Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug · 2011
The validated hypoallergenic cosmetics rating system: its 30-year evolution and effect on the prevalence of cosmetic reactions.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Verallo-Rowell Vermén M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The validated hypoallergenic (vh) rating system was initiated in 1988 to try to objectively validate the "hypoallergenic" claim in cosmetics.
OBJECTIVES: To show how the system rates cosmetic hypoallergenicity and to compare the prevalence of cosmetic contact dermatitis (CCD) among users of regular cosmetics versus cosmetics with high VH numbers.
METHODS: (1) Made a VH list based on top allergens from patch-test results published by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) and the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA); (2) reviewed global regulatory, cosmetic, drug, packaging, and manufacturing practices to show how allergens may contaminate products; (3) compared cosmetic ingredients lists against the VH list to obtain the VH rating (the more allergens absent, the higher the VH rating); and (4) obtained CCD prevalence among users of regular cosmetics versus users of cosmetics with high VH ratings.
RESULTS: (1) Two VH lists (1988, 2003) included only cosmetic allergens in the NACDG surveys, the third (2007) included cosmetic and potential contaminant noncosmetic allergens, and the fourth (2010) adds ESSCA patch-test surveys. (2) CCD prevalence is 0.05 to 0.12% (average, 0.08%) among users of cosmetics with high VH ratings versus 2.4 to 36.3% among users of regular cosmetics.
CONCLUSION: The VH rating system is shown to objectively validate the hypoallergenic cosmetics claim.
OBJECTIVES: To show how the system rates cosmetic hypoallergenicity and to compare the prevalence of cosmetic contact dermatitis (CCD) among users of regular cosmetics versus cosmetics with high VH numbers.
METHODS: (1) Made a VH list based on top allergens from patch-test results published by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) and the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA); (2) reviewed global regulatory, cosmetic, drug, packaging, and manufacturing practices to show how allergens may contaminate products; (3) compared cosmetic ingredients lists against the VH list to obtain the VH rating (the more allergens absent, the higher the VH rating); and (4) obtained CCD prevalence among users of regular cosmetics versus users of cosmetics with high VH ratings.
RESULTS: (1) Two VH lists (1988, 2003) included only cosmetic allergens in the NACDG surveys, the third (2007) included cosmetic and potential contaminant noncosmetic allergens, and the fourth (2010) adds ESSCA patch-test surveys. (2) CCD prevalence is 0.05 to 0.12% (average, 0.08%) among users of cosmetics with high VH ratings versus 2.4 to 36.3% among users of regular cosmetics.
CONCLUSION: The VH rating system is shown to objectively validate the hypoallergenic cosmetics claim.