Objective:To analyze clinical characteristics of cosmetics-related adverse reactions and main allergenic components of cosmetics, to provide guidance for cosmetics-related adverse reaction monitoring, and to provide an objective basis for risk assessment.Methods:A total of 512 patients with suspected cosmetic adverse reactions were collected from the outpatient clinic of Chongqing Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital from March 2018 to October 2019, including 14 males and 498 females. A uniform cosmetic adverse reaction report card was filled in, and medical history of patients and related information about the used cosmetics were recorded; 103 patients (3 males and 100 females) were subjected to patch test with their own cosmetics or cosmetic ingredients, and 48- and 72-hour patch test results were combined for comprehensive determination and analysis.Results:Among the 512 cases of suspected cosmetic adverse reactions, contact dermatitis (495 cases, 96.7%) was the most common manifestation. Cosmetic adverse reactions mainly manifested as erythema (501 cases, 97.9%), papules (313, 61.1%), edema (249, 48.6%), and scaling (166, 32.4%) ; main symptoms included itching (480, 93.8%), burning sensation (359, 70.1%), and tense sensation (297, 58.0%). Patch test with cosmetic ingredients showed positive reactions in 71 of 103 cases, and thimerosal was the allergen mostly liable to cause adverse reactions (31 cases, 30.1%), followed by sodium dodecyl sulfate (29 cases, 28.2%), Peru balsam (17 cases, 16.5%), bronopol (12 cases, 11.7%) and triethanoamine (10 cases, 9.7%). The cosmetic allergens were divided into 14 categories, and the top 4 categories with high positive patch test rates were emulsifiers (54 cases, 45.8%), preservatives (47 cases, 39.8%), fragrances (17 cases, 14.4%) and surfactants (10 cases, 8.5%). Positive patch test reactions were observed in 2 males and 69 females, and there was no significant difference in the positive rate between males and females (2/3 vs. 69/100, χ2 = 0.01, P > 0.05) ; there was also no significant difference in the positive rate among the groups aged 18 - 29 years (34%), 30 - 49 years (34%) and 50 - 70 years (32.4%; χ2 = 0.693, P > 0.05) . Conclusions:Contact dermatitis is the most common adverse reaction to cosmetics. Among the diverse allergenic components of cosmetics, thimerosal is the allergen that is mostly liable to cause adverse reactions, followed by sodium dodecyl sulfate, Peru balsam, bronopol and triethanoamine.

Objective To evaluate the clinical effect of fire needle in treating vitiligo and the characteristics of vitiligo image by the confocal laser scanning microscope(CLSM).Methods The randomized self-controlled experiment design was adopted.Each patient selected two symmetric or adjacent white patches and randomly received the fire needle treatment or tacrolimus treatment. The duration of treatment was 3 months.The CLSM images of white patches were recorded before treatment and after 3,6 times of fire needle treatment.Results Among 41 cases of stable stage vitiligo,The effective rates of the fire needle group and tacrolimus group were 82.9% and 78.0% respectively,and the difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05).After fire needle treat-ment,dentritic melanin cells appeared,the pigment granules gradually appeared around the basal layer and corpora papillare,and formed the pigment ring.Conclusion Fire needle and tacrolimus have the similar effect in treating vitiligo,moreover CLSM can be used as the non-invasive,objective and reliable detection means of the recovery of vitiligo melanocyte.

Objective:To evaluate the efficacy of acrivastine alone or in combination with loratadine in the treatment of chronic refractory urticaria.Methods:From March 2017 to December 2018, a multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical study was conducted in 4 centers. Patients with chronic refractory urticaria were randomly divided into two groups, i.e., combined treatment group receiving oral acrivastine capsules 8 mg thrice a day plus oral loratadine tablets 10 mg once a day, and acrivastine alone group receiving oral acrivastine capsules 8 mg thrice a day plus a placebo 10 mg once a day. The course of treatment was 4 weeks. Visits were scheduled at baseline and after 1, 2 and 4 weeks of treatment. At the same time, clinical data were collected, and adverse events were recorded. Symptom scores were evaluated based on degree of itching, number and size of wheals, duration of each attack and number of attacks per week, and symptom score reduce index (SSRI) was used to evaluate the efficacy. Repeated measures analysis of variance and chi-square test were used to evaluate the efficacy and safety.Results:Fifty-three patients in the combined treatment group and 59 in the acrivastine alone group were included in the efficacy analysis. Before treatment, there was no significant difference in symptom score or visual analogue score between the two groups. After 2 weeks of treatment, 19 patients were cured and 10 achieved marked improvement in the combined treatment group, with a response rate of 54.72%; 15 were cured and 6 achieved marked improvement in the acrivastine alone group, with a response rate of 35.59%. After 4 weeks of treatment, 23 patients were cured and 9 achieved marked improvement in the combined treatment group, with a response rate of 60.38%; 20 were cured and 2 achieved marked improvement in the acrivastine alone group, with a response rate of 37.29%. After 2 and 4 weeks of treatment, the response rates were significantly higher in the combined treatment group than in the acrivastine alone group ( χ2 = 4.13, 5.96 respectively, both P < 0.05) . The SSRI significantly differed among different follow-up time points, as well as between the 2 groups ( F = 8.62, 4.38 respectively, both P < 0.05) . Multivariate analysis of variance showed that SSRI was significantly higher in the combined treatment group (0.63 ± 0.05, 0.68 ± 0.05, respectively) than in the acrivastine alone group (0.47 ± 0.05, 0.51 ± 0.05, respectively) after 2 and 4 weeks of treatment (both P < 0.05) . Drug-related adverse reactions, including drowsiness, stomach upsets, headache and liver function abnormality, occurred in 7 patients in the combined treatment group, as well as in 3 in the acrivastine alone group. Conclusion:Acrivastine is safe and effective for the treatment of chronic refractory urticaria, and acrivastine combined with loratadine can markedly improve the efficacy.