Is the Use of the Extended (Meth)acrylate Series – Nails Justified? Characterization of Nail Acrylate Allergy in a Tertiary Medical Centre
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/actadv.v104.41079Keywords:
2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, contact dermatitis, MethacrylatesAbstract
Methacrylate allergy is a common cause of allergic contact dermatitis, and its incidence has surged over the past decade. Consequently, the primary sensitizing agent, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, was recently added to the European Baseline Series of contact allergens. This study aimed to assess the added value of testing for allergens included in the (Meth)Acrylate Series – Nails, in addition to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, as well as to characterize patients who may benefit from more extensive testing. A retrospective analysis of medical records of patch-tested patients was conducted between June 2013 and July 2022. Among the 3,828 patients who underwent patch testing, 396 were tested with the (Meth)Acrylate Series – Nails; 153 (38.6%) of those patients tested positive for at least 1 acrylate. The most common hapten was 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (85.6%), followed by hydroxypropyl methacrylate (85.0%) and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (80.4%). In our study, 22/153 patients (14.4%) would have been missed if tested only for 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate. The analysis showed that including hydroxypropyl methacrylate and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate improved detection rate to 98%, rendering the use of the entire tray unnecessary in most cases.
Downloads
References
Rolls S, Chowdhury MM, Cooper S, Cousen P, Flynn AM, Ghaffar SA, et al. Recommendation to include hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate in the British baseline patch test series. Br J Dermatol 2019; 181: 811-817.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.17708 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.17708
Gonçalo M, Pinho A, Agner T, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Diepgen T, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by nail acrylates in Europe: an EECDRG study. Contact Dermatitis 2018; 78: 254-260.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12942 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12942
Forkel S, Schubert S, Corvin L, Heine G, Lang CC V, Oppel E, et al. Contact allergies to dental materials in patients. Br J Dermatol 2024; 190: 895-903.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjd/ljad525 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjd/ljad525
Raposo I, Lobo I, Amaro C, Lobo M de L, Melo H, Parente J, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by (meth)acrylates in nail cosmetic products in users and nail technicians: a 5-year study. Contact Dermatitis 2017; 77: 356-359.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12817 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12817
Gregoriou S, Tagka A, Velissariou E, Tsimpidakis A, Hatzidimitriou E, Platsidaki E, et al. The rising incidence of allergic contact dermatitis to acrylates. Dermatitis 2020; 31: 140-143.
https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000528 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000528
Montgomery R, Stocks SJ, Wilkinson SM. Contact allergy resulting from the use of acrylate nails is increasing in both users and those who are occupationally exposed. Contact Dermatitis 2016; 74: 120-122.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12497 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12497
Uter W, Wilkinson SM, Aerts O, Bauer A, Borrego L, Brans R, et al. Patch test results with the European baseline series, 2019/20: joint European results of the ESSCA and the EBS working groups of ESCD and the GEIDAC. Contact Dermatitis 2022; 87: 343-355.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14170 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14170
Sasseville D. Acrylates in contact dermatitis. Dermatitis 2012; 23: 6-16.
https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0b013e31823d1b81 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0b013e31823d1b81
Aerts O, Herman A, Mowitz M, Bruze M, Goossens A. Isobornyl acrylate. Dermatitis 2020; 31: 4-12.
https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000549 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000549
Symanzik C, Weinert P, Babić Ž, Hallmann S, Havmose MS, Johansen JD, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate and ethyl cyanoacrylate contained in cosmetic glues among hairdressers and beauticians who perform nail treatments and eyelash extension as well as hair extension applications: a systematic review. Contact Dermatitis 2022; 86: 480-492.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14056 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14056
Gatica-Ortega ME, Rodríguez-Lago L, Beneyto P, Pastor-Nieto MA, Borrego L. Prognosis and sequelae of meth(acrylate) sensitization in beauticians and consumers of manicure materials. Contact Dermatitis 2023; 89: 471-479.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14408 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14408
Wilkinson M, Gonçalo M, Aerts O, Badulici S, Bennike NH, Bruynzeel D, et al. The European baseline series and recommended additions: 2019. Contact Dermatitis 2019; 80: 1-4.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.13155 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.13155
Fregert S. Manual of contact dermatitis. 2nd ed. Copenhagen: Munksgaard; 1980.
Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ, Lehmacher W, Aberer W, 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: 200-209.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.1997.tb02435.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.1997.tb02435.x
Stingeni L, Tramontana M, Bianchi L, Foti C, Patruno C, Gallo R, et al. Contact sensitivity to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate in consecutive patients: a 1-year multicentre SIDAPA study. Contact Dermatitis 2019; 81: 216-218.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.13278 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.13278
Havmose M, Thyssen JP, Zachariae C, Johansen JD. Contact allergy to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 2020; 82: 229-231.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.13439 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.13439
Hernández-Fernández CP, Mercader-García P, Silvestre Salvador JF, Sánchez Pérez J, Fernández Redondo V, Miquel Miquel FJ, et al. Candidate allergens for inclusion in the Spanish standard series based on data from the Spanish contact dermatitis registry. Actas Dermosifiliogr 2021; 112: 798-805. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adengl.2021.07.013
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ad.2021.05.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ad.2021.05.005
Gatica-Ortega ME, Pastor-Nieto MA, Giménez-Arnau AM, Mercader-García P, Sanz-Sánchez T, Carrascosa-Carrillo JM, et al. 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) sensitization, a global epidemic at its peak in Spain? Contact Dermatitis 2024; 90: 507-513.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14520 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14520
DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Reeder MJ, Atwater AR, Silverberg JI, Belsito DV, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2019-2020. Dermatitis 2023; 34: 90-104.
https://doi.org/10.1089/derm.2022.29017.jdk DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/derm.2022.29017.jdk
DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Zug KA, Maibach HI, Belsito DV, Sasseville D, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2015-2016. Dermatitis 2018; 29: 297-309.
https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000417 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000417
Slodownik D, Kaplan Y, Sprecher E, Daniely D. The added value of patch testing beyond the baseline tray. Dermatitis 2022; 33: 227-231.
https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000889 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000889
Hilewitz D, Trattner A, Reiter O, Uvaidov V, Noyman Y, Solomon Cohen E, et al. Pandemic of sensitivity to acrylate containing nail cosmetic among young Israeli women? Result of patch testing 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate in the European baseline series. Contact Dermatitis 2024 Aug 24 [Online ahead of print].
https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14683 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14683
Uter W, Werfel T, Lepoittevin JP, White IR. Contact allergy: emerging allergens and public health impact. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17: 2404.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072404 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072404
Steunebrink IM, de Groot A, Rustemeyer T. Contact allergy to acrylate-containing nail cosmetics: a retrospective 8-year study. Contact Dermatitis 2024; 90: 262-265.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14475 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14475
Fisch A, Hamnerius N, Isaksson M. Dermatitis and occupational (meth)acrylate contact allergy in nail technicians: a 10-year study. Contact Dermatitis 2019; 81: 58-60.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.13216 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.13216
De Groot AC, Rustemeyer T. 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA): a clinical review of contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis. Part 2. Cross- and co-sensitization, other skin reactions to HEMA, position of HEMA among (meth)acrylates, sensitivity as screening agent, presence of HEMA in commercial products and practical information on patch test procedures. Contact Dermatitis 2024; 90: 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14430 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14430
Tramontana M, Hansel K, Bianchi L, Marietti R, Stingeni L. Use of self-applied sculptured gel nails may increase the risk of allergy to (meth)acrylates in children and adolescents. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2021; 35: e765-e767.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.17429 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.17429
Gatica-Ortega ME, Pastor-Nieto MA, Gil-Redondo R, Martínez-Lorenzo ER, Schöendorff-Ortega C. Non-occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by long-lasting nail polish kits for home use: 'the tip of the iceberg'. Contact Dermatitis 2018; 78: 261-265.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12948 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12948
Roy F, Besner Morin C. Pseudo-psoriatic nails caused by at-home gel manicure. J Cutan Med Surg 2023; 27: 169-170.
https://doi.org/10.1177/12034754231159593 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/12034754231159593
Filley AR, Woodruff CM. The modernization of cosmetics regulation act of 2022: what dermatologists need to know. J Am Acad Dermatol 2023; 89: 629-631.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2023.04.024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2023.04.024
Morgado F, Batista M, Gonçalo M. Short exposures and glove protection against (meth)acrylates in nail beauticians: thoughts on a rising concern. Contact Dermatitis 2019; 81: 62-63.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.13222 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.13222
Fremlin G, Sansom J. Acrylate-induced allergic contact dermatitis in a car windscreen repairer. Occup Med (Chic Ill) 2014; 64: 557-558.
https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqu095 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqu095
Ursberg AM, Bergendorff O, Thorsson AC, Isaksson M. Is there a good in vivo method to show whether gloves are sufficiently protective when a nail technician is exposed to (meth)acrylates? An in vivo pilot study. Contact Dermatitis 2016; 75: 62-65.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12573 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12573
Havmose M, Thyssen JP, Zachariae C, Johansen JD. Artificial nails and long-lasting nail polish in Danish hairdressers: self-use, occupational exposure and related eczema. Acta Derm Venereol 2022; 102: adv00818.
https://doi.org/10.2340/actadv.v102.4524 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/actadv.v102.4524
Cantwell HM, Drage LA, el-Azhary RA, Hall MR, Killian JM, Yiannias JA, et al. The final patch test read: day 5 or day >7? Dermatitis 2020; 31: 42-52.
https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000562 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000562
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Joel Dascalu, Sophia Polansky, Ziad Khamaysi, Emily Avitan-Hersh, Mariela J. Nevet
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All digitalized ActaDV contents is available freely online. The Society for Publication of Acta Dermato-Venereologica owns the copyright for all material published until volume 88 (2008) and as from volume 89 (2009) the journal has been published fully Open Access, meaning the authors retain copyright to their work.
Unless otherwise specified, all Open Access articles are published under CC-BY-NC licences, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for non-commercial purposes, provided proper attribution to the original work.
