Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Topical Preparations Containing Minoxidil: A Systematic Review and Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Topical minoxidil is generally well tolerated, yet there have been a few reports of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) confirmed through patch testing. This systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis sought to elucidate the primary allergens in patients exhibiting ACD in response to topical minoxidil formulations and to ascertain the appropriate testing concentrations and vehicles of minoxidil itself. A comprehensive search was conducted across the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases utilizing the keywords "minoxidil" and "contact dermatitis," or "contact allergy," or "contact eczema." Studies documenting ACD in patients using topical minoxidil confirmed by patch testing were deemed eligible. Our analysis included 46 studies encompassing 99 patients with patch-test-confirmed ACD to minoxidil-based topical treatments. The majority of these patients (93.9%) were exposed to minoxidil without additional active components. Minoxidil itself was identified as the primary allergen in 74.7% of the patients, with propylene glycol being the next most common allergen at 17.1%. Other allergens identified included estradiol, butylene glycol, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, canrenone, and latanoprost. The most effective concentration was found to be 2% minoxidil in propylene glycol, which yielded a 100% positivity rate. The findings indicate that minoxidil is the predominant allergen in ACD reactions to its topical formulations, followed by propylene glycol. For the accurate diagnosis of ACD related to minoxidil, patch testing with 2% minoxidil in propylene glycol is recommended, as are separate tests for propylene glycol and other potential allergenic ingredients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".