Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
15th National Conference of the IAOMFP, Chennai, 2006
Abstract
Abstracts from current literature
Acne in India: Guidelines for management - IAA Consensus Document
Addendum
Announcement
Art & Psychiatry
Article
Articles
Association Activities
Association Notes
Award Article
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Analysis
Case Letter
Case Letters
Case Notes
Case Report
Case Reports
Clinical and Laboratory Investigations
Clinical Article
Clinical Studies
Clinical Study
Commentary
Conference Oration
Conference Summary
Continuing Medical Education
Correspondence
Corrigendum
Cosmetic Dermatology
Cosmetology
Current Best Evidence
Current View
Derma Quest
Dermato Surgery
Dermatopathology
Dermatosurgery Specials
Dispensing Pearl
Do you know?
Drug Dialogues
e-IJDVL
Editor Speaks
Editorial
Editorial Remarks
Editorial Report
Editorial Report - 2007
Editorial report for 2004-2005
Errata
Erratum
Focus
Fourth All India Conference Programme
From Our Book Shelf
From the Desk of Chief Editor
General
Get Set for Net
Get set for the net
Guest Article
Guest Editorial
History
How I Manage?
IADVL Announcement
IADVL Announcements
IJDVL Awards
IJDVL AWARDS 2015
IJDVL Awards 2018
IJDVL Awards 2019
IJDVL Awards 2020
IJDVL International Awards 2018
Images in Clinical Practice
In Memorium
Inaugural Address
Index
Knowledge From World Contemporaries
Leprosy Section
Letter in Response to Previous Publication
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor - Case Letter
Letter to the Editor - Letter in Response to Published Article
LETTER TO THE EDITOR - LETTERS IN RESPONSE TO PUBLISHED ARTICLES
Letter to the Editor - Observation Letter
Letter to the Editor - Study Letter
Letter to the Editor - Therapy Letter
Letter to the Editor: Articles in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters in Response to Previous Publication
Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor - Letter in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters to the Editor: Case Letters
Letters to the Editor: Letters in Response to Previously Published Articles
Medicolegal Window
Messages
Miscellaneous Letter
Musings
Net Case
Net case report
Net Image
Net Letter
Net Quiz
Net Study
New Preparations
News
News & Views
Obituary
Observation Letter
Observation Letters
Oration
Original Article
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
Original Contributions
Pattern of Skin Diseases
Pearls
Pediatric Dermatology
Pediatric Rounds
Perspective
Presedential Address
Presidential Address
Presidents Remarks
Quiz
Recommendations
Regret
Report
Report of chief editor
Report of Hon : Treasurer IADVL
Report of Hon. General Secretary IADVL
Research Methdology
Research Methodology
Resident page
Resident's Page
Resident’s Page
Residents' Corner
Residents' Corner
Residents' Page
Retraction
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revision Corner
Self Assessment Programme
SEMINAR
Seminar: Chronic Arsenicosis in India
Seminar: HIV Infection
Short Communication
Short Communications
Short Report
Special Article
Specialty Interface
Studies
Study Letter
Supplement-Photoprotection
Supplement-Psoriasis
Symposium - Contact Dermatitis
Symposium - Lasers
Symposium - Pediatric Dermatoses
Symposium - Psoriasis
Symposium - Vesicobullous Disorders
SYMPOSIUM - VITILIGO
Symposium Aesthetic Surgery
Symposium Dermatopathology
Symposium-Hair Disorders
Symposium-Nails Part I
Symposium-Nails-Part II
Tables
Technology
Therapeutic Guidelines
Therapeutic Guidelines - IADVL
Therapeutics
Therapy
Therapy Letter
View Point
Viewpoint
What’s new in Dermatology
View/Download PDF
Letter to the Editor
2011:77:4;511-512
doi: 10.4103/0378-6323.82386
PMID: 21727702

Epidemiological trends in contact dermatitis to hair dye: Comparing para-phenylenediamine positivity after a decade long interval

Sanjeev Handa, Dipankar De, Rahul Mahajan
 Department of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh 160012, India

Correspondence Address:
Sanjeev Handa
Department of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh
India
How to cite this article:
Handa S, De D, Mahajan R. Epidemiological trends in contact dermatitis to hair dye: Comparing para-phenylenediamine positivity after a decade long interval. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2011;77:511-512
Copyright: (C)2011 Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology

Sir ,

Hair dyes are a common cause of allergic contact dermatitis among cosmetics. The most important ingredient in permanent hair dyes is para-phenylenediamine (PPD). After its introduction in 1880s, PPD was banned from France and Germany in 1906 because of its allergenic potential, but was reintroduced in 1990′s. Oxidation of PPD produces benzoquinone, P-aminophenol, and N-phenyl-PPD which are potent sensitizers. Additives, such as pyrogallol and resorcinol, are other potential allergens. Sharma et al.[1] reported a frequency of PPD positivity to be 11.5% among patients of contact dermatitis from India. [1] The present study was undertaken to compare the prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis to hair dyes now and a decade before.

In this retrospective study, case records of patients attending the Contact Dermatitis Clinic of our institute over a 1-year period a decade ago (1999-2000) and now (2009-2010) were compared. Patients with a positive patch test reaction to PPD and established relevance were confirmed to have developed allergic contact dermatitis secondary to hair dye exposure and were included in the final analysis. The patients were patch tested with the Indian standard series (ISS) (Systopic Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi, India) using Finn Chambers® , mounted on micropore. The tested allergens included PPD 1% in petrolatum. Patients′ hair dye was also used for patch testing ′′as is.′′ All allergens were applied on the upper back and removed after 48 h. The sites were examined at 48 h and 96 h and graded according to the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group guidelines.

A total of 128 patients had been patch tested during the period 1999-2000 and 116 patients during the period 2009-2010 [Figure - 1]. Thirteen out of 128 and 28/116 were clinically suspected to have allergic contact dermatitis to hair dye. The mean age of study cohort was 42.5 years (31-54 years) with a male to female ratio of 1.1:1 during the former period compared to mean age of 44.4 years (34-56 years) and a male to female ratio of 1.4:1 during the latter period. During the 1999-2000 period, the patch test positivity to PPD with established relevance was seen in six patients. Thus prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis to hair dye among patch-tested patients was 4.7%. One plus reaction was seen in five patients and 2+ reaction in one, while no patient had a 3+ positive reaction. During the 2009-2010 period, the patch test positivity to PPD was seen in 19 patients, thus giving a prevalence of 16.4%. One plus reaction was seen in 12 patients, 2+ in 4 and 3+ in 3 patients [Figure - 2]. The results represented roughly a fourfold rise in prevalence in a decade′s interval (P=0.007).

Figure 1: Baseline characteristics and number of patients showing PPD positivity on patch testing during the years 1999-2000 and 2009-2010
Figure 2: Patch-test result showing 2+ reaction to PPD in chamber number 5 at day 4

Approximately 40% of women in some geographical areas use hair-coloring agents. The prevalence of PPD sensitivity in various population based epidemiological studies has been estimated to be between 0.1% and 1%. [2] Penchalaiah et al.[3] studied the sensitizers commonly causing contact dermatitis from cosmetics in India. [3] Of 436 patients, 31 (7.1%) were suspected of having cosmetic dermatitis due to hair dye and only 8 (1.8%) showed positivity to 1% PPD.

In our study, the mean age of patients who presented with contact dermatitis to hair dye was 44.4 years during the years 2009-2010, which was similar to what it was a decade earlier. Dogra et al. [4] reported the age of presentation in cases of contact dermatitis to cosmetics to be slightly earlier in the second to third decade of life. [4] The gender ratio remained unchanged in our study with an insignificant male preponderance during both the study periods. The most striking finding in the present study was the significant increase in patients who were confirmed to have allergic contact dermatitis to hair dye, i.e.; clinical suspicion supported by positive patch test (4.7% vs. 16.4%). This is supported by the fact that there has been a significant increase in reactions to hair dyes in clients exposed to hair cosmetics between 1995 and 2006. [5] This might reflect the trend of ever increasing use of cosmetics by modern society, including hair dyes and PPD based tattoos; and thus a proportionate rise in the incidence of cosmetic dermatitis. In addition, it may also reflect sensitization to PPD by cross-sensitization with leather, fur, textile, and industrial rubber products. We conclude that there has been a significant increase in the prevalence of contact dermatitis to hair dyes in the last decade.

References
1.
Sharma V K, Chakrabarti A. Common contact sensitizers in Chandigarh, India. Contact Dermatitis 1998;38:127-31.
[Google Scholar]
2.
Schäfer T, Böhler E, Ruhdorfer, Weigl L, Wessner D, Filipiak B, et al. Epidemiology of contact allergy in adults. Allergy 2001;56:1192-6.
[Google Scholar]
3.
Penchalaiah K, Handa S, Lakshmi SB, Sharma VK, Kumar B. Sensitizers commonly causing allergic contact dermatitis from cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis 2000;43:311-3.
[Google Scholar]
4.
Dogra A, Minocha YC, Sood VK, Dewan SP. Contact dermatitis due to cosmetics and their ingredients. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 1994;60:72-5.
[Google Scholar]
5.
Uter W, Lessmann H, Geier J, Schnuch A. Contact allergy to ingredients of hair cosmetics in female hairdressers and clients-an 8-year analysis of IVDK data. Contact Dermatitis 2003;49:236-40.
[Google Scholar]

Fulltext Views
287

PDF downloads
41
Show Sections