
DOI	https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12942
Status	Udgivet - 2018

Adgang til dokumentet

10.1111/cod.12942

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/cod.12942

Citationsformater

@article{bd1d9e25e8ec4aae9242e4366b5caeab,

title = "Allergic contact dermatitis caused by nail acrylates in Europe. An EECDRG study",

abstract = "Background: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by nail acrylates, also including methacrylates and cyanoacrylates here, is being increasingly reported. Methods: A retrospective study in 11 European Environmental Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG) clinics collected information on cases of ACD caused by nail acrylates diagnosed by aimed testing between 2013 and 2015. Results: Among 18 228 studied patients, 136 had ACD caused by nail acrylates (0.75%; 95%CI: 0.60–0.90), representing 67.3% (95%CI: 60.4–73.7) of ACD cases caused by acrylates. There were 135 females and 1 male, with a mean age ± standard deviation of 36.7 ± 12.2 years; 59 (43.4%) were exposed as consumers, and 77 (56.6%) were occupationally exposed. Occupational cases were more frequent in southern Europe (83.7%), and were younger (mean age of 33.4 ± 8.9 years); most developed ACD during the first year at work (65.0%), and at least 11.7% had to leave their jobs. Skin lesions involved the hands in 121 patients (88.9%) and the face in 50 (36.8%), with the face being the only affected site in 14 (10.3%). Most patients reacted to two or more acrylates on patch testing, mainly to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) (92.5%), 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate (88.6%), ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (69.2%), and ethyl cyanoacrylate (9.9%). Conclusions: Nail cosmetics were responsible for the majority of ACD cases caused by acrylates, affecting nail beauticians and consumers, and therefore calling for stricter regulation and preventive measures. As HEMA detects most cases, and isolated facial lesions may be overlooked, inclusion of this allergen in the baseline series may be warranted.",

keywords = "acrylates, allergic contact dermatitis, cosmetics, hydroxyethyl methacrylate, nail aesthetics, occupational",

author = "Margarida Gon{\c c}alo and Andr{\'e} Pinho and Tove Agner and Andersen, {Klaus E.} and Magnus Bruze and Thomas Diepgen and Caterina Foti and Ana Gim{\'e}nez-Arnau and An Goossens and Johanssen, {Jeanne D.} and Evy Paulsen and Cecilia Svedman and Mark Wilkinson and Kristiina Aalto-Korte",

year = "2018",

doi = "10.1111/cod.12942",

language = "English",

volume = "78",

pages = "254--260",

journal = "Contact Dermatitis",

issn = "0105-1873",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Allergic contact dermatitis caused by nail acrylates in Europe. An EECDRG study

AU - Gonçalo, Margarida

AU - Pinho, André

AU - Agner, Tove

AU - Andersen, Klaus E.

AU - Bruze, Magnus

AU - Diepgen, Thomas

AU - Foti, Caterina

AU - Giménez-Arnau, Ana

AU - Goossens, An

AU - Johanssen, Jeanne D.

AU - Paulsen, Evy

AU - Svedman, Cecilia

AU - Wilkinson, Mark

AU - Aalto-Korte, Kristiina

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Background: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by nail acrylates, also including methacrylates and cyanoacrylates here, is being increasingly reported. Methods: A retrospective study in 11 European Environmental Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG) clinics collected information on cases of ACD caused by nail acrylates diagnosed by aimed testing between 2013 and 2015. Results: Among 18 228 studied patients, 136 had ACD caused by nail acrylates (0.75%; 95%CI: 0.60–0.90), representing 67.3% (95%CI: 60.4–73.7) of ACD cases caused by acrylates. There were 135 females and 1 male, with a mean age ± standard deviation of 36.7 ± 12.2 years; 59 (43.4%) were exposed as consumers, and 77 (56.6%) were occupationally exposed. Occupational cases were more frequent in southern Europe (83.7%), and were younger (mean age of 33.4 ± 8.9 years); most developed ACD during the first year at work (65.0%), and at least 11.7% had to leave their jobs. Skin lesions involved the hands in 121 patients (88.9%) and the face in 50 (36.8%), with the face being the only affected site in 14 (10.3%). Most patients reacted to two or more acrylates on patch testing, mainly to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) (92.5%), 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate (88.6%), ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (69.2%), and ethyl cyanoacrylate (9.9%). Conclusions: Nail cosmetics were responsible for the majority of ACD cases caused by acrylates, affecting nail beauticians and consumers, and therefore calling for stricter regulation and preventive measures. As HEMA detects most cases, and isolated facial lesions may be overlooked, inclusion of this allergen in the baseline series may be warranted.

AB - Background: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by nail acrylates, also including methacrylates and cyanoacrylates here, is being increasingly reported. Methods: A retrospective study in 11 European Environmental Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG) clinics collected information on cases of ACD caused by nail acrylates diagnosed by aimed testing between 2013 and 2015. Results: Among 18 228 studied patients, 136 had ACD caused by nail acrylates (0.75%; 95%CI: 0.60–0.90), representing 67.3% (95%CI: 60.4–73.7) of ACD cases caused by acrylates. There were 135 females and 1 male, with a mean age ± standard deviation of 36.7 ± 12.2 years; 59 (43.4%) were exposed as consumers, and 77 (56.6%) were occupationally exposed. Occupational cases were more frequent in southern Europe (83.7%), and were younger (mean age of 33.4 ± 8.9 years); most developed ACD during the first year at work (65.0%), and at least 11.7% had to leave their jobs. Skin lesions involved the hands in 121 patients (88.9%) and the face in 50 (36.8%), with the face being the only affected site in 14 (10.3%). Most patients reacted to two or more acrylates on patch testing, mainly to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) (92.5%), 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate (88.6%), ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (69.2%), and ethyl cyanoacrylate (9.9%). Conclusions: Nail cosmetics were responsible for the majority of ACD cases caused by acrylates, affecting nail beauticians and consumers, and therefore calling for stricter regulation and preventive measures. As HEMA detects most cases, and isolated facial lesions may be overlooked, inclusion of this allergen in the baseline series may be warranted.

KW - acrylates

KW - allergic contact dermatitis

KW - cosmetics

KW - hydroxyethyl methacrylate

KW - nail aesthetics

KW - occupational

U2 - 10.1111/cod.12942

DO - 10.1111/cod.12942

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 29266254

AN - SCOPUS:85043461448

SN - 0105-1873

VL - 78

SP - 254

EP - 260

JO - Contact Dermatitis

JF - Contact Dermatitis

IS - 4

ER -

Allergic contact dermatitis caused by nail acrylates in Europe. An EECDRG study

Abstract

Adgang til dokumentet

Fingeraftryk

Citationsformater