UK trends of allergic occupational skin disease attributed to fragrances 1996-2015

Recognizing and Managing Allergic Contact Dermatitis: Focus on Major Allergens

Patch testing is the reference standard for the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. Identification and avoidance of culprit allergens are essential in the treatment of this disease. Each year, new allergens are identified as emerging or important. The authors discuss allergens that are common, enduring, emergent, incompletely recognized, and controversial for the practicing allergist and dermatologist. This Clinical Management Review will encompass a review of fragrances, preservatives, rubber, acrylates, metals, and medications; their common sources of exposure; controversies in diagnosis and patch testing; management and how to avoid those allergens. This review will also include practical aspects of diagnosis and management and will provide resources that can be used as guidance for physicians and patients on nickel, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, and fragrance, the most common allergens positive on patch testing.

Fragrance Contact Allergy - A Review Focusing on Patch Testing

Fragrance materials are widely used in various types of products in daily life and many of them can be contact sensitizers. Contact allergy to fragrances has been reported to be common worldwide. Unlike other groups of contact allergens such as metals and preservatives, fragrance materials in consumer products can be present as single fragrance chemicals or in the form of mixtures known as natural complex substances. Due to the complexity of the fragrance materials and the high number of fragrance substances known to cause contact sensitization, selecting suitable materials for patch testing is challenging. Emerging fragrance markers have been additionally introduced in different baseline series for screening to enhance the rate of fragrance contact allergy detection. Moreover, there have been continual updates on basic knowledge, clinical perspectives, sources of exposure, and regulations on the use of fragrance materials. Avoiding pitfalls while performing patch testing with fragrance test materials is also crucial and should not be overlooked. Therefore, this review aims to update knowledge to provide a high-quality holistic approach to fragrance contact allergy diagnosis and management.

Contact allergy to ingredients of hair cosmetics in female hairdressers and female consumers-An update based on IVDK data 2013-2020

BACKGROUND

Hair cosmetic products contain several, partly potent contact allergens, including excipients like preservatives. Hand dermatitis in hairdressers is common, scalp and face dermatitis in clients or self-users (summarised here as 'consumers') may be severe.

OBJECTIVE

To compare frequencies of sensitization to hair cosmetic ingredients and other selected allergens between female patch tested patients working as hairdressers and consumers without professional background, respectively, who were tested for suspected allergic contact dermatitis to such products.

METHODS

Patch test and clinical data collected by the IVDK (https://www.ivdk.org) between 01/2013 and 12/2020 were descriptively analysed, focusing on age-adjusted sensitization prevalences in the two subgroups.

RESULTS

Amongst the 920 hairdressers (median age: 28 years, 84% hand dermatitis) and 2321 consumers (median age: 49 years, 71.8% head/face dermatitis), sensitization to p-phenylenediamine (age-standardised prevalence: 19.7% and 31.6%, respectively) and toluene-2,5-diamine (20 and 30.8%) were most common. Contact allergy to other oxidative hair dye ingredients was also more commonly diagnosed in consumers, whereas ammonium persulphate (14.4% vs. 2.3%) and glyceryl thioglycolate (3.9 vs. 1.2%) as well as most notably methylisothiazolinone (10.5% vs. 3.1%) were more frequent allergens in hairdressers.

CONCLUSIONS

Hair dyes were the most frequent sensitizers both in hairdressers and in consumers; however, as indication for patch testing may differ, prevalences cannot directly be compared. The importance of hair dye allergy is evident, often with marked coupled reactivity. Workplace and product safety need to be further improved.

Diagnostics and Prevention of Occupational Allergy in Hairdressers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This study aims to provide an overview on current knowledge on occupational allergic diseases in hairdressers and up-to-date perspectives of prevention.

RECENT FINDINGS

Hand eczema (dermatitis) is common in hairdressers, often caused by contact allergy to one or multiple small molecules (haptens) used, e.g., for dyeing, bleaching, and waving/relaxing or by ancillary substances such as preservatives. Hairdressers, compared to other patch-tested patients, have an up to fivefold increased risk to be found sensitized, e.g., against p-phenylenediamine, ammonium persulfate, and glyceryl thioglycolate. Some of these small molecules may induce respiratory sensitization causing allergic rhinitis and/or asthma, notably persulfate salts. Occupational hazards in hairdressing are well described. This knowledge needs to be put into use for risk reduction, mainly by substitution of allergenic ingredients by less allergenic ones, education, and use of ventilation and suitable single-use gloves.

Low Prevalence of Fragrance Contact Allergy Among Turkish Population: A 24-Year, Cross-Sectional, Tertiary Single-Center, Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist on fragrance contact allergy among Turkish population.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency and characteristics of fragrance contact allergy in Turkey.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 2566 patients consecutively patch tested with the European baseline series and additionally with a fragrance series (n = 358) at a tertiary referral center between 1996 and 2019.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-three patients (6.4%) (male/female, 1.5:1) were sensitized with at least 1 fragrance allergen. Fragrance mix (FM) I was most frequently positive (3.9%), followed by Myroxylon pereirae (3.1%), FM II (2%), and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (0.5%), the latter exclusively positive in FM II-positive patients. Among 358 patients patch tested with a fragrance series, positive patch test reactions were observed in 38 patients, including 8 who did not react to baseline fragrance markers. Clinically relevant fragrance allergy was established in 128 patients (78.5%) from nonoccupational (72.4%) and occupational (6.1%) sources.

CONCLUSIONS

The low prevalence, the middle-aged male preponderance, and the predominant involvement of hands were unusual findings. Rose/citrus-flavored perfumes and eau de cologne, which are traditionally preferred in our country, were important elicitors of fragrance contact allergy, especially among middle-aged and older men.

Occupational Contact Dermatitis: An Update

Occupation contact dermatitis (CD) is a common inflammatory skin condition impacting every professional industry in the United States. It is associated with significant personal and professional distress, loss of revenue, and decreased productivity. Occupational CD is further subdivided into irritant CD and allergic CD. Frequently, workers may suffer from a combination of both types. Numerous workplace exposures are implicated, but there are several themes across professions, such as CD related to frequent handwashing and wet work. A detailed occupational history, physical examination, and patch testing can help to make the diagnosis. Treatment includes identification of the substance and avoidance, which often is quite challenging.

Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Fragrances

Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrance is common. The prevalence of fragrance allergy in the general population is between 0.7% and 2.6%. In patch-test populations, the positive reaction rate to fragrances ranges from 5% to 11%. The most common fragrance screeners in most baseline series include fragrance mix 1, fragrance mix 2, and Balsam of Peru. The addition of hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde, hydroperoxides of limonene, and hydroperoxides of linalool to screening series can further aid in the diagnosis of fragrance allergy. In the proper clinical setting, supplemental patch testing with an additional fragrance or essential oil series should be considered.

Contact Allergy-Emerging Allergens and Public Health Impact

Contact allergy (sensitisation) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) resulting from it have a considerable public health impact. For the present review, all pertinent articles were systematically searched via Medline and Web of Science™; additionally, all available issues of the journals "Contact Dermatitis" and "Dermatitis" were manually searched, covering the years 2018-2019, thereby extending and re-focusing a previous similar review. New allergens, or previously described allergens found in a new exposure context or of other current importance, are described in sections according to substance classes, e.g., metals, preservatives, fragrances. As a common finding in many investigations, a lack of information on product composition has been noted, for instance, regarding a newly described allergen in canvas shoes (dimethylthiocarbamylbenzothiazole sulfide) and, most notably, absence of co-operation from manufacturers of glucose-monitoring devices and insulin pumps, respectively. These latter devices have been shown to cause severe ACD in a considerable number of diabetic patients caused by the liberation of isobornyl acrylate and N,N'-dimethylacrylamide, respectively, as demonstrated by an international collaboration between dermatologists and chemists. Improved and complete ingredient labelling for all types of products, and not just cosmetics, must be put on the legislative agenda.

Skin Sensitization Induction Potential From Daily Exposure to Fragrances in Personal Care Products

BACKGROUND

Many chemicals used for fragrance purposes in a diversity of products have allergenic potential. Based on such concerns, industry groups developed concentration limits for use of fragrance chemicals in personal care and cosmetic products.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to use a quantitative risk assessment to evaluate the potential for skin sensitization induction resulting from daily exposure to fragrance chemicals present in personal care and cosmetic products.

METHODS

Product-specific dermal consumer exposure levels were calculated based on product use data in US adult females and benchmarked against acceptable exposure levels based on reported no expected sensitization induction levels to determine a margin of safety for each fragrance under evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate an increased risk of skin sensitization induction for several leave-on products (lipstick, solid antiperspirant, eye shadow, face cream) for most of the evaluated fragrance chemicals, particularly under high-use exposure scenarios. In contrast, rinse-off products (shampoo, conditioner, facial cleanser) were not associated with risk of skin sensitization induction. Because the approach was based on maximum use limits for fragrance chemicals with skin sensitization concerns, the results suggest these limits may not be protective, particularly in the United States.

Fragrance inhalation and adverse health effects: The question of causation

The toxicology of fragrance materials is largely well understood. Although most are benign, a minority have the potential to cause adverse health effects, notably allergic contact dermatitis resulting from skin sensitization. As a consequence, industry guidelines have banned certain materials and strictly limited the use of others. Recently, data have been published that have been interpreted to suggest that inhalation of fragrances is associated with the occurrence of a variety of health effects, ranging from headaches to asthma attacks. In this review, the evidence basis for these assertions is examined critically and the biological basis and mechanistic plausibility for causation by fragranced products of these health effects is explored. This review concludes that respiratory effects, including irritation and allergy appear highly unlikely to occur by this route. While some sensory/psychosomatic effects are possible, this does not explain the very high rates of adverse effects reported in the recently published questionnaire studies, which this review concludes are more likely to be attributed to methodological weaknesses. Ultimately, it is concluded that adverse health effects arising from fragrance inhalation are uncommon and remain to be identified and confirmed by methodologically rigorous epidemiological investigations supported by a convincing biological and mechanistic basis.