The Epidemiology of Fragrance Allergy: Questions and Needs

Background: There are still open questions about the safety of fragrances. Objectives: To evaluate the evidence concerning the frequency of contact dermatitis to fragrances in the general population and selected subgroups and the risk factors for sensitization and clinical manifestations. Methods: Review of published data. Results: No criteria for a reliable diagnosis of ‘contact dermatitis’ are available. International recommendations and standardization for patch test methods exist; however, the question whether agents that are positive are causally linked to contact dermatitis remain fraught with uncertainties concerning false-positive rates and clinical relevance. Most of the discussion concerning prevalence or incidence variations of allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances concentrate on the frequency of positive patch tests in clinical series, i.e. ‘floating numerators’. Conclusions: Risk assessment requires that data from different sources are integrated and compared. Both a ‘sentinel surveillance’ system and more refined epidemiological studies in well-defined populations are needed to reliably assess the risks associated with fragrance exposure.

[1]  P. Frosch,et al.  A multicenter study ofsynchronous left- versus right-sided patch tests by the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group , 1994 .

[2]  J. Ring,et al.  Reproducibility of patch tests. , 1989, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[3]  I Kimber,et al.  Thresholds in contact sensitization: theoretical and practical considerations. , 1999, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[4]  O. Gefeller,et al.  Reproducibility of patch tests , 2004, Contact dermatitis.

[5]  Spontaneous reporting: how many cases are required to trigger a warning? , 1991, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[6]  A. Schnuch PAFS: population–adjusted frequency of sensitization , 1996, Contact dermatitis.

[7]  B. Meding Epidemiology of hand eczema in an industrial city. , 1990, Acta dermato-venereologica. Supplementum.

[8]  T. Menné,et al.  [Contact sensitivity to cosmetics in an unselected Danish population. The Glostrup Allergy Study, Denmark]. , 1993, Annales de dermatologie et de venereologie.

[9]  J A Hanley,et al.  If nothing goes wrong, is everything all right? Interpreting zero numerators. , 1983, JAMA.

[10]  Skov,et al.  Allergens in combination have a synergistic effect on the elicitation response: a study of fragrance‐sensitized individuals , 1998, The British journal of dermatology.

[11]  W. Lehmacher,et al.  National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series , 1997, Contact dermatitis.

[12]  D. Holness,et al.  Validity of patch test screening trays in the evaluation of patients with allergic contact dermatitis. , 1989, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[13]  S. Feldman,et al.  Significance-prevalence index number: a reinterpretation and enhancement of data from the North American contact dermatitis group. , 1999, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[14]  B. Lindelöf A left versus right side comparative study of Finn Chamber™ patch tests in 220 consecutive patients , 1990, Contact dermatitis.

[15]  A. Lavrijsen,et al.  Evaluation of a self‐administered questionnaire on hand dermatitis , 1992, Contact dermatitis.

[16]  J. S. Taylor,et al.  North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for the detection of delayed-type hypersensitivity to topical allergens. , 1998, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[17]  R. Vermeulen,et al.  Ascertainment of hand dermatitis using a symptom‐based questionnaire; applicability in an industrial population , 2000, Contact dermatitis.

[18]  G A Colditz,et al.  Postmarketing surveillance and adverse drug reactions: current perspectives and future needs. , 1999, JAMA.

[19]  W. Aberer,et al.  Multicentre studies and conflicting prevalence data , 1992, Contact dermatitis.

[20]  W Uter,et al.  Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. The information network of departments of dermatology (IVDK) in Germany. , 1998, European journal of dermatology : EJD.

[21]  Moride Yola,et al.  Evidence of the depletion of susceptibles effect in non-experimental pharmacoepidemiologic research. , 1994 .

[22]  J. Lachapelle A left versus right side comparative study of Epiquick™ patch test results in 100 consecutive patients , 1989, Contact dermatitis.

[23]  H. Jick,et al.  Principles of epidemiological research on adverse and beneficial drug effects , 1998, The Lancet.

[24]  M J Sold,et al.  If nothing goes wrong—is everything alright? , 1987, Anaesthesia.