Acrylate and methacrylate contact allergy and allergic contact disease: a 13-year review

• Published in: Contact dermatitis Vol. 75; no. 3; pp. 157 - 164
• Main Authors: Spencer, Ashley, Gazzani, Paul, Thompson, Donna A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.09.2016; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: acrylates; Acrylates - adverse effects; Acrylics; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; allergic contact dermatitis; allergic contact disease; Allergies; artificial nails; Bandages - adverse effects; contact allergy; Cosmetics - adverse effects; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - etiology; Dermatitis, Occupational - etiology; dressings; Facial Dermatoses - chemically induced; Female; Hand Dermatoses - chemically induced; Humans; Male; methacrylates; Methacrylates - adverse effects; Middle Aged; occupational; Retrospective Studies; screening; Young Adult; allergic contact disease; contact allergy; dressings; methacrylates; screening; allergic contact dermatitis; occupational; acrylates; artificial nails
• ISSN: 0105-1873; 1600-0536
• DOI: 10.1111/cod.12647

Summary Background (Meth)acrylates are important causes of contact allergy and allergic contact disease, such as dermatitis and stomatitis, with new and emerging sources resulting in changing clinical presentations. Objectives To identify the (meth)acrylates that most commonly cause allergic contact disease, highlight their usefulness for screening, and examine their relationship with occupational and clinical data. Methods A retrospective review of results from patch tests performed between July 2002 and September 2015, in one tertiary Cutaneous Allergy Unit, was performed Results A series of 28 (meth)acrylates was applied to 475 patients. Results were positive in 52 cases, with occupational sources being identified in 24. Industrial exposures and acrylic nails were responsible for 13 and 10 cases, respectively, with wound dressings being implicated in 7. We found that four individual (meth)acrylates (2‐hydroxyethyl acrylate, 2‐hydroxypropyl methacrylate, bisphenol A glycerolate dimethacrylate, and ethyl acrylate), if used as a screening tool, could have identified 47 (90.4%) of our positive cases. Conclusions Our 13‐year experience indicates a changing landscape of (meth)acrylate contact allergy and allergic contact disease, with an observed shift in exposures away from manufacturing and towards acrylic nail sources. Wound dressings are highlighted as emerging sources of sensitization. Larger studies are required to establish the sensitivity and specificity of the four (meth)acrylates proposed for potential screening.