Empfindliche/hypersensitive Haut

  • Martina Kerscher

Zusammenfassung

Empfindliche bzw. hypersensitive Haut ist keine Entität, sondern ein Symptom mit diversen endogenen oder exogenen Ursachen und stellt heute ein beachtliches dermatologisches Problem der Gesellschaft dar. So stuften in einer britischen Studie mehr als die Hälfte aller befragten Frauen und nahezu 40% der Männer ihre Haut als empfindlich ein, 10% der Frauen und etwa 6% der Männer beurteilten ihre Haut sogar als sehr empfindlich [41]. 23% der Frauen und etwa 14% der Männer gaben an, eine Überempfindlichkeitsreaktion auf ein persönliches Pflegeprodukt innerhalb der letzten 12 Monate vor Durchführung der Umfrage gehabt zu haben [41]. Die Inzidenz empfindlicher Haut scheint auch in Amerika nicht niedriger zu sein als in Europa. So gaben in San Francisco 52% aller Befragten an, an empfindlicher Haut zu leiden [25]. Diese Zahlen verdeutlichen die große Relevanz sensitiver Haut nicht nur für den praktischen Arzt und Dermatologen, sondern auch für die Industrie [15, 22, 30, 34, 39, 42]. Letztere bietet als Reaktion auf die hohe Prävalenz zahlreiche Produkte speziell für empfindliche Haut an (Abb. 4.1), obschon nicht klar definiert und allgemein bekannt ist, was genau die häufig verwendeten Begriffe „empfindliche“ oder „hypersensitive” Haut charakterisieren.
Abb. 4.1

Produktbeispiele von Hautpflegepräparaten für empfindliche Haut

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Adams RM, Maibach HI (1985) A five-year study of cosmetic reactions. J Am Acad Dermatol 13: 1062–1069PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agner T, Serup J (1989) Quantification of the DMSO-response–a test for assessment of sensitive skin. Clin Exp Dermatol 14: 214–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amin S, Engasser P, Maibach HI (1998) Sensitive skin: What is it? In: Baran R, Maibach HI (eds) Textbook of Cosmetic Dermatology (2nd edn). Martin Dunitz, London, pp 343–349Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Basketter DA, Griffiths HA (1993) A study of the relationship between susceptibility to skin stinging and skin irritation. Contact Dermatitis 29: 185–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Basketter DA, Griffiths HA, Wang XM, Wilhelm KP, McFadden J (1996) Individual, ethnic and seasonal variability in irritant susceptibility of skin: the implications for a predictive human patch test. Contact Dermatitis 35: 208–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Basketter D, Reynolds F, Rowson M, Talbot C, Whittle E (1997) Visual assessment of human skin irritation: a sensitive and reproducible tool. Contact Dermatitis 37: 218–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Basketter DA, Gilpin G, Kuhn M, Lawrence D, Reynolds F, Whittle E (1998) Patch tests versus use tests in skin irritation risk assessment. Contact Dermatitis 39: 252–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baumann L (2002) Cosmetic Dermatology–Principles and Practice. Mc Graw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Benfeldt E, Serup J (1999) Effect of barrier perturbation on cutaneous penetration of salicylic acid in hairless rats: in vivo pharmacokinetics using microdialysis and non-invasive quantification of barrier function. Arch Dermatol Res 291: 517–526PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berardesca E, Maibach HI (1991) Sensitive and ethnic skin. A need for special skin-care agents? Dermatol Clin 9: 89–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cotterill JA (1981) Dermatological non-disease: a common and potentially fatal disturbance of cutaneous body image. Br J Dermatol 104: 611619Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cotterill JA (1983) Clinical features of patients with dermatological non-disease. Semin Dermatol 2: 203–205Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Lacharriere O, Jourdain R, Bastien P, Garrigue JL (2001) Sensitive skin is not a subclinical expression of contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis 44: 131–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Draelos ZD (1997) Sensitive skin: perceptions, evaluation, and treatment. Am J Contact Dermat 8: 67–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Draelos ZD (2000) Treating the patient with multiple cosmetic product allergies. A problem-oriented approach to sensitive skin. Postgrad Med 107:70–72, 75–77Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Effendy I, Weltfriend S, Patil S, Maibach HI (1996) Differential irritant skin responses to topical retinoic acid and sodium lauryl sulphate: alone and in crossover design. Br J Dermatol 134: 424–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Faller C, Bracher M, Dami N, Roguet R (2002) Predictive ability of reconstructed human epidermis equivalents for the assessment of skin irritation of cosmetics. Toxicol In Vitro 16: 557–572PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fisher A (1980) Cosmetic actions and reactions: therapeutic, irritant and allergic. Cutis 26: 22–29Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Foy V, Weinkauf R, Whittle E, Basketter DA (2001) Ethnic variation in the skin irritation response. Contact Dermatitis 45: 346–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Francomano M, Bertoni L, Seidenari S (2000) Sensitive skin as subclinical expression of contact allergy to nickel sulfate. Contact Dermatitis 42: 169–170PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Frosch PJ, Kligman AM (1977) A method for appraising the stinging capacity of topically applied substances. J Soc Cosmet Chem 28: 197–209Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goffin V, Pierard-Franchimont C, Pierard GE (1996) Sensitive skin and stratum corneum reactivity to household cleaning products. Contact Dermatitis 34: 81–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Issachar N, Gall Y, Borell MT, Poelman MC (1997) pH measurements during lactic acid stinging test in normal and sensitive skin. Contact Dermatitis 36: 152–155Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Issachar N, Gall Y, Borrel MT, Poelman MC (1998) Correlation between percutaneous penetration of methyl nicotinate and sensitive skin, using laser Doppler imaging. Contact Dermatitis 39: 182–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jourdain R, Lacharriere O, Bastien P, Maibach HI (2002) Ethnic variations in self-perceived sensitive skin: epidemiological survey. Contact Dermatitis 46: 162–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maibach HI. (1987) The cosmetic intolerance syndrome. Ear, Nose, Throat J 66: 49–53Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maibach HI, Lammintausta K, Berardesca E, Freeman S (1989) Tendency to irritation: sensitive skin. J Am Acad Dermatol 21: 833–835PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mills OH Jr, Berger RS (1991) Defining the susceptibility of acne-prone and sensitive skin populations to extrinsic factors. Dermatol Clin 9: 93–98PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Morren M, Dooms-Goosens A, Heidbuchel M, Sente F, Damas MC (1991) Contact allergy to dihydroacetone. Contact Dermatitis 25: 326–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Muizzuddin N, Marenus KD, Maes DH (1998) Factors defining sensitive skin and its treatment. Am J Contact Dermat 9: 170–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pierard GE, Arrese JE, Rodriguez C, Daskaleros PA (1994) Effects of softened and unsoftened fabrics on sensitive skin. Contact Dermatitis 30: 286–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Plewig G, Jansen T, Schürer NY (1997) Das Stratum corneum. Hautarzt 48: 510–521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reilly DM, Parslew R, Sharpe GR, Powell S, Green M (2000) Inflammatory mediators in normal, sensitive and diseased skin types. Acta Derm Venereol 80: 171–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Richard A, Rougier A (2002) A test battery to insure the safety of topical products especiallyGoogle Scholar
  35. designed for sensitive skin: application for the development of a daily cream. Eur J Dermatol 12:LIV-LVGoogle Scholar
  36. 35.
    Rietschel R, Fowler J (eds) (2001) Fisher’s contact dermatitis (5th edn). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  37. 36.
    Robinson MK (2002) Population differences in acute skin irritation responses. Race, sex, age, sensitive skin and repeat subject comparisons. Contact Dermatitis 46: 86–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 37.
    Ruëff F (2000) Allergische Kontaktdermatitis. In: Braun-Falco O, Gloor M, Korting HC (Hrsg) Nutzen and Risiko von Kosmetika. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, S 90–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 38.
    Seidenari S, Francomano M, Mantovani L (1998) Baseline biophysical parameters in subjects with sensitive skin. Contact Dermatitis 38: 311–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 39.
    Vie K, Pons-Guiraud A, Dupuy P, Maibach H (2000) Tolerance profile of a sterile moisturizer and moisturizing cleanser in irritated and sensitive skin. Am J Contact Dermat 11: 161–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 40.
    West I, Maibach HI (1995) Contact urticaria syndrome from multiple cosmetic components. Contact Dermatitis 32: 121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 41.
    Willis CM, Shaw S, De Lacharriere O, Baverel M, Reiche L, Jourdain R, Bastien P, Wilkinson JD (2001) Sensitive skin: an epidemiological study. Br J Dermatol 145: 258–263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 42.
    Wolf R (1994) Has mildness replaced cleanliness next to godliness? Dermatology 189: 217–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 43.
    Zhai H, Hannon W, Hahn GS, Pelosi A, Harper RA, Maibach HI (2000) Strontium nitrate suppresses chemically induced sensory irritation in humans. Contact Dermatitis 42: 98–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martina Kerscher
    • 1
  1. 1.Studiengang Kosmetik und KörperpflegeUniversität HamburgHamburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations