Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
We would entirely agree with the authors about the increasing
prevalence of Para-phenylenediamine (PPD) allergy to hair dyes amongst the
population which is mainly due to increased usage by consumers.1 However
we would suggest that it could also be due to three other factors.
Firstly, when an adverse reaction is reported to a manufacturer by a
customer many of the companies now offer the patients the opportunity to
have their case investigated by a consultant dermatologist and therefore
are now more likely to be patch tested.
Secondly, increasing home usage may result in more skin exposure. In
practice it is more difficult to sensitise the scalp than the skin. If
inadvertently PPD is applied to the skin a severe reaction can ensue.
Application of PPD to the skin with patch testing is the most common
allergen to induce active sensitisation in a patch test clinic and is the
reason why in Germany routine patch testing with PPD has now been
discontinued.2
Thirdly, the advice that is given to consumers to test the product on
normal skin before usage is unscientific and potentially increases the
risk of sensitisation. The more times that an individual undertakes such a
test then the more likely they are to become sensitised. It also does not
obviate a subsequent reaction when the product is used as they may have
been sensitised by the previous test. Although the companies are trying to
be responsible to make individuals aware of the risk of sensitisation this
latter policy can only contribute to more cases of sensitisation
occurring.
Periasamy Balasubramaniam Specialist Registrar p.balasubramaniam@nhs.net, Iain S Foulds Consultant Dermatologist,
Birmingham Skin Centre, City Hospital, Birmingham B18 7QH
1. McFadden JP, White IR, Frosch PJ, Sosted H, Johansen JD, Menne T.
Allergy to hair dye. BMJ. 2007 Feb 3;334(7587):220.
2. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ, Lehmacher W, Aberer W et al.
National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of
the standard series. Population-adjusted frequencies of sensitization
(PAFS) in 40,000 patients from a multicenter study (IVDK). Contact
Dermatitis. 1997 Nov;37(5):200-9.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests:
No competing interests
10 February 2007
Periasamy Balasubramaniam
Specialist Registrar in Dermatology
Iain S Foulds, Consultant Dermatologist, Birmingham Skin Centre, City Hospital, Birmingham B18 7QH
Birmingham Skin Centre, City Hospital, Birmingham B18 7QH
The other reasons for increase in hair dye allergy
We would entirely agree with the authors about the increasing
prevalence of Para-phenylenediamine (PPD) allergy to hair dyes amongst the
population which is mainly due to increased usage by consumers.1 However
we would suggest that it could also be due to three other factors.
Firstly, when an adverse reaction is reported to a manufacturer by a
customer many of the companies now offer the patients the opportunity to
have their case investigated by a consultant dermatologist and therefore
are now more likely to be patch tested.
Secondly, increasing home usage may result in more skin exposure. In
practice it is more difficult to sensitise the scalp than the skin. If
inadvertently PPD is applied to the skin a severe reaction can ensue.
Application of PPD to the skin with patch testing is the most common
allergen to induce active sensitisation in a patch test clinic and is the
reason why in Germany routine patch testing with PPD has now been
discontinued.2
Thirdly, the advice that is given to consumers to test the product on
normal skin before usage is unscientific and potentially increases the
risk of sensitisation. The more times that an individual undertakes such a
test then the more likely they are to become sensitised. It also does not
obviate a subsequent reaction when the product is used as they may have
been sensitised by the previous test. Although the companies are trying to
be responsible to make individuals aware of the risk of sensitisation this
latter policy can only contribute to more cases of sensitisation
occurring.
Periasamy Balasubramaniam Specialist Registrar
p.balasubramaniam@nhs.net, Iain S Foulds Consultant Dermatologist,
Birmingham Skin Centre, City Hospital, Birmingham B18 7QH
1. McFadden JP, White IR, Frosch PJ, Sosted H, Johansen JD, Menne T.
Allergy to hair dye. BMJ. 2007 Feb 3;334(7587):220.
2. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ, Lehmacher W, Aberer W et al.
National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of
the standard series. Population-adjusted frequencies of sensitization
(PAFS) in 40,000 patients from a multicenter study (IVDK). Contact
Dermatitis. 1997 Nov;37(5):200-9.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests