中国麻风皮肤病杂志 ›› 2022, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (9): 599-603.doi: 10.12144/zgmfskin202209599

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

51例面部化妆品接触性皮炎的斑贴试验和光斑贴试验结果分析

张朝霞,庞静,张雪青,刘建新,冉德琳,王广进,杜东红,潘付堂,田洪青,杨宝琦   

  1. 山东第一医科大学附属皮肤病医院（山东省皮肤病医院），山东省皮肤病性病防治研究所，山东济南,250022
  • 出版日期:2022-09-15 发布日期:2022-07-13

Photopatch and patch test in 51 facial cosmetic contact dermatitis patients

ZHANG Zhaoxia, PANG Jing, ZHANG Xueqing, LIU Jianxin, RAN Delin, WANG Guangjin, DU Donghong, PAN Futang, TIAN Hongqing, YANG Baoqi   

  1. Shandong Provincial Hospital for Skin Diseases & Shandong Provincial Institute of Dermatology and Veneorology, Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan 250022, China
  • Online:2022-09-15 Published:2022-07-13

PDF (PC)

398

摘要： 目的：检测分析面部化妆品接触性皮炎患者常见致敏原。方法：回顾性分析我院面部化妆品接触性皮炎患者的临床资料、斑贴试验和光斑贴试验资料。结果：51例患者进行了斑贴试验，总体阳性率为96%。阳性率高的过敏源依次为：硫酸镍（47.1％）、氯化钴（35.3％）、甲基异噻唑啉酮（27.5％）、纺织染料混合物（19.6％）、没食子酸辛酯（19.6%）、松香（13.7％）、对苯二胺（13.7％）、硫柳汞（13.7%）、叔丁基氢醌（13.7%）、棓酸十二烷酯（13.7%）。46例患者完成光敏实验和光斑贴检查，14例存在光敏感（30.43%）；其中UVA敏感7例（15.22%），UVB敏感8例（17.39%）。光斑贴阳性率19.6%，常见致敏原依次为：依托酚那酯（6.5％）、癸基葡糖苷（6.5％）、甲酚曲唑三硅氧烷（4.3%）。结论：防腐剂、香料、重金属、乳化剂、抗氧化剂、表面活化剂等原料均可能引起面部接触致敏。面部化妆品皮炎患者还可能存在光敏反应和光变态反应。全面的斑贴试验有助于更好的帮助患者查找致敏原。

关键词: 化妆品, 变应原, 化妆品皮炎, 斑贴试验, 光斑贴试验

Abstract: Objective: To identify the main pathogenic components of facial contact dermatitis patients. Methods: The data of the patients with facial contact dermatitis who underwent patch testing and photopatch testing at our hospital were analyzed retrospectively. Results: 51 patients were performed patch testing with the Chinese standard allergens and cosmetic allergens, and the overall positive rate was 96%. The allergens, in order of positivity rate were nickel sulfate (47.1%), cobalt chloride (35.3%), methylisothiazolinone (27.5%), textile dye mixture (19.6%), octyl gallate (19.6%), rosin (13.7%), p-phenylenediamine (13.7%), thiomersal (13.7%), tert butyl hydroquinone (13.7%) and dodecyl gallate (13.7%). 46 patients completed photosensitivity test and photopatch test, of them, photosensitivity in 14 cases (30.43%). 7 cases were sensitive to UVA (15.22%) and 8 cases were sensitive to UVB (17.39%). The positivity rate of photopatch test was 19.6%. The common allergens of photopatch were etophenate (6.5%), decyl glucoside (6.5%) and crestrezole trisiloxane (4.3%).  Conclusion: Preservatives, spices, heavy metals, emulsifiers, surfactants and other raw materials in cosmetics may cause contact sensitization. Patients with facial cosmetic dermatitis may have photosensitive reaction and photoallergy. Comprehensive patch test can provide a reliable reference for patients with facial cosmetic dermatitis.

Key words: cosmetics, allergens, cosmetic dermatitis, patch test, photopatch test