Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Drug Safety 5/2008

01-05-2008 | Conference Paper

Understanding the Adverse Effects of Cosmetics

A Pilot Project in Cosmetovigilance

Author: Dr Lidia Sautebin

Published in: Drug Safety | Issue 5/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Currently, cosmetics and toiletries are very popular and their use continues to increase because consumers consider physical appearance important and, at the same time, these products are considered to be safe. However, in spite of their safety and tolerability, during recent decades, we have become aware that adverse effects can occur. The number of adverse effects known so far is very low indeed. This is partly because such adverse effects are underestimated as a result of self-diagnosis and self-medication, which are common behaviours in the presence of mild-to-moderate reactions, as in the case of cosmetics. Moreover, such effects are underestimated because of the absence of formal and reliable monitoring systems (‘cosmetovigilance’). This requires the creation of a standard reporting form, as well as resolution concerning professional categories authorized to report and the subsequent validation/evaluation of the collected forms. All these items are of great importance, not only to investigate but also to prevent risks caused by cosmetic use.
A pilot project was undertaken to test the effectiveness of a notification system by the validation of either a reporting form or the role of dermatologists and community pharmacists as reporting categories. Collection of reporting forms began in July 2006 and it is still in progress; the preliminary data reported here refer to the period July 2006–June 2007 and mainly concern the recording and validation of the collected reporting forms. During this period, we have received 40 reporting forms (32 by dermatologists and 8 by pharmacists).
The validation process of the recorded forms revealed several drawbacks, such as incompleteness (19 forms), inadequacy of the description of the suspected undesirable effect and its location (2), illegible handwriting (6) and mistaken statements (3). Six forms reported a misuse of a cosmetic product: four of these were related to the site of application while two were related to time. In one case, instructions for use were not followed.
In conclusion, our experience regarding the notification of adverse effects of cosmetics, although limited to a restricted geographical area, suggests that for an efficient and reliable monitoring system to be in place, which includes all the necessary measures to protect public health, an education and training programme for all stakeholders (health professionals, consumers and appropriate authorities) is required.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Larsen WG, Jackson EM, Barker MO, et al. A primer on cosmetics. J Am Acad Dermatol 1992; 27(3): 469–84PubMedCrossRef Larsen WG, Jackson EM, Barker MO, et al. A primer on cosmetics. J Am Acad Dermatol 1992; 27(3): 469–84PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Lindberg M, Tammela M, Bostrom A, et al. Are adverse skin reactions to cosmetics underestimated in the clinical assessment of contact dermatitis? A prospective study among 1075 patients attending Swedish patch test clinics. Acta Derm Venereol 2004; 84(4): 291–5PubMedCrossRef Lindberg M, Tammela M, Bostrom A, et al. Are adverse skin reactions to cosmetics underestimated in the clinical assessment of contact dermatitis? A prospective study among 1075 patients attending Swedish patch test clinics. Acta Derm Venereol 2004; 84(4): 291–5PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Berne B, Bostrom A, Grahnen AF, et al. Adverse effects of cosmetics and toiletries reported to the Swedish Medical Products Agency 1989–1994. Contact Dermatitis 1996; 34(5): 359–62PubMedCrossRef Berne B, Bostrom A, Grahnen AF, et al. Adverse effects of cosmetics and toiletries reported to the Swedish Medical Products Agency 1989–1994. Contact Dermatitis 1996; 34(5): 359–62PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Johansen JD. Fragrance contact allergy: a clinical review. Am Clin Dermatol 2003; 4(11): 789–98CrossRef Johansen JD. Fragrance contact allergy: a clinical review. Am Clin Dermatol 2003; 4(11): 789–98CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Gago-Dominguez M, Castelao JE, Yuan JM, et al. Use of permanent hair dyes and bladder-cancer risk. Int J Cancer 2001; 91(4): 575–9PubMedCrossRef Gago-Dominguez M, Castelao JE, Yuan JM, et al. Use of permanent hair dyes and bladder-cancer risk. Int J Cancer 2001; 91(4): 575–9PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Sosted H, Agner T, Andersen KE, et al. 55 cases of allergic reactions to hair dye: a descriptive, consumer complaint-based study. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 47(5): 299–303PubMedCrossRef Sosted H, Agner T, Andersen KE, et al. 55 cases of allergic reactions to hair dye: a descriptive, consumer complaint-based study. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 47(5): 299–303PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Darbre PD. Environmental oestrogens, cosmetics and breast cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006; 20(1): 121–43PubMedCrossRef Darbre PD. Environmental oestrogens, cosmetics and breast cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006; 20(1): 121–43PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Di Giovanni C, Arcoraci V, Gambardella L, et al. Cosmetovigilance survey: are cosmetics considered safe by consumers? Pharmacol Res 2006; 53(1): 16–21PubMedCrossRef Di Giovanni C, Arcoraci V, Gambardella L, et al. Cosmetovigilance survey: are cosmetics considered safe by consumers? Pharmacol Res 2006; 53(1): 16–21PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Menne T, Wahlberg JE, European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Risk assessment failures of chemicals commonly used in consumer products. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 46(4): 189–90PubMedCrossRef Menne T, Wahlberg JE, European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Risk assessment failures of chemicals commonly used in consumer products. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 46(4): 189–90PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, et al. Epidemiology of contact allergy: an estimation of morbidity employing the clinical epidemiology and drug-utilization research (CE-DUR) approach. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 47(1): 32–9PubMedCrossRef Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, et al. Epidemiology of contact allergy: an estimation of morbidity employing the clinical epidemiology and drug-utilization research (CE-DUR) approach. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 47(1): 32–9PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, 979th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies: Resolution ResAP(2006)1E on a vigilance system for undesirable effects of cosmetic products (“cosmetovigilance”) in Europe in order to protect public health [online]. Available from URL: http://www.coe.int/ [Accessed 2007 Oct 17] Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, 979th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies: Resolution ResAP(2006)1E on a vigilance system for undesirable effects of cosmetic products (“cosmetovigilance”) in Europe in order to protect public health [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​coe.​int/​ [Accessed 2007 Oct 17]
15.
go back to reference Duarte I, Campos Lage AC. Frequency of dermatoses associated with cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis 2007; 56(4): 211–3PubMedCrossRef Duarte I, Campos Lage AC. Frequency of dermatoses associated with cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis 2007; 56(4): 211–3PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Understanding the Adverse Effects of Cosmetics
A Pilot Project in Cosmetovigilance
Author
Dr Lidia Sautebin
Publication date
01-05-2008
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Drug Safety / Issue 5/2008
Print ISSN: 0114-5916
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1942
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200831050-00010

Other articles of this Issue 5/2008

Drug Safety 5/2008 Go to the issue

Conference Paper

Cosmetovigilance

Conference Paper

Phytotherapic Compounds