throbber
Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology, 2011; 30(3): 249–250
`© 2011 Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.
`ISSN 1556-9527 print/ISSN 1556-9535 online
`DOI: 10.3109/15569527.2011.554484
`
`CASE REPORT
`
`Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral®) as
`allergen: experience from a Contact Dermatitis Unit
`
`Rodrigo Carvalho, Paula Maio, Cristina Amaro, Raquel Santos, and Jorge Cardoso
`
`Curry Cabral Hospital, Dermatology and Venereology Department, Lisbon, Portugal
`
`Abstract
`Introduction: Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC)—Lyral® is a widely used synthetic fragrance
`found in personal care and household products. It is an aldehyde, lipophilic enough to penetrate the skin and is a
`frequent cause of contact sensitization.
`Objective: Describe the frequency of contact allergy to HICC in a Contact Dermatitis Unit, after its inclusion in baseline
`patch test series.
`Methods: A retrospective study including all patients submitted to patch test, from January 2007 to December 2009.
`Results: Over a 3-year period, 629 consecutive patients were patch tested. The frequency of positive reactions to
`HICC was 2.7% (17/629). Of the positive patients, 35% (6/17) gave a history of atopy, 58.8% (10/17) had eczema on
`the face and neck, 23.5% (4/17) on the hands, 23.5% (4/17) in the axillae, 17.6% (3/17) on the trunk and 6% (3/17)
`had generalized eczema. All patients were patch positive for more than one allergen: all (17/17) positive to fragrance
`Mix 2 (FM2); 47% of the patients (8/17) positive to fragrance Mix 1 (FM1); and 23.5% of the patients (4/17) positive to
`Balsam of Peru. In 94% (16/17) of cases, the reaction was judged to be of current relevance.
`Discussion: The frequency of positive reactions to HICC of 2.7% found in our population is according to what is
`described in several European reports, where HICC is still widely used as a fragrance ingredient. In contrast, in North
`America, the prevalence is lower. All the patients were positive also to FM2. The association found between reactions
`to FM1 and HICC is also commonly reported and could represent a concomitant sensitization following increased
`exposure to fragrance allergens. These data confirm the importance of HICC introduction in the baseline patch test
`series.
`Keywords: Contact dermatitis, hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde, patch test
`
`Introduction
`carboxaldehyde
`3-cyclohexene
`Hydroxyisohexyl
`(HICC), also known as Lyral®, is one of the fragrances
`published in the Fenn Study in 1989 (1). Since then, it
`is a widely used synthetic fragrance found in personal
`care and household products. The frequency of HICC
`as an ingredient in these products is quoted as being
`between 33% and 46% in European countries. It is an
`aldehyde, lipophilic enough to penetrate the skin and
`is a frequent cause of contact sensitization (2). Over
`the past decade, routine patch testing has shown that
`1.5–3% of eczema patients have positive patch tests to
`
`HICC, making it a common contact allergen through-
`out Europe (3–5). Therefore, it has been included in the
`European baseline patch test series (6). Also, the use of
`HICC in cosmetic products was unrestricted until 24
`April 2003. At that time, a limit of 1.5% in both leave-on
`and rinse-off products were set by the International
`Fragrance Association (7). The rationale behind this
`limit is unknown, but some reports suggest that this
`intervention has not had any effect (8). In this study,
`the authors describe the frequency of contact allergy to
`HICC in a Contact Dermatitis Unit, after its inclusion in
`baseline patch test series.
`
`Address for Correspondence: Rodrigo Carvalho, Curry Cabral Hospital, Dermatology and Venereology Department, Lisbon, Portugal. E-mail:
`rodrigoaraujocarvalho@gmail.com
`
`(Received 19 December 2010; revised 05 January 2011; accepted 07 January 2011)
`
`249
`
`Petitioner Dr. Squatch
` Ex. 1030
`
`

`

`250 R. Carvalho et al.
`
`Methods
`A retrospective study including all patients submitted
`to patch test, from January 2007 to December 2009.
`Epicutaneous tests were applied on the upper back
` during 2 days using Finn Chambers®, and a positive patch
`test reaction was defined according to International
`Contact Dermatitis Research Group (ICDRG) guide-
`lines (9). Readings were performed at 48 and 96 h. All
`patients were tested with the European baseline series
`(with additions from the Portuguese Contact Dermatitis
`Study Group).
`
`Results
`Over a 3-year period, 629 consecutive patients were
`patch tested. The frequency of positive reactions to HICC
`was 2.7% (17/629). All reactions were (+) or (++). Of the
`17 patients with a positive reaction, 59% (10/17) were
`female and 41% (7/17) were male. The average age of all
`HICC positive reaction patients was 45 years old (mean
`44.64; SD 14.90). Of the patients with a positive reaction,
`35% (6/17) gave a history of atopy. The clinical diagnosis
`of eczema was made for all patients with positive reac-
`tion to HICC, localized in the face and neck in 58.8%
`(10/17), hands in 23.5% (4/17), axillae in 23.5% (4/17),
`trunk in 17.6% (3/17) and generalized in 6% (3/17). All
`patients were patch positive for more than one allergen:
`all (17/17) positive to fragrance Mix 2 (FM2); 47% of the
`patients (8/17) positive to fragrance Mix 1 (FM1); and
`23.5% of the patients (4/17) positive to Balsam of Peru.
`In 94% (16/17) of cases, the reaction was judged to be of
`current relevance for products used in personal hygiene
`like perfumes, deodorants and hair conditioners.
`
`Discussion
`The frequency of positive reactions to HICC of 2.7%
`found in our population is according to what is described
`in several European reports (1.5–3%) (2–4), where HICC
`is still widely used as a fragrance ingredient. In con-
`trast, in North America, the prevalence was found to be
`only 0.4%, which was considered to be mainly because
`of the presence of the ingredient in higher concentra-
`tions in deodorants in the EU compared with the USA
`(10,11).
`All the patients from our study that were positive to
`HICC were positive to FM2, what is expected since HICC
`
`belongs to the mix present in FM2. Also, from the HICC
`positive patients, 47% were positive to FM1. This asso-
`ciation found between reactions to FM1 and HICC in our
`series is also commonly reported in several reports and
`could represent a concomitant sensitization following
`increased exposure to fragrance allergens (5).
`These data support current reports that HICC is a
`common allergen and confirm the importance of HICC
`introduction in the baseline patch test series.
`
`Declaration of interest
`The authors report no declarations of interest.
`
`References
`1. Fenn RS. Aroma chemical usage trends in modern perfumery.
`Perfumer Flavorist 1989;14:1–10.
`2. Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, Menné T, Rastogi SC, Bruze M, Andersen
`KE et al. Lyral is an important sensitizer in patients sensitive to
`fragrances. Br J Dermatol 1999;141:1076–1083.
`3. Geier J, Brasch J, Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Pirker C, Frosch PJ;
`Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK)
`and the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG). Lyral
`has been included in the patch test standard series in Germany.
`Contact Derm 2002;46:295–297.
`4. Baxter KF, Wilkinson SM, Kirk SJ. Hydroxymethyl pentylcyclohexene-
`carboxaldehyde (Lyral) as a fragrance allergen in the UK. Contact
`Derm 2003;48:117–118.
`5. Bruze M, Andersen KE, Goossens A; ESCD; EECDRG.
`Recommendation to include fragrance mix 2 and hydroxyisohexyl
`3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral) in the European baseline
`patch test series. Contact Derm 2008;58:129–133.
`6. International Fragrance Associations. IFRA standards. 3 and
`4-(4-Hydroxy-4-methylpentyl)-3-cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde
`(HMPCC) January 2003 (available from www.ifraorg.org). Accessed
`on 4 June 2008.
`7. Braendstrup P, Johansen JD; Danish Contact Dermatitis Group.
`Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral) is still a
`frequent allergen. Contact Derm 2008;59:187–188.
`8. Rietschel RL, Fowler Jr., JF. Practical aspects of patch testing.
`In: Rietschel RL, Fowler Jr., JF, eds. Fisher’s Contact Dermatitis.
`5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. pp.
`9–26.
`9. Belsito DV, Fowler JF Jr, Sasseville D, Marks JG Jr, De Leo VA, Storrs
`FJ. Delayed-type hypersensitivity to fragrance materials in a select
`North American population. Dermatitis 2006;17:23–28.
`10. Handley J, Burrows D. Allergic contact dermatitis from the
`synthetic fragrances Lyral and acetyl cedrene in separate underarm
`deodorant preparations. Contact Derm 1994;31:288–290.
`11. Hendriks SA, Bousema MT, van Ginkel CJ. Allergic contact
`dermatitis from the fragrance ingredient Lyral in underarm
`deodorant. Contact Derm 1999;41:119.
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket