Allergic contact dermatitis due to polyvinylpyrrolidone (<scp>PVP</scp>)/eicosene copolymer

Buonomo, Michele; Warshaw, Erin M.

doi:10.1111/cod.13878

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is not surprising that no data regarding the skin toxicity of PVP were found since it is know that PVP and eicosene alone are regarded as non-sensitizing; their copolymer, however, may induce skin sensitization [92]. Culprit exposures for PVP copolymers seem to be mainly skin care products such as moisturizers and lip products such as lipstick [88][89][90][91]. This suggests that hairdressers, who are also frequent consumers of the aforementioned products, may be exposed primarily through the well-groomed appearance expected in the hairdressing trade, rather than in the performance of their professional duties.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From a methodological point of view, the presented case reports highlight the need for patch testing patients' own products, e.g., moisturizers, lipsticks, sunscreens, perming solutions, etc., to identify causative allergens. In those case reports, patients' own products were patch tested initially, then followed by further patch testing of the substances contained in the product [77,[80][81][82]85,[88][89][90][91]93,94]. This consecutive approach is indispensable to reliably identify a causal allergen, particularly in cases where commercial test allergens are not available.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of 35 original articles on CAPB [6,25,26,, 15 on cocamide DEA [37,[40][41][42][43]57,60,63,[65][66][67][69][70][71][72], and 2 on cysteamine HCl [56,73] were included; all of them being patch test studies. Regarding case reports and case series, 8 publications on CAPB [74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81], 3 on cocamide DEA [82][83][84], 3 on cysteamine HCl [85][86][87], and 4 on PVP copolymers [88][89][90][91] were included.…”

Section: Study Selection and Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…No original articles, but only case reports were found regarding the skin toxicity of PVP copolymers, which are summarized in Table A3. In 2021, Buonomo and Warshaw reported on a case of a 25-year-old female in the USA with a positive patch test result against PVP copolymers (patient-specific product tested: moisturizer with the subsequent testing of PVP/eicosene copolymer (Ashland Inc., Wilmington, Delaware), 10% pet., as an individual substance) [88]. Pastor et al presented a case of a 20-year-old woman in Spain showing a positive patch test reaction against PVP copolymers (patient-specific product tested: lipstick with the subsequent testing of PVP/hexadecene copolymer, 5% pet., provided by the manufacturer of the lipstick as an individual substance) in 2008 [89].…”

Section: Polyvinylpyrrolidone Copolymersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 1998, Scheman and Cummins reported the case of a 53-year-old woman in the USA showing a positive patch test reaction to PVP copolymers (patient-specific product tested: skin care products with the subsequent testing of PVP/hexadecene copolymer, 5% pet., as an individual substance) [91]. In all the aforementioned case reports, the occupation as well as the working years of the tested patients are not specified [88][89][90][91].…”

Section: Polyvinylpyrrolidone Copolymersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Skin Toxicity of Selected Hair Cosmetic Ingredients: A Review Focusing on Hairdressers

Symanzik

Weinert

Babić

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The safety assessment of cosmetics considers the exposure of a ‘common consumer’, not the occupational exposure of hairdressers. This review aims to compile and appraise evidence regarding the skin toxicity of cysteamine hydrochloride (cysteamine HCl; CAS no. 156-57-0), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP; CAS no. 9003-39-8), PVP copolymers (CAS no. 28211-18-9), sodium laureth sulfate (SLES; CAS no. 9004-82-4), cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA; CAS no. 68603-42-9), and cocamidopropyl betaine (CAPB; CAS no. 61789-40-0). A total of 298 articles were identified, of which 70 were included. Meta-analysis revealed that hairdressers have a 1.7-fold increased risk of developing a contact allergy to CAPB compared to controls who are not hairdressers. Hairdressers might have a higher risk of acquiring quantum sensitization against cysteamine HCl compared to a consumer because of their job responsibilities. Regarding cocamide DEA, the irritant potential of this surfactant should not be overlooked. Original articles for PVP, PVP copolymers, and SLES are lacking. This systematic review indicates that the current standards do not effectively address the occupational risks associated with hairdressers’ usage of hair cosmetics. The considerable irritant and/or allergenic potential of substances used in hair cosmetics should prompt a reassessment of current risk assessment practices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Selection and Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Polyvinylpyrrolidone Copolymersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Polyvinylpyrrolidone Copolymersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Skin Toxicity of Selected Hair Cosmetic Ingredients: A Review Focusing on Hairdressers

Symanzik

Weinert

Babić

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The hemostatic and comforting effects of oral adhesive bandages in tooth extraction: a randomized controlled clinical study

Zhou,

Cai,

Zhao

2024

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To compare oral adhesive bandages with the classic compression method and evaluate the clinical efficacy of this wound dressing material in improving postoperative comfort, wound healing, and hemostasis in tooth extraction. Materials and methods The study was designed as a randomized controlled clinical trial. A total of 120 patients were recruited and randomly assigned to the study group and the control group. In the study group, oral adhesive bandages were used as wound dressing. In the control group, patients bit on cotton balls and gauze, as usual. Hemorrhage, comfort, and healing levels were evaluated at postoperative 1 h, 24 h, and 7 days. The adhesion time of the oral adhesive bandages was also recorded. Results The average adhesion time of the oral adhesive bandages was 26.6 h. At postoperative 1 and 24 h, the hemostatic levels of the oral adhesive bandage group were significantly higher than those of the control group. The oral adhesive bandage group also reported significantly higher comfort scores than the control group. Both groups had similar healing levels and side effects. But the mean score for wound healing was slightly higher in the oral adhesive bandage group. Conclusions Oral adhesive bandages were more effective than cotton balls and gauze in providing hemostatic and comfort effects on extraction wounds. Clinical relevance Oral adhesive bandages possess clinical value in the management of extraction wounds.

show abstract

In-situ preparation of Fe9S10/Carbon composites with well electromagnetic wave absorber properties by using PAES as porous precursor

Zhang

Wang

et al. 2023

Diamond and Related Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Allergic contact dermatitis due to polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP)/eicosene copolymer

Cited by 3 publications

References 5 publications

Skin Toxicity of Selected Hair Cosmetic Ingredients: A Review Focusing on Hairdressers

Skin Toxicity of Selected Hair Cosmetic Ingredients: A Review Focusing on Hairdressers

The hemostatic and comforting effects of oral adhesive bandages in tooth extraction: a randomized controlled clinical study

In-situ preparation of Fe9S10/Carbon composites with well electromagnetic wave absorber properties by using PAES as porous precursor

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About