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 in Swedish professional ice hockey players

BACKGROUND

Professional ice hockey players may contract irritant and allergic contact dermatitis.

AIMS

To investigate the presence of contact allergy (CA) in professional ice hockey players in Sweden.

METHODS

Ten teams from the two top leagues were assessed for potential occupational exposure to sensitizers. Exactly 107 players were patch tested with an extended baseline series and a working series, in total 74 test preparations. The CA rates were compared between the ice hockey players and controls from the general population and dermatitis patients.

RESULTS

One out of 4 players had at least one contact allergy. The most common sensitizers were Amerchol L 101, nickel and oxidized limonene. CA was as common in the ice hockey players as in dermatitis patients and significantly more common than in the general population. Fragrances and combined sensitizers in cosmetic products (fragrances + preservatives + emulsifier) were significantly more common in ice hockey players compared with the general population.

CONCLUSION

The possible relationship between CA to fragrances and cosmetic products on the one hand and the presence of dermatitis on the other should be explored further.

Simultaneous patch testing with fragrance markers in the baseline series and the ingredients of fragrance mixes ‐ an update from southern Sweden

Background

Regularly updating the prevalence of fragrance contact allergy (CA) is important. Patch testing with fragrance markers in the baseline series and the ingredients of fragrance mixes (FMs) is still debated.

Objectives

To update the prevalence and clinical characteristics of patients with fragrance CA. To establish the results of patch testing with individual allergens of FMs.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of 3539 patients with dermatitis who were patch tested with the baseline series and FMs ingredients during 2016 to 2020 was performed.

Results

The prevalence of fragrance CA was 13%. About 10% of these patients with fragrance CA would be missed if the individual ingredients were not tested. Unlike hydroxyisohexyl 3‐cyclohexene carboxaldehyde, there was no decreasing trend of CA to Evernia prunastri (oakmoss) extract after the EU regulation came into force. Patients with CA from only one ingredient of the mixes or having a weak positive reaction to the ingredients were significantly missed when tested with only the fragrance markers in the baseline series.

Conclusions

Patch testing with individual fragrance allergens is crucial for experts to expand knowledge in the fragrance CA field. The concentrations of the allergens in FMs may need to be adjusted to detect patients with fragrance CA, since some were significantly overlooked.

Epicutaneous Patch Testing in Type IV Allergy Diagnostics: State of the Art and Best Practice Recommendations

This chapter summarises all relevant aspects of patch testing, closely following recommendations outlined in a recent European, and a German S3 guideline on diagnostic patch testing with contact allergens and medicinal products (drugs). Patch testing is indicated in patients suspected of suffering, or having been suffering, from delayed-type hypersensitivity leading to allergic contact dermatitis or other skin and mucosal diseases. Sections of this chapter include detailed indications, reasons for possibly postponing the test, considerations on choosing haptens (contact allergens) to test, various aspects of the application of patch test allergen preparations (storage, dosing) and of testing with individual materials provided by the patients. Special aspects of patch testing in cutaneous adverse drug reactions, children, or occupational contact dermatitis are outlined. Supplemental test methods, notably the repeated open application test, are briefly described. Finally, the final evaluation in terms of assessment of clinical relevance of reactions and patient counselling are outlined.

Contact allergy to oxidized linalool and oxidized limonene: Patch testing in consecutive patients with dermatitis

BACKGROUND

Contact allergy to oxidized (ox.) linalool and ox. limonene has been reported to have a high prevalence, raising the question of inclusion into the baseline series. However, several important issues should be clarified and further investigated before inclusion can be warranted.

OBJECTIVES

To report the trends of ox. terpenes allergy in patients with dermatitis, features of the patch test reactions, and clinical characteristics of the patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 5773 patients was performed. All patients were patch tested with baseline series, individual ingredients of fragrance mix I and II, ox. linalool, and ox. limonene from 2013 to 2020.

RESULTS

The prevalence rates of contact allergy to ox. linalool and ox. limonene were 7.0% and 5.1%, respectively. Significantly increasing trends of contact allergy were observed. More than 95% of contact allergy cases were identified on Day 3/4. Patients with contact allergy to ox. linalool and ox. limonene were significantly younger than those with contact allergy to other fragrances and were predominantly female. Strong reactions were associated with older age and multiple fragrance allergies.

CONCLUSIONS

Contact allergy to ox. linalool and ox. limonene is becoming increasingly important, and findings show intriguing features. More studies concerning the clinical relevance before recommending these substances for screening are required.

Validation of questionnaire algorithm based on repeated open application testing with the constituents of fragrance mix II: the EDEN Fragrance Study

BACKGROUND

In a European study on contact allergy in the general population, it has been hypothesized that the combination of contact allergy to a fragrance together with a history indicating dermatitis at exposure and thereafter subsequent avoidance of scented products implied a diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this study was to validate this hypothesis/algorithm. The secondary aim was to investigate whether there was any association between the outcome of the recent repeated open application test (ROAT) and the patch test reactivity.

METHODS

One hundred nine subjects with and without contact allergy to fragrance mix II (FM II) were recruited. Volunteers from six European dermatology clinics participated in the study including a patch test and a ROAT.

RESULTS

Twenty-four positive ROAT reactions were noted in total including 20 of those 32 with contact allergy to FM II. None of the volunteers reacted to the vehicle (P < 0.001). More individuals with a positive algorithm had positive ROATs when compared with those with a negative algorithm. However, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.12). The lower the patch test concentration eliciting a positive test reaction, the more likely was a positive ROAT and the more likely that the positive ROAT appeared early during the investigative period.

CONCLUSIONS

The algorithm used in this study was not validated but it was indicated in this ROAT setup. The stronger the patch test reactivity the more likely was a positive ROAT and the more likely it was that the positive ROAT appeared early during the application period.

Draize human repeat insult patch test (HRIPT): Seven decades of pitfalls and progress

Allergic contact dermatitis, a Type IV delayed hypersensitivity reaction, can result in dermatologic signs/symptoms for patients/workers. The likelihood of this phenomenon has been estimated/predicted for numerous chemicals/drugs by animal model and human patch testing protocols developed over the last century. Karl Landsteiner initiated testing with guinea pig studies; further studies based on his initial concept were in continual development. John Draize extended Landsteiner's guinea pig studies (which led to development of blood transfusions) to a human assay documenting irritant and allergic contact dermatitis potential - for drugs, chemicals, mixtures and products. We performed a literature search of major Draize derived protocols of the human repeat insult patch test (HRIPT). Our results reveal minor and major differences between protocols and lack of international standardization. Key clarification and principles post-Draize modified and improved usefulness of the HRIPT. Without a standard method of performing the HRIPT, it is problematic to generalize results of studies summarized here. Furthermore, we suggest a potential standardization procedure/protocol combining the work of the most satisfactory HRIPT methods. As the HRIPT constitutes a key parameter in current quantitative risk assessment for chemicals/drugs, such standardization should aid potential prediction of allergic contact dermatitis potential.

Pitfalls in Patch Testing: Minimizing the Risk of Avoidable False-Negative Reactions

Patch testing is the gold-standard diagnostic tool for the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis; unfortunately, it is a procedure with potential for errors, including false-negative reactions. Some of the factors responsible for this are likely unavoidable; however, others may potentially lie within the control of the user. Knowledge and management of these controllable factors may improve the outcome of patch testing and minimize the incidence of false-negative patch test results.

European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing - recommendations on best practice

The present guideline summarizes all aspects of patch testing for the diagnosis of contact allergy in patients suspected of suffering, or having been suffering, from allergic contact dermatitis or other delayed-type hypersensitivity skin and mucosal conditions. Sections with brief descriptions and discussions of different pertinent topics are followed by a highlighted short practical recommendation. Topics comprise, after an introduction with important definitions, materials, technique, modifications of epicutaneous testing, individual factors influencing the patch test outcome or necessitating special considerations, children, patients with occupational contact dermatitis and drug eruptions as special groups, patch testing of materials brought in by the patient, adverse effects of patch testing, and the final evaluation and patient counselling based on this judgement. Finally, short reference is made to aspects of (continuing) medical education and to electronic collection of data for epidemiological surveillance.