Adverse reactions to sunscreens are uncommon in relation to their widespread use [Loden et al. Br J Dermatol. 2011;165(2):255-62; Jansen et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;69(6):867 e861-814; quiz 881-862] and can be related to both active and inactive ingredients in sunscreen products [DiNardo et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2018;17(1):15-19; Barrientos et al. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;81(2):151-52]. Pathogenetically, the main cutaneous adverse reaction patterns to sunscreens can be divided into allergic and irritant contact dermatitis, phototoxic and photoallergic contact dermatitis, contact urticaria, and, in solitary cases, anaphylactic reactions [Lautenschlager et al. Lancet. 2007;370(9586):528-37]. A summary is provided in Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="t01">1</xref>. Nearly all adverse effects due to active sunscreen ingredients reported to date are related to the organic UV filters, which are sometimes also referred to as "chemical UV filters." This imbalance is attributable to the lipophilic character and small molecular size of the organic UV filters that allow skin penetration, which is the basic requirement to initiate the sensitization [Stiefel et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2015;37(1):2-30]. In contrast, cutaneous adverse reactions to inorganic UV filters, initially termed "physical UV filters" owing to their firstly known "physical" mechanism of action through reflection and scattering [Stiefel et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2015;37(1):2-30], are only reported by case reports. Neither zinc oxide nor titanium dioxide possesses relevant skin-irritating properties or sensitization potential [Lau-tenschlager et al. Lancet. 2007;370(9586):528-37]. Adverse reactions to UV filters currently approved in the European Union as listed in the Annex VI (updated November 7, 2019) are summarized in Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="t02">2</xref>.
© 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel.