Contact sensitization to fragrances in the general population: A Koch's approach may reveal the burden of disease

British Journal of Dermatology

Volumn 160, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 729-735

  Thyssen, J P ^a   Menne T ^a   Linneberg, A ^a   Johansen, J D ^a  

^a GENTOFTE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Epidemiology; Fragrance mix; General population; Myroxylon pereirae; Prevalence

Indexed keywords

ALLERGEN; FRAGRANCE;

ARTICLE; BIOSIS; CONTACT ALLERGY; CONTACT DERMATITIS; CONTACT SENSITIZATION; DISEASE SEVERITY; GROUPS BY AGE; HUMAN; MEDLINE; PATCH TEST; POPULATION RESEARCH; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SAMPLE SIZE; SEX RATIO; SKIN ALLERGY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

AGE DISTRIBUTION; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MYROXYLON; PATCH TESTS; PERFUME; PLANT PREPARATIONS; PREVALENCE; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 62649167373     PISSN: 00070963     EISSN: 13652133     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2008.09022.x     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Nardelli A, Carbonez A, Ottoy W et al. Frequency of and trends in fragrance allergy over a 15-year period. Contact Dermatitis 2008 58 : 134 41.
2. Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Geier J et al. Contact allergy to fragrances: frequencies of sensitization from 1996 to 2002. Results of the IVDK. Contact Dermatitis 2004 50 : 65 76.
3. Thyssen JP, Carlsen BC, Menné T et al. Trends of contact allergy to fragrance mix I and Myroxylon pereirae among Danish eczema patients tested between 1985 and 2007. Contact Dermatitis 2008 59 : 238 44.
4. Frosch PJ, Pirker C, Rastogi SC et al. Patch testing with a new fragrance mix detects additional patients sensitive to perfumes and missed by the current fragrance mix. Contact Dermatitis 2005 52 : 207 15.
5. Fredericks DN, Relman DA. Sequence-based identification of microbial pathogens: a reconsideration of Koch's postulates. Clin Microbiol Rev 1996 9 : 18 33.
6. Bryld LE, Hindsberger C, Kyvik KO et al. Risk factors influencing the development of hand eczema in a population-based twin sample. Br J Dermatol 2003 149 : 1214 20.
7. Dotterud LK, Smith-Sivertsen T. Allergic contact sensitization in the general adult population: a population-based study from northern Norway. Contact Dermatitis 2007 56 : 10 15.
8. Forsbeck M, Skog E, Ytterborn KH. Delayed type of allergy and atopic disease among twins. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1968 48 : 192 7.
9. Greig JE, Carson CF, Stuckey MS et al. Prevalence of delayed hypersensitivity to the European standard series in a self-selected population. Australas J Dermatol 2000 41 : 86 9.
10. Mangelsdorf HC, Fleischer AB, Sherertz EF. Patch testing in an aged population without dermatitis: high prevalence of patch test positivity. Am J Contact Dermat 1996 7 : 155 7.
11. Nielsen NH, Menné T. Allergic contact sensitization in an unselected Danish population. The Glostrup Allergy Study, Denmark. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1992 72 : 456 60.
12. Nielsen NH, Linneberg A, Menné T et al. Allergic contact sensitization in an adult Danish population: two cross-sectional surveys eight years apart (the Copenhagen Allergy Study). Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 2001 81 : 31 4.
13. Schäfer T, Bohler E, Ruhdorfer S et al. Epidemiology of contact allergy in adults. Allergy 2001 56 : 1192 6.
14. Spiewak R. Atopy and contact hypersensitivity: a reassessment of the relationship using objective measures. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2005 95 : 61 5.
15. White JM, Gilmour NJ, Jeffries D et al. A general population from Thailand: incidence of common allergens with emphasis on para-phenylenediamine. Clin Exp Allergy 2007 37 : 1848 53.
16. Thyssen JP, Linneberg A, Menné T et al. The epidemiology of contact allergy in the general population - prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis 2007 57 : 287 99.
17. Diepgen TL, Coenraads PJ. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of patch testing: the more you test, the more you get? ESCD Working Party on Epidemiology. Contact Dermatitis 2000 42 : 315 17.
18. Dotterud LK, Falk ES. Contact allergy in relation to hand eczema and atopic diseases in north Norwegian schoolchildren. Acta Paediatr 1995 84 : 402 6.
19. Jöhnke H, Norberg LA, Vach W et al. Reactivity to patch tests with nickel sulfate and fragrance mix in infants. Contact Dermatitis 2004 51 : 141 7.
20. Mortz CG, Lauritsen JM, Bindslev-Jensen C, Andersen KE. Contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis in adolescents: prevalence measures and associations. The Odense Adolescence Cohort Study on Atopic Diseases and Dermatitis (TOACS). Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 2002 82 : 352 8.
21. Svedman C, Ekqvist S, Möller H et al. Unexpected sensitization routes and general frequency of contact allergies in an elderly stented Swedish population. Contact Dermatitis 2007 56 : 338 43.
22. Bruckner AL, Weston WL, Morelli JG. Does sensitization to contact allergens begin in infancy? Pediatrics 2000 105 : e3.
23. Magnusson B, Möller H. Contact allergy without skin disease. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1979 59 (Suppl. 113 15.
24. Weston WL, Weston JA, Kinoshita J et al. Prevalence of positive epicutaneous tests among infants, children, and adolescents. Pediatrics 1986 78 : 1070 4.
25. Johansen JD, Andersen TF, Veien N et al. Patch testing with markers of fragrance contact allergy. Do clinical tests correspond to patients' self-reported problems? Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1997 77 : 149 53.
26. Buckley DA, Rycroft RJ, White IR et al. The frequency of fragrance allergy in patch-tested patients increases with their age. Br J Dermatol 2003 149 : 986 9.
27. Thyssen JP, Uter W, Schnuch A et al. 10-year prevalence of contact allergy in the general population in Denmark estimated through the CE-DUR method. Contact Dermatitis 2007 57 : 265 72.
28. Bourke JF, Batta K, Prais L et al. The reproducibility of patch tests. Br J Dermatol 1999 140 : 102 5.
29. Brasch J, Henseler T, Aberer W et al. Reproducibility of patch tests. A multicenter study of synchronous left versus right-sided patch tests by the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group. J Am Acad Dermatol 1994 31 : 584 91.
30. Lindelöf B. A left versus right side comparative study of Finn Chamber patch tests in 220 consecutive patients. Contact Dermatitis 1990 22 : 288 9.
31. Andersen F, Andersen KE. Comparison Between Two Different Fragrance Mix Test Systems. Reykjavik, Iceland : Presented at the Forum for Nordic Dermato-Venereology 31st Nordic Congress of Dermato-Venereology, May 31-June 3, 2008.
32. Lazarov A, David M, Abraham D et al. Comparison of reactivity to allergens using the True test and IQ chamber system. Contact Dermatitis 2007 56 : 140 5.
33. Goh CL. Comparative study of True test and Finn Chamber patch test techniques in Singapore. Contact Dermatitis 1992 27 : 84 9.
34. Shehade SA, Beck MH, Hillier VF. Epidemiological survey of standard series patch test results and observations on day 2 and day 4 readings. Contact Dermatitis 1991 24 : 119 22.
35. Uter WJ, Geier J, Schnuch A. Good clinical practice in patch testing: readings beyond day 2 are necessary: a confirmatory analysis. Members of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology. Am J Contact Dermat 1996 7 : 231 7.
36. Thyssen JP, Jensen CS, Johansen JD, Menné T. Results from additional nickel patch test readings in a sample of schoolgirls from the general population. Contact Dermatitis 2008 59 : 317 18.
37. Lerbaek A, Kyvik KO, Menné T et al. Retesting with the True test in a population-based twin cohort with hand eczema - allergies and persistence in an 8-year follow-up study. Contact Dermatitis 2007 57 : 248 52.
38. Shaw MJ, Beebe TJ, Jensen HL et al. The use of monetary incentives in a community survey: impact on response rates, data quality, and cost. Health Serv Res 2001 35 : 1339 46.
39. Linneberg A, Nielsen NH, Menné T et al. Smoking might be a risk factor for contact allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2003 111 : 980 4.
40. Thyssen JP, Nielsen NH, Linneberg A. The association between alcohol consumption and contact sensitization in Danish adults: the Glostrup Allergy Study. Br J Dermatol 2008 158 : 306 12.
41. Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J et al. Epidemiology of contact allergy: an estimation of morbidity employing the clinical epidemiology and drug-utilization research (CE-DUR) approach. Contact Dermatitis 2002 47 : 32 9.
42. Shab A, Scheidt R, Weisshaar E, Diepgen TL. Fragrance Allergy in Three Different Samples. Estoril, Portugal : Presented at the 9th Congress of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis, 2008.
43. Johansen JD, Andersen TF, Kjoller M et al. Identification of risk products for fragrance contact allergy: a case-referent study based on patients' histories. Am J Contact Dermat 1998 9 : 80 6.
44. Berne B, Tammela M, Farm G et al. Can the reporting of adverse skin reactions to cosmetics be improved? A prospective clinical study using a structured protocol. Contact Dermatitis 2008 58 : 223 7.
45. Bruze M, Johansen JD, Andersen KE et al. Deodorants: an experimental provocation study with isoeugenol. Contact Dermatitis 2005 52 : 260 7.
46. Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Menné T. Quantitative aspects of isoeugenol contact allergy assessed by use and patch tests. Contact Dermatitis 1996 34 : 414 18.
47. Johansen JD, Rastogi SC, Bruze M et al. Deodorants: a clinical provocation study in fragrance-sensitive individuals. Contact Dermatitis 1998 39 : 161 5.
48. Barros MA, Baptista A, Correia TM et al. Patch testing in children: a study of 562 schoolchildren. Contact Dermatitis 1991 25 : 156 9.
49. Seidenari S, Manzini BM, Danese P et al. Patch and prick test study of 593 healthy subjects. Contact Dermatitis 1990 23 : 162 7.
50. Bruze M, Isaksson M, Gruvberger B et al. Recommendation of appropriate amounts of petrolatum preparation to be applied at patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 2007 56 : 281 5.
51. Wilkinson DS, Fregert S, Magnusson B et al. Terminology of contact dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1970 50 : 287 92.
52. Nethercott JR, Holness DL, Adams RM et al. Results of first and second readings with standard screening tray in North America: 1985 to 1989. Am J Contact Dermat 1991 2 : 255 9.
53. Ingber A, Sasson A, David M. The seasonal influence on patch test reactions is significant in Israel. Contact Dermatitis 1998 39 : 318 19.
54. Uter W, Hegewald J, Kranke B et al. The impact of meteorological conditions on patch test results with 12 standard series allergens (fragrances, biocides, topical ingredients). Br J Dermatol 2008 158 : 734 9.
55. Anveden I, Liden C, Alderling M et al. Self-reported skin exposure - validation of questions by observation. Contact Dermatitis 2006 55 : 186 91.
56. Hald M, Veien NK, Laurberg G et al. Severity of hand eczema assessed by patients and dermatologist using a photographic guide. Br J Dermatol 2007 156 : 77 80.