True photoallergy to sunscreens is rare despite popular belief

Tatyana Shaw, Brenda Simpson, Brittney Wilson, Holly Oostman, David Rainey, Frances Storrs

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Rising use of sunscreen products has led to increased reporting of adverse reactions to sunscreens. Objective: To investigate possible photoallergic reactions in patients who identified themselves as "being allergic" to sunscreens. Methods: Patients filled out questionnaires about types of sunscreens they used and timing of their "allergic" reactions. Next, they consented to be photopatch-tested with active sunscreen ingredients, including the new sunscreen Anthelios SX (containing Mexoryl SX) and the new ultraviolet filters Tinosorb M and Tinosorb S. Standard allergen patch testing was also done. Results: Twenty-seven patients self-reported "sunscreen allergy." Photopatch testing is difficult for patients; hence, only 11 agreed to proceed with the testing. Eight patients had negative patch testing results. One patient reacted to benzophenone-2. Another had a prior reaction to titanium dioxide and titanium oxalate but did not react to the silicone-coated titanium in our study. Yet another patient had relevant photopatch reactions to benzophenone-3 and ethylhexyl dimethyl para-aminobenzoic acid (PABA). None reacted to the Tinosorbs or Anthelios SX. Few positive reactions to the standard allergens were not relevant. Conclusion: Although small, this study parallels prior studies in concluding that true delayed type IV hypersensitivity (allergic contact dermatitis and photoallergy) to sunscreens is more infrequent than patients tend to believe.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)185-198
Number of pages14
JournalDermatitis
Volume21
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2010

Fingerprint

Photoallergic Dermatitis
Sunscreening Agents
Delayed Hypersensitivity
Titanium
Allergens
Hypersensitivity
4-Aminobenzoic Acid
Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Oxalates
Silicones

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dermatology
  • Immunology and Allergy
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Shaw, T., Simpson, B., Wilson, B., Oostman, H., Rainey, D., & Storrs, F. (2010). True photoallergy to sunscreens is rare despite popular belief. Dermatitis, 21(4), 185-198. https://doi.org/10.2310/6620.2010.10016

True photoallergy to sunscreens is rare despite popular belief. / Shaw, Tatyana; Simpson, Brenda; Wilson, Brittney; Oostman, Holly; Rainey, David; Storrs, Frances.

In: Dermatitis, Vol. 21, No. 4, 2010, p. 185-198.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Shaw, T, Simpson, B, Wilson, B, Oostman, H, Rainey, D & Storrs, F 2010, 'True photoallergy to sunscreens is rare despite popular belief', Dermatitis, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 185-198. https://doi.org/10.2310/6620.2010.10016
Shaw, Tatyana ; Simpson, Brenda ; Wilson, Brittney ; Oostman, Holly ; Rainey, David ; Storrs, Frances. / True photoallergy to sunscreens is rare despite popular belief. In: Dermatitis. 2010 ; Vol. 21, No. 4. pp. 185-198.
@article{ccbbbf8e593b408e8a09077c9ebb9a1d,
title = "True photoallergy to sunscreens is rare despite popular belief",
abstract = "Background: Rising use of sunscreen products has led to increased reporting of adverse reactions to sunscreens. Objective: To investigate possible photoallergic reactions in patients who identified themselves as {"}being allergic{"} to sunscreens. Methods: Patients filled out questionnaires about types of sunscreens they used and timing of their {"}allergic{"} reactions. Next, they consented to be photopatch-tested with active sunscreen ingredients, including the new sunscreen Anthelios SX (containing Mexoryl SX) and the new ultraviolet filters Tinosorb M and Tinosorb S. Standard allergen patch testing was also done. Results: Twenty-seven patients self-reported {"}sunscreen allergy.{"} Photopatch testing is difficult for patients; hence, only 11 agreed to proceed with the testing. Eight patients had negative patch testing results. One patient reacted to benzophenone-2. Another had a prior reaction to titanium dioxide and titanium oxalate but did not react to the silicone-coated titanium in our study. Yet another patient had relevant photopatch reactions to benzophenone-3 and ethylhexyl dimethyl para-aminobenzoic acid (PABA). None reacted to the Tinosorbs or Anthelios SX. Few positive reactions to the standard allergens were not relevant. Conclusion: Although small, this study parallels prior studies in concluding that true delayed type IV hypersensitivity (allergic contact dermatitis and photoallergy) to sunscreens is more infrequent than patients tend to believe.",
author = "Tatyana Shaw and Brenda Simpson and Brittney Wilson and Holly Oostman and David Rainey and Frances Storrs",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.2310/6620.2010.10016",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "185--198",
journal = "Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug",
issn = "1710-3568",
publisher = "Decker Publishing",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - True photoallergy to sunscreens is rare despite popular belief

AU - Shaw, Tatyana

AU - Simpson, Brenda

AU - Wilson, Brittney

AU - Oostman, Holly

AU - Rainey, David

AU - Storrs, Frances

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - Background: Rising use of sunscreen products has led to increased reporting of adverse reactions to sunscreens. Objective: To investigate possible photoallergic reactions in patients who identified themselves as "being allergic" to sunscreens. Methods: Patients filled out questionnaires about types of sunscreens they used and timing of their "allergic" reactions. Next, they consented to be photopatch-tested with active sunscreen ingredients, including the new sunscreen Anthelios SX (containing Mexoryl SX) and the new ultraviolet filters Tinosorb M and Tinosorb S. Standard allergen patch testing was also done. Results: Twenty-seven patients self-reported "sunscreen allergy." Photopatch testing is difficult for patients; hence, only 11 agreed to proceed with the testing. Eight patients had negative patch testing results. One patient reacted to benzophenone-2. Another had a prior reaction to titanium dioxide and titanium oxalate but did not react to the silicone-coated titanium in our study. Yet another patient had relevant photopatch reactions to benzophenone-3 and ethylhexyl dimethyl para-aminobenzoic acid (PABA). None reacted to the Tinosorbs or Anthelios SX. Few positive reactions to the standard allergens were not relevant. Conclusion: Although small, this study parallels prior studies in concluding that true delayed type IV hypersensitivity (allergic contact dermatitis and photoallergy) to sunscreens is more infrequent than patients tend to believe.

AB - Background: Rising use of sunscreen products has led to increased reporting of adverse reactions to sunscreens. Objective: To investigate possible photoallergic reactions in patients who identified themselves as "being allergic" to sunscreens. Methods: Patients filled out questionnaires about types of sunscreens they used and timing of their "allergic" reactions. Next, they consented to be photopatch-tested with active sunscreen ingredients, including the new sunscreen Anthelios SX (containing Mexoryl SX) and the new ultraviolet filters Tinosorb M and Tinosorb S. Standard allergen patch testing was also done. Results: Twenty-seven patients self-reported "sunscreen allergy." Photopatch testing is difficult for patients; hence, only 11 agreed to proceed with the testing. Eight patients had negative patch testing results. One patient reacted to benzophenone-2. Another had a prior reaction to titanium dioxide and titanium oxalate but did not react to the silicone-coated titanium in our study. Yet another patient had relevant photopatch reactions to benzophenone-3 and ethylhexyl dimethyl para-aminobenzoic acid (PABA). None reacted to the Tinosorbs or Anthelios SX. Few positive reactions to the standard allergens were not relevant. Conclusion: Although small, this study parallels prior studies in concluding that true delayed type IV hypersensitivity (allergic contact dermatitis and photoallergy) to sunscreens is more infrequent than patients tend to believe.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77955113888&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77955113888&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2310/6620.2010.10016

DO - 10.2310/6620.2010.10016

M3 - Article

C2 - 20646669

AN - SCOPUS:77955113888

VL - 21

SP - 185

EP - 198

JO - Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug

JF - Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug

SN - 1710-3568

IS - 4

ER -