Methylisothiazolinone: Still on Leave-on Products, but No Longer on Baby Wipes

Hamann, Carsten R.; Sahni, Sakshi; Zug, Kathyrn A.

doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000438

Cited by 6 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, increased risk of jaundice in newborns following skin exposure to benzoic acid and benzoates has been reported [109]. Recently, Hamann et al (2019) reviewed the most frequently used preservatives in baby wipes in North America [117]. The top five ingredients are listed in Table 6.…”

Section: Preservativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In response to these concerns, the range of preservatives used in disposable wipes and other leave-on products began to change [102,119]. Most baby wipe brands do not include MI, although another formaldehyde-releaser, DMDM hydantoin, is still found in some brands [117,119].…”

Section: Ingredientmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Over the last decades, baby wipe formulations have been improved by removing ingredients with high irritation and allergenicity potential [102,117]. The range of preservatives used has been refined, and allergens such as formaldehyde releasers have been removed [102,103,119].…”

Section: Safety Concerns Of Repeated Exposure To Baby Wipesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Skin Barrier Function in Infants: Update and Outlook

Rahma

Lane

2022

Pharmaceutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A good understanding of infant skin should provide a rationale for optimum management of the health of this integument. In this review, we discuss the skin barrier function of infants, particularly with reference to the use of diapers and baby wipes. The skin barrier of newborns continues to develop with age. Two years after birth, the barrier properties of infant skin closely resemble those of adult skin. However, several risk factors may contribute to impaired skin barrier and altered skin permeability in infants. Problems may arise from the use of diapers and baby wipes. The skin covered by a diaper is effectively an occluded environment, and thus is vulnerable to over-hydration. To date there has been no published information regarding dermal absorption of ingredients contained in baby wipes. Similarly, dermal absorption of topical ingredients in infants with underlying skin conditions has not been widely explored. Clearly, there are serious ethical concerns related to conducting skin permeation studies on infant skin. However, the increasing availability of non-invasive methods for in vivo studies is encouraging and offers new directions for studying this important patient group.

show abstract

Section: Preservativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ingredientmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Skin Barrier Function in Infants: Update and Outlook

Rahma

Lane

2022

Pharmaceutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) is a preservative that is widely used in a variety of personal care products, paints, solvents, and cleaning products. The combination of MCI/MI has been a cause of ACD in personal care products for decades, though more recently, MI was introduced alone in much higher concentrations, which led to an increase in allergic contact diaper dermatitis due to its presence in baby wipes [ 18 ]. The European Union strictly regulated the use of these preservatives in consumer products, whereas no similar legislation has been enacted in North America.…”

Section: Pediatric Allergic Contact Dermatitismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The European Union strictly regulated the use of these preservatives in consumer products, whereas no similar legislation has been enacted in North America. Nonetheless, it would seem manufacturers have taken notice, considering a recent study showing that nearly no popular, readily available baby wipes contain MI or other isothiazolinone derivatives [ 18 ]. However, MI is still used as a preservative in many personal care products marketed toward children, which supports data showing an increase in MI ACD from non-wet wipe products [ 18 , 19 ].…”

Section: Pediatric Allergic Contact Dermatitismentioning

confidence: 99%

What We Have Learned–Milestones in Pediatric Contact Dermatitis

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review This review highlights recent developments in the field of pediatric allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and patch testing. We will review updates on the pathophysiology of contact dermatitis, discuss new contact allergens, explore the impact of dupilumab on patch testing, and provide pearls for the diagnosis and management of ACD in children. Recent Findings ACD is not a single immunologic phenomenon but rather has contributions from multiple inflammatory pathways. Emerging contact allergens include ingredients found in “slime” toys, glucose monitors and insulin pumps, and electronic equipment. Data thus far suggests that patch testing results are generally reliable in the face of concurrent dupilumab use. Summary ACD is likely underrecognized and underdiagnosed in pediatric patients, including infants and young children. Providers should keep patient-specific factors and emerging trends in mind when addressing suspected ACD, consider contact dermatitis when they encounter challenging cases of atypical, refractory, or chronic dermatitis, and feel comfortable performing patch testing in children.

show abstract

Evaluation of Patch Test Findings in Patients With Anogenital Dermatitis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCEContact dermatitis in the anogenital area is associated with sleep disturbance and dyspareunia and can profoundly affect quality of life. The literature on anogenital contact dermatitis and culprit allergens is limited. The last large-scale study on common, relevant allergens in patients with anogenital dermatitis was published in 2008.OBJECTIVES To characterize patients with anogenital dermatitis referred for patch testing by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, to identify common allergens, and to explore sex-associated differences between anogenital dermatitis and allergens. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis was conducted of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group database among 28 481 patients who underwent patch testing from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2016, at outpatient referral clinics in the United States and Canada. EXPOSURE Patch testing for allergens. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Currently relevant allergic patch test reactions in patients with anogenital dermatitis. RESULTS Of 28 481 patients tested during the study period, 832 patients (336 men and 496 women; mean [SD] age, 50.1 [26.5] years) had anogenital involvement and 449 patients (177 men and 272 women; mean [SD] age, 49.6 [17.4] years) had anogenital dermatitis only.Compared with those without anogenital involvement, there were significantly more male patients in the group with anogenital dermatitis (177 [39.4%] vs 8857 of 27 649 [32.0%]; relative risk, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.14-1.66; P < .001). In the group with anogenital involvement, female patients were significantly less likely than male patients to have allergic contact dermatitis as a final diagnosis (130 [47.8%] vs 107 [60.5%]; relative risk, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.94; P = .01), whereas a final diagnosis of other dermatoses (eg, lichen planus, lichen sclerosus, or lichen simplex chronicus) was more frequent for female patients than for male patients (67 [24.6%] vs 28 [15.8%]; relative risk, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.02-2.31; P = .03). Of the 449 patients in the group with anogenital involvement only, 227 (50.6%) had 1 or more relevant reaction with patch testing. Allergens that were statistically significantly more common in patients with anogenital involvement compared with those without anogenital involvement included medicaments such as dibucaine (10 of 250 patients tested [4.0%] vs 32 of 17 494 patients tested [0.2%]; relative risk, 22.74; 95% CI, 11.05-46.78; P < .001) and preservatives such as methylchloroisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone (30 of 449 patients tested [6.7%] vs 1143 of 27 599 patients tested [4.1%]; relative risk, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.14-2.41; P = .008). A total of 152 patients met the definition for anogenital allergic contact dermatitis, which is defined as anogenital involvement only, allergic contact dermatitis as the only diagnosis, and 1 or more positive reaction of current clinical relevance.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE For patients with anogenital involvement only who were referred for patch testing, male pati...

show abstract

Methylisothiazolinone: Still on Leave-on Products, but No Longer on Baby Wipes

Cited by 6 publications

References 6 publications

Skin Barrier Function in Infants: Update and Outlook

Skin Barrier Function in Infants: Update and Outlook

What We Have Learned–Milestones in Pediatric Contact Dermatitis

Evaluation of Patch Test Findings in Patients With Anogenital Dermatitis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About