Facial Dermatitis in Male Patients Referred for Patch Testing: Retrospective Analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 1994 to 2016

Erin M. Warshaw, Jamie P. Schlarbaum, Howard I. Maibach, Jonathan I. Silverberg, James S. Taylor, Amber R. Atwater, Margo J. Reeder, Joel G. Dekoven, Melanie D. Pratt, Vincent A. Deleo, Kathryn A. Zug, Anthony F. Fransway, Donald V. Belsito, Toby Mathias, Joseph F. Fowler, James G. Marks, Denis Sasseville, Matthew J. Zirwas

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Importance: Facial dermatitis in women is well characterized. However, recent shifts in the men's grooming industry may have important implications for male facial dermatitis. Objective: To characterize male patients with facial dermatitis. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 22-year retrospective cross-sectional analysis (1994-2016) of North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) data, including 50507 patients who underwent patch testing by a group of dermatology board-certified patch test experts at multiple centers was carried out. Facial dermatitis was defined as involvement of the eyes, eyelids, lips, nose, or face (not otherwise specified). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was to compare characteristics (including demographics and allergens) between male patients with facial dermatitis (MFD) and those without facial dermatitis (MNoFD) using statistical analysis (relative risk, CIs). Secondary outcomes included sources of allergic and irritant contact dermatitis and, for occupationally related cases, specific occupations and industries in MFD. Results: Overall, 1332 male patients (8.0%) were included in the MFD group and 13732 male patients (82.0%) were included in MNoFD. The mean (SD) age of participants was 47 (17.2) years in the MFD group and 50 (17.6) years in the MNoFD group. The most common facial sites were face (not otherwise specified, 817 [48.9%]), eyelids (392 [23.5%]), and lips (210 [12.6%]). Participants in the MFD group were significantly younger than MNoFD (mean age, 47 vs 50 years; P <.001). Those in the MFD group were less likely to be white (relative risk [RR], 0.92; 95% CI,-0.90 to 0.95) or have occupationally related skin disease (RR, 0.49; 95% CI,-0.42 to 0.58; P <.001) than MNoFD. The most common allergens that were associated with clinically relevant reactions among MFD included methylisothiazolinone (n = 113; 9.9%), fragrance mix I (n = 27; 8.5%), and balsam of Peru (n = 90; 6.8%). Compared with MNoFD, MFD were more likely to react to use of dimethylaminopropylamine (RR, 2.49; 95% CI,-1.42 to 4.37]) and paraphenylenediamine (RR, 1.43; 95% CI,-1.00 to 2.04; P <.001). Overall, 60.5% of NACDG allergen sources were personal care products. Conclusions and Relevance: Although many allergens were similar in both groups, MFD were more likely to react to use of dimethylaminopropylamine and paraphenylenediamine, presumably owing to their higher prevalence in hair products. Most sources of allergic and irritant contact dermatitis in MFD were personal care products. This study provides insight into the risks and exposures of the increasing number of grooming products used by male dermatology patients. This will enable clinicians to better identify male patients who would benefit from patch testing and treat those with facial dermatitis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)79-84
Number of pages6
JournalJAMA Dermatology
Volume156
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2020

    Fingerprint

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Dermatology

Cite this

Warshaw, E. M., Schlarbaum, J. P., Maibach, H. I., Silverberg, J. I., Taylor, J. S., Atwater, A. R., Reeder, M. J., Dekoven, J. G., Pratt, M. D., Deleo, V. A., Zug, K. A., Fransway, A. F., Belsito, D. V., Mathias, T., Fowler, J. F., Marks, J. G., Sasseville, D., & Zirwas, M. J. (2020). Facial Dermatitis in Male Patients Referred for Patch Testing: Retrospective Analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 1994 to 2016. JAMA Dermatology, 156(1), 79-84. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.3531