User login
Eyelid Dermatitis: Common Patterns and Contact Allergens
Eyelid dermatitis is a common dermatologic concern representing a broad group of inflammatory dermatoses and typically presenting as eczematous lesions on the eyelids.1 One of the most common causes of eyelid dermatitis is thought to be allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), a type IV delayed hypersensitivity reaction caused by exposure to external allergens.2 Although ACD can occur anywhere on the body, dermatitis on the face and eyelids is quite common.1,2 This article aims to explore the clinical manifestation, evaluation, and management of eyelid ACD.
Pathophysiology of Eyelid ACD
Studies have shown that ACD is the most common cause of eyelid dermatitis, estimated to account for 46% to 72% of cases worldwide.3-6 Allergic contact dermatitis is a T cell–mediated type IV hypersensitivity reaction to external antigens that manifests as eczematous lesions at the site of contact with the allergen that may spread.7 Allergic contact dermatitis is a common condition, and it is estimated that at least 20% of the general worldwide population has a contact allergy.8,9 Histologically, ACD manifests as spongiotic dermatitis, though this is not unique and also may be seen in atopic dermatitis (AD) and irritant contact dermatitis.2 Allergic contact dermatitis is diagnosed via epicutaneous patch testing, and treatment involves allergen avoidance with or without adjuvant topical and/or systemic immunomodulatory treatments.7
The eyelids are uniquely prone to the development of ACD given their thinner epidermis and increased susceptibility to irritation. They frequently are exposed to allergens through the direct topical route as well as indirectly via airborne exposure, rinse-down products (eg, shampoos), and substances transferred from an individual’s own hands. The occluded skin folds of the eyelids facilitate increased exposure to trapped allergens.10,11 Additionally, the skin of the eyelids is thin, flexible, highly vascularized, and lacking in subcutaneous tissue, making this area more susceptible to antigen penetration than other locations on the body.1,2,10,12,13
Clinical Manifestations
Eyelid ACD is more common in females than males, which is thought to be related to increased use of cosmetics and fragrances.1,3,12,14-16 Clinical manifestations may resemble eczematous papules and plaques.1 Eyelid ACD commonly spreads beyond the eyelid margin, which helps to differentiate it from AD and irritant contact dermatitis. Symptoms of ACD on the eyelids typically include pruritus, redness, swelling, tearing, scaling, and pain.2 Persistent untreated eyelid dermatitis can lead to eyelash loss, damage to meibomian glands, and hyperpigmentation.2,17,18
Patterns of Eyelid ACD
Allergic contact dermatitis on the eyelids can occur due to direct application of allergens onto the skin of the eyelids, runoff of products from the hair/scalp (eg, shampoo), transfer of allergens from the hands, or contact with airborne allergens.1,2,11,12 Some reports have suggested that eyelid ACD more often is caused by products applied to the scalp or face rather than those applied directly to the eyelids.11 Because the scalp and face are less reactive to contact allergens, in some cases the eyelids may be the only affected site.10,12,13
The specific pattern of dermatitis on or around the eyelids can provide clues to the allergenic source. Dermatitis present around the eyelids and periorbital region with involvement of the bilateral upper and lower eyelids suggests direct exposure to a contact allergen, such as makeup or other cosmetic products.1 Unilateral involvement of only 1 eyelid can occur with ectopic transfer of allergens from the hands or nails.1,19 Involvement of the fingers or nails in addition to the eyelids may further suggest ectopic transfer, such as from allergens in nail polish.10 Unilateral eyelid dermatitis also could be caused by unique exposures such as a microscope or camera eyepiece.19 Distribution around the lower eyelids and upper cheeks is indicative of a drip or runoff pattern, which may result from an ophthalmic solution such as eye drops or contact lens solution.1,19 Finally, dermatitis affecting the upper eyelids along with the nasolabial folds and upper chest may suggest airborne contact dermatitis to fragrances or household cleaning products.1,11
Common Culprits of Eyelid ACD
Common causes of eyelid ACD include cosmetic products, ophthalmic medications, nail lacquers, and jewelry.10,13,20 Within the broader category of cosmetics, allergens may be found in makeup and makeup removers, cosmetic applicators and brushes, soaps and cleansers, creams and sunscreens, antiaging products, hair products, nail polish and files, and hair removal products, among many others.10,13,16,20 Additionally, ophthalmologic and topical medications are common sources of ACD, including eyedrops, contact lens solution, and topical antibiotics.10,13,21 Costume jewelry commonly contains allergenic metals, which also can be found in eyelash curlers, eyeglasses, toys, and other household items.22,23 Finally, contact allergens can be found in items such as goggles, gloves, textiles, and a variety of other occupational and household exposures.
Allergic contact dermatitis of the eyelids occurs predominantly—but not exclusively—in females.16,20,24 This finding has been attributed to the traditionally greater use of cosmetics and fragrances among women; however, the use of skin care products among men is increasing, and recent studies have shown the eyelids to be a common location of facial contact dermatitis among men.16,24 Although eyelid dermatitis has not been specifically analyzed by sex, a retrospective analysis of 1332 male patients with facial dermatitis found the most common sites to be the face (not otherwise specified)(48.9%), eyelids (23.5%), and lips (12.6%). In this cohort, the most common allergens were surfactants in shampoos and paraphenylenediamine in hair dyes.24
Common Allergens
Common contact allergens among patients with ACD of the eyelids include metals, fragrances, preservatives, acrylates, and topical medications.3,10,16,20,25-27 Sources of common contact allergens are reviewed in Table 1.
Metals—Metals are among the most common causes of ACD overall, and nickel frequently is reported as one of the top contact allergens in patients with eyelid dermatitis.16,27 A retrospective analysis of 2332 patients with eyelid dermatitis patch tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group from 1994 to 2016 found that 18.6% of patients with eyelid ACD had a clinically relevant nickel allergy. Sources of nickel exposure include jewelry, grooming devices, makeup and makeup applicators, and eyelash curlers, as well as direct transfer from the hands after contact with consumer products.16
Other metals that can cause ACD include cobalt (found in similar products to nickel) and gold. Gold often is associated with eyelid dermatitis, though its clinical relevance has been debated, as gold is a relatively inert metal that rarely is present in eye cosmetics and its ions are not displaced from objects and deposited on the skin via sweat in the same way as nickel.4,16,20,28-30 Despite this, studies have shown that gold is a common positive patch test reaction among patients with eyelid dermatitis, even in patients with no dermatitis at the site of contact with gold jewelry.20,29,31 Gold has been reported to be the most common allergen causing unilateral eyelid dermatitis via ectopic transfer.16,19,20,29 It has been proposed that titanium dioxide, present in many cosmetics and sunscreens, displaces gold allowing its release from jewelry, thereby liberating the fine gold ions and allowing them to desposit on the face and eyelids.30,31 Given the uncertain clinical relevance of positive patch test reactions to gold, Warshaw at al16 recommend a 2- to 3-month trial of gold jewelry avoidance to establish relevance, and Ehrlich and Gold29 noted that avoidance of gold leads to improvement.
Fragrances—Fragrances represent a broad category of naturally occurring and man-made components that often are combined to produce a desired scent in personal care products.32 Essential oils and botanicals are both examples of natural fragrances.33 Fragrances are found in numerous products including makeup, hair products, and household cleaning supplies and represent some of the most common contact allergens.32 Common fragrance allergens include fragrance mixes I and II, hydroperoxides of linalool, and balsam of Peru.12,32,34 Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances typically manifests on the eyelids, face, or hands.33 Several studies have found fragrances to be among the top contact allergens in patients with eyelid dermatitis.3,12,20,25,34 Patch testing for fragrance allergy may include baseline series, supplemental fragrance series, and personal care products.32,35
Preservatives—Preservatives, including formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers (eg, quaternium-15 and bronopol) and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, may be found in personal care products such as makeup, makeup removers, emollients, shampoos, hair care products, and ophthalmologic solutions and are among the most common cosmetic sources of ACD.13,36-39 Preservatives are among the top allergens causing eyelid dermatitis.20 In particular, patch test positivity rates to methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone have been increasing in North America.40 Sensitization to preservatives may occur through direct skin contact or transfer from the hands.41
Acrylates—Acrylates are compounds derived from acrylic acid that may be found in acrylic and gel nails, eyelash extensions, and other adhesives and are frequent causes of eyelid ACD.4,10,42 Acrylate exposure may be cosmetic among consumers or occupational (eg, aestheticians).42,43 Acrylates on the nails may cause eyelid dermatitis via ectopic transfer from the hands and also may cause periungual dermatitis manifesting as nail bed erythema.10 Hydroxyethyl methacrylate is one of the more common eyelid ACD allergens, and studies have shown increasing prevalence of positive reaction rates to hydroxyethylmethacrylate.10,44Topical Medications—Contact allergies to topical medications are quite common, estimated to occur in 10% to 17% of patients undergoing patch testing.45 Both active and inactive ingredients of topical medications may be culprits in eyelid ACD. The most common topical medication allergens include antibiotics, steroids, local anesthetics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.45 Topical antibiotics such as neomycin and bacitracin represent some of the most common causes of eyelid dermatitis4,10 and may be found in a variety of products, including antibacterial ointments and eye drops.1 Many ophthalmologic medications also contain corticosteroids, with the most common allergenic steroids being tixocortol pivalate (a marker for hydrocortisone allergy) and budesonide.10,20 Topical steroids pose a particular dilemma, as they can be either the source of or a treatment for ACD.10 Eye drops also may contain anesthetics, β-blockers, and antihistamines, as well as the preservative benzalkonium chloride, all of which may be contact allergens.21,39
Differential Diagnosis of Eyelid Dermatitis
Although ACD is reported to be the most common cause of eyelid dermatitis, the differential diagnosis is broad, including endogenous inflammatory dermatoses and exogenous exposures (Table 2). Symptoms of eyelid ACD can be nonspecific (eg, erythema, pruritus), making diagnosis challenging.46
Atopic dermatitis represents another common cause of eyelid dermatitis, accounting for 14% to 39.5% of cases.3-5,49Atopic dermatitis of the eyelids classically manifests with lichenification of the medial aspects of the eyelids.50 Atopic dermatitis and ACD may be difficult to distinguish, as the 2 conditions appear clinically similar and can develop concomitantly.51 Additionally, atopic patients are likely to have comorbid allergic rhinitis and sensitivity to environmental allergens, which may lead to chronic eye scratching and lichenification.1,51 Clinical features of eyelid dermatitis suggesting allergic rhinitis and likely comorbid AD include creases in the lower eyelids (Dennie-Morgan lines) and periorbital hyperpigmentation (known as the allergic shiner) due to venous congestion.1,52
Seborrheic dermatitis is an inflammatory reaction to Malassezia yeast that occurs in sebaceous areas such as the groin, scalp, eyebrows, eyelids, and nasolabial folds.1,53,54
Irritant contact dermatitis, a nonspecific inflammatory reaction caused by direct cell damage from external irritants, also may affect the eyelids and appear similar to ACD.1 It typically manifests with a burning or stinging sensation, as opposed to pruritus, and generally develops and resolves more rapidly than ACD.1 Personal care products are common causes of eyelid irritant contact dermatitis.16
Patch Testing for Eyelid ACD
The gold standard for diagnosis of ACD is patch testing, outlined by the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group.55-57 Patch testing generally is performed with standardized panels of allergens and can be customized either with supplemental panels based on unique exposures or with the patient’s own personal care products to increase the sensitivity of testing. Therefore, a thorough history is crucial to identifying potential allergens in a patient’s environment.
False negatives are possible, as the skin on the back may be thicker and less sensitive than the skin at the location of dermatitis.2,58 This is particularly relevant when using patch testing to diagnose ACD of the eyelids, where the skin is particularly thin and sensitive.2 Additionally, ingredients of ophthalmic medications are known to have an especially high false-negative rate with standard patch testing and may require repeated testing with higher drug concentrations or modified patch testing procedures (eg, open testing, scratch-patch testing).1,59
Treatment
Management of ACD involves allergen avoidance, typically dictated by patch test results.10 Allergen avoidance may be facilitated using online resources such as the Contact Allergen Management Program (https://www.acdscamp.org/) created by the American Contact Dermatitis Society.10,18 Patient counseling following patch testing is crucial to educating patients about sources of potential allergen exposures and strategies for avoidance. In the case of eyelid dermatitis, it is particularly important to consider exposure to airborne allergens such as fragrances.16 Fragrance avoidance is uniquely difficult, as labelling standards in the United States currently do not require disclosure of specific fragrance components.33 Additionally, products labelled as unscented may still contain fragrances. As such, some patients with fragrance allergy may need to carefully avoid all products containing fragrances.33
In addition to allergen avoidance, eyelid ACD may be treated with topical medications (eg, steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors); however, these same topical medications also can cause ACD due to some ingredients such as propylene glycol.10 Topical steroids should be used with caution on the eyelids given the risk for atrophy, cataracts, and glaucoma.1
Final Interpretation
Eyelid dermatitis is a common dermatologic condition most frequently caused by ACD due to exposure to allergens in cosmetic products, ophthalmic medications, nail lacquers, and jewelry, among many other potential sources. The most common allergens causing eyelid dermatitis include metals (particularly nickel), fragrances, preservatives, acrylates, and topical medications. Eyelid ACD is diagnosed via patch testing, and the mainstay of treatment is strict allergen avoidance. Patient counseling is vital for successful allergen avoidance and resolution of eyelid ACD.
- Hine AM, Waldman RA, Grzybowski A, et al. Allergic disorders of the eyelid. Clin Dermatol. 2023;41:476-480. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2023.08.002
- Turkiewicz M, Shah A, Yang YW, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis of the eyelids: an interdisciplinary review. Ocul Surf. 2023;28:124-130. doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2023.03.001
- Valsecchi R, Imberti G, Martino D, et al. Eyelid dermatitis: an evaluation of 150 patients. Contact Dermatitis. 1992;27:143-147. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1992.tb05242.x
- Guin JD. Eyelid dermatitis: experience in 203 cases. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;47:755-765. doi:10.1067/mjd.2002.122736
- Nethercott JR, Nield G, Holness DL. A review of 79 cases of eyelid dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989;21(2 pt 1):223-230. doi:10.1016/s0190-9622(89)70165-1
- Shah M, Lewis FM, Gawkrodger DJ. Facial dermatitis and eyelid dermatitis: a comparison of patch test results and final diagnoses. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34:140-141. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1996.tb02148.x
- Brites GS, Ferreira I, Sebastião AI, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis: from pathophysiology to development of new preventive strategies. Pharmacol Res. 2020;162:105282. doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2020.105282
- Alinaghi F, Bennike NH, Egeberg A, et al. Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:77-85. doi:10.1111/cod.13119
- Adler BL, DeLeo VA. Allergic contact dermatitis. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157:364. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.5639
- Huang CX, Yiannias JA, Killian JM, et al. Seven common allergen groups causing eyelid dermatitis: education and avoidance strategies. Clin Ophthalmol Auckl NZ. 2021;15:1477-1490. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S297754
- Rozas-Muñoz E, Gamé D, Serra-Baldrich E. Allergic contact dermatitis by anatomical regions: diagnostic clues. Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas Engl Ed. 2018;109:485-507. doi:10.1016/j.adengl.2018.05.016
- Amin KA, Belsito DV. The aetiology of eyelid dermatitis: a 10-year retrospective analysis. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;55:280-285. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.00927.x
- Wolf R, Orion E, Tüzün Y. Periorbital (eyelid) dermatides. Clin Dermatol. 2014;32:131-140. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2013.05.035
- Ockenfels HM, Seemann U, Goos M. Contact allergy in patients with periorbital eczema: an analysis of allergens. data recorded by the Information Network of the Departments of Dermatology. Dermatol Basel Switz. 1997;195:119-124. doi:10.1159/000245712
- Landeck L, John SM, Geier J. Periorbital dermatitis in 4779 patients—patch test results during a 10-year period. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:205-212. doi:10.1111/cod.12157
- Warshaw EM, Voller LM, Maibach HI, et al. Eyelid dermatitis in patients referred for patch testing: retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1994-2016. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84:953-964. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.07.020
- McMonnies CW. Management of chronic habits of abnormal eye rubbing. Contact Lens Anterior Eye. 2008;31:95-102. doi:10.1016/j.clae.2007.07.008
- Chisholm SAM, Couch SM, Custer PL. Etiology and management of allergic eyelid dermatitis. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;33:248-250. doi:10.1097/IOP.0000000000000723
- Lewallen R, Feldman S, eds. Regional atlas of contact dermatitis. The Dermatologist. Accessed April 22, 2024. https://s3.amazonaws.com/HMP/hmp_ln/imported/Regional%20Atlas%20of%20Contact%20Dermatitis%20Book_lr.pdf
- Rietschel RL, Warshaw EM, Sasseville D, et al. Common contact allergens associated with eyelid dermatitis: data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2003-2004 study period. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2007;18:78-81. doi:10.2310/6620.2007.06041
- Mughal AA, Kalavala M. Contact dermatitis to ophthalmic solutions. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2012;37:593-597; quiz 597-598. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2230.2012.04398.x
- Goossens A. Contact allergic reactions on the eyes and eyelids. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol. 2004;292:11-17.
- Silverberg NB, Pelletier JL, Jacob SE, et al. Nickel allergic contact dermatitis: identification, treatment, and prevention. Pediatrics. 2020;145:E20200628. doi:10.1542/peds.2020-0628
- Warshaw EM, Schlarbaum JP, Maibach HI, et al. Facial dermatitis in male patients referred for patch testing. JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156:79-84. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.3531
- Wenk KS, Ehrlich A. Fragrance series testing in eyelid dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2012;23:22-26. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e31823d180f
- Crouse L, Ziemer C, Ziemer C, et al. Trends in eyelid dermatitis. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2018;29:96-97. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000338
- Yazdanparast T, Nassiri Kashani M, Shamsipour M, et al. Contact allergens responsible for eyelid dermatitis in adults. J Dermatol. 2024;51:691-695. doi:10.1111/1346-8138.17140
- Fowler J, Taylor J, Storrs F, et al. Gold allergy in North America. Am J Contact Dermat. 2001;12:3-5.
- Ehrlich A, Belsito DV. Allergic contact dermatitis to gold. Cutis. 2000;65:323-326.
- Danesh M, Murase JE. Titanium dioxide induces eyelid dermatitis in patients allergic to gold. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;73:E21. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2015.03.046
- Katta R. Common misconceptions in contact dermatitis counseling. Dermatol Online J. 2008;14:2.
- De Groot AC. Fragrances: contact allergy and other adverse effects. Dermatitis. 2020;31:13-35. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000463
- Reeder MJ. Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances. Dermatol Clin. 2020;38:371-377. doi:10.1016/j.det.2020.02.009
- Warshaw EM, Zhang AJ, DeKoven JG, et al. Epidemiology of nickel sensitivity: retrospective cross-sectional analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data 1994-2014. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:701-713. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2018.09.058
- Schalock PC, Dunnick CA, Nedorost S, et al. American Contact Dermatitis Society core allergen series: 2020 update. Dermatitis. 2020;31:279-282. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000621
- Yim E, Baquerizo Nole KL, Tosti A. Contact dermatitis caused by preservatives. Dermatitis. 2014;25:215-231. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000061
- Alani JI, Davis MDP, Yiannias JA. Allergy to cosmetics. Dermatitis. 2013;24:283-290. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e3182a5d8bc
- Hamilton T, de Gannes GC. Allergic contact dermatitis to preservatives and fragrances in cosmetics. Skin Ther Lett. 2011;16:1-4.
- Ashton SJ, Mughal AA. Contact dermatitis to ophthalmic solutions: an update. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2023;34:480-483. doi:10.1089/derm.2023.0033
- Reeder MJ, Warshaw E, Aravamuthan S, et al. Trends in the prevalence of methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone contact allergy in North America and Europe. JAMA Dermatol. 2023;159:267-274. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.5991
- Herro EM, Elsaie ML, Nijhawan RI, et al. Recommendations for a screening series for allergic contact eyelid dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2012;23:17-21. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e31823d191f
- Kucharczyk M, Słowik-Rylska M, Cyran-Stemplewska S, et al. Acrylates as a significant cause of allergic contact dermatitis: new sources of exposure. Adv Dermatol Allergol Dermatol Alergol. 2021;38:555-560. doi:10.5114/ada.2020.95848
- Rodriguez I, George SE, Yu J, et al. Tackling acrylate allergy: the sticky truth. Cutis. 2023;112:282-286. doi:10.12788/cutis.0909
- DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Reeder MJ, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2019–2020. Dermatitis. 2023;34:90-104. doi:10.1089/derm.2022.29017.jdk
- de Groot A. Allergic contact dermatitis from topical drugs: an overview. Dermatitis. 2021;32:197-213. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000737
- Zug KA, Palay DA, Rock B. Dermatologic diagnosis and treatment of itchy red eyelids. Surv Ophthalmol. 1996;40:293-306. doi:10.1016/s0039-6257(96)82004-2
- Beltrani VS. Eyelid dermatitis. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2001;1:380-388. doi:10.1007/s11882-001-0052-0
- Hirji SH, Maeng MM, Tran AQ, et al. Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma of the eyelid masquerading as dermatitis. Orbit Amst Neth. 2021;40:75-78. doi:10.1080/01676830.2020.1739080
- Svensson A, Möller H. Eyelid dermatitis: the role of atopy and contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 1986;15:178-182. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1986.tb01321.x
- Papier A, Tuttle DJ, Mahar TJ. Differential diagnosis of the swollen red eyelid. Am Fam Physician. 2007;76:1815-1824.
- Johnson H, Novack DE, Adler BL, et al. Can atopic dermatitis and allergic contact dermatitis coexist? Cutis. 2022;110:139-142. doi:10.12788cutis.0599
- Berger WE. Allergic rhinitis in children: diagnosis and management strategies. Paediatr Drugs. 2004;6:233-250. doi:10.2165/00148581-200406040-00003
- Singh A, Kansal NK, Kumawat D, et al. Ophthalmic manifestations of seborrheic dermatitis. Skinmed. 2023;21:397-401.
- Clark GW, Pope SM, Jaboori KA. Diagnosis and treatment of seborrheic dermatitis. Am Fam Physician. 2015;91:185-190.
- Lachapelle JM, Maibach HI. Patch Testing and Prick Testing. Springer; 2012.
- Fregert S. Manual of Contact Dermatitis: On Behalf of the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Munksgaard; 1974.
- Reeder M, Reck Atwater A. Patch testing 101, part 1: performing the test. Cutis. 2020;106:165-167. doi:10.12788/cutis.0093
- Wolf R, Perluk H. Failure of routine patch test results to detect eyelid dermatitis. Cutis. 1992;49:133-134.
- Grey KR, Warshaw EM. Allergic contact dermatitis to ophthalmic medications: relevant allergens and alternative testing methods. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2016;27:333-347. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000224
Eyelid dermatitis is a common dermatologic concern representing a broad group of inflammatory dermatoses and typically presenting as eczematous lesions on the eyelids.1 One of the most common causes of eyelid dermatitis is thought to be allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), a type IV delayed hypersensitivity reaction caused by exposure to external allergens.2 Although ACD can occur anywhere on the body, dermatitis on the face and eyelids is quite common.1,2 This article aims to explore the clinical manifestation, evaluation, and management of eyelid ACD.
Pathophysiology of Eyelid ACD
Studies have shown that ACD is the most common cause of eyelid dermatitis, estimated to account for 46% to 72% of cases worldwide.3-6 Allergic contact dermatitis is a T cell–mediated type IV hypersensitivity reaction to external antigens that manifests as eczematous lesions at the site of contact with the allergen that may spread.7 Allergic contact dermatitis is a common condition, and it is estimated that at least 20% of the general worldwide population has a contact allergy.8,9 Histologically, ACD manifests as spongiotic dermatitis, though this is not unique and also may be seen in atopic dermatitis (AD) and irritant contact dermatitis.2 Allergic contact dermatitis is diagnosed via epicutaneous patch testing, and treatment involves allergen avoidance with or without adjuvant topical and/or systemic immunomodulatory treatments.7
The eyelids are uniquely prone to the development of ACD given their thinner epidermis and increased susceptibility to irritation. They frequently are exposed to allergens through the direct topical route as well as indirectly via airborne exposure, rinse-down products (eg, shampoos), and substances transferred from an individual’s own hands. The occluded skin folds of the eyelids facilitate increased exposure to trapped allergens.10,11 Additionally, the skin of the eyelids is thin, flexible, highly vascularized, and lacking in subcutaneous tissue, making this area more susceptible to antigen penetration than other locations on the body.1,2,10,12,13
Clinical Manifestations
Eyelid ACD is more common in females than males, which is thought to be related to increased use of cosmetics and fragrances.1,3,12,14-16 Clinical manifestations may resemble eczematous papules and plaques.1 Eyelid ACD commonly spreads beyond the eyelid margin, which helps to differentiate it from AD and irritant contact dermatitis. Symptoms of ACD on the eyelids typically include pruritus, redness, swelling, tearing, scaling, and pain.2 Persistent untreated eyelid dermatitis can lead to eyelash loss, damage to meibomian glands, and hyperpigmentation.2,17,18
Patterns of Eyelid ACD
Allergic contact dermatitis on the eyelids can occur due to direct application of allergens onto the skin of the eyelids, runoff of products from the hair/scalp (eg, shampoo), transfer of allergens from the hands, or contact with airborne allergens.1,2,11,12 Some reports have suggested that eyelid ACD more often is caused by products applied to the scalp or face rather than those applied directly to the eyelids.11 Because the scalp and face are less reactive to contact allergens, in some cases the eyelids may be the only affected site.10,12,13
The specific pattern of dermatitis on or around the eyelids can provide clues to the allergenic source. Dermatitis present around the eyelids and periorbital region with involvement of the bilateral upper and lower eyelids suggests direct exposure to a contact allergen, such as makeup or other cosmetic products.1 Unilateral involvement of only 1 eyelid can occur with ectopic transfer of allergens from the hands or nails.1,19 Involvement of the fingers or nails in addition to the eyelids may further suggest ectopic transfer, such as from allergens in nail polish.10 Unilateral eyelid dermatitis also could be caused by unique exposures such as a microscope or camera eyepiece.19 Distribution around the lower eyelids and upper cheeks is indicative of a drip or runoff pattern, which may result from an ophthalmic solution such as eye drops or contact lens solution.1,19 Finally, dermatitis affecting the upper eyelids along with the nasolabial folds and upper chest may suggest airborne contact dermatitis to fragrances or household cleaning products.1,11
Common Culprits of Eyelid ACD
Common causes of eyelid ACD include cosmetic products, ophthalmic medications, nail lacquers, and jewelry.10,13,20 Within the broader category of cosmetics, allergens may be found in makeup and makeup removers, cosmetic applicators and brushes, soaps and cleansers, creams and sunscreens, antiaging products, hair products, nail polish and files, and hair removal products, among many others.10,13,16,20 Additionally, ophthalmologic and topical medications are common sources of ACD, including eyedrops, contact lens solution, and topical antibiotics.10,13,21 Costume jewelry commonly contains allergenic metals, which also can be found in eyelash curlers, eyeglasses, toys, and other household items.22,23 Finally, contact allergens can be found in items such as goggles, gloves, textiles, and a variety of other occupational and household exposures.
Allergic contact dermatitis of the eyelids occurs predominantly—but not exclusively—in females.16,20,24 This finding has been attributed to the traditionally greater use of cosmetics and fragrances among women; however, the use of skin care products among men is increasing, and recent studies have shown the eyelids to be a common location of facial contact dermatitis among men.16,24 Although eyelid dermatitis has not been specifically analyzed by sex, a retrospective analysis of 1332 male patients with facial dermatitis found the most common sites to be the face (not otherwise specified)(48.9%), eyelids (23.5%), and lips (12.6%). In this cohort, the most common allergens were surfactants in shampoos and paraphenylenediamine in hair dyes.24
Common Allergens
Common contact allergens among patients with ACD of the eyelids include metals, fragrances, preservatives, acrylates, and topical medications.3,10,16,20,25-27 Sources of common contact allergens are reviewed in Table 1.
Metals—Metals are among the most common causes of ACD overall, and nickel frequently is reported as one of the top contact allergens in patients with eyelid dermatitis.16,27 A retrospective analysis of 2332 patients with eyelid dermatitis patch tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group from 1994 to 2016 found that 18.6% of patients with eyelid ACD had a clinically relevant nickel allergy. Sources of nickel exposure include jewelry, grooming devices, makeup and makeup applicators, and eyelash curlers, as well as direct transfer from the hands after contact with consumer products.16
Other metals that can cause ACD include cobalt (found in similar products to nickel) and gold. Gold often is associated with eyelid dermatitis, though its clinical relevance has been debated, as gold is a relatively inert metal that rarely is present in eye cosmetics and its ions are not displaced from objects and deposited on the skin via sweat in the same way as nickel.4,16,20,28-30 Despite this, studies have shown that gold is a common positive patch test reaction among patients with eyelid dermatitis, even in patients with no dermatitis at the site of contact with gold jewelry.20,29,31 Gold has been reported to be the most common allergen causing unilateral eyelid dermatitis via ectopic transfer.16,19,20,29 It has been proposed that titanium dioxide, present in many cosmetics and sunscreens, displaces gold allowing its release from jewelry, thereby liberating the fine gold ions and allowing them to desposit on the face and eyelids.30,31 Given the uncertain clinical relevance of positive patch test reactions to gold, Warshaw at al16 recommend a 2- to 3-month trial of gold jewelry avoidance to establish relevance, and Ehrlich and Gold29 noted that avoidance of gold leads to improvement.
Fragrances—Fragrances represent a broad category of naturally occurring and man-made components that often are combined to produce a desired scent in personal care products.32 Essential oils and botanicals are both examples of natural fragrances.33 Fragrances are found in numerous products including makeup, hair products, and household cleaning supplies and represent some of the most common contact allergens.32 Common fragrance allergens include fragrance mixes I and II, hydroperoxides of linalool, and balsam of Peru.12,32,34 Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances typically manifests on the eyelids, face, or hands.33 Several studies have found fragrances to be among the top contact allergens in patients with eyelid dermatitis.3,12,20,25,34 Patch testing for fragrance allergy may include baseline series, supplemental fragrance series, and personal care products.32,35
Preservatives—Preservatives, including formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers (eg, quaternium-15 and bronopol) and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, may be found in personal care products such as makeup, makeup removers, emollients, shampoos, hair care products, and ophthalmologic solutions and are among the most common cosmetic sources of ACD.13,36-39 Preservatives are among the top allergens causing eyelid dermatitis.20 In particular, patch test positivity rates to methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone have been increasing in North America.40 Sensitization to preservatives may occur through direct skin contact or transfer from the hands.41
Acrylates—Acrylates are compounds derived from acrylic acid that may be found in acrylic and gel nails, eyelash extensions, and other adhesives and are frequent causes of eyelid ACD.4,10,42 Acrylate exposure may be cosmetic among consumers or occupational (eg, aestheticians).42,43 Acrylates on the nails may cause eyelid dermatitis via ectopic transfer from the hands and also may cause periungual dermatitis manifesting as nail bed erythema.10 Hydroxyethyl methacrylate is one of the more common eyelid ACD allergens, and studies have shown increasing prevalence of positive reaction rates to hydroxyethylmethacrylate.10,44Topical Medications—Contact allergies to topical medications are quite common, estimated to occur in 10% to 17% of patients undergoing patch testing.45 Both active and inactive ingredients of topical medications may be culprits in eyelid ACD. The most common topical medication allergens include antibiotics, steroids, local anesthetics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.45 Topical antibiotics such as neomycin and bacitracin represent some of the most common causes of eyelid dermatitis4,10 and may be found in a variety of products, including antibacterial ointments and eye drops.1 Many ophthalmologic medications also contain corticosteroids, with the most common allergenic steroids being tixocortol pivalate (a marker for hydrocortisone allergy) and budesonide.10,20 Topical steroids pose a particular dilemma, as they can be either the source of or a treatment for ACD.10 Eye drops also may contain anesthetics, β-blockers, and antihistamines, as well as the preservative benzalkonium chloride, all of which may be contact allergens.21,39
Differential Diagnosis of Eyelid Dermatitis
Although ACD is reported to be the most common cause of eyelid dermatitis, the differential diagnosis is broad, including endogenous inflammatory dermatoses and exogenous exposures (Table 2). Symptoms of eyelid ACD can be nonspecific (eg, erythema, pruritus), making diagnosis challenging.46
Atopic dermatitis represents another common cause of eyelid dermatitis, accounting for 14% to 39.5% of cases.3-5,49Atopic dermatitis of the eyelids classically manifests with lichenification of the medial aspects of the eyelids.50 Atopic dermatitis and ACD may be difficult to distinguish, as the 2 conditions appear clinically similar and can develop concomitantly.51 Additionally, atopic patients are likely to have comorbid allergic rhinitis and sensitivity to environmental allergens, which may lead to chronic eye scratching and lichenification.1,51 Clinical features of eyelid dermatitis suggesting allergic rhinitis and likely comorbid AD include creases in the lower eyelids (Dennie-Morgan lines) and periorbital hyperpigmentation (known as the allergic shiner) due to venous congestion.1,52
Seborrheic dermatitis is an inflammatory reaction to Malassezia yeast that occurs in sebaceous areas such as the groin, scalp, eyebrows, eyelids, and nasolabial folds.1,53,54
Irritant contact dermatitis, a nonspecific inflammatory reaction caused by direct cell damage from external irritants, also may affect the eyelids and appear similar to ACD.1 It typically manifests with a burning or stinging sensation, as opposed to pruritus, and generally develops and resolves more rapidly than ACD.1 Personal care products are common causes of eyelid irritant contact dermatitis.16
Patch Testing for Eyelid ACD
The gold standard for diagnosis of ACD is patch testing, outlined by the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group.55-57 Patch testing generally is performed with standardized panels of allergens and can be customized either with supplemental panels based on unique exposures or with the patient’s own personal care products to increase the sensitivity of testing. Therefore, a thorough history is crucial to identifying potential allergens in a patient’s environment.
False negatives are possible, as the skin on the back may be thicker and less sensitive than the skin at the location of dermatitis.2,58 This is particularly relevant when using patch testing to diagnose ACD of the eyelids, where the skin is particularly thin and sensitive.2 Additionally, ingredients of ophthalmic medications are known to have an especially high false-negative rate with standard patch testing and may require repeated testing with higher drug concentrations or modified patch testing procedures (eg, open testing, scratch-patch testing).1,59
Treatment
Management of ACD involves allergen avoidance, typically dictated by patch test results.10 Allergen avoidance may be facilitated using online resources such as the Contact Allergen Management Program (https://www.acdscamp.org/) created by the American Contact Dermatitis Society.10,18 Patient counseling following patch testing is crucial to educating patients about sources of potential allergen exposures and strategies for avoidance. In the case of eyelid dermatitis, it is particularly important to consider exposure to airborne allergens such as fragrances.16 Fragrance avoidance is uniquely difficult, as labelling standards in the United States currently do not require disclosure of specific fragrance components.33 Additionally, products labelled as unscented may still contain fragrances. As such, some patients with fragrance allergy may need to carefully avoid all products containing fragrances.33
In addition to allergen avoidance, eyelid ACD may be treated with topical medications (eg, steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors); however, these same topical medications also can cause ACD due to some ingredients such as propylene glycol.10 Topical steroids should be used with caution on the eyelids given the risk for atrophy, cataracts, and glaucoma.1
Final Interpretation
Eyelid dermatitis is a common dermatologic condition most frequently caused by ACD due to exposure to allergens in cosmetic products, ophthalmic medications, nail lacquers, and jewelry, among many other potential sources. The most common allergens causing eyelid dermatitis include metals (particularly nickel), fragrances, preservatives, acrylates, and topical medications. Eyelid ACD is diagnosed via patch testing, and the mainstay of treatment is strict allergen avoidance. Patient counseling is vital for successful allergen avoidance and resolution of eyelid ACD.
Eyelid dermatitis is a common dermatologic concern representing a broad group of inflammatory dermatoses and typically presenting as eczematous lesions on the eyelids.1 One of the most common causes of eyelid dermatitis is thought to be allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), a type IV delayed hypersensitivity reaction caused by exposure to external allergens.2 Although ACD can occur anywhere on the body, dermatitis on the face and eyelids is quite common.1,2 This article aims to explore the clinical manifestation, evaluation, and management of eyelid ACD.
Pathophysiology of Eyelid ACD
Studies have shown that ACD is the most common cause of eyelid dermatitis, estimated to account for 46% to 72% of cases worldwide.3-6 Allergic contact dermatitis is a T cell–mediated type IV hypersensitivity reaction to external antigens that manifests as eczematous lesions at the site of contact with the allergen that may spread.7 Allergic contact dermatitis is a common condition, and it is estimated that at least 20% of the general worldwide population has a contact allergy.8,9 Histologically, ACD manifests as spongiotic dermatitis, though this is not unique and also may be seen in atopic dermatitis (AD) and irritant contact dermatitis.2 Allergic contact dermatitis is diagnosed via epicutaneous patch testing, and treatment involves allergen avoidance with or without adjuvant topical and/or systemic immunomodulatory treatments.7
The eyelids are uniquely prone to the development of ACD given their thinner epidermis and increased susceptibility to irritation. They frequently are exposed to allergens through the direct topical route as well as indirectly via airborne exposure, rinse-down products (eg, shampoos), and substances transferred from an individual’s own hands. The occluded skin folds of the eyelids facilitate increased exposure to trapped allergens.10,11 Additionally, the skin of the eyelids is thin, flexible, highly vascularized, and lacking in subcutaneous tissue, making this area more susceptible to antigen penetration than other locations on the body.1,2,10,12,13
Clinical Manifestations
Eyelid ACD is more common in females than males, which is thought to be related to increased use of cosmetics and fragrances.1,3,12,14-16 Clinical manifestations may resemble eczematous papules and plaques.1 Eyelid ACD commonly spreads beyond the eyelid margin, which helps to differentiate it from AD and irritant contact dermatitis. Symptoms of ACD on the eyelids typically include pruritus, redness, swelling, tearing, scaling, and pain.2 Persistent untreated eyelid dermatitis can lead to eyelash loss, damage to meibomian glands, and hyperpigmentation.2,17,18
Patterns of Eyelid ACD
Allergic contact dermatitis on the eyelids can occur due to direct application of allergens onto the skin of the eyelids, runoff of products from the hair/scalp (eg, shampoo), transfer of allergens from the hands, or contact with airborne allergens.1,2,11,12 Some reports have suggested that eyelid ACD more often is caused by products applied to the scalp or face rather than those applied directly to the eyelids.11 Because the scalp and face are less reactive to contact allergens, in some cases the eyelids may be the only affected site.10,12,13
The specific pattern of dermatitis on or around the eyelids can provide clues to the allergenic source. Dermatitis present around the eyelids and periorbital region with involvement of the bilateral upper and lower eyelids suggests direct exposure to a contact allergen, such as makeup or other cosmetic products.1 Unilateral involvement of only 1 eyelid can occur with ectopic transfer of allergens from the hands or nails.1,19 Involvement of the fingers or nails in addition to the eyelids may further suggest ectopic transfer, such as from allergens in nail polish.10 Unilateral eyelid dermatitis also could be caused by unique exposures such as a microscope or camera eyepiece.19 Distribution around the lower eyelids and upper cheeks is indicative of a drip or runoff pattern, which may result from an ophthalmic solution such as eye drops or contact lens solution.1,19 Finally, dermatitis affecting the upper eyelids along with the nasolabial folds and upper chest may suggest airborne contact dermatitis to fragrances or household cleaning products.1,11
Common Culprits of Eyelid ACD
Common causes of eyelid ACD include cosmetic products, ophthalmic medications, nail lacquers, and jewelry.10,13,20 Within the broader category of cosmetics, allergens may be found in makeup and makeup removers, cosmetic applicators and brushes, soaps and cleansers, creams and sunscreens, antiaging products, hair products, nail polish and files, and hair removal products, among many others.10,13,16,20 Additionally, ophthalmologic and topical medications are common sources of ACD, including eyedrops, contact lens solution, and topical antibiotics.10,13,21 Costume jewelry commonly contains allergenic metals, which also can be found in eyelash curlers, eyeglasses, toys, and other household items.22,23 Finally, contact allergens can be found in items such as goggles, gloves, textiles, and a variety of other occupational and household exposures.
Allergic contact dermatitis of the eyelids occurs predominantly—but not exclusively—in females.16,20,24 This finding has been attributed to the traditionally greater use of cosmetics and fragrances among women; however, the use of skin care products among men is increasing, and recent studies have shown the eyelids to be a common location of facial contact dermatitis among men.16,24 Although eyelid dermatitis has not been specifically analyzed by sex, a retrospective analysis of 1332 male patients with facial dermatitis found the most common sites to be the face (not otherwise specified)(48.9%), eyelids (23.5%), and lips (12.6%). In this cohort, the most common allergens were surfactants in shampoos and paraphenylenediamine in hair dyes.24
Common Allergens
Common contact allergens among patients with ACD of the eyelids include metals, fragrances, preservatives, acrylates, and topical medications.3,10,16,20,25-27 Sources of common contact allergens are reviewed in Table 1.
Metals—Metals are among the most common causes of ACD overall, and nickel frequently is reported as one of the top contact allergens in patients with eyelid dermatitis.16,27 A retrospective analysis of 2332 patients with eyelid dermatitis patch tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group from 1994 to 2016 found that 18.6% of patients with eyelid ACD had a clinically relevant nickel allergy. Sources of nickel exposure include jewelry, grooming devices, makeup and makeup applicators, and eyelash curlers, as well as direct transfer from the hands after contact with consumer products.16
Other metals that can cause ACD include cobalt (found in similar products to nickel) and gold. Gold often is associated with eyelid dermatitis, though its clinical relevance has been debated, as gold is a relatively inert metal that rarely is present in eye cosmetics and its ions are not displaced from objects and deposited on the skin via sweat in the same way as nickel.4,16,20,28-30 Despite this, studies have shown that gold is a common positive patch test reaction among patients with eyelid dermatitis, even in patients with no dermatitis at the site of contact with gold jewelry.20,29,31 Gold has been reported to be the most common allergen causing unilateral eyelid dermatitis via ectopic transfer.16,19,20,29 It has been proposed that titanium dioxide, present in many cosmetics and sunscreens, displaces gold allowing its release from jewelry, thereby liberating the fine gold ions and allowing them to desposit on the face and eyelids.30,31 Given the uncertain clinical relevance of positive patch test reactions to gold, Warshaw at al16 recommend a 2- to 3-month trial of gold jewelry avoidance to establish relevance, and Ehrlich and Gold29 noted that avoidance of gold leads to improvement.
Fragrances—Fragrances represent a broad category of naturally occurring and man-made components that often are combined to produce a desired scent in personal care products.32 Essential oils and botanicals are both examples of natural fragrances.33 Fragrances are found in numerous products including makeup, hair products, and household cleaning supplies and represent some of the most common contact allergens.32 Common fragrance allergens include fragrance mixes I and II, hydroperoxides of linalool, and balsam of Peru.12,32,34 Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances typically manifests on the eyelids, face, or hands.33 Several studies have found fragrances to be among the top contact allergens in patients with eyelid dermatitis.3,12,20,25,34 Patch testing for fragrance allergy may include baseline series, supplemental fragrance series, and personal care products.32,35
Preservatives—Preservatives, including formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers (eg, quaternium-15 and bronopol) and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, may be found in personal care products such as makeup, makeup removers, emollients, shampoos, hair care products, and ophthalmologic solutions and are among the most common cosmetic sources of ACD.13,36-39 Preservatives are among the top allergens causing eyelid dermatitis.20 In particular, patch test positivity rates to methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone have been increasing in North America.40 Sensitization to preservatives may occur through direct skin contact or transfer from the hands.41
Acrylates—Acrylates are compounds derived from acrylic acid that may be found in acrylic and gel nails, eyelash extensions, and other adhesives and are frequent causes of eyelid ACD.4,10,42 Acrylate exposure may be cosmetic among consumers or occupational (eg, aestheticians).42,43 Acrylates on the nails may cause eyelid dermatitis via ectopic transfer from the hands and also may cause periungual dermatitis manifesting as nail bed erythema.10 Hydroxyethyl methacrylate is one of the more common eyelid ACD allergens, and studies have shown increasing prevalence of positive reaction rates to hydroxyethylmethacrylate.10,44Topical Medications—Contact allergies to topical medications are quite common, estimated to occur in 10% to 17% of patients undergoing patch testing.45 Both active and inactive ingredients of topical medications may be culprits in eyelid ACD. The most common topical medication allergens include antibiotics, steroids, local anesthetics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.45 Topical antibiotics such as neomycin and bacitracin represent some of the most common causes of eyelid dermatitis4,10 and may be found in a variety of products, including antibacterial ointments and eye drops.1 Many ophthalmologic medications also contain corticosteroids, with the most common allergenic steroids being tixocortol pivalate (a marker for hydrocortisone allergy) and budesonide.10,20 Topical steroids pose a particular dilemma, as they can be either the source of or a treatment for ACD.10 Eye drops also may contain anesthetics, β-blockers, and antihistamines, as well as the preservative benzalkonium chloride, all of which may be contact allergens.21,39
Differential Diagnosis of Eyelid Dermatitis
Although ACD is reported to be the most common cause of eyelid dermatitis, the differential diagnosis is broad, including endogenous inflammatory dermatoses and exogenous exposures (Table 2). Symptoms of eyelid ACD can be nonspecific (eg, erythema, pruritus), making diagnosis challenging.46
Atopic dermatitis represents another common cause of eyelid dermatitis, accounting for 14% to 39.5% of cases.3-5,49Atopic dermatitis of the eyelids classically manifests with lichenification of the medial aspects of the eyelids.50 Atopic dermatitis and ACD may be difficult to distinguish, as the 2 conditions appear clinically similar and can develop concomitantly.51 Additionally, atopic patients are likely to have comorbid allergic rhinitis and sensitivity to environmental allergens, which may lead to chronic eye scratching and lichenification.1,51 Clinical features of eyelid dermatitis suggesting allergic rhinitis and likely comorbid AD include creases in the lower eyelids (Dennie-Morgan lines) and periorbital hyperpigmentation (known as the allergic shiner) due to venous congestion.1,52
Seborrheic dermatitis is an inflammatory reaction to Malassezia yeast that occurs in sebaceous areas such as the groin, scalp, eyebrows, eyelids, and nasolabial folds.1,53,54
Irritant contact dermatitis, a nonspecific inflammatory reaction caused by direct cell damage from external irritants, also may affect the eyelids and appear similar to ACD.1 It typically manifests with a burning or stinging sensation, as opposed to pruritus, and generally develops and resolves more rapidly than ACD.1 Personal care products are common causes of eyelid irritant contact dermatitis.16
Patch Testing for Eyelid ACD
The gold standard for diagnosis of ACD is patch testing, outlined by the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group.55-57 Patch testing generally is performed with standardized panels of allergens and can be customized either with supplemental panels based on unique exposures or with the patient’s own personal care products to increase the sensitivity of testing. Therefore, a thorough history is crucial to identifying potential allergens in a patient’s environment.
False negatives are possible, as the skin on the back may be thicker and less sensitive than the skin at the location of dermatitis.2,58 This is particularly relevant when using patch testing to diagnose ACD of the eyelids, where the skin is particularly thin and sensitive.2 Additionally, ingredients of ophthalmic medications are known to have an especially high false-negative rate with standard patch testing and may require repeated testing with higher drug concentrations or modified patch testing procedures (eg, open testing, scratch-patch testing).1,59
Treatment
Management of ACD involves allergen avoidance, typically dictated by patch test results.10 Allergen avoidance may be facilitated using online resources such as the Contact Allergen Management Program (https://www.acdscamp.org/) created by the American Contact Dermatitis Society.10,18 Patient counseling following patch testing is crucial to educating patients about sources of potential allergen exposures and strategies for avoidance. In the case of eyelid dermatitis, it is particularly important to consider exposure to airborne allergens such as fragrances.16 Fragrance avoidance is uniquely difficult, as labelling standards in the United States currently do not require disclosure of specific fragrance components.33 Additionally, products labelled as unscented may still contain fragrances. As such, some patients with fragrance allergy may need to carefully avoid all products containing fragrances.33
In addition to allergen avoidance, eyelid ACD may be treated with topical medications (eg, steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors); however, these same topical medications also can cause ACD due to some ingredients such as propylene glycol.10 Topical steroids should be used with caution on the eyelids given the risk for atrophy, cataracts, and glaucoma.1
Final Interpretation
Eyelid dermatitis is a common dermatologic condition most frequently caused by ACD due to exposure to allergens in cosmetic products, ophthalmic medications, nail lacquers, and jewelry, among many other potential sources. The most common allergens causing eyelid dermatitis include metals (particularly nickel), fragrances, preservatives, acrylates, and topical medications. Eyelid ACD is diagnosed via patch testing, and the mainstay of treatment is strict allergen avoidance. Patient counseling is vital for successful allergen avoidance and resolution of eyelid ACD.
- Hine AM, Waldman RA, Grzybowski A, et al. Allergic disorders of the eyelid. Clin Dermatol. 2023;41:476-480. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2023.08.002
- Turkiewicz M, Shah A, Yang YW, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis of the eyelids: an interdisciplinary review. Ocul Surf. 2023;28:124-130. doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2023.03.001
- Valsecchi R, Imberti G, Martino D, et al. Eyelid dermatitis: an evaluation of 150 patients. Contact Dermatitis. 1992;27:143-147. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1992.tb05242.x
- Guin JD. Eyelid dermatitis: experience in 203 cases. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;47:755-765. doi:10.1067/mjd.2002.122736
- Nethercott JR, Nield G, Holness DL. A review of 79 cases of eyelid dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989;21(2 pt 1):223-230. doi:10.1016/s0190-9622(89)70165-1
- Shah M, Lewis FM, Gawkrodger DJ. Facial dermatitis and eyelid dermatitis: a comparison of patch test results and final diagnoses. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34:140-141. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1996.tb02148.x
- Brites GS, Ferreira I, Sebastião AI, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis: from pathophysiology to development of new preventive strategies. Pharmacol Res. 2020;162:105282. doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2020.105282
- Alinaghi F, Bennike NH, Egeberg A, et al. Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:77-85. doi:10.1111/cod.13119
- Adler BL, DeLeo VA. Allergic contact dermatitis. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157:364. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.5639
- Huang CX, Yiannias JA, Killian JM, et al. Seven common allergen groups causing eyelid dermatitis: education and avoidance strategies. Clin Ophthalmol Auckl NZ. 2021;15:1477-1490. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S297754
- Rozas-Muñoz E, Gamé D, Serra-Baldrich E. Allergic contact dermatitis by anatomical regions: diagnostic clues. Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas Engl Ed. 2018;109:485-507. doi:10.1016/j.adengl.2018.05.016
- Amin KA, Belsito DV. The aetiology of eyelid dermatitis: a 10-year retrospective analysis. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;55:280-285. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.00927.x
- Wolf R, Orion E, Tüzün Y. Periorbital (eyelid) dermatides. Clin Dermatol. 2014;32:131-140. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2013.05.035
- Ockenfels HM, Seemann U, Goos M. Contact allergy in patients with periorbital eczema: an analysis of allergens. data recorded by the Information Network of the Departments of Dermatology. Dermatol Basel Switz. 1997;195:119-124. doi:10.1159/000245712
- Landeck L, John SM, Geier J. Periorbital dermatitis in 4779 patients—patch test results during a 10-year period. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:205-212. doi:10.1111/cod.12157
- Warshaw EM, Voller LM, Maibach HI, et al. Eyelid dermatitis in patients referred for patch testing: retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1994-2016. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84:953-964. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.07.020
- McMonnies CW. Management of chronic habits of abnormal eye rubbing. Contact Lens Anterior Eye. 2008;31:95-102. doi:10.1016/j.clae.2007.07.008
- Chisholm SAM, Couch SM, Custer PL. Etiology and management of allergic eyelid dermatitis. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;33:248-250. doi:10.1097/IOP.0000000000000723
- Lewallen R, Feldman S, eds. Regional atlas of contact dermatitis. The Dermatologist. Accessed April 22, 2024. https://s3.amazonaws.com/HMP/hmp_ln/imported/Regional%20Atlas%20of%20Contact%20Dermatitis%20Book_lr.pdf
- Rietschel RL, Warshaw EM, Sasseville D, et al. Common contact allergens associated with eyelid dermatitis: data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2003-2004 study period. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2007;18:78-81. doi:10.2310/6620.2007.06041
- Mughal AA, Kalavala M. Contact dermatitis to ophthalmic solutions. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2012;37:593-597; quiz 597-598. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2230.2012.04398.x
- Goossens A. Contact allergic reactions on the eyes and eyelids. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol. 2004;292:11-17.
- Silverberg NB, Pelletier JL, Jacob SE, et al. Nickel allergic contact dermatitis: identification, treatment, and prevention. Pediatrics. 2020;145:E20200628. doi:10.1542/peds.2020-0628
- Warshaw EM, Schlarbaum JP, Maibach HI, et al. Facial dermatitis in male patients referred for patch testing. JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156:79-84. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.3531
- Wenk KS, Ehrlich A. Fragrance series testing in eyelid dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2012;23:22-26. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e31823d180f
- Crouse L, Ziemer C, Ziemer C, et al. Trends in eyelid dermatitis. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2018;29:96-97. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000338
- Yazdanparast T, Nassiri Kashani M, Shamsipour M, et al. Contact allergens responsible for eyelid dermatitis in adults. J Dermatol. 2024;51:691-695. doi:10.1111/1346-8138.17140
- Fowler J, Taylor J, Storrs F, et al. Gold allergy in North America. Am J Contact Dermat. 2001;12:3-5.
- Ehrlich A, Belsito DV. Allergic contact dermatitis to gold. Cutis. 2000;65:323-326.
- Danesh M, Murase JE. Titanium dioxide induces eyelid dermatitis in patients allergic to gold. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;73:E21. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2015.03.046
- Katta R. Common misconceptions in contact dermatitis counseling. Dermatol Online J. 2008;14:2.
- De Groot AC. Fragrances: contact allergy and other adverse effects. Dermatitis. 2020;31:13-35. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000463
- Reeder MJ. Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances. Dermatol Clin. 2020;38:371-377. doi:10.1016/j.det.2020.02.009
- Warshaw EM, Zhang AJ, DeKoven JG, et al. Epidemiology of nickel sensitivity: retrospective cross-sectional analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data 1994-2014. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:701-713. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2018.09.058
- Schalock PC, Dunnick CA, Nedorost S, et al. American Contact Dermatitis Society core allergen series: 2020 update. Dermatitis. 2020;31:279-282. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000621
- Yim E, Baquerizo Nole KL, Tosti A. Contact dermatitis caused by preservatives. Dermatitis. 2014;25:215-231. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000061
- Alani JI, Davis MDP, Yiannias JA. Allergy to cosmetics. Dermatitis. 2013;24:283-290. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e3182a5d8bc
- Hamilton T, de Gannes GC. Allergic contact dermatitis to preservatives and fragrances in cosmetics. Skin Ther Lett. 2011;16:1-4.
- Ashton SJ, Mughal AA. Contact dermatitis to ophthalmic solutions: an update. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2023;34:480-483. doi:10.1089/derm.2023.0033
- Reeder MJ, Warshaw E, Aravamuthan S, et al. Trends in the prevalence of methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone contact allergy in North America and Europe. JAMA Dermatol. 2023;159:267-274. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.5991
- Herro EM, Elsaie ML, Nijhawan RI, et al. Recommendations for a screening series for allergic contact eyelid dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2012;23:17-21. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e31823d191f
- Kucharczyk M, Słowik-Rylska M, Cyran-Stemplewska S, et al. Acrylates as a significant cause of allergic contact dermatitis: new sources of exposure. Adv Dermatol Allergol Dermatol Alergol. 2021;38:555-560. doi:10.5114/ada.2020.95848
- Rodriguez I, George SE, Yu J, et al. Tackling acrylate allergy: the sticky truth. Cutis. 2023;112:282-286. doi:10.12788/cutis.0909
- DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Reeder MJ, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2019–2020. Dermatitis. 2023;34:90-104. doi:10.1089/derm.2022.29017.jdk
- de Groot A. Allergic contact dermatitis from topical drugs: an overview. Dermatitis. 2021;32:197-213. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000737
- Zug KA, Palay DA, Rock B. Dermatologic diagnosis and treatment of itchy red eyelids. Surv Ophthalmol. 1996;40:293-306. doi:10.1016/s0039-6257(96)82004-2
- Beltrani VS. Eyelid dermatitis. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2001;1:380-388. doi:10.1007/s11882-001-0052-0
- Hirji SH, Maeng MM, Tran AQ, et al. Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma of the eyelid masquerading as dermatitis. Orbit Amst Neth. 2021;40:75-78. doi:10.1080/01676830.2020.1739080
- Svensson A, Möller H. Eyelid dermatitis: the role of atopy and contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 1986;15:178-182. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1986.tb01321.x
- Papier A, Tuttle DJ, Mahar TJ. Differential diagnosis of the swollen red eyelid. Am Fam Physician. 2007;76:1815-1824.
- Johnson H, Novack DE, Adler BL, et al. Can atopic dermatitis and allergic contact dermatitis coexist? Cutis. 2022;110:139-142. doi:10.12788cutis.0599
- Berger WE. Allergic rhinitis in children: diagnosis and management strategies. Paediatr Drugs. 2004;6:233-250. doi:10.2165/00148581-200406040-00003
- Singh A, Kansal NK, Kumawat D, et al. Ophthalmic manifestations of seborrheic dermatitis. Skinmed. 2023;21:397-401.
- Clark GW, Pope SM, Jaboori KA. Diagnosis and treatment of seborrheic dermatitis. Am Fam Physician. 2015;91:185-190.
- Lachapelle JM, Maibach HI. Patch Testing and Prick Testing. Springer; 2012.
- Fregert S. Manual of Contact Dermatitis: On Behalf of the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Munksgaard; 1974.
- Reeder M, Reck Atwater A. Patch testing 101, part 1: performing the test. Cutis. 2020;106:165-167. doi:10.12788/cutis.0093
- Wolf R, Perluk H. Failure of routine patch test results to detect eyelid dermatitis. Cutis. 1992;49:133-134.
- Grey KR, Warshaw EM. Allergic contact dermatitis to ophthalmic medications: relevant allergens and alternative testing methods. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2016;27:333-347. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000224
- Hine AM, Waldman RA, Grzybowski A, et al. Allergic disorders of the eyelid. Clin Dermatol. 2023;41:476-480. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2023.08.002
- Turkiewicz M, Shah A, Yang YW, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis of the eyelids: an interdisciplinary review. Ocul Surf. 2023;28:124-130. doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2023.03.001
- Valsecchi R, Imberti G, Martino D, et al. Eyelid dermatitis: an evaluation of 150 patients. Contact Dermatitis. 1992;27:143-147. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1992.tb05242.x
- Guin JD. Eyelid dermatitis: experience in 203 cases. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;47:755-765. doi:10.1067/mjd.2002.122736
- Nethercott JR, Nield G, Holness DL. A review of 79 cases of eyelid dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989;21(2 pt 1):223-230. doi:10.1016/s0190-9622(89)70165-1
- Shah M, Lewis FM, Gawkrodger DJ. Facial dermatitis and eyelid dermatitis: a comparison of patch test results and final diagnoses. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34:140-141. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1996.tb02148.x
- Brites GS, Ferreira I, Sebastião AI, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis: from pathophysiology to development of new preventive strategies. Pharmacol Res. 2020;162:105282. doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2020.105282
- Alinaghi F, Bennike NH, Egeberg A, et al. Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:77-85. doi:10.1111/cod.13119
- Adler BL, DeLeo VA. Allergic contact dermatitis. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157:364. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.5639
- Huang CX, Yiannias JA, Killian JM, et al. Seven common allergen groups causing eyelid dermatitis: education and avoidance strategies. Clin Ophthalmol Auckl NZ. 2021;15:1477-1490. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S297754
- Rozas-Muñoz E, Gamé D, Serra-Baldrich E. Allergic contact dermatitis by anatomical regions: diagnostic clues. Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas Engl Ed. 2018;109:485-507. doi:10.1016/j.adengl.2018.05.016
- Amin KA, Belsito DV. The aetiology of eyelid dermatitis: a 10-year retrospective analysis. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;55:280-285. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.00927.x
- Wolf R, Orion E, Tüzün Y. Periorbital (eyelid) dermatides. Clin Dermatol. 2014;32:131-140. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2013.05.035
- Ockenfels HM, Seemann U, Goos M. Contact allergy in patients with periorbital eczema: an analysis of allergens. data recorded by the Information Network of the Departments of Dermatology. Dermatol Basel Switz. 1997;195:119-124. doi:10.1159/000245712
- Landeck L, John SM, Geier J. Periorbital dermatitis in 4779 patients—patch test results during a 10-year period. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:205-212. doi:10.1111/cod.12157
- Warshaw EM, Voller LM, Maibach HI, et al. Eyelid dermatitis in patients referred for patch testing: retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1994-2016. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84:953-964. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.07.020
- McMonnies CW. Management of chronic habits of abnormal eye rubbing. Contact Lens Anterior Eye. 2008;31:95-102. doi:10.1016/j.clae.2007.07.008
- Chisholm SAM, Couch SM, Custer PL. Etiology and management of allergic eyelid dermatitis. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;33:248-250. doi:10.1097/IOP.0000000000000723
- Lewallen R, Feldman S, eds. Regional atlas of contact dermatitis. The Dermatologist. Accessed April 22, 2024. https://s3.amazonaws.com/HMP/hmp_ln/imported/Regional%20Atlas%20of%20Contact%20Dermatitis%20Book_lr.pdf
- Rietschel RL, Warshaw EM, Sasseville D, et al. Common contact allergens associated with eyelid dermatitis: data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2003-2004 study period. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2007;18:78-81. doi:10.2310/6620.2007.06041
- Mughal AA, Kalavala M. Contact dermatitis to ophthalmic solutions. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2012;37:593-597; quiz 597-598. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2230.2012.04398.x
- Goossens A. Contact allergic reactions on the eyes and eyelids. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol. 2004;292:11-17.
- Silverberg NB, Pelletier JL, Jacob SE, et al. Nickel allergic contact dermatitis: identification, treatment, and prevention. Pediatrics. 2020;145:E20200628. doi:10.1542/peds.2020-0628
- Warshaw EM, Schlarbaum JP, Maibach HI, et al. Facial dermatitis in male patients referred for patch testing. JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156:79-84. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.3531
- Wenk KS, Ehrlich A. Fragrance series testing in eyelid dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2012;23:22-26. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e31823d180f
- Crouse L, Ziemer C, Ziemer C, et al. Trends in eyelid dermatitis. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2018;29:96-97. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000338
- Yazdanparast T, Nassiri Kashani M, Shamsipour M, et al. Contact allergens responsible for eyelid dermatitis in adults. J Dermatol. 2024;51:691-695. doi:10.1111/1346-8138.17140
- Fowler J, Taylor J, Storrs F, et al. Gold allergy in North America. Am J Contact Dermat. 2001;12:3-5.
- Ehrlich A, Belsito DV. Allergic contact dermatitis to gold. Cutis. 2000;65:323-326.
- Danesh M, Murase JE. Titanium dioxide induces eyelid dermatitis in patients allergic to gold. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;73:E21. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2015.03.046
- Katta R. Common misconceptions in contact dermatitis counseling. Dermatol Online J. 2008;14:2.
- De Groot AC. Fragrances: contact allergy and other adverse effects. Dermatitis. 2020;31:13-35. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000463
- Reeder MJ. Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances. Dermatol Clin. 2020;38:371-377. doi:10.1016/j.det.2020.02.009
- Warshaw EM, Zhang AJ, DeKoven JG, et al. Epidemiology of nickel sensitivity: retrospective cross-sectional analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data 1994-2014. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:701-713. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2018.09.058
- Schalock PC, Dunnick CA, Nedorost S, et al. American Contact Dermatitis Society core allergen series: 2020 update. Dermatitis. 2020;31:279-282. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000621
- Yim E, Baquerizo Nole KL, Tosti A. Contact dermatitis caused by preservatives. Dermatitis. 2014;25:215-231. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000061
- Alani JI, Davis MDP, Yiannias JA. Allergy to cosmetics. Dermatitis. 2013;24:283-290. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e3182a5d8bc
- Hamilton T, de Gannes GC. Allergic contact dermatitis to preservatives and fragrances in cosmetics. Skin Ther Lett. 2011;16:1-4.
- Ashton SJ, Mughal AA. Contact dermatitis to ophthalmic solutions: an update. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2023;34:480-483. doi:10.1089/derm.2023.0033
- Reeder MJ, Warshaw E, Aravamuthan S, et al. Trends in the prevalence of methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone contact allergy in North America and Europe. JAMA Dermatol. 2023;159:267-274. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.5991
- Herro EM, Elsaie ML, Nijhawan RI, et al. Recommendations for a screening series for allergic contact eyelid dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2012;23:17-21. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e31823d191f
- Kucharczyk M, Słowik-Rylska M, Cyran-Stemplewska S, et al. Acrylates as a significant cause of allergic contact dermatitis: new sources of exposure. Adv Dermatol Allergol Dermatol Alergol. 2021;38:555-560. doi:10.5114/ada.2020.95848
- Rodriguez I, George SE, Yu J, et al. Tackling acrylate allergy: the sticky truth. Cutis. 2023;112:282-286. doi:10.12788/cutis.0909
- DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Reeder MJ, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2019–2020. Dermatitis. 2023;34:90-104. doi:10.1089/derm.2022.29017.jdk
- de Groot A. Allergic contact dermatitis from topical drugs: an overview. Dermatitis. 2021;32:197-213. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000737
- Zug KA, Palay DA, Rock B. Dermatologic diagnosis and treatment of itchy red eyelids. Surv Ophthalmol. 1996;40:293-306. doi:10.1016/s0039-6257(96)82004-2
- Beltrani VS. Eyelid dermatitis. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2001;1:380-388. doi:10.1007/s11882-001-0052-0
- Hirji SH, Maeng MM, Tran AQ, et al. Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma of the eyelid masquerading as dermatitis. Orbit Amst Neth. 2021;40:75-78. doi:10.1080/01676830.2020.1739080
- Svensson A, Möller H. Eyelid dermatitis: the role of atopy and contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 1986;15:178-182. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1986.tb01321.x
- Papier A, Tuttle DJ, Mahar TJ. Differential diagnosis of the swollen red eyelid. Am Fam Physician. 2007;76:1815-1824.
- Johnson H, Novack DE, Adler BL, et al. Can atopic dermatitis and allergic contact dermatitis coexist? Cutis. 2022;110:139-142. doi:10.12788cutis.0599
- Berger WE. Allergic rhinitis in children: diagnosis and management strategies. Paediatr Drugs. 2004;6:233-250. doi:10.2165/00148581-200406040-00003
- Singh A, Kansal NK, Kumawat D, et al. Ophthalmic manifestations of seborrheic dermatitis. Skinmed. 2023;21:397-401.
- Clark GW, Pope SM, Jaboori KA. Diagnosis and treatment of seborrheic dermatitis. Am Fam Physician. 2015;91:185-190.
- Lachapelle JM, Maibach HI. Patch Testing and Prick Testing. Springer; 2012.
- Fregert S. Manual of Contact Dermatitis: On Behalf of the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Munksgaard; 1974.
- Reeder M, Reck Atwater A. Patch testing 101, part 1: performing the test. Cutis. 2020;106:165-167. doi:10.12788/cutis.0093
- Wolf R, Perluk H. Failure of routine patch test results to detect eyelid dermatitis. Cutis. 1992;49:133-134.
- Grey KR, Warshaw EM. Allergic contact dermatitis to ophthalmic medications: relevant allergens and alternative testing methods. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2016;27:333-347. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000224
Practice Points
- Eyelid dermatitis is a common dermatologic concern representing a broad range of inflammatory dermatoses, most often caused by allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).
- The most common contact allergens associated with eyelid dermatitis are metals (particularly nickel), fragrances, preservatives, acrylates, and topical medications, which may be found in a variety of sources, including cosmetics, ophthalmic medications, nail lacquers, and jewelry.
- Eyelid ACD is diagnosed via patch testing, and management involves strict allergen avoidance.
A Whiff of Trouble: Navigating Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Fragrance
Fragrances are complex organic compounds that are sufficiently volatile to produce an odor—most often a pleasant one—or at times intended to neutralize unpleasant odors. They can be further divided into natural fragrances (eg, essential oils) and synthetic ones. Fragrances are found in abundance in our daily lives: in perfumes; colognes; lotions; shampoos; and an array of other personal, household, and even industrial products (Table). These exposures include products directly applied to the skin, rinsed off, or aerosolized. A single product often contains a multitude of different fragrances to create the scents we know and love. To many, fragrances can be an important part of everyday life or even a part of one’s identity. But that once-intoxicating aroma can transform into an itchy skin nightmare; fragrances are among the most common contact allergens.
Given the widespread prevalence of fragrances in so many products, understanding fragrance allergy and skillful avoidance is imperative. In this review, we explore important aspects of fragrance allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), including chemistry, epidemiology, patch test considerations, and management strategies for patients, with the goal of providing valuable clinical insights for treating physicians on how patients can embrace a fragrance-free lifestyle.
How Fragrances Act as Allergens
A plethora of chemicals emit odors, of which more than 2000 are used to create the fragranced products we see on our shelves today.1 For many of these fragrances, contact allergy develops because the fragrance acts as a hapten (ie, a small molecule that combines with a carrier protein to elicit an immune response).2 Some fragrance molecules require “activation” to be able to bind to proteins; these are known as prehaptens.3 For example, the natural fragrance linalool is generally considered nonallergenic in its initial form. However, once it is exposed to air, it may undergo oxidation to become linalool hydroperoxides, a well-established contact allergen. Some fragrances can become allergenic in the skin itself, often secondary to enzymatic reactions—these are known as prohaptens.3 However, most fragrances are directly reactive to skin proteins on the basis of chemical reactions such as Michael addition and Schiff base formation.4 In either case, the end result is that fragrance allergens, including essential oils, may cause skin sensitization and subsequent ACD.5,6
Epidemiology
Contact allergy to fragrances is not uncommon; in a multicenter cross-sectional study conducted in 5 European countries, the prevalence in the general population was estimated to be as high as 2.6% and 1.9% among 3119 patients patch tested to fragrance mix I (FMI) and fragrance mix II (FMII), respectively.7 Studies in patients referred for patch testing have shown a higher 5% to 25% prevalence of fragrance allergy, largely depending on what population was evaluated.1 Factors such as sociocultural differences in frequency and types of fragrances used could contribute to this variation.
During patch testing, the primary fragrance screening allergens are FMI, FMII, and balsam of Peru (BOP)(Myroxylon pereirae resin).7 In recent years, hydroperoxides of linalool and limonene also have emerged as potentially important fragrance allergens.8 The frequencies of patch-test positivity of these allergens can be quite high in referral-based populations. In a study performed by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) from 2019 to 2020, frequencies of fragrance allergen positivity were 12.8% for FMI, 5.2% for FMII, 7.4% for BOP, 11.1% for hydroperoxides of linalool, and 3.5% for hydroperoxides of limonene.8 Additionally, it was noted that FMI and hydroperoxides of linalool were among the top 10 most frequently positive allergens.9 It should be kept in mind that NACDG studies are drawn from a referral population and not representative of the general population.
Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances can manifest anywhere on the body, but certain patterns are characteristic. A study by the NACDG analyzed fragrance and botanical patch test results in 24,246 patients and found that fragrance/botanical-sensitive patients more commonly had dermatitis involving the face (odds ratio [OR], 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.21), legs (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.06-1.41), and anal/genital areas (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.52) and were less likely to have hand dermatitis (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.95) compared with non–fragrance/botanical-sensitive patients.10 However, other studies have found that hand dermatitis is common among fragrance-allergic individuals.11-13
Fragrance allergy tends to be more common in women than men, which likely is attributable to differences in product use and exposure.10 The prevalence of fragrance allergy increases with age in both men and women, peaking at approximately 50 years of age, likely due to repeat exposure or age-related changes to the skin barrier or immune system.14
Occupational fragrance exposures are important to consider, and fragrance ACD is associated with hairdressers, beauticians, office workers exposed to aromatherapy diffusers, and food handlers.15 Less-obvious professions that involve exposure to fragrances used to cover up unwanted odors—such as working with industrial and cleaning chemicals or even metalworking—also have been reported to be associated with ACD.16
Patch Test Considerations
Patch testing is essential to confirm fragrance allergy and guide treatment, but because there are so many potential fragrance allergens, there is no perfect patch test strategy. In a standard patch test series, the most important screening allergens are considered to be FMI, FMII, and BOP; tested together, they are thought to detect a large proportion of cases of fragrance allergy. Strikingly, in a large European study (N=1951), patch testing with the fragrance markers in the baseline panel failed to detect more than 40% of cases of allergy compared to testing with 26 individual fragrance allergens.17 Other studies have reported that a smaller proportion of fragrance allergies are missed by using baseline screening allergens alone.18,19 Limonene and linalool hydroperoxides also are potentially important fragrance allergens to consider adding to the patch test panel, as unoxidized limonene and linalool commonly are used in many products and could theoretically undergo auto-oxidation under use conditions.8 However, because of the high number of irritant, questionable, and potentially false-positive reactions, the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology has recommended against adding these hydroperoxides to a standard screening tray for patch testing.20 It must be remembered that a positive patch test to a fragrance does not necessarily represent ACD unless the patient has a clinically relevant exposure to the allergen.21
In patients who test negative to the baseline fragrance-screening allergens and in whom a high degree of suspicion remains, further testing with supplemental fragrance allergens (commercially available from patch test suppliers) is warranted.17 The thin-layer rapid use epicutaneous (T.R.U.E.) test (SmartPractice) includes FMI and BOP but not FMII or linalool or limonene hydroperoxides. More comprehensive patch test panels are available that include additional fragrances, such as the North American 80 Comprehensive Series and the American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series.22-24 It is important to remain vigilant and consider expanded patch testing if patients initially test negative but suspicion remains.
Furthermore, patch testing with the patient’s own products is an important consideration. Uter et al25 evaluated patch testing using patients’ perfumes, deodorants, and shaving lotions, and approximately 41% (53/129) of patients who tested positive to their own product tested negative for fragrance-screening allergens. Although it can be difficult to ascertain which exact component of a commercial product is the culprit, a positive patch test may still provide clinically relevant information for patients and treating physicians. In cases of questionable or weak-positive results, repeat testing or repeated open application tests can help re-evaluate suspected products.
Cross-reactivity should be considered when patch testing for fragrances. Atwater et al10 found that cross-reactivity between FMI, FMII, and BOP was common; for instance, approximately 40% of patients testing positive to FMII or BOP also had positive reactions to FMI (522/1182 and 768/1942, respectively). Understanding this concept is important because in some cases (as detailed below) patients will need to avoid all fragrances, not just the ones to which they have previously been exposed, given the limitations on fragrance labeling in the United States. However, this may change with the Modernization of Cosmetic Regulation Act of 2022.26
Avoiding Fragrances: Improving Patient Education and Outcomes
Once a relevant contact allergy to fragrance is established after patch testing, successful avoidance is critical but challenging, as there are numerous potential pitfalls. Missing just 1 hidden source of fragrance exposure will often be the difference between success or failure. Dermatologists play a crucial role in guiding patients through the intricate process of identifying and avoiding potential allergens.
Optimal Safety: Embracing a Fragrance-Free Lifestyle
For fragrance-allergic patients, it generally is safest to completely avoid fragrance.
First, if a patient only shows positive patch-test reactions to fragrance screening mixes (and not to the particular fragrances in these mixes), there is no way to be certain which fragrances the patient needs to avoid.
Second, even if specific fragrance allergens are identified, numerous chemically related fragrances to which the patient may be allergic are not commercially available for patch testing. One review provided evidence of 162 fragrance allergens that have been documented to cause contact allergy.1 Dermatologists generally patch test to screening mixtures and/or the 26 fragrance chemicals required on labels in European products (European Directive fragrance).27 Therefore, there are more than 100 known fragrance allergens that are not routinely tested to which patients could be allergic.
Third, certain fragrances, such as limonene and linalool, are found in many products with fragrance, and it is difficult to find products without these substances. Limonene and linalool themselves are not potent allergens; however, upon air exposure, they may auto-oxidize to hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool, which are increasingly common positive patch tests.19
Additionally, patients should be advised that many products labeled “fragrance free,” “unscented,” or “free and clear” are not truly fragrance free, and patients should not choose products based on these claims. There are no legal definitions for these claims in the United States, and industries are allowed to choose the definition they prefer. Numerous products labeled “unscented” use this term to indicate that the product had an odor, the company used a masking fragrance to hide the odor, and then the product can be considered unscented. In many holistic stores, most products labeled “fragrance free” are only free of artificial fragrances but contain essential oils. Of the 162 documented fragrance allergens, 80 are essential oils.6 Essential oils are perceived to be safe by the vast majority of the population because they are viewed as “natural” and “unprocessed” sources of fragrance.28 However, numerous allergenic terpenes have been discovered in essential oils, including functionalized variations of alcohols (eg, geraniol, bisabolol) and aldehydes (eg, citronellal).6 Essential oils also consist of nonterpenic compounds produced through the phenylpropanoids pathway, including eugenol and cinnamaldehyde. One review showed that most essential oils contain one or more European Directive fragrance.29 Therefore, many products labeled “unscented,” “fragrance free,” or “natural” are not free of fragrance and may be unsafe for fragrance-allergic patients.
Although not required, manufacturers sometimes voluntarily list one or more of the 162 currently identified fragrance allergens on product labels. Also, there are more than 50 potentially allergenic essential oils that can be listed on labels by their common names or by genus or species. In addition, there are synonyms for fragrance, such as aroma, parfum, perfume, and scent. Therefore, there are several hundred different ingredient names on labels that indicate the presence of fragrance, and patients are very unlikely to successfully identify fragrance-free products by trying to read product labels on their own.
Lastly, in the United States product labels only require products to state that they contain “fragrance” and do not mandate the listing of specific fragrances. If a patient is allergic to a specific fragrance, there is no way to determine if that fragrance is present in these products. This will change with the enactment of Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022, which empowers the US Food and Drug Administration to require manufacturers to disclose many, but not all, fragrance allergens on the labels of cosmetic and topical products.26
For all these reasons, patients should be advised to use a medical database to choose safe alternative products instead of trying to read labels themselves to avoid fragrance. The American Contact Dermatitis Society’s Contact Allergen Management Program (CAMP) database (https://www.contactderm.org/resources/acds-camp) is designed to identify safe alternative products for patients with contact allergies. When CAMP is programmed to avoid “fragrance,” it will list only “safe” products free of all fragrances found in a comprehensive fragrance cross-reactor group.30 This customizable database is available as an application that can be downloaded onto a patient’s mobile device. Fragrance-allergic patients should be encouraged to use the CAMP application or other similar applications (eg, SkinSAFE)(https://www.skinsafeproducts.com/) to find all the products they use.
Potential Pitfalls in Fragrance Avoidance
Most physicians, even dermatologists, will not know which products on the market are fragrance free from a contact allergy standpoint. Patients should instruct their physicians to use the allergen-avoidance application of choice whenever recommending new topical products, whether prescription or nonprescription. In 2009, Nardelli and colleagues31 found that 10% of topical pharmaceutical products contained a total of 66 different fragrance substances.
Individuals who are allergic to fragrance also can react to fragrances used by close contacts (ie, consort dermatitis).32 Therefore, fragrance-allergic individuals who do not improve after changing their personal products should consider urging their spouses or significant others to choose their personal care products using an allergen-avoidance application. Also, physical contact with pets can cause reactions, and the use of a fragrance-free pet shampoo is recommended. Additionally, allergic individuals who are providing care for small children should select fragrance-free products for them.
Some of the most heavily fragranced products on the market are found at hair salons. One exposure to an allergen often can keep patients broken out for up to 4 weeks and occasionally longer, a typical frequency for salon visits—even if the individual is taking great care to avoid fragrance at home. Patients should be instructed to bring their own shampoo, conditioner, and styling products to the salon. These patients also should bring safe moisturizer and nail polish remover for manicures. Additionally, aromatherapy used in most massages can cause flare-ups, and it is recommended that allergic patients purchase fragrance-free massage oil to bring to their sessions.
Fragranced soaps and cleansers can leave a residue on the palmar surface of the hands and fingers. This residue may not meet the threshold for causing a reaction on the thick skin of these surfaces, but it is sufficient to passively transfer fragrance to other more sensitive areas, such as the eyelids. Passive transfer of fragrance can be a major source of allergen exposure and should not be overlooked. Allergic patients should be instructed to bring safe hand cleansers to friends’ houses, restaurants, or work.
Airborne fragrances in a patient’s environment can reach sufficient concentration to cause airborne contact dermatitis. In one case report, an Uber driver developed facial airborne ACD from a fragrance diffuser in his vehicle and his condition improved upon removing the diffuser.33 Therefore, patients should be instructed to avoid fragranced diffusers, scented candles, room deodorizers, incense, and wax melts.
Fragrance in household products also can be an issue. Fragrance-allergic patients should be instructed to choose fragrance-free cleaning products and to avoid fragranced wipes on surfaces that may be touched. In addition, they should be instructed to use fragrance-free laundry products. It is not required for household products in the United States to list their ingredients, and the majority do not have complete ingredient lists. Therefore, it is imperative that the patient use an allergen-avoidance application that identifies products that have full ingredient disclosure and are free of fragrance.
For individuals who enjoy perfume and/or cologne, it may be possible for them to resume use of these products in some cases after their condition has fully cleared with complete fragrance avoidance. They should avoid spraying products into the air or applying them directly onto the skin and should instead dip a cotton swab into the perfume/cologne and dab a small amount onto their clothing. This technique can sometimes satisfy the patient and improve compliance.
If a patient who is allergic to fragrance does not clear after 6 weeks of complete fragrance avoidance, it is worth considering systemic contact dermatitis due to ingestion of fragrance-related substances in foods.34 A large number of fragrance materials also are food flavorings. For patients allergic to a specific fragrance(s), systemic avoidance needs to be specific to the allergen, and the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association’s flavor ingredient library is most helpful (https://www.femaflavor.org/flavor-library). If the patient is allergic to the complex mixture BOP, a balsam-free diet can be attempted.35,36
Final Thoughts
Dermatologists must equip themselves with the knowledge to educate fragrance-allergic patients on proper avoidance. The multifaceted nature of fragrance avoidance requires a personalized approach, combining label scrutiny, utilization of a safe-product application, and tailored recommendations for specific situations. By guiding patients through these complexities, dermatologists can empower patients to manage their fragrance allergy and enhance their quality of life.
- de Groot AC. Fragrances: contact allergy and other adverse effects. Dermatitis. 2020;31:13-35.
- Uter W. Contact allergy to fragrances: current clinical and regulatory trends. Allergol Select. 2017;1:190-199.
- Karlberg AT, Börje A, Duus Johansen J, et al. Activation of non-sensitizing or low-sensitizing fragrance substances into potent sensitizers - prehaptens and prohaptens. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69:323-334.
- Patlewicz GY, Wright ZM, Basketter DA, et al. Structure-activity relationships for selected fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;47:219-226. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0536.2002.470406
- Ward JM, Reeder M, Atwater AR. Essential oils debunked: separating fact from myth. Cutis. 2020;105:174-176.
- de Groot AC, Schmidt E. Essential oils, part IV: contact allergy. Dermatitis. 2016;27:170-175.
- Diepgen TL, Ofenloch R, Bruze M, et al. Prevalence of fragrance contact allergy in the general population of five European countries: a cross-sectional study. Br J Dermatol. 2015;173:1411-1419
- Ogueta IA, Brared Christensson J, Giménez-Arnau E, et al. Limonene and linalool hydroperoxides review: pros and cons for routine patch testing. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;87:1-12.
- DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Reeder MJ, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2019-2020. Dermatitis. 2023;34:90-104.
- Atwater AR, Ward JM, Liu B, et al. Fragrance- and botanical-related allergy and associated concomitant reactions: a retrospective analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data 2007-2016. Dermatitis. 2021;32:42-52.
- Tai V, Sharifah Rosniza SNC, Tang MM. Contact sensitization to fragrance allergen: a 5-year review in the Department of Dermatology, Hospital Kuala Lumpur. Med J Malaysia. 2023;78:583-588.
- Periyasamy MK, Sekar SC, Rai R. Analysis of hypersensitivity in fragrance series by patch testing. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2019;10:657-662.
- Heydorn S, Menné T, Johansen JD. Fragrance allergy and hand eczema - a review. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48:59-66.
- Buckley DA, Rycroft RJG, White IR, et al. The frequency of fragrance allergy in patch-tested patients increases with their age. Br J Dermatol. 2003;149:986-989.
- Montgomery RL, Agius R, Wilkinson SM, et al. UK trends of allergic occupational skin disease attributed to fragrances 1996-2015. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78:33-40.
- Reeder MJ. Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances. Dermatol Clin. 2020;38:371-377.
- Mann J, McFadden JP, White JML, et al. Baseline series fragrance markers fail to predict contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:276-281.
- Vejanurug P, Tresukosol P, Sajjachareonpong P, et al. Fragrance allergy could be missed without patch testing with 26 individual fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;74:230-235.
- Sukakul T, Bruze M, Mowitz M, et al. Simultaneous patch testing with fragrance markers in the baseline series and the ingredients of fragrance mixes: an update from southern Sweden. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;86:514-523.
- Schubert S, Geier J, Brans R, et al; IVDK. Patch testing hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool in consecutive patients-results of the IVDK 2018-2020. Contact Dermatitis. 2023;89:85-94. doi:10.1111/cod.14332
- Storrs FJ. Fragrance. Dermatitis. 2007;18:3-7.
- T.R.U.E. test. SmartPractice website. Accessed July 24, 2024. https://www.smartpractice.com/shop/category?id=581719&m=SPA ACDS
- Schalock PC, Dunnick CA, Nedorost S, et al. American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series: 2020 update. Dermatitis. 2020;31:279-282. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32947457/
- North American 80 Comprehensive Series NAC-80. Chemotechnique MB Diagnostics AB website. Accessed July 24, 2024. https://www.chemotechnique.se/products/national-series/north-american-80-comprehensive-series/
- Uter W, Geier J, Schnuch A, et al. Patch test results with patients’ own perfumes, deodorants and shaving lotions: results of the IVDK 1998-2002. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2007;21:374-379.
- Filley AR, Woodruff CM. The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022: what dermatologists need to know. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;89:629-631.
- European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 2003/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (text with EEA relevance). November 3, 2003. Accessed June 7, 2024. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:066:0026:0035:en:PDF
- Sharmeen JB, Mahomoodally FM, Zengin G, et al. Essential oils as natural sources of fragrance compounds for cosmetics and cosmeceuticals. Molecules. 2021;26:666.
- Scheman A, Scheman N, Rakowski EM. European Directive fragrances in natural products. Dermatitis. 2014;25:51-55.
- Scheman A, Hipolito R, Severson D, et al. Contact allergy cross-reactions: retrospective clinical data and review of the literature. Dermatitis. 2017;28:128-140.
- Nardelli A, D’Hooghe E, Drieghe J, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from fragrance components in specific topical pharmaceutical products in Belgium. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60:303-313.
- Lee J, Guo S, Dinalo J, et al. Consort allergic contact dermatitis: a systematic review. Dermatitis. 2022;33:181-186.
- Perper M, Cervantes J, Eber AE, et al. Airborne contact dermatitis caused by fragrance diffusers in Uber cars. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;77:116-117.
- Nijhawan RI, Molenda M, Zirwas MJ, et al. Systemic contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin. 2009;27:355-364.
- Salam TN, Fowler JF. Balsam-related systemic contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2001;45:377-381.
- Scheman A, Rakowski EM, Chou V, et al. Balsam of Peru: past and future. Dermatitis. 2013;24:153-160.
Fragrances are complex organic compounds that are sufficiently volatile to produce an odor—most often a pleasant one—or at times intended to neutralize unpleasant odors. They can be further divided into natural fragrances (eg, essential oils) and synthetic ones. Fragrances are found in abundance in our daily lives: in perfumes; colognes; lotions; shampoos; and an array of other personal, household, and even industrial products (Table). These exposures include products directly applied to the skin, rinsed off, or aerosolized. A single product often contains a multitude of different fragrances to create the scents we know and love. To many, fragrances can be an important part of everyday life or even a part of one’s identity. But that once-intoxicating aroma can transform into an itchy skin nightmare; fragrances are among the most common contact allergens.
Given the widespread prevalence of fragrances in so many products, understanding fragrance allergy and skillful avoidance is imperative. In this review, we explore important aspects of fragrance allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), including chemistry, epidemiology, patch test considerations, and management strategies for patients, with the goal of providing valuable clinical insights for treating physicians on how patients can embrace a fragrance-free lifestyle.
How Fragrances Act as Allergens
A plethora of chemicals emit odors, of which more than 2000 are used to create the fragranced products we see on our shelves today.1 For many of these fragrances, contact allergy develops because the fragrance acts as a hapten (ie, a small molecule that combines with a carrier protein to elicit an immune response).2 Some fragrance molecules require “activation” to be able to bind to proteins; these are known as prehaptens.3 For example, the natural fragrance linalool is generally considered nonallergenic in its initial form. However, once it is exposed to air, it may undergo oxidation to become linalool hydroperoxides, a well-established contact allergen. Some fragrances can become allergenic in the skin itself, often secondary to enzymatic reactions—these are known as prohaptens.3 However, most fragrances are directly reactive to skin proteins on the basis of chemical reactions such as Michael addition and Schiff base formation.4 In either case, the end result is that fragrance allergens, including essential oils, may cause skin sensitization and subsequent ACD.5,6
Epidemiology
Contact allergy to fragrances is not uncommon; in a multicenter cross-sectional study conducted in 5 European countries, the prevalence in the general population was estimated to be as high as 2.6% and 1.9% among 3119 patients patch tested to fragrance mix I (FMI) and fragrance mix II (FMII), respectively.7 Studies in patients referred for patch testing have shown a higher 5% to 25% prevalence of fragrance allergy, largely depending on what population was evaluated.1 Factors such as sociocultural differences in frequency and types of fragrances used could contribute to this variation.
During patch testing, the primary fragrance screening allergens are FMI, FMII, and balsam of Peru (BOP)(Myroxylon pereirae resin).7 In recent years, hydroperoxides of linalool and limonene also have emerged as potentially important fragrance allergens.8 The frequencies of patch-test positivity of these allergens can be quite high in referral-based populations. In a study performed by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) from 2019 to 2020, frequencies of fragrance allergen positivity were 12.8% for FMI, 5.2% for FMII, 7.4% for BOP, 11.1% for hydroperoxides of linalool, and 3.5% for hydroperoxides of limonene.8 Additionally, it was noted that FMI and hydroperoxides of linalool were among the top 10 most frequently positive allergens.9 It should be kept in mind that NACDG studies are drawn from a referral population and not representative of the general population.
Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances can manifest anywhere on the body, but certain patterns are characteristic. A study by the NACDG analyzed fragrance and botanical patch test results in 24,246 patients and found that fragrance/botanical-sensitive patients more commonly had dermatitis involving the face (odds ratio [OR], 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.21), legs (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.06-1.41), and anal/genital areas (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.52) and were less likely to have hand dermatitis (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.95) compared with non–fragrance/botanical-sensitive patients.10 However, other studies have found that hand dermatitis is common among fragrance-allergic individuals.11-13
Fragrance allergy tends to be more common in women than men, which likely is attributable to differences in product use and exposure.10 The prevalence of fragrance allergy increases with age in both men and women, peaking at approximately 50 years of age, likely due to repeat exposure or age-related changes to the skin barrier or immune system.14
Occupational fragrance exposures are important to consider, and fragrance ACD is associated with hairdressers, beauticians, office workers exposed to aromatherapy diffusers, and food handlers.15 Less-obvious professions that involve exposure to fragrances used to cover up unwanted odors—such as working with industrial and cleaning chemicals or even metalworking—also have been reported to be associated with ACD.16
Patch Test Considerations
Patch testing is essential to confirm fragrance allergy and guide treatment, but because there are so many potential fragrance allergens, there is no perfect patch test strategy. In a standard patch test series, the most important screening allergens are considered to be FMI, FMII, and BOP; tested together, they are thought to detect a large proportion of cases of fragrance allergy. Strikingly, in a large European study (N=1951), patch testing with the fragrance markers in the baseline panel failed to detect more than 40% of cases of allergy compared to testing with 26 individual fragrance allergens.17 Other studies have reported that a smaller proportion of fragrance allergies are missed by using baseline screening allergens alone.18,19 Limonene and linalool hydroperoxides also are potentially important fragrance allergens to consider adding to the patch test panel, as unoxidized limonene and linalool commonly are used in many products and could theoretically undergo auto-oxidation under use conditions.8 However, because of the high number of irritant, questionable, and potentially false-positive reactions, the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology has recommended against adding these hydroperoxides to a standard screening tray for patch testing.20 It must be remembered that a positive patch test to a fragrance does not necessarily represent ACD unless the patient has a clinically relevant exposure to the allergen.21
In patients who test negative to the baseline fragrance-screening allergens and in whom a high degree of suspicion remains, further testing with supplemental fragrance allergens (commercially available from patch test suppliers) is warranted.17 The thin-layer rapid use epicutaneous (T.R.U.E.) test (SmartPractice) includes FMI and BOP but not FMII or linalool or limonene hydroperoxides. More comprehensive patch test panels are available that include additional fragrances, such as the North American 80 Comprehensive Series and the American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series.22-24 It is important to remain vigilant and consider expanded patch testing if patients initially test negative but suspicion remains.
Furthermore, patch testing with the patient’s own products is an important consideration. Uter et al25 evaluated patch testing using patients’ perfumes, deodorants, and shaving lotions, and approximately 41% (53/129) of patients who tested positive to their own product tested negative for fragrance-screening allergens. Although it can be difficult to ascertain which exact component of a commercial product is the culprit, a positive patch test may still provide clinically relevant information for patients and treating physicians. In cases of questionable or weak-positive results, repeat testing or repeated open application tests can help re-evaluate suspected products.
Cross-reactivity should be considered when patch testing for fragrances. Atwater et al10 found that cross-reactivity between FMI, FMII, and BOP was common; for instance, approximately 40% of patients testing positive to FMII or BOP also had positive reactions to FMI (522/1182 and 768/1942, respectively). Understanding this concept is important because in some cases (as detailed below) patients will need to avoid all fragrances, not just the ones to which they have previously been exposed, given the limitations on fragrance labeling in the United States. However, this may change with the Modernization of Cosmetic Regulation Act of 2022.26
Avoiding Fragrances: Improving Patient Education and Outcomes
Once a relevant contact allergy to fragrance is established after patch testing, successful avoidance is critical but challenging, as there are numerous potential pitfalls. Missing just 1 hidden source of fragrance exposure will often be the difference between success or failure. Dermatologists play a crucial role in guiding patients through the intricate process of identifying and avoiding potential allergens.
Optimal Safety: Embracing a Fragrance-Free Lifestyle
For fragrance-allergic patients, it generally is safest to completely avoid fragrance.
First, if a patient only shows positive patch-test reactions to fragrance screening mixes (and not to the particular fragrances in these mixes), there is no way to be certain which fragrances the patient needs to avoid.
Second, even if specific fragrance allergens are identified, numerous chemically related fragrances to which the patient may be allergic are not commercially available for patch testing. One review provided evidence of 162 fragrance allergens that have been documented to cause contact allergy.1 Dermatologists generally patch test to screening mixtures and/or the 26 fragrance chemicals required on labels in European products (European Directive fragrance).27 Therefore, there are more than 100 known fragrance allergens that are not routinely tested to which patients could be allergic.
Third, certain fragrances, such as limonene and linalool, are found in many products with fragrance, and it is difficult to find products without these substances. Limonene and linalool themselves are not potent allergens; however, upon air exposure, they may auto-oxidize to hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool, which are increasingly common positive patch tests.19
Additionally, patients should be advised that many products labeled “fragrance free,” “unscented,” or “free and clear” are not truly fragrance free, and patients should not choose products based on these claims. There are no legal definitions for these claims in the United States, and industries are allowed to choose the definition they prefer. Numerous products labeled “unscented” use this term to indicate that the product had an odor, the company used a masking fragrance to hide the odor, and then the product can be considered unscented. In many holistic stores, most products labeled “fragrance free” are only free of artificial fragrances but contain essential oils. Of the 162 documented fragrance allergens, 80 are essential oils.6 Essential oils are perceived to be safe by the vast majority of the population because they are viewed as “natural” and “unprocessed” sources of fragrance.28 However, numerous allergenic terpenes have been discovered in essential oils, including functionalized variations of alcohols (eg, geraniol, bisabolol) and aldehydes (eg, citronellal).6 Essential oils also consist of nonterpenic compounds produced through the phenylpropanoids pathway, including eugenol and cinnamaldehyde. One review showed that most essential oils contain one or more European Directive fragrance.29 Therefore, many products labeled “unscented,” “fragrance free,” or “natural” are not free of fragrance and may be unsafe for fragrance-allergic patients.
Although not required, manufacturers sometimes voluntarily list one or more of the 162 currently identified fragrance allergens on product labels. Also, there are more than 50 potentially allergenic essential oils that can be listed on labels by their common names or by genus or species. In addition, there are synonyms for fragrance, such as aroma, parfum, perfume, and scent. Therefore, there are several hundred different ingredient names on labels that indicate the presence of fragrance, and patients are very unlikely to successfully identify fragrance-free products by trying to read product labels on their own.
Lastly, in the United States product labels only require products to state that they contain “fragrance” and do not mandate the listing of specific fragrances. If a patient is allergic to a specific fragrance, there is no way to determine if that fragrance is present in these products. This will change with the enactment of Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022, which empowers the US Food and Drug Administration to require manufacturers to disclose many, but not all, fragrance allergens on the labels of cosmetic and topical products.26
For all these reasons, patients should be advised to use a medical database to choose safe alternative products instead of trying to read labels themselves to avoid fragrance. The American Contact Dermatitis Society’s Contact Allergen Management Program (CAMP) database (https://www.contactderm.org/resources/acds-camp) is designed to identify safe alternative products for patients with contact allergies. When CAMP is programmed to avoid “fragrance,” it will list only “safe” products free of all fragrances found in a comprehensive fragrance cross-reactor group.30 This customizable database is available as an application that can be downloaded onto a patient’s mobile device. Fragrance-allergic patients should be encouraged to use the CAMP application or other similar applications (eg, SkinSAFE)(https://www.skinsafeproducts.com/) to find all the products they use.
Potential Pitfalls in Fragrance Avoidance
Most physicians, even dermatologists, will not know which products on the market are fragrance free from a contact allergy standpoint. Patients should instruct their physicians to use the allergen-avoidance application of choice whenever recommending new topical products, whether prescription or nonprescription. In 2009, Nardelli and colleagues31 found that 10% of topical pharmaceutical products contained a total of 66 different fragrance substances.
Individuals who are allergic to fragrance also can react to fragrances used by close contacts (ie, consort dermatitis).32 Therefore, fragrance-allergic individuals who do not improve after changing their personal products should consider urging their spouses or significant others to choose their personal care products using an allergen-avoidance application. Also, physical contact with pets can cause reactions, and the use of a fragrance-free pet shampoo is recommended. Additionally, allergic individuals who are providing care for small children should select fragrance-free products for them.
Some of the most heavily fragranced products on the market are found at hair salons. One exposure to an allergen often can keep patients broken out for up to 4 weeks and occasionally longer, a typical frequency for salon visits—even if the individual is taking great care to avoid fragrance at home. Patients should be instructed to bring their own shampoo, conditioner, and styling products to the salon. These patients also should bring safe moisturizer and nail polish remover for manicures. Additionally, aromatherapy used in most massages can cause flare-ups, and it is recommended that allergic patients purchase fragrance-free massage oil to bring to their sessions.
Fragranced soaps and cleansers can leave a residue on the palmar surface of the hands and fingers. This residue may not meet the threshold for causing a reaction on the thick skin of these surfaces, but it is sufficient to passively transfer fragrance to other more sensitive areas, such as the eyelids. Passive transfer of fragrance can be a major source of allergen exposure and should not be overlooked. Allergic patients should be instructed to bring safe hand cleansers to friends’ houses, restaurants, or work.
Airborne fragrances in a patient’s environment can reach sufficient concentration to cause airborne contact dermatitis. In one case report, an Uber driver developed facial airborne ACD from a fragrance diffuser in his vehicle and his condition improved upon removing the diffuser.33 Therefore, patients should be instructed to avoid fragranced diffusers, scented candles, room deodorizers, incense, and wax melts.
Fragrance in household products also can be an issue. Fragrance-allergic patients should be instructed to choose fragrance-free cleaning products and to avoid fragranced wipes on surfaces that may be touched. In addition, they should be instructed to use fragrance-free laundry products. It is not required for household products in the United States to list their ingredients, and the majority do not have complete ingredient lists. Therefore, it is imperative that the patient use an allergen-avoidance application that identifies products that have full ingredient disclosure and are free of fragrance.
For individuals who enjoy perfume and/or cologne, it may be possible for them to resume use of these products in some cases after their condition has fully cleared with complete fragrance avoidance. They should avoid spraying products into the air or applying them directly onto the skin and should instead dip a cotton swab into the perfume/cologne and dab a small amount onto their clothing. This technique can sometimes satisfy the patient and improve compliance.
If a patient who is allergic to fragrance does not clear after 6 weeks of complete fragrance avoidance, it is worth considering systemic contact dermatitis due to ingestion of fragrance-related substances in foods.34 A large number of fragrance materials also are food flavorings. For patients allergic to a specific fragrance(s), systemic avoidance needs to be specific to the allergen, and the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association’s flavor ingredient library is most helpful (https://www.femaflavor.org/flavor-library). If the patient is allergic to the complex mixture BOP, a balsam-free diet can be attempted.35,36
Final Thoughts
Dermatologists must equip themselves with the knowledge to educate fragrance-allergic patients on proper avoidance. The multifaceted nature of fragrance avoidance requires a personalized approach, combining label scrutiny, utilization of a safe-product application, and tailored recommendations for specific situations. By guiding patients through these complexities, dermatologists can empower patients to manage their fragrance allergy and enhance their quality of life.
Fragrances are complex organic compounds that are sufficiently volatile to produce an odor—most often a pleasant one—or at times intended to neutralize unpleasant odors. They can be further divided into natural fragrances (eg, essential oils) and synthetic ones. Fragrances are found in abundance in our daily lives: in perfumes; colognes; lotions; shampoos; and an array of other personal, household, and even industrial products (Table). These exposures include products directly applied to the skin, rinsed off, or aerosolized. A single product often contains a multitude of different fragrances to create the scents we know and love. To many, fragrances can be an important part of everyday life or even a part of one’s identity. But that once-intoxicating aroma can transform into an itchy skin nightmare; fragrances are among the most common contact allergens.
Given the widespread prevalence of fragrances in so many products, understanding fragrance allergy and skillful avoidance is imperative. In this review, we explore important aspects of fragrance allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), including chemistry, epidemiology, patch test considerations, and management strategies for patients, with the goal of providing valuable clinical insights for treating physicians on how patients can embrace a fragrance-free lifestyle.
How Fragrances Act as Allergens
A plethora of chemicals emit odors, of which more than 2000 are used to create the fragranced products we see on our shelves today.1 For many of these fragrances, contact allergy develops because the fragrance acts as a hapten (ie, a small molecule that combines with a carrier protein to elicit an immune response).2 Some fragrance molecules require “activation” to be able to bind to proteins; these are known as prehaptens.3 For example, the natural fragrance linalool is generally considered nonallergenic in its initial form. However, once it is exposed to air, it may undergo oxidation to become linalool hydroperoxides, a well-established contact allergen. Some fragrances can become allergenic in the skin itself, often secondary to enzymatic reactions—these are known as prohaptens.3 However, most fragrances are directly reactive to skin proteins on the basis of chemical reactions such as Michael addition and Schiff base formation.4 In either case, the end result is that fragrance allergens, including essential oils, may cause skin sensitization and subsequent ACD.5,6
Epidemiology
Contact allergy to fragrances is not uncommon; in a multicenter cross-sectional study conducted in 5 European countries, the prevalence in the general population was estimated to be as high as 2.6% and 1.9% among 3119 patients patch tested to fragrance mix I (FMI) and fragrance mix II (FMII), respectively.7 Studies in patients referred for patch testing have shown a higher 5% to 25% prevalence of fragrance allergy, largely depending on what population was evaluated.1 Factors such as sociocultural differences in frequency and types of fragrances used could contribute to this variation.
During patch testing, the primary fragrance screening allergens are FMI, FMII, and balsam of Peru (BOP)(Myroxylon pereirae resin).7 In recent years, hydroperoxides of linalool and limonene also have emerged as potentially important fragrance allergens.8 The frequencies of patch-test positivity of these allergens can be quite high in referral-based populations. In a study performed by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) from 2019 to 2020, frequencies of fragrance allergen positivity were 12.8% for FMI, 5.2% for FMII, 7.4% for BOP, 11.1% for hydroperoxides of linalool, and 3.5% for hydroperoxides of limonene.8 Additionally, it was noted that FMI and hydroperoxides of linalool were among the top 10 most frequently positive allergens.9 It should be kept in mind that NACDG studies are drawn from a referral population and not representative of the general population.
Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances can manifest anywhere on the body, but certain patterns are characteristic. A study by the NACDG analyzed fragrance and botanical patch test results in 24,246 patients and found that fragrance/botanical-sensitive patients more commonly had dermatitis involving the face (odds ratio [OR], 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.21), legs (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.06-1.41), and anal/genital areas (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.52) and were less likely to have hand dermatitis (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.95) compared with non–fragrance/botanical-sensitive patients.10 However, other studies have found that hand dermatitis is common among fragrance-allergic individuals.11-13
Fragrance allergy tends to be more common in women than men, which likely is attributable to differences in product use and exposure.10 The prevalence of fragrance allergy increases with age in both men and women, peaking at approximately 50 years of age, likely due to repeat exposure or age-related changes to the skin barrier or immune system.14
Occupational fragrance exposures are important to consider, and fragrance ACD is associated with hairdressers, beauticians, office workers exposed to aromatherapy diffusers, and food handlers.15 Less-obvious professions that involve exposure to fragrances used to cover up unwanted odors—such as working with industrial and cleaning chemicals or even metalworking—also have been reported to be associated with ACD.16
Patch Test Considerations
Patch testing is essential to confirm fragrance allergy and guide treatment, but because there are so many potential fragrance allergens, there is no perfect patch test strategy. In a standard patch test series, the most important screening allergens are considered to be FMI, FMII, and BOP; tested together, they are thought to detect a large proportion of cases of fragrance allergy. Strikingly, in a large European study (N=1951), patch testing with the fragrance markers in the baseline panel failed to detect more than 40% of cases of allergy compared to testing with 26 individual fragrance allergens.17 Other studies have reported that a smaller proportion of fragrance allergies are missed by using baseline screening allergens alone.18,19 Limonene and linalool hydroperoxides also are potentially important fragrance allergens to consider adding to the patch test panel, as unoxidized limonene and linalool commonly are used in many products and could theoretically undergo auto-oxidation under use conditions.8 However, because of the high number of irritant, questionable, and potentially false-positive reactions, the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology has recommended against adding these hydroperoxides to a standard screening tray for patch testing.20 It must be remembered that a positive patch test to a fragrance does not necessarily represent ACD unless the patient has a clinically relevant exposure to the allergen.21
In patients who test negative to the baseline fragrance-screening allergens and in whom a high degree of suspicion remains, further testing with supplemental fragrance allergens (commercially available from patch test suppliers) is warranted.17 The thin-layer rapid use epicutaneous (T.R.U.E.) test (SmartPractice) includes FMI and BOP but not FMII or linalool or limonene hydroperoxides. More comprehensive patch test panels are available that include additional fragrances, such as the North American 80 Comprehensive Series and the American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series.22-24 It is important to remain vigilant and consider expanded patch testing if patients initially test negative but suspicion remains.
Furthermore, patch testing with the patient’s own products is an important consideration. Uter et al25 evaluated patch testing using patients’ perfumes, deodorants, and shaving lotions, and approximately 41% (53/129) of patients who tested positive to their own product tested negative for fragrance-screening allergens. Although it can be difficult to ascertain which exact component of a commercial product is the culprit, a positive patch test may still provide clinically relevant information for patients and treating physicians. In cases of questionable or weak-positive results, repeat testing or repeated open application tests can help re-evaluate suspected products.
Cross-reactivity should be considered when patch testing for fragrances. Atwater et al10 found that cross-reactivity between FMI, FMII, and BOP was common; for instance, approximately 40% of patients testing positive to FMII or BOP also had positive reactions to FMI (522/1182 and 768/1942, respectively). Understanding this concept is important because in some cases (as detailed below) patients will need to avoid all fragrances, not just the ones to which they have previously been exposed, given the limitations on fragrance labeling in the United States. However, this may change with the Modernization of Cosmetic Regulation Act of 2022.26
Avoiding Fragrances: Improving Patient Education and Outcomes
Once a relevant contact allergy to fragrance is established after patch testing, successful avoidance is critical but challenging, as there are numerous potential pitfalls. Missing just 1 hidden source of fragrance exposure will often be the difference between success or failure. Dermatologists play a crucial role in guiding patients through the intricate process of identifying and avoiding potential allergens.
Optimal Safety: Embracing a Fragrance-Free Lifestyle
For fragrance-allergic patients, it generally is safest to completely avoid fragrance.
First, if a patient only shows positive patch-test reactions to fragrance screening mixes (and not to the particular fragrances in these mixes), there is no way to be certain which fragrances the patient needs to avoid.
Second, even if specific fragrance allergens are identified, numerous chemically related fragrances to which the patient may be allergic are not commercially available for patch testing. One review provided evidence of 162 fragrance allergens that have been documented to cause contact allergy.1 Dermatologists generally patch test to screening mixtures and/or the 26 fragrance chemicals required on labels in European products (European Directive fragrance).27 Therefore, there are more than 100 known fragrance allergens that are not routinely tested to which patients could be allergic.
Third, certain fragrances, such as limonene and linalool, are found in many products with fragrance, and it is difficult to find products without these substances. Limonene and linalool themselves are not potent allergens; however, upon air exposure, they may auto-oxidize to hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool, which are increasingly common positive patch tests.19
Additionally, patients should be advised that many products labeled “fragrance free,” “unscented,” or “free and clear” are not truly fragrance free, and patients should not choose products based on these claims. There are no legal definitions for these claims in the United States, and industries are allowed to choose the definition they prefer. Numerous products labeled “unscented” use this term to indicate that the product had an odor, the company used a masking fragrance to hide the odor, and then the product can be considered unscented. In many holistic stores, most products labeled “fragrance free” are only free of artificial fragrances but contain essential oils. Of the 162 documented fragrance allergens, 80 are essential oils.6 Essential oils are perceived to be safe by the vast majority of the population because they are viewed as “natural” and “unprocessed” sources of fragrance.28 However, numerous allergenic terpenes have been discovered in essential oils, including functionalized variations of alcohols (eg, geraniol, bisabolol) and aldehydes (eg, citronellal).6 Essential oils also consist of nonterpenic compounds produced through the phenylpropanoids pathway, including eugenol and cinnamaldehyde. One review showed that most essential oils contain one or more European Directive fragrance.29 Therefore, many products labeled “unscented,” “fragrance free,” or “natural” are not free of fragrance and may be unsafe for fragrance-allergic patients.
Although not required, manufacturers sometimes voluntarily list one or more of the 162 currently identified fragrance allergens on product labels. Also, there are more than 50 potentially allergenic essential oils that can be listed on labels by their common names or by genus or species. In addition, there are synonyms for fragrance, such as aroma, parfum, perfume, and scent. Therefore, there are several hundred different ingredient names on labels that indicate the presence of fragrance, and patients are very unlikely to successfully identify fragrance-free products by trying to read product labels on their own.
Lastly, in the United States product labels only require products to state that they contain “fragrance” and do not mandate the listing of specific fragrances. If a patient is allergic to a specific fragrance, there is no way to determine if that fragrance is present in these products. This will change with the enactment of Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022, which empowers the US Food and Drug Administration to require manufacturers to disclose many, but not all, fragrance allergens on the labels of cosmetic and topical products.26
For all these reasons, patients should be advised to use a medical database to choose safe alternative products instead of trying to read labels themselves to avoid fragrance. The American Contact Dermatitis Society’s Contact Allergen Management Program (CAMP) database (https://www.contactderm.org/resources/acds-camp) is designed to identify safe alternative products for patients with contact allergies. When CAMP is programmed to avoid “fragrance,” it will list only “safe” products free of all fragrances found in a comprehensive fragrance cross-reactor group.30 This customizable database is available as an application that can be downloaded onto a patient’s mobile device. Fragrance-allergic patients should be encouraged to use the CAMP application or other similar applications (eg, SkinSAFE)(https://www.skinsafeproducts.com/) to find all the products they use.
Potential Pitfalls in Fragrance Avoidance
Most physicians, even dermatologists, will not know which products on the market are fragrance free from a contact allergy standpoint. Patients should instruct their physicians to use the allergen-avoidance application of choice whenever recommending new topical products, whether prescription or nonprescription. In 2009, Nardelli and colleagues31 found that 10% of topical pharmaceutical products contained a total of 66 different fragrance substances.
Individuals who are allergic to fragrance also can react to fragrances used by close contacts (ie, consort dermatitis).32 Therefore, fragrance-allergic individuals who do not improve after changing their personal products should consider urging their spouses or significant others to choose their personal care products using an allergen-avoidance application. Also, physical contact with pets can cause reactions, and the use of a fragrance-free pet shampoo is recommended. Additionally, allergic individuals who are providing care for small children should select fragrance-free products for them.
Some of the most heavily fragranced products on the market are found at hair salons. One exposure to an allergen often can keep patients broken out for up to 4 weeks and occasionally longer, a typical frequency for salon visits—even if the individual is taking great care to avoid fragrance at home. Patients should be instructed to bring their own shampoo, conditioner, and styling products to the salon. These patients also should bring safe moisturizer and nail polish remover for manicures. Additionally, aromatherapy used in most massages can cause flare-ups, and it is recommended that allergic patients purchase fragrance-free massage oil to bring to their sessions.
Fragranced soaps and cleansers can leave a residue on the palmar surface of the hands and fingers. This residue may not meet the threshold for causing a reaction on the thick skin of these surfaces, but it is sufficient to passively transfer fragrance to other more sensitive areas, such as the eyelids. Passive transfer of fragrance can be a major source of allergen exposure and should not be overlooked. Allergic patients should be instructed to bring safe hand cleansers to friends’ houses, restaurants, or work.
Airborne fragrances in a patient’s environment can reach sufficient concentration to cause airborne contact dermatitis. In one case report, an Uber driver developed facial airborne ACD from a fragrance diffuser in his vehicle and his condition improved upon removing the diffuser.33 Therefore, patients should be instructed to avoid fragranced diffusers, scented candles, room deodorizers, incense, and wax melts.
Fragrance in household products also can be an issue. Fragrance-allergic patients should be instructed to choose fragrance-free cleaning products and to avoid fragranced wipes on surfaces that may be touched. In addition, they should be instructed to use fragrance-free laundry products. It is not required for household products in the United States to list their ingredients, and the majority do not have complete ingredient lists. Therefore, it is imperative that the patient use an allergen-avoidance application that identifies products that have full ingredient disclosure and are free of fragrance.
For individuals who enjoy perfume and/or cologne, it may be possible for them to resume use of these products in some cases after their condition has fully cleared with complete fragrance avoidance. They should avoid spraying products into the air or applying them directly onto the skin and should instead dip a cotton swab into the perfume/cologne and dab a small amount onto their clothing. This technique can sometimes satisfy the patient and improve compliance.
If a patient who is allergic to fragrance does not clear after 6 weeks of complete fragrance avoidance, it is worth considering systemic contact dermatitis due to ingestion of fragrance-related substances in foods.34 A large number of fragrance materials also are food flavorings. For patients allergic to a specific fragrance(s), systemic avoidance needs to be specific to the allergen, and the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association’s flavor ingredient library is most helpful (https://www.femaflavor.org/flavor-library). If the patient is allergic to the complex mixture BOP, a balsam-free diet can be attempted.35,36
Final Thoughts
Dermatologists must equip themselves with the knowledge to educate fragrance-allergic patients on proper avoidance. The multifaceted nature of fragrance avoidance requires a personalized approach, combining label scrutiny, utilization of a safe-product application, and tailored recommendations for specific situations. By guiding patients through these complexities, dermatologists can empower patients to manage their fragrance allergy and enhance their quality of life.
- de Groot AC. Fragrances: contact allergy and other adverse effects. Dermatitis. 2020;31:13-35.
- Uter W. Contact allergy to fragrances: current clinical and regulatory trends. Allergol Select. 2017;1:190-199.
- Karlberg AT, Börje A, Duus Johansen J, et al. Activation of non-sensitizing or low-sensitizing fragrance substances into potent sensitizers - prehaptens and prohaptens. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69:323-334.
- Patlewicz GY, Wright ZM, Basketter DA, et al. Structure-activity relationships for selected fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;47:219-226. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0536.2002.470406
- Ward JM, Reeder M, Atwater AR. Essential oils debunked: separating fact from myth. Cutis. 2020;105:174-176.
- de Groot AC, Schmidt E. Essential oils, part IV: contact allergy. Dermatitis. 2016;27:170-175.
- Diepgen TL, Ofenloch R, Bruze M, et al. Prevalence of fragrance contact allergy in the general population of five European countries: a cross-sectional study. Br J Dermatol. 2015;173:1411-1419
- Ogueta IA, Brared Christensson J, Giménez-Arnau E, et al. Limonene and linalool hydroperoxides review: pros and cons for routine patch testing. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;87:1-12.
- DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Reeder MJ, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2019-2020. Dermatitis. 2023;34:90-104.
- Atwater AR, Ward JM, Liu B, et al. Fragrance- and botanical-related allergy and associated concomitant reactions: a retrospective analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data 2007-2016. Dermatitis. 2021;32:42-52.
- Tai V, Sharifah Rosniza SNC, Tang MM. Contact sensitization to fragrance allergen: a 5-year review in the Department of Dermatology, Hospital Kuala Lumpur. Med J Malaysia. 2023;78:583-588.
- Periyasamy MK, Sekar SC, Rai R. Analysis of hypersensitivity in fragrance series by patch testing. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2019;10:657-662.
- Heydorn S, Menné T, Johansen JD. Fragrance allergy and hand eczema - a review. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48:59-66.
- Buckley DA, Rycroft RJG, White IR, et al. The frequency of fragrance allergy in patch-tested patients increases with their age. Br J Dermatol. 2003;149:986-989.
- Montgomery RL, Agius R, Wilkinson SM, et al. UK trends of allergic occupational skin disease attributed to fragrances 1996-2015. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78:33-40.
- Reeder MJ. Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances. Dermatol Clin. 2020;38:371-377.
- Mann J, McFadden JP, White JML, et al. Baseline series fragrance markers fail to predict contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:276-281.
- Vejanurug P, Tresukosol P, Sajjachareonpong P, et al. Fragrance allergy could be missed without patch testing with 26 individual fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;74:230-235.
- Sukakul T, Bruze M, Mowitz M, et al. Simultaneous patch testing with fragrance markers in the baseline series and the ingredients of fragrance mixes: an update from southern Sweden. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;86:514-523.
- Schubert S, Geier J, Brans R, et al; IVDK. Patch testing hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool in consecutive patients-results of the IVDK 2018-2020. Contact Dermatitis. 2023;89:85-94. doi:10.1111/cod.14332
- Storrs FJ. Fragrance. Dermatitis. 2007;18:3-7.
- T.R.U.E. test. SmartPractice website. Accessed July 24, 2024. https://www.smartpractice.com/shop/category?id=581719&m=SPA ACDS
- Schalock PC, Dunnick CA, Nedorost S, et al. American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series: 2020 update. Dermatitis. 2020;31:279-282. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32947457/
- North American 80 Comprehensive Series NAC-80. Chemotechnique MB Diagnostics AB website. Accessed July 24, 2024. https://www.chemotechnique.se/products/national-series/north-american-80-comprehensive-series/
- Uter W, Geier J, Schnuch A, et al. Patch test results with patients’ own perfumes, deodorants and shaving lotions: results of the IVDK 1998-2002. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2007;21:374-379.
- Filley AR, Woodruff CM. The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022: what dermatologists need to know. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;89:629-631.
- European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 2003/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (text with EEA relevance). November 3, 2003. Accessed June 7, 2024. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:066:0026:0035:en:PDF
- Sharmeen JB, Mahomoodally FM, Zengin G, et al. Essential oils as natural sources of fragrance compounds for cosmetics and cosmeceuticals. Molecules. 2021;26:666.
- Scheman A, Scheman N, Rakowski EM. European Directive fragrances in natural products. Dermatitis. 2014;25:51-55.
- Scheman A, Hipolito R, Severson D, et al. Contact allergy cross-reactions: retrospective clinical data and review of the literature. Dermatitis. 2017;28:128-140.
- Nardelli A, D’Hooghe E, Drieghe J, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from fragrance components in specific topical pharmaceutical products in Belgium. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60:303-313.
- Lee J, Guo S, Dinalo J, et al. Consort allergic contact dermatitis: a systematic review. Dermatitis. 2022;33:181-186.
- Perper M, Cervantes J, Eber AE, et al. Airborne contact dermatitis caused by fragrance diffusers in Uber cars. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;77:116-117.
- Nijhawan RI, Molenda M, Zirwas MJ, et al. Systemic contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin. 2009;27:355-364.
- Salam TN, Fowler JF. Balsam-related systemic contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2001;45:377-381.
- Scheman A, Rakowski EM, Chou V, et al. Balsam of Peru: past and future. Dermatitis. 2013;24:153-160.
- de Groot AC. Fragrances: contact allergy and other adverse effects. Dermatitis. 2020;31:13-35.
- Uter W. Contact allergy to fragrances: current clinical and regulatory trends. Allergol Select. 2017;1:190-199.
- Karlberg AT, Börje A, Duus Johansen J, et al. Activation of non-sensitizing or low-sensitizing fragrance substances into potent sensitizers - prehaptens and prohaptens. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69:323-334.
- Patlewicz GY, Wright ZM, Basketter DA, et al. Structure-activity relationships for selected fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;47:219-226. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0536.2002.470406
- Ward JM, Reeder M, Atwater AR. Essential oils debunked: separating fact from myth. Cutis. 2020;105:174-176.
- de Groot AC, Schmidt E. Essential oils, part IV: contact allergy. Dermatitis. 2016;27:170-175.
- Diepgen TL, Ofenloch R, Bruze M, et al. Prevalence of fragrance contact allergy in the general population of five European countries: a cross-sectional study. Br J Dermatol. 2015;173:1411-1419
- Ogueta IA, Brared Christensson J, Giménez-Arnau E, et al. Limonene and linalool hydroperoxides review: pros and cons for routine patch testing. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;87:1-12.
- DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Reeder MJ, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2019-2020. Dermatitis. 2023;34:90-104.
- Atwater AR, Ward JM, Liu B, et al. Fragrance- and botanical-related allergy and associated concomitant reactions: a retrospective analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data 2007-2016. Dermatitis. 2021;32:42-52.
- Tai V, Sharifah Rosniza SNC, Tang MM. Contact sensitization to fragrance allergen: a 5-year review in the Department of Dermatology, Hospital Kuala Lumpur. Med J Malaysia. 2023;78:583-588.
- Periyasamy MK, Sekar SC, Rai R. Analysis of hypersensitivity in fragrance series by patch testing. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2019;10:657-662.
- Heydorn S, Menné T, Johansen JD. Fragrance allergy and hand eczema - a review. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48:59-66.
- Buckley DA, Rycroft RJG, White IR, et al. The frequency of fragrance allergy in patch-tested patients increases with their age. Br J Dermatol. 2003;149:986-989.
- Montgomery RL, Agius R, Wilkinson SM, et al. UK trends of allergic occupational skin disease attributed to fragrances 1996-2015. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78:33-40.
- Reeder MJ. Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances. Dermatol Clin. 2020;38:371-377.
- Mann J, McFadden JP, White JML, et al. Baseline series fragrance markers fail to predict contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:276-281.
- Vejanurug P, Tresukosol P, Sajjachareonpong P, et al. Fragrance allergy could be missed without patch testing with 26 individual fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;74:230-235.
- Sukakul T, Bruze M, Mowitz M, et al. Simultaneous patch testing with fragrance markers in the baseline series and the ingredients of fragrance mixes: an update from southern Sweden. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;86:514-523.
- Schubert S, Geier J, Brans R, et al; IVDK. Patch testing hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool in consecutive patients-results of the IVDK 2018-2020. Contact Dermatitis. 2023;89:85-94. doi:10.1111/cod.14332
- Storrs FJ. Fragrance. Dermatitis. 2007;18:3-7.
- T.R.U.E. test. SmartPractice website. Accessed July 24, 2024. https://www.smartpractice.com/shop/category?id=581719&m=SPA ACDS
- Schalock PC, Dunnick CA, Nedorost S, et al. American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series: 2020 update. Dermatitis. 2020;31:279-282. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32947457/
- North American 80 Comprehensive Series NAC-80. Chemotechnique MB Diagnostics AB website. Accessed July 24, 2024. https://www.chemotechnique.se/products/national-series/north-american-80-comprehensive-series/
- Uter W, Geier J, Schnuch A, et al. Patch test results with patients’ own perfumes, deodorants and shaving lotions: results of the IVDK 1998-2002. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2007;21:374-379.
- Filley AR, Woodruff CM. The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022: what dermatologists need to know. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;89:629-631.
- European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 2003/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (text with EEA relevance). November 3, 2003. Accessed June 7, 2024. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:066:0026:0035:en:PDF
- Sharmeen JB, Mahomoodally FM, Zengin G, et al. Essential oils as natural sources of fragrance compounds for cosmetics and cosmeceuticals. Molecules. 2021;26:666.
- Scheman A, Scheman N, Rakowski EM. European Directive fragrances in natural products. Dermatitis. 2014;25:51-55.
- Scheman A, Hipolito R, Severson D, et al. Contact allergy cross-reactions: retrospective clinical data and review of the literature. Dermatitis. 2017;28:128-140.
- Nardelli A, D’Hooghe E, Drieghe J, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from fragrance components in specific topical pharmaceutical products in Belgium. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60:303-313.
- Lee J, Guo S, Dinalo J, et al. Consort allergic contact dermatitis: a systematic review. Dermatitis. 2022;33:181-186.
- Perper M, Cervantes J, Eber AE, et al. Airborne contact dermatitis caused by fragrance diffusers in Uber cars. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;77:116-117.
- Nijhawan RI, Molenda M, Zirwas MJ, et al. Systemic contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin. 2009;27:355-364.
- Salam TN, Fowler JF. Balsam-related systemic contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2001;45:377-381.
- Scheman A, Rakowski EM, Chou V, et al. Balsam of Peru: past and future. Dermatitis. 2013;24:153-160.
Practice Points
- Fragrance allergy is common due to daily exposure from many sources, ranging from personal care products and cosmetics to cleaning products, foods/spices, and workplace materials.
- More than 100 different fragrances can cause contact allergy, but patch testing in routine practice usually is limited to a few key screening allergens with important limitations.
- Fragrance avoidance is challenging, and comprehensive patient education is critical, including the provision of a list of safe products that are truly fragrance free.
Tangled Truths: Unraveling the Link Between Frontal Fibrosing Alopecia and Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) is an increasingly common diagnosis, especially in middle-aged women, and was first described by Kossard1 in 1994. It is a variant of lichen planopilaris (LPP), a progressive scarring cicatricial alopecia that affects the frontotemporal area of the scalp, eyebrows, and sometimes even body hair.1 Although its etiology remains unclear, genetic causes, drugs, hormones, and environmental exposures—including certain chemicals found in sunscreens—have been implicated in its pathogenesis.2,3 An association between contact allergy to ingredients in personal care products and FFA diagnosis has been suggested; however, there is no evidence of causality to date. In this article, we highlight the potential relationship between contact allergy and FFA as well as clinical considerations for management.
Clinical Features and Diagnosis
Frontal fibrosing alopecia typically manifests with gradual symmetric recession of the frontal hairline leading to bandlike hair loss along the forehead, sometimes extending to the temporal region.4 Some patients may experience symptoms of scalp itching, burning, or tenderness that may precede or accompany the hair loss. Perifollicular erythema may be visible during the early stages and can be visualized on trichoscopy. The affected skin may appear pale and shiny and may have a smooth texture with a distinct lack of follicular openings. Aside from scalp involvement, other manifestations may include lichen planus pigmentosus, facial papules, body hair involvement, hypochromic lesions, diffuse redness on the face and neck, and prominent frontal veins.5 Although most FFA cases have characteristic clinical features and trichoscopic findings, biopsy for histopathologic examination is still recommended to confirm the diagnosis and ensure appropriate treatment.4 Classic histopathologic features include perifollicular lymphocytic inflammation, follicular destruction, and scarring.
Pathophysiology of FFA
The pathogenesis of FFA is thought to involve a variety of triggers, including immune-mediated inflammation, stress, genetics, hormones, and possibly environmental factors.6 Frontal fibrosing alopecia demonstrates considerable upregulation in cytotoxic helper T cells (TH1) and IFN-γ activity resulting in epithelial hair follicle stem cell apoptosis and replacement of normal epithelial tissue with fibrous tissue.7 There is some suspicion of genetic susceptibility in the onset of FFA as suggested by familial reports and genome-wide association studies.8-10 Hormonal and autoimmune factors also have been linked to FFA, including an increased risk for thyroid disease and the postmenopausal rise of androgen levels.6
Allergic Contact Dermatitis and FFA
Although they are 2 distinct conditions with differing etiologies, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and FFA may share environmental triggers, especially in susceptible individuals. This may support the coexistence and potential association between ACD and FFA.
In one case report, a woman who developed facial eczema followed by FFA showed positive patch tests to the UV filters drometrizole trisiloxane and ethylhexyl salicylate, which were listed as ingredients in her sunscreens. Avoidance of these allergens reportedly led to notable improvement of the symptoms.11 Case-control studies have found an association between the use of facial sunscreen and risk for FFA.12 A 2016 questionnaire that assessed a wide range of lifestyle, social, and medical factors related to FFA found that the use of sunscreens was significantly higher in patients with FFA than controls (P<.001), pointing to sunscreens as a potential contributing factor, but further research has been inconclusive. A higher frequency of positive patch tests to hydroperoxides of linalool and balsam of Peru (BoP) in patients with FFA have been documented; however, a direct cause cannot be established.2
In a 2020 prospective study conducted at multiple international centers, 65% (13/20) of FFA patients and 37.5% (9/24) of the control group had a positive patch test reaction to one or more allergens (P=.003). The most common allergens that were identified included cobalt chloride (positive in 35% [7/20] of patients with FFA), nickel sulfate (25% [5/20]), and potassium dichromate (15% [3/20]).13 In a recent 2-year cohort study of 42 patients with FFA who were referred for patch testing, the most common allergens included gallates, hydroperoxides of linalool, and other fragrances.14 After a 3-month period of allergen avoidance, 70% (29/42) of patients had decreased scalp erythema on examination, indicating that avoiding relevant allergens may reduce local inflammation. Furthermore, 76.2% (32/42) of patients with FFA showed delayed-type hypersensitivity to allergens found in daily personal care products such as shampoos, sunscreens, and moisturizers, among others.14 Notably, the study lacked a control group. A case-control study of 36 Hispanic women conducted in Mexico also resulted in 83.3% (15/18) of patients with FFA and 55.5% (10/18) of controls having at least 1 positive patch test; in the FFA group, these included iodopropynyl butylcarbamate (16.7% [3/18]) and propolis (16.7% [3/18]).15
Most recently, a retrospective study conducted by Shtaynberger et al16 included 12 patients with LPP or FFA diagnosed via clinical findings or biopsy. It also included an age- and temporally matched control group tested with identical allergens. Among the 12 patients who had FFA/LPP, all had at least 1 allergen identified on patch testing. The most common allergens identified were propolis (positive in 50% [6/12] of patients with FFA/LPP), fragrance mix I (16%), and methylisothiazolinone (16% [2/12]). Follow-up data were available for 9 of these patients, of whom 6 (66.7%) experienced symptom improvement after 6 months of allergen avoidance. Four (44.4%) patients experienced decreased follicular redness or scaling, 2 (22.2%) patients experienced improved scalp pain/itch, 2 (22.2%) patients had stable/improved hair density, and 1 (1.1%) patient had decreased hair shedding. Although this suggests an environmental trigger for FFA/LPP, the authors stated that changes in patient treatment plans could have contributed to their improvement. The study also was limited by its small size and its overall generalizability.16
These studies have underscored the significance of patch testing in individuals diagnosed with FFA and have identified common allergens prevalent in this patient population. They have suggested that patients with FFA are more likely to have positive patch tests, and in some cases patients could experience improvements in scalp pruritus and erythema with allergen avoidance; however, we emphasize that a causal association between contact allergy and FFA remains unproven to date.
Most Common Allergens Pertinent to FFA
Preservatives—In some studies, patients with FFA have had positive patch tests to preservatives such as gallates and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI).14 Gallates are antioxidants that are used in food preservation, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics due to their ability to inhibit oxidation and rancidity of fats and oils.17 The most common gallates include propyl gallate, octyl gallate, and dodecyl gallate. Propyl gallate is utilized in some waxy or oily cosmetics and personal care items including sunscreens, shampoos, conditioners, bar soaps, facial cleansers, and moisturizers.18 Typically, if patients have a positive patch test to one gallate, they should be advised to avoid all gallate compounds, as they can cross-react.
Similarly, MCI/MI can prevent product degradation through their antibacterial and antifungal properties. This combination of MCI and MI is used as an effective method of prolonging the shelf life of cosmetic products and commonly is found in sunscreens, facial moisturizing creams, shampoos, and conditioners19; it is banned from use in leave-on products in the European Union and Canada due to increased rates of contact allergy.20 In patients with FFA who commonly use facial sunscreen, preservatives can be a potential allergen exposure to consider.
Iodopropynyl butylcarbamate also is a preservative used in cosmetic formulations. Similar to MCI/MI, it is a potent fungicide and bactericide. This allergen can be found in hair care products, bodywashes, and other personal products.21
UV Light–Absorbing Agents—A systematic review and meta-analysis conducted in 2022 showed a significant (P<.001) association between sunscreen use and FFA.22 A majority of allergens identified on patch testing included UVA- and UVB-absorbing agents found in sunscreens and other products including cosmetics,11,12 such as drometrizole trisiloxane, ethylhexyl salicylate, avobenzone, and benzophenone-4. Drometrizole trisiloxane is a photostabilizer and a broad-spectrum UV filter that is not approved for use in sunscreens in the United States.23 It also is effective in stabilizing and preventing the degradation of avobenzone, a commonly used UVA filter.24
Fragrances—Fragrances are present in nearly every personal and cosmetic product, sometimes even in those advertised as being “fragrance free.” Hydroperoxides of linalool, BoP, and fragrance mix are common allergens that are found in a variety of personal care products including perfumes, cosmetics, and even household cleaning supplies.25 Simultaneous positive patch tests to BoP and fragrance mix are common due to shared components. Linalool can be found in various plants such as lavender, rose, bergamot, and jasmine.26 Upon air exposure, linalool auto-oxidizes to form allergenic hydroperoxides of linalool. Among patients with FFA, positive patch test reactions to fragrance chemicals are common and could be attributed to the use of fragranced hair products and facial cosmetics.
Hair Dyes and Bleaches—Allergic reactions to hair dyes and bleaches can result in severe ACD of the head/neck and, in rare cases, scarring alopecia.27 Chemicals found in these products include paraphenylenediamine (PPD) and ammonium persulfate. The most common hair dye allergen, PPD also is used in some rubbers and plastics. Ammonium persulfate is a chemical used in hair bleaches and to deodorize oils. One case study reported a patient with FFA who developed chemically induced vitiligo immediately after the use of a hair color product that contained PPD.28 However, without patch testing to confirm the presence of contact allergy, other patient-specific and environmental risk factors could have contributed to FFA in this case.
A Knot in the Truth
In this endeavor to untangle the truth, it should be remembered that at the time of writing, the purported association between FFA and ACD remains debatable. Contact dermatitis specialists have voiced that the association between FFA and ACD, especially with regard to sunscreen, cannot be supported due to the lack of sufficient evidence.29 A large majority of the research conducted on FFA and ACD is based on case reports and studies limited to a small sample size, and most of these patch test studies lack a control group. Felmingham et al30 noted that the recent epidemiology of FFA aligns with increased sunscreen use. They also highlighted the limitations of the aforementioned studies, which include misclassification of exposures in the control group2 and recall bias in questionnaire participants.2,12 The most pressing limitation that permeates through most of these studies is the temporal ambiguity associated with sunscreen use. A study by Dhana et al31 failed to specify whether increased sunscreen use preceded the diagnosis of FFA or if it stems from the need to protect more exposed skin as a consequence of disease. Broad sunscreen avoidance due to concern for a possible association with hair loss could have detrimental health implications by increasing the risk for photodamage and skin cancer.
FFA Patch Testing
The avoidance of pertinent allergens could be effective in reducing local inflammation, pruritus, and erythema in FFA.9,14,32 At our institution, we selectively patch test patients with FFA when there is a suspected contact allergy. Clinical features that may allude to a potential contact allergy include an erythematous or eczematous dermatitis or symptoms of pruritus along the scalp or eyebrows. If patients recall hair loss or symptoms after using a hair or facial product, then a potential contact allergy to these products could be considered. Patch testing in patients with FFA includes the North American 80 Comprehensive Series and the cosmetic and hairdresser supplemental series, as well as an additional customized panel of 8 allergens as determined by patch testing experts at the University of Massachusetts, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Massachusetts General Hospital (private email communication, November 2017). Patch test readings are performed at 48 and 96 or 120 hours. Using the American Contact Dermatitis Society’s Contact Allergen Management Program, patients are provided personalized safe product lists and avoidance strategies are discussed.
Final Interpretation
In a world where cosmetic products are ubiquitous, it is hard to define the potential role of contact allergens in the entangled pathogenesis of FFA and ACD. As evidenced by emerging literature that correlates the 2 conditions and their exacerbating factors, it is important for physicians to have a comprehensive diagnostic approach and heightened awareness for potential allergens at play in FFA (Table). The identification of certain chemicals and preservatives as potential triggers for FFA should emphasize the importance of patch testing in these patients; however, whether the positive reactions are relevant to the pathogenesis or disease course of FFA still is unknown. While these findings begin to unravel the intertwined causes of FFA and ACD, further research encompassing larger cohorts and prospective studies is imperative to solidify these associations, define concrete guidelines, and improve patient outcomes.
- Kossard S. Postmenopausal frontal fibrosing alopecia: scarring alopecia in a pattern distribution. Arch Dermatol. 1994;130:770-774. doi:10.1001/archderm.1994.01690060100013
- Aldoori N, Dobson K, Holden CR, et al. Frontal fibrosing alopecia: possible association with leave-on facial skin care products and sunscreens; a questionnaire study. Br J Dermatol. 2016;175:762-767. doi:10.1111/bjd.14535
- Debroy Kidambi A, Dobson K, Holmes S, et al. Frontal fibrosing alopecia in men: an association with facial moisturizers and sunscreens. Br J Dermatol. 2017;177:260-261. doi:10.1111/bjd.15311
- Starace M, Orlando G, Iorizzo M, et al. Clinical and dermoscopic approaches to diagnosis of frontal fibrosing alopecia: results from a multicenter study of the International Dermoscopy Society. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2022;12:E2022080. doi:10.5826/dpc.1201a80
- Fechine COC, Valente NYS, Romiti R. Lichen planopilaris and frontal fibrosing alopecia: review and update of diagnostic and therapeutic features. An Bras Dermatol. 2022;97:348-357. doi:10.1016/j.abd.2021.08.008
- Frontal fibrosing alopecia: a review of disease pathogenesis. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:911944. doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.911944
- Del Duca E, Ruano Ruiz J, Pavel AB, et al. Frontal fibrosing alopecia shows robust T helper 1 and Janus kinase 3 skewing. Br J Dermatol. 2020;183:1083-1093. doi:10.1111/bjd.19040
- Tziotzios C, Petridis C, Dand N, et al. Genome-wide association study in frontal fibrosing alopecia identifies four susceptibility loci including HLA-B*07:02. Nat Commun. 2019;10:1150. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-09117-w
- Navarro‐Belmonte MR, Navarro‐López V, Ramírez‐Boscà A, et al. Case series of familial frontal fibrosing alopecia and a review of the literature. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2015;14:64-69. doi:10.1111/jocd.12125
- Cuenca-Barrales C, Ruiz-Villaverde R, Molina-Leyva A. Familial frontal fibrosing alopecia. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2021;21:E320-E323. doi:10.18295/squmj.2021.21.02.025
- Pastor-Nieto MA, Gatica-Ortega ME. Allergic contact dermatitis to drometrizole trisiloxane in a woman thereafter diagnosed with frontal fibrosing alopecia. Contact Dermatitis. 2023;89:215-217. doi:10.1111/cod.14370
- Moreno-Arrones OM, Saceda-Corralo D, Rodrigues-Barata AR, et al. Risk factors associated with frontal fibrosing alopecia: a multicentre case–control study. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2019;44:404-410. doi:10.1111/ced.13785
- Rudnicka L, Rokni GR, Lotti T, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis in patients with frontal fibrosing alopecia: an international multi-center study. Dermatol Ther. 2020;33:E13560. doi:10.1111/dth.13560
- Prasad S, Marks DH, Burns LJ, et al. Patch testing and contact allergen avoidance in patients with lichen planopilaris and/or frontal fibrosing alopecia: a cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;83:659-661. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.01.026
- Ocampo-Garza SS, Herz-Ruelas ME, Chavez-Alvarez S, et al. Association of frontal fibrosing alopecia and contact allergens in everyday skincare products in Hispanic females: a case-control study. An Bras Dermatol. 2021;96:776-778. doi:10.1016/j.abd.2020.09.013
- Shtaynberger B, Bruder P, Zippin JH. The prevalence of type iv hypersensitivity in patients with lichen planopilaris and frontal fibrosing alopecia. Dermatitis. 2023;34:351-352. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000965
- Kahkeshani N, Farzaei F, Fotouhi M, et al. Pharmacological effects of gallic acid in health and diseases: a mechanistic review. Iran J Basic Med Sci. 2019;22:225-237. doi:10.22038/ijbms.2019.32806.7897
- Holcomb ZE, Van Noord MG, Atwater AR. Gallate contact dermatitis: product update and systematic review. Dermatitis. 2017;28:115-127. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000263
- Gorris A, Valencak J, Schremser V, et al. Contact allergy to methylisothiazolinone with three clinical presentations in one patient. Contact Dermatitis. 2020;82:162-164. doi:10.1111/cod.13384
- Uter W, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, et al. The epidemic of methylisothiazolinone contact allergy in Europe: follow-up on changing exposures. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34:333-339. doi:10.1111/jdv.15875
- Batista M, Morgado F, Gonçalo M. Patch test reactivity to iodopropynyl butylcarbamate in consecutive patients during a period of 7 years. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;81:54-55. doi:10.1111/cod.13213
- Maghfour J, Ceresnie M, Olson J, et al. The association between frontal fibrosing alopecia, sunscreen, and moisturizers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87:395-396. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2021.12.058
- Drometrizole trisiloxane. PubChem website. Accessed February 21, 2024. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/9848888
- Hughes TM, Martin JA, Lewis VJ, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis to drometrizole trisiloxane in a sunscreen with concomitant sensitivities to other sunscreens. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;52:226-227. doi:10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.0566a.x
- de Groot AC. Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru)—a critical review of the literature and assessment of the significance of positive patch test reactions and the usefulness of restrictive diets. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:335-353. doi:10.1111/cod.13263
- Sköld M, Börje A, Matura M, et al. Studies on the autoxidation and sensitizing capacity of the fragrance chemical linalool, identifying a linalool hydroperoxide. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;46:267-272. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0536.2002.460504.x
- Dev T, Khan E, Patel U, et al. Cicatricial alopecia following allergic contact dermatitis from hair dyes: a rare clinical presentation. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;86:59-61. doi:10.1111/cod.13974
- De Souza B, Burns L, Senna MM. Frontal fibrosing alopecia preceding the development of vitiligo: a case report. JAAD Case Rep. 2020;6:154-155. doi:10.1016/j.jdcr.2019.12.011
- Abuav R, Shon W. Are sunscreen particles involved in frontal fibrosing alopecia?—a TEM-EDXS analysis on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded alopecia biopsies (pilot study). Am J Dermatopathol. 2022;44:E135. doi:10.1097/DAD.0000000000002317
- Felmingham C, Yip L, Tam M, et al. Allergy to sunscreen and leave-on facial products is not a likely causative mechanism in frontal fibrosing alopecia: perspective from contact allergy experts. Br J Dermatol. 2020;182:481-482. doi:10.1111/bjd.18380
- Dhana A, Gumedze F, Khumalo N. Regarding “frontal fibrosing alopecia: possible association with leave-on facial skincare products and sunscreens; a questionnaire study.” Br J Dermatol. 2016;176:836-837. doi:10.1111/bjd.15197
- Pastor-Nieto MA, Gatica-Ortega ME, Sánchez-Herreros C, et al. Sensitization to benzyl salicylate and other allergens in patients with frontal fibrosing alopecia. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;84:423-430. doi:10.1111/cod.13763
- Rocha VB, Donati A, Contin LA, et al. Photopatch and patch testing in 63 patients with frontal fibrosing alopecia: a case series. Br J Dermatol. 2018;179:1402-1403. doi:10.1111/bjd.16933
Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) is an increasingly common diagnosis, especially in middle-aged women, and was first described by Kossard1 in 1994. It is a variant of lichen planopilaris (LPP), a progressive scarring cicatricial alopecia that affects the frontotemporal area of the scalp, eyebrows, and sometimes even body hair.1 Although its etiology remains unclear, genetic causes, drugs, hormones, and environmental exposures—including certain chemicals found in sunscreens—have been implicated in its pathogenesis.2,3 An association between contact allergy to ingredients in personal care products and FFA diagnosis has been suggested; however, there is no evidence of causality to date. In this article, we highlight the potential relationship between contact allergy and FFA as well as clinical considerations for management.
Clinical Features and Diagnosis
Frontal fibrosing alopecia typically manifests with gradual symmetric recession of the frontal hairline leading to bandlike hair loss along the forehead, sometimes extending to the temporal region.4 Some patients may experience symptoms of scalp itching, burning, or tenderness that may precede or accompany the hair loss. Perifollicular erythema may be visible during the early stages and can be visualized on trichoscopy. The affected skin may appear pale and shiny and may have a smooth texture with a distinct lack of follicular openings. Aside from scalp involvement, other manifestations may include lichen planus pigmentosus, facial papules, body hair involvement, hypochromic lesions, diffuse redness on the face and neck, and prominent frontal veins.5 Although most FFA cases have characteristic clinical features and trichoscopic findings, biopsy for histopathologic examination is still recommended to confirm the diagnosis and ensure appropriate treatment.4 Classic histopathologic features include perifollicular lymphocytic inflammation, follicular destruction, and scarring.
Pathophysiology of FFA
The pathogenesis of FFA is thought to involve a variety of triggers, including immune-mediated inflammation, stress, genetics, hormones, and possibly environmental factors.6 Frontal fibrosing alopecia demonstrates considerable upregulation in cytotoxic helper T cells (TH1) and IFN-γ activity resulting in epithelial hair follicle stem cell apoptosis and replacement of normal epithelial tissue with fibrous tissue.7 There is some suspicion of genetic susceptibility in the onset of FFA as suggested by familial reports and genome-wide association studies.8-10 Hormonal and autoimmune factors also have been linked to FFA, including an increased risk for thyroid disease and the postmenopausal rise of androgen levels.6
Allergic Contact Dermatitis and FFA
Although they are 2 distinct conditions with differing etiologies, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and FFA may share environmental triggers, especially in susceptible individuals. This may support the coexistence and potential association between ACD and FFA.
In one case report, a woman who developed facial eczema followed by FFA showed positive patch tests to the UV filters drometrizole trisiloxane and ethylhexyl salicylate, which were listed as ingredients in her sunscreens. Avoidance of these allergens reportedly led to notable improvement of the symptoms.11 Case-control studies have found an association between the use of facial sunscreen and risk for FFA.12 A 2016 questionnaire that assessed a wide range of lifestyle, social, and medical factors related to FFA found that the use of sunscreens was significantly higher in patients with FFA than controls (P<.001), pointing to sunscreens as a potential contributing factor, but further research has been inconclusive. A higher frequency of positive patch tests to hydroperoxides of linalool and balsam of Peru (BoP) in patients with FFA have been documented; however, a direct cause cannot be established.2
In a 2020 prospective study conducted at multiple international centers, 65% (13/20) of FFA patients and 37.5% (9/24) of the control group had a positive patch test reaction to one or more allergens (P=.003). The most common allergens that were identified included cobalt chloride (positive in 35% [7/20] of patients with FFA), nickel sulfate (25% [5/20]), and potassium dichromate (15% [3/20]).13 In a recent 2-year cohort study of 42 patients with FFA who were referred for patch testing, the most common allergens included gallates, hydroperoxides of linalool, and other fragrances.14 After a 3-month period of allergen avoidance, 70% (29/42) of patients had decreased scalp erythema on examination, indicating that avoiding relevant allergens may reduce local inflammation. Furthermore, 76.2% (32/42) of patients with FFA showed delayed-type hypersensitivity to allergens found in daily personal care products such as shampoos, sunscreens, and moisturizers, among others.14 Notably, the study lacked a control group. A case-control study of 36 Hispanic women conducted in Mexico also resulted in 83.3% (15/18) of patients with FFA and 55.5% (10/18) of controls having at least 1 positive patch test; in the FFA group, these included iodopropynyl butylcarbamate (16.7% [3/18]) and propolis (16.7% [3/18]).15
Most recently, a retrospective study conducted by Shtaynberger et al16 included 12 patients with LPP or FFA diagnosed via clinical findings or biopsy. It also included an age- and temporally matched control group tested with identical allergens. Among the 12 patients who had FFA/LPP, all had at least 1 allergen identified on patch testing. The most common allergens identified were propolis (positive in 50% [6/12] of patients with FFA/LPP), fragrance mix I (16%), and methylisothiazolinone (16% [2/12]). Follow-up data were available for 9 of these patients, of whom 6 (66.7%) experienced symptom improvement after 6 months of allergen avoidance. Four (44.4%) patients experienced decreased follicular redness or scaling, 2 (22.2%) patients experienced improved scalp pain/itch, 2 (22.2%) patients had stable/improved hair density, and 1 (1.1%) patient had decreased hair shedding. Although this suggests an environmental trigger for FFA/LPP, the authors stated that changes in patient treatment plans could have contributed to their improvement. The study also was limited by its small size and its overall generalizability.16
These studies have underscored the significance of patch testing in individuals diagnosed with FFA and have identified common allergens prevalent in this patient population. They have suggested that patients with FFA are more likely to have positive patch tests, and in some cases patients could experience improvements in scalp pruritus and erythema with allergen avoidance; however, we emphasize that a causal association between contact allergy and FFA remains unproven to date.
Most Common Allergens Pertinent to FFA
Preservatives—In some studies, patients with FFA have had positive patch tests to preservatives such as gallates and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI).14 Gallates are antioxidants that are used in food preservation, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics due to their ability to inhibit oxidation and rancidity of fats and oils.17 The most common gallates include propyl gallate, octyl gallate, and dodecyl gallate. Propyl gallate is utilized in some waxy or oily cosmetics and personal care items including sunscreens, shampoos, conditioners, bar soaps, facial cleansers, and moisturizers.18 Typically, if patients have a positive patch test to one gallate, they should be advised to avoid all gallate compounds, as they can cross-react.
Similarly, MCI/MI can prevent product degradation through their antibacterial and antifungal properties. This combination of MCI and MI is used as an effective method of prolonging the shelf life of cosmetic products and commonly is found in sunscreens, facial moisturizing creams, shampoos, and conditioners19; it is banned from use in leave-on products in the European Union and Canada due to increased rates of contact allergy.20 In patients with FFA who commonly use facial sunscreen, preservatives can be a potential allergen exposure to consider.
Iodopropynyl butylcarbamate also is a preservative used in cosmetic formulations. Similar to MCI/MI, it is a potent fungicide and bactericide. This allergen can be found in hair care products, bodywashes, and other personal products.21
UV Light–Absorbing Agents—A systematic review and meta-analysis conducted in 2022 showed a significant (P<.001) association between sunscreen use and FFA.22 A majority of allergens identified on patch testing included UVA- and UVB-absorbing agents found in sunscreens and other products including cosmetics,11,12 such as drometrizole trisiloxane, ethylhexyl salicylate, avobenzone, and benzophenone-4. Drometrizole trisiloxane is a photostabilizer and a broad-spectrum UV filter that is not approved for use in sunscreens in the United States.23 It also is effective in stabilizing and preventing the degradation of avobenzone, a commonly used UVA filter.24
Fragrances—Fragrances are present in nearly every personal and cosmetic product, sometimes even in those advertised as being “fragrance free.” Hydroperoxides of linalool, BoP, and fragrance mix are common allergens that are found in a variety of personal care products including perfumes, cosmetics, and even household cleaning supplies.25 Simultaneous positive patch tests to BoP and fragrance mix are common due to shared components. Linalool can be found in various plants such as lavender, rose, bergamot, and jasmine.26 Upon air exposure, linalool auto-oxidizes to form allergenic hydroperoxides of linalool. Among patients with FFA, positive patch test reactions to fragrance chemicals are common and could be attributed to the use of fragranced hair products and facial cosmetics.
Hair Dyes and Bleaches—Allergic reactions to hair dyes and bleaches can result in severe ACD of the head/neck and, in rare cases, scarring alopecia.27 Chemicals found in these products include paraphenylenediamine (PPD) and ammonium persulfate. The most common hair dye allergen, PPD also is used in some rubbers and plastics. Ammonium persulfate is a chemical used in hair bleaches and to deodorize oils. One case study reported a patient with FFA who developed chemically induced vitiligo immediately after the use of a hair color product that contained PPD.28 However, without patch testing to confirm the presence of contact allergy, other patient-specific and environmental risk factors could have contributed to FFA in this case.
A Knot in the Truth
In this endeavor to untangle the truth, it should be remembered that at the time of writing, the purported association between FFA and ACD remains debatable. Contact dermatitis specialists have voiced that the association between FFA and ACD, especially with regard to sunscreen, cannot be supported due to the lack of sufficient evidence.29 A large majority of the research conducted on FFA and ACD is based on case reports and studies limited to a small sample size, and most of these patch test studies lack a control group. Felmingham et al30 noted that the recent epidemiology of FFA aligns with increased sunscreen use. They also highlighted the limitations of the aforementioned studies, which include misclassification of exposures in the control group2 and recall bias in questionnaire participants.2,12 The most pressing limitation that permeates through most of these studies is the temporal ambiguity associated with sunscreen use. A study by Dhana et al31 failed to specify whether increased sunscreen use preceded the diagnosis of FFA or if it stems from the need to protect more exposed skin as a consequence of disease. Broad sunscreen avoidance due to concern for a possible association with hair loss could have detrimental health implications by increasing the risk for photodamage and skin cancer.
FFA Patch Testing
The avoidance of pertinent allergens could be effective in reducing local inflammation, pruritus, and erythema in FFA.9,14,32 At our institution, we selectively patch test patients with FFA when there is a suspected contact allergy. Clinical features that may allude to a potential contact allergy include an erythematous or eczematous dermatitis or symptoms of pruritus along the scalp or eyebrows. If patients recall hair loss or symptoms after using a hair or facial product, then a potential contact allergy to these products could be considered. Patch testing in patients with FFA includes the North American 80 Comprehensive Series and the cosmetic and hairdresser supplemental series, as well as an additional customized panel of 8 allergens as determined by patch testing experts at the University of Massachusetts, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Massachusetts General Hospital (private email communication, November 2017). Patch test readings are performed at 48 and 96 or 120 hours. Using the American Contact Dermatitis Society’s Contact Allergen Management Program, patients are provided personalized safe product lists and avoidance strategies are discussed.
Final Interpretation
In a world where cosmetic products are ubiquitous, it is hard to define the potential role of contact allergens in the entangled pathogenesis of FFA and ACD. As evidenced by emerging literature that correlates the 2 conditions and their exacerbating factors, it is important for physicians to have a comprehensive diagnostic approach and heightened awareness for potential allergens at play in FFA (Table). The identification of certain chemicals and preservatives as potential triggers for FFA should emphasize the importance of patch testing in these patients; however, whether the positive reactions are relevant to the pathogenesis or disease course of FFA still is unknown. While these findings begin to unravel the intertwined causes of FFA and ACD, further research encompassing larger cohorts and prospective studies is imperative to solidify these associations, define concrete guidelines, and improve patient outcomes.
Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) is an increasingly common diagnosis, especially in middle-aged women, and was first described by Kossard1 in 1994. It is a variant of lichen planopilaris (LPP), a progressive scarring cicatricial alopecia that affects the frontotemporal area of the scalp, eyebrows, and sometimes even body hair.1 Although its etiology remains unclear, genetic causes, drugs, hormones, and environmental exposures—including certain chemicals found in sunscreens—have been implicated in its pathogenesis.2,3 An association between contact allergy to ingredients in personal care products and FFA diagnosis has been suggested; however, there is no evidence of causality to date. In this article, we highlight the potential relationship between contact allergy and FFA as well as clinical considerations for management.
Clinical Features and Diagnosis
Frontal fibrosing alopecia typically manifests with gradual symmetric recession of the frontal hairline leading to bandlike hair loss along the forehead, sometimes extending to the temporal region.4 Some patients may experience symptoms of scalp itching, burning, or tenderness that may precede or accompany the hair loss. Perifollicular erythema may be visible during the early stages and can be visualized on trichoscopy. The affected skin may appear pale and shiny and may have a smooth texture with a distinct lack of follicular openings. Aside from scalp involvement, other manifestations may include lichen planus pigmentosus, facial papules, body hair involvement, hypochromic lesions, diffuse redness on the face and neck, and prominent frontal veins.5 Although most FFA cases have characteristic clinical features and trichoscopic findings, biopsy for histopathologic examination is still recommended to confirm the diagnosis and ensure appropriate treatment.4 Classic histopathologic features include perifollicular lymphocytic inflammation, follicular destruction, and scarring.
Pathophysiology of FFA
The pathogenesis of FFA is thought to involve a variety of triggers, including immune-mediated inflammation, stress, genetics, hormones, and possibly environmental factors.6 Frontal fibrosing alopecia demonstrates considerable upregulation in cytotoxic helper T cells (TH1) and IFN-γ activity resulting in epithelial hair follicle stem cell apoptosis and replacement of normal epithelial tissue with fibrous tissue.7 There is some suspicion of genetic susceptibility in the onset of FFA as suggested by familial reports and genome-wide association studies.8-10 Hormonal and autoimmune factors also have been linked to FFA, including an increased risk for thyroid disease and the postmenopausal rise of androgen levels.6
Allergic Contact Dermatitis and FFA
Although they are 2 distinct conditions with differing etiologies, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and FFA may share environmental triggers, especially in susceptible individuals. This may support the coexistence and potential association between ACD and FFA.
In one case report, a woman who developed facial eczema followed by FFA showed positive patch tests to the UV filters drometrizole trisiloxane and ethylhexyl salicylate, which were listed as ingredients in her sunscreens. Avoidance of these allergens reportedly led to notable improvement of the symptoms.11 Case-control studies have found an association between the use of facial sunscreen and risk for FFA.12 A 2016 questionnaire that assessed a wide range of lifestyle, social, and medical factors related to FFA found that the use of sunscreens was significantly higher in patients with FFA than controls (P<.001), pointing to sunscreens as a potential contributing factor, but further research has been inconclusive. A higher frequency of positive patch tests to hydroperoxides of linalool and balsam of Peru (BoP) in patients with FFA have been documented; however, a direct cause cannot be established.2
In a 2020 prospective study conducted at multiple international centers, 65% (13/20) of FFA patients and 37.5% (9/24) of the control group had a positive patch test reaction to one or more allergens (P=.003). The most common allergens that were identified included cobalt chloride (positive in 35% [7/20] of patients with FFA), nickel sulfate (25% [5/20]), and potassium dichromate (15% [3/20]).13 In a recent 2-year cohort study of 42 patients with FFA who were referred for patch testing, the most common allergens included gallates, hydroperoxides of linalool, and other fragrances.14 After a 3-month period of allergen avoidance, 70% (29/42) of patients had decreased scalp erythema on examination, indicating that avoiding relevant allergens may reduce local inflammation. Furthermore, 76.2% (32/42) of patients with FFA showed delayed-type hypersensitivity to allergens found in daily personal care products such as shampoos, sunscreens, and moisturizers, among others.14 Notably, the study lacked a control group. A case-control study of 36 Hispanic women conducted in Mexico also resulted in 83.3% (15/18) of patients with FFA and 55.5% (10/18) of controls having at least 1 positive patch test; in the FFA group, these included iodopropynyl butylcarbamate (16.7% [3/18]) and propolis (16.7% [3/18]).15
Most recently, a retrospective study conducted by Shtaynberger et al16 included 12 patients with LPP or FFA diagnosed via clinical findings or biopsy. It also included an age- and temporally matched control group tested with identical allergens. Among the 12 patients who had FFA/LPP, all had at least 1 allergen identified on patch testing. The most common allergens identified were propolis (positive in 50% [6/12] of patients with FFA/LPP), fragrance mix I (16%), and methylisothiazolinone (16% [2/12]). Follow-up data were available for 9 of these patients, of whom 6 (66.7%) experienced symptom improvement after 6 months of allergen avoidance. Four (44.4%) patients experienced decreased follicular redness or scaling, 2 (22.2%) patients experienced improved scalp pain/itch, 2 (22.2%) patients had stable/improved hair density, and 1 (1.1%) patient had decreased hair shedding. Although this suggests an environmental trigger for FFA/LPP, the authors stated that changes in patient treatment plans could have contributed to their improvement. The study also was limited by its small size and its overall generalizability.16
These studies have underscored the significance of patch testing in individuals diagnosed with FFA and have identified common allergens prevalent in this patient population. They have suggested that patients with FFA are more likely to have positive patch tests, and in some cases patients could experience improvements in scalp pruritus and erythema with allergen avoidance; however, we emphasize that a causal association between contact allergy and FFA remains unproven to date.
Most Common Allergens Pertinent to FFA
Preservatives—In some studies, patients with FFA have had positive patch tests to preservatives such as gallates and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI).14 Gallates are antioxidants that are used in food preservation, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics due to their ability to inhibit oxidation and rancidity of fats and oils.17 The most common gallates include propyl gallate, octyl gallate, and dodecyl gallate. Propyl gallate is utilized in some waxy or oily cosmetics and personal care items including sunscreens, shampoos, conditioners, bar soaps, facial cleansers, and moisturizers.18 Typically, if patients have a positive patch test to one gallate, they should be advised to avoid all gallate compounds, as they can cross-react.
Similarly, MCI/MI can prevent product degradation through their antibacterial and antifungal properties. This combination of MCI and MI is used as an effective method of prolonging the shelf life of cosmetic products and commonly is found in sunscreens, facial moisturizing creams, shampoos, and conditioners19; it is banned from use in leave-on products in the European Union and Canada due to increased rates of contact allergy.20 In patients with FFA who commonly use facial sunscreen, preservatives can be a potential allergen exposure to consider.
Iodopropynyl butylcarbamate also is a preservative used in cosmetic formulations. Similar to MCI/MI, it is a potent fungicide and bactericide. This allergen can be found in hair care products, bodywashes, and other personal products.21
UV Light–Absorbing Agents—A systematic review and meta-analysis conducted in 2022 showed a significant (P<.001) association between sunscreen use and FFA.22 A majority of allergens identified on patch testing included UVA- and UVB-absorbing agents found in sunscreens and other products including cosmetics,11,12 such as drometrizole trisiloxane, ethylhexyl salicylate, avobenzone, and benzophenone-4. Drometrizole trisiloxane is a photostabilizer and a broad-spectrum UV filter that is not approved for use in sunscreens in the United States.23 It also is effective in stabilizing and preventing the degradation of avobenzone, a commonly used UVA filter.24
Fragrances—Fragrances are present in nearly every personal and cosmetic product, sometimes even in those advertised as being “fragrance free.” Hydroperoxides of linalool, BoP, and fragrance mix are common allergens that are found in a variety of personal care products including perfumes, cosmetics, and even household cleaning supplies.25 Simultaneous positive patch tests to BoP and fragrance mix are common due to shared components. Linalool can be found in various plants such as lavender, rose, bergamot, and jasmine.26 Upon air exposure, linalool auto-oxidizes to form allergenic hydroperoxides of linalool. Among patients with FFA, positive patch test reactions to fragrance chemicals are common and could be attributed to the use of fragranced hair products and facial cosmetics.
Hair Dyes and Bleaches—Allergic reactions to hair dyes and bleaches can result in severe ACD of the head/neck and, in rare cases, scarring alopecia.27 Chemicals found in these products include paraphenylenediamine (PPD) and ammonium persulfate. The most common hair dye allergen, PPD also is used in some rubbers and plastics. Ammonium persulfate is a chemical used in hair bleaches and to deodorize oils. One case study reported a patient with FFA who developed chemically induced vitiligo immediately after the use of a hair color product that contained PPD.28 However, without patch testing to confirm the presence of contact allergy, other patient-specific and environmental risk factors could have contributed to FFA in this case.
A Knot in the Truth
In this endeavor to untangle the truth, it should be remembered that at the time of writing, the purported association between FFA and ACD remains debatable. Contact dermatitis specialists have voiced that the association between FFA and ACD, especially with regard to sunscreen, cannot be supported due to the lack of sufficient evidence.29 A large majority of the research conducted on FFA and ACD is based on case reports and studies limited to a small sample size, and most of these patch test studies lack a control group. Felmingham et al30 noted that the recent epidemiology of FFA aligns with increased sunscreen use. They also highlighted the limitations of the aforementioned studies, which include misclassification of exposures in the control group2 and recall bias in questionnaire participants.2,12 The most pressing limitation that permeates through most of these studies is the temporal ambiguity associated with sunscreen use. A study by Dhana et al31 failed to specify whether increased sunscreen use preceded the diagnosis of FFA or if it stems from the need to protect more exposed skin as a consequence of disease. Broad sunscreen avoidance due to concern for a possible association with hair loss could have detrimental health implications by increasing the risk for photodamage and skin cancer.
FFA Patch Testing
The avoidance of pertinent allergens could be effective in reducing local inflammation, pruritus, and erythema in FFA.9,14,32 At our institution, we selectively patch test patients with FFA when there is a suspected contact allergy. Clinical features that may allude to a potential contact allergy include an erythematous or eczematous dermatitis or symptoms of pruritus along the scalp or eyebrows. If patients recall hair loss or symptoms after using a hair or facial product, then a potential contact allergy to these products could be considered. Patch testing in patients with FFA includes the North American 80 Comprehensive Series and the cosmetic and hairdresser supplemental series, as well as an additional customized panel of 8 allergens as determined by patch testing experts at the University of Massachusetts, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Massachusetts General Hospital (private email communication, November 2017). Patch test readings are performed at 48 and 96 or 120 hours. Using the American Contact Dermatitis Society’s Contact Allergen Management Program, patients are provided personalized safe product lists and avoidance strategies are discussed.
Final Interpretation
In a world where cosmetic products are ubiquitous, it is hard to define the potential role of contact allergens in the entangled pathogenesis of FFA and ACD. As evidenced by emerging literature that correlates the 2 conditions and their exacerbating factors, it is important for physicians to have a comprehensive diagnostic approach and heightened awareness for potential allergens at play in FFA (Table). The identification of certain chemicals and preservatives as potential triggers for FFA should emphasize the importance of patch testing in these patients; however, whether the positive reactions are relevant to the pathogenesis or disease course of FFA still is unknown. While these findings begin to unravel the intertwined causes of FFA and ACD, further research encompassing larger cohorts and prospective studies is imperative to solidify these associations, define concrete guidelines, and improve patient outcomes.
- Kossard S. Postmenopausal frontal fibrosing alopecia: scarring alopecia in a pattern distribution. Arch Dermatol. 1994;130:770-774. doi:10.1001/archderm.1994.01690060100013
- Aldoori N, Dobson K, Holden CR, et al. Frontal fibrosing alopecia: possible association with leave-on facial skin care products and sunscreens; a questionnaire study. Br J Dermatol. 2016;175:762-767. doi:10.1111/bjd.14535
- Debroy Kidambi A, Dobson K, Holmes S, et al. Frontal fibrosing alopecia in men: an association with facial moisturizers and sunscreens. Br J Dermatol. 2017;177:260-261. doi:10.1111/bjd.15311
- Starace M, Orlando G, Iorizzo M, et al. Clinical and dermoscopic approaches to diagnosis of frontal fibrosing alopecia: results from a multicenter study of the International Dermoscopy Society. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2022;12:E2022080. doi:10.5826/dpc.1201a80
- Fechine COC, Valente NYS, Romiti R. Lichen planopilaris and frontal fibrosing alopecia: review and update of diagnostic and therapeutic features. An Bras Dermatol. 2022;97:348-357. doi:10.1016/j.abd.2021.08.008
- Frontal fibrosing alopecia: a review of disease pathogenesis. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:911944. doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.911944
- Del Duca E, Ruano Ruiz J, Pavel AB, et al. Frontal fibrosing alopecia shows robust T helper 1 and Janus kinase 3 skewing. Br J Dermatol. 2020;183:1083-1093. doi:10.1111/bjd.19040
- Tziotzios C, Petridis C, Dand N, et al. Genome-wide association study in frontal fibrosing alopecia identifies four susceptibility loci including HLA-B*07:02. Nat Commun. 2019;10:1150. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-09117-w
- Navarro‐Belmonte MR, Navarro‐López V, Ramírez‐Boscà A, et al. Case series of familial frontal fibrosing alopecia and a review of the literature. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2015;14:64-69. doi:10.1111/jocd.12125
- Cuenca-Barrales C, Ruiz-Villaverde R, Molina-Leyva A. Familial frontal fibrosing alopecia. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2021;21:E320-E323. doi:10.18295/squmj.2021.21.02.025
- Pastor-Nieto MA, Gatica-Ortega ME. Allergic contact dermatitis to drometrizole trisiloxane in a woman thereafter diagnosed with frontal fibrosing alopecia. Contact Dermatitis. 2023;89:215-217. doi:10.1111/cod.14370
- Moreno-Arrones OM, Saceda-Corralo D, Rodrigues-Barata AR, et al. Risk factors associated with frontal fibrosing alopecia: a multicentre case–control study. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2019;44:404-410. doi:10.1111/ced.13785
- Rudnicka L, Rokni GR, Lotti T, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis in patients with frontal fibrosing alopecia: an international multi-center study. Dermatol Ther. 2020;33:E13560. doi:10.1111/dth.13560
- Prasad S, Marks DH, Burns LJ, et al. Patch testing and contact allergen avoidance in patients with lichen planopilaris and/or frontal fibrosing alopecia: a cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;83:659-661. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.01.026
- Ocampo-Garza SS, Herz-Ruelas ME, Chavez-Alvarez S, et al. Association of frontal fibrosing alopecia and contact allergens in everyday skincare products in Hispanic females: a case-control study. An Bras Dermatol. 2021;96:776-778. doi:10.1016/j.abd.2020.09.013
- Shtaynberger B, Bruder P, Zippin JH. The prevalence of type iv hypersensitivity in patients with lichen planopilaris and frontal fibrosing alopecia. Dermatitis. 2023;34:351-352. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000965
- Kahkeshani N, Farzaei F, Fotouhi M, et al. Pharmacological effects of gallic acid in health and diseases: a mechanistic review. Iran J Basic Med Sci. 2019;22:225-237. doi:10.22038/ijbms.2019.32806.7897
- Holcomb ZE, Van Noord MG, Atwater AR. Gallate contact dermatitis: product update and systematic review. Dermatitis. 2017;28:115-127. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000263
- Gorris A, Valencak J, Schremser V, et al. Contact allergy to methylisothiazolinone with three clinical presentations in one patient. Contact Dermatitis. 2020;82:162-164. doi:10.1111/cod.13384
- Uter W, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, et al. The epidemic of methylisothiazolinone contact allergy in Europe: follow-up on changing exposures. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34:333-339. doi:10.1111/jdv.15875
- Batista M, Morgado F, Gonçalo M. Patch test reactivity to iodopropynyl butylcarbamate in consecutive patients during a period of 7 years. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;81:54-55. doi:10.1111/cod.13213
- Maghfour J, Ceresnie M, Olson J, et al. The association between frontal fibrosing alopecia, sunscreen, and moisturizers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87:395-396. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2021.12.058
- Drometrizole trisiloxane. PubChem website. Accessed February 21, 2024. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/9848888
- Hughes TM, Martin JA, Lewis VJ, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis to drometrizole trisiloxane in a sunscreen with concomitant sensitivities to other sunscreens. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;52:226-227. doi:10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.0566a.x
- de Groot AC. Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru)—a critical review of the literature and assessment of the significance of positive patch test reactions and the usefulness of restrictive diets. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:335-353. doi:10.1111/cod.13263
- Sköld M, Börje A, Matura M, et al. Studies on the autoxidation and sensitizing capacity of the fragrance chemical linalool, identifying a linalool hydroperoxide. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;46:267-272. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0536.2002.460504.x
- Dev T, Khan E, Patel U, et al. Cicatricial alopecia following allergic contact dermatitis from hair dyes: a rare clinical presentation. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;86:59-61. doi:10.1111/cod.13974
- De Souza B, Burns L, Senna MM. Frontal fibrosing alopecia preceding the development of vitiligo: a case report. JAAD Case Rep. 2020;6:154-155. doi:10.1016/j.jdcr.2019.12.011
- Abuav R, Shon W. Are sunscreen particles involved in frontal fibrosing alopecia?—a TEM-EDXS analysis on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded alopecia biopsies (pilot study). Am J Dermatopathol. 2022;44:E135. doi:10.1097/DAD.0000000000002317
- Felmingham C, Yip L, Tam M, et al. Allergy to sunscreen and leave-on facial products is not a likely causative mechanism in frontal fibrosing alopecia: perspective from contact allergy experts. Br J Dermatol. 2020;182:481-482. doi:10.1111/bjd.18380
- Dhana A, Gumedze F, Khumalo N. Regarding “frontal fibrosing alopecia: possible association with leave-on facial skincare products and sunscreens; a questionnaire study.” Br J Dermatol. 2016;176:836-837. doi:10.1111/bjd.15197
- Pastor-Nieto MA, Gatica-Ortega ME, Sánchez-Herreros C, et al. Sensitization to benzyl salicylate and other allergens in patients with frontal fibrosing alopecia. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;84:423-430. doi:10.1111/cod.13763
- Rocha VB, Donati A, Contin LA, et al. Photopatch and patch testing in 63 patients with frontal fibrosing alopecia: a case series. Br J Dermatol. 2018;179:1402-1403. doi:10.1111/bjd.16933
- Kossard S. Postmenopausal frontal fibrosing alopecia: scarring alopecia in a pattern distribution. Arch Dermatol. 1994;130:770-774. doi:10.1001/archderm.1994.01690060100013
- Aldoori N, Dobson K, Holden CR, et al. Frontal fibrosing alopecia: possible association with leave-on facial skin care products and sunscreens; a questionnaire study. Br J Dermatol. 2016;175:762-767. doi:10.1111/bjd.14535
- Debroy Kidambi A, Dobson K, Holmes S, et al. Frontal fibrosing alopecia in men: an association with facial moisturizers and sunscreens. Br J Dermatol. 2017;177:260-261. doi:10.1111/bjd.15311
- Starace M, Orlando G, Iorizzo M, et al. Clinical and dermoscopic approaches to diagnosis of frontal fibrosing alopecia: results from a multicenter study of the International Dermoscopy Society. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2022;12:E2022080. doi:10.5826/dpc.1201a80
- Fechine COC, Valente NYS, Romiti R. Lichen planopilaris and frontal fibrosing alopecia: review and update of diagnostic and therapeutic features. An Bras Dermatol. 2022;97:348-357. doi:10.1016/j.abd.2021.08.008
- Frontal fibrosing alopecia: a review of disease pathogenesis. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:911944. doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.911944
- Del Duca E, Ruano Ruiz J, Pavel AB, et al. Frontal fibrosing alopecia shows robust T helper 1 and Janus kinase 3 skewing. Br J Dermatol. 2020;183:1083-1093. doi:10.1111/bjd.19040
- Tziotzios C, Petridis C, Dand N, et al. Genome-wide association study in frontal fibrosing alopecia identifies four susceptibility loci including HLA-B*07:02. Nat Commun. 2019;10:1150. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-09117-w
- Navarro‐Belmonte MR, Navarro‐López V, Ramírez‐Boscà A, et al. Case series of familial frontal fibrosing alopecia and a review of the literature. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2015;14:64-69. doi:10.1111/jocd.12125
- Cuenca-Barrales C, Ruiz-Villaverde R, Molina-Leyva A. Familial frontal fibrosing alopecia. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2021;21:E320-E323. doi:10.18295/squmj.2021.21.02.025
- Pastor-Nieto MA, Gatica-Ortega ME. Allergic contact dermatitis to drometrizole trisiloxane in a woman thereafter diagnosed with frontal fibrosing alopecia. Contact Dermatitis. 2023;89:215-217. doi:10.1111/cod.14370
- Moreno-Arrones OM, Saceda-Corralo D, Rodrigues-Barata AR, et al. Risk factors associated with frontal fibrosing alopecia: a multicentre case–control study. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2019;44:404-410. doi:10.1111/ced.13785
- Rudnicka L, Rokni GR, Lotti T, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis in patients with frontal fibrosing alopecia: an international multi-center study. Dermatol Ther. 2020;33:E13560. doi:10.1111/dth.13560
- Prasad S, Marks DH, Burns LJ, et al. Patch testing and contact allergen avoidance in patients with lichen planopilaris and/or frontal fibrosing alopecia: a cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;83:659-661. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.01.026
- Ocampo-Garza SS, Herz-Ruelas ME, Chavez-Alvarez S, et al. Association of frontal fibrosing alopecia and contact allergens in everyday skincare products in Hispanic females: a case-control study. An Bras Dermatol. 2021;96:776-778. doi:10.1016/j.abd.2020.09.013
- Shtaynberger B, Bruder P, Zippin JH. The prevalence of type iv hypersensitivity in patients with lichen planopilaris and frontal fibrosing alopecia. Dermatitis. 2023;34:351-352. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000965
- Kahkeshani N, Farzaei F, Fotouhi M, et al. Pharmacological effects of gallic acid in health and diseases: a mechanistic review. Iran J Basic Med Sci. 2019;22:225-237. doi:10.22038/ijbms.2019.32806.7897
- Holcomb ZE, Van Noord MG, Atwater AR. Gallate contact dermatitis: product update and systematic review. Dermatitis. 2017;28:115-127. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000263
- Gorris A, Valencak J, Schremser V, et al. Contact allergy to methylisothiazolinone with three clinical presentations in one patient. Contact Dermatitis. 2020;82:162-164. doi:10.1111/cod.13384
- Uter W, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, et al. The epidemic of methylisothiazolinone contact allergy in Europe: follow-up on changing exposures. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34:333-339. doi:10.1111/jdv.15875
- Batista M, Morgado F, Gonçalo M. Patch test reactivity to iodopropynyl butylcarbamate in consecutive patients during a period of 7 years. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;81:54-55. doi:10.1111/cod.13213
- Maghfour J, Ceresnie M, Olson J, et al. The association between frontal fibrosing alopecia, sunscreen, and moisturizers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87:395-396. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2021.12.058
- Drometrizole trisiloxane. PubChem website. Accessed February 21, 2024. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/9848888
- Hughes TM, Martin JA, Lewis VJ, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis to drometrizole trisiloxane in a sunscreen with concomitant sensitivities to other sunscreens. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;52:226-227. doi:10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.0566a.x
- de Groot AC. Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru)—a critical review of the literature and assessment of the significance of positive patch test reactions and the usefulness of restrictive diets. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:335-353. doi:10.1111/cod.13263
- Sköld M, Börje A, Matura M, et al. Studies on the autoxidation and sensitizing capacity of the fragrance chemical linalool, identifying a linalool hydroperoxide. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;46:267-272. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0536.2002.460504.x
- Dev T, Khan E, Patel U, et al. Cicatricial alopecia following allergic contact dermatitis from hair dyes: a rare clinical presentation. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;86:59-61. doi:10.1111/cod.13974
- De Souza B, Burns L, Senna MM. Frontal fibrosing alopecia preceding the development of vitiligo: a case report. JAAD Case Rep. 2020;6:154-155. doi:10.1016/j.jdcr.2019.12.011
- Abuav R, Shon W. Are sunscreen particles involved in frontal fibrosing alopecia?—a TEM-EDXS analysis on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded alopecia biopsies (pilot study). Am J Dermatopathol. 2022;44:E135. doi:10.1097/DAD.0000000000002317
- Felmingham C, Yip L, Tam M, et al. Allergy to sunscreen and leave-on facial products is not a likely causative mechanism in frontal fibrosing alopecia: perspective from contact allergy experts. Br J Dermatol. 2020;182:481-482. doi:10.1111/bjd.18380
- Dhana A, Gumedze F, Khumalo N. Regarding “frontal fibrosing alopecia: possible association with leave-on facial skincare products and sunscreens; a questionnaire study.” Br J Dermatol. 2016;176:836-837. doi:10.1111/bjd.15197
- Pastor-Nieto MA, Gatica-Ortega ME, Sánchez-Herreros C, et al. Sensitization to benzyl salicylate and other allergens in patients with frontal fibrosing alopecia. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;84:423-430. doi:10.1111/cod.13763
- Rocha VB, Donati A, Contin LA, et al. Photopatch and patch testing in 63 patients with frontal fibrosing alopecia: a case series. Br J Dermatol. 2018;179:1402-1403. doi:10.1111/bjd.16933
Practice Points
- Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA), a variant of lichen planopilaris (LPP), is an increasingly prevalent type of scarring alopecia that may have a closer relationship to contact allergy than was previously understood. However, there is no evidence of a causal association to date.
- When evaluating for FFA/LPP, clinicians should assess for use of cosmetic products or sunscreens that may have a potential impact on the disease course.