Contact dermatitis · 2008
Can the reporting of adverse skin reactions to cosmetics be improved? A prospective clinical study using a structured protocol.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Berne Berit, Tammela Monica, Färm Gunilla, Inerot Annica, Lindberg Magnus
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The use of cosmetics is rising, and adverse reactions to these products are increasing. In Sweden, the Medical Products Agency (MPA) keeps a voluntary reporting system for such adverse reactions. However, the reporting is sparse, consisting almost only of cases with test-proven allergic contact dermatitis, thus under-reporting the more common irritant reactions.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to try to improve the reporting system.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Dermatologists at 3 dermatology departments used a structured protocol during the clinical investigation of 151 consecutive patients reporting skin reactions to cosmetics. The protocol included symptoms, signs, affected body site, suspected products, and final diagnosis after patch testing. Based on clinical data and patch test results, a causality assessment for each product was made according to a protocol used at the MPA.
RESULTS: Allergic contact dermatitis was found in 28% of the patients, and irritant reactions were equally common at 27%.
CONCLUSIONS: Using this structured protocol, the cases of irritant dermatitis were also reported, and it is recommended that such a protocol is used as a standard to improve the reporting of adverse reactions to skin care products.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to try to improve the reporting system.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Dermatologists at 3 dermatology departments used a structured protocol during the clinical investigation of 151 consecutive patients reporting skin reactions to cosmetics. The protocol included symptoms, signs, affected body site, suspected products, and final diagnosis after patch testing. Based on clinical data and patch test results, a causality assessment for each product was made according to a protocol used at the MPA.
RESULTS: Allergic contact dermatitis was found in 28% of the patients, and irritant reactions were equally common at 27%.
CONCLUSIONS: Using this structured protocol, the cases of irritant dermatitis were also reported, and it is recommended that such a protocol is used as a standard to improve the reporting of adverse reactions to skin care products.