Abstract
Cosmetovigilance is a recent concept. The term itself has just been indexed. It is a form of health public surveillance with a public health objective; it therefore differs from the surveillance carried out by industrialists, who aim at the safety of the product for commercial purposes, and differs from peer surveillance (Revidal-Gerda), whose purpose is medical. Cosmetovigilance concerns cosmetic products. The 2006 European resolution has laid the ground work for a cosmetovigilance system based on case notifications. As of 2013, the new European regulation requires that serious undesirable effects reported to the competent authority should be transmitted to the competent authorities of the other Member States and to the person responsible for the cosmetic product. Two problems are yet to be solved: causality assessment and reporting categories. Cosmetovigilance systems are genuine means of obtaining information on the safety of cosmetic products and their ingredients. They can be used by Europe to check that new directives ensure a high level of safety. Cosmetovigilance makes it possible to rule out or control potentially hazardous ingredients and can thus set our minds at ease about the products placed on the market.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Vigan M. Les nouveaux allergènes des cosmétiques. La cosmétovigilance. Ann Dermato Venereol 1997; 124: 571–5.
Vigan M. La mise en place d’un système de dermatoallergovigilance dans l’allergie de contact. Rev Fr Allergol Immunol Clin 2000; 40: 381–3.
Directive 93/35 CEE JORF n°L151 du 23/06 /1993 p 0032-0037.
European Commission. Council Directive 76/768/EEC 27 juillet 1976; http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1976L0768:20100301:en:PDF.
Texte du règlement CE 1223/2009 relatif aux produits cosmétiques. http://eur.lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:342:0059:0209:FR:PDF.
De Groot AC, Nater JP, van der Lender JP, et al. Adverse effects of cosmetics and toiletries: a retrospective study in the general population. Int J Cosmet Sci 1987; 9: 255–9.
LOSP n°2004-806 du 9 Aoüt 2004 Art. L. 5131-9. — I.: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr//affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXTE000000787078&dateTexte=&categorieLien=id.
Berne B, Boström A, Grahnén AF, et al. Adverse effects of cosmetics and toiletries reported to the Swedish medical products agency 1989–1994. Contact Dermatitis 1996; 34: 359–62.
http://www.ansm.sante.fr (last accessed 31th May 2013).
Vigan M, Pons Guiraud A, Le Coz C, et al. Fonctionnement d’un observatoire confraternel d’effets indésirables aux cosmétiques. Analyse des signaux reçus en 2000, 2001, 2002. Ann Dermatol Venereol 2003; 130: 261.
Sahoo B, Handa S, Penchallaiah K, et al. Contact anaphylaxis due to hair dye. Contact Dermatitis 2000; 43: 244.
Wong GAE, King CM. Immediate-type hypersensitivity and allergic contact dermatitis due to para-phenylenediamine in hairdye. Contact Dermatitis 2003; 48: 166.
Varjonen E, Petman L, Mäkinen-Kiljunen S. Immediate contact allergy from hydrolyzed wheat in a cosmetic cream. Allergy 2000; 55: 294–6.
Pecquet C, Lauriere M, Huet S, et al. Is the application of cosmetics containing protein-derived products safe? Contact Dermatitis 2002; 46: 123.
Krasteva M, Bons B, Tozer S, et al. Contact allergy to hair colouring products. The cosmetovigilance experience of 4 companies (2003–2006). Eur J Dermatol 2010; 20: 85–95.
Avenel-Audran M, Dutartre H, Goossens A, et al. Octocrylene, an emerging photoallergen. Arch Dermatol 2010; 146: 753–7.
Council of Europe. Resolution ResAP (2006) 1 on a vigilance system for undesirable effects of cosmetics products (‘cosmetovigilance’) in Europe in order to protect public health. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1061283&Saite=CM (last accessed 31th May 2013).
Uter W, Arnold R, Wilkinson J, et al. A multilingual European patch test software concept: WinAlldat/ESCCA. Contact Dermatitis 2003; 49: 270–1.
cosmétovigilance. http://www.health.belgium.be/eportal/SearchResults/index.htm (last accessed 31th May 2013).
Folkehelseinstituttet. National register of adverse effects from cosmetic products. 2008–2010.2011. http://www.fhi.no/dokumenter/df751a6d55.pdf (last accessed 31th May 2013).
Sautebin L. A cosmetovigilance survey in Europe. Pharmacol Rev 2007; 55: 455–60.
Sportiello L, Cammarota S, de Porto S, Sautebin L. Notification of undesirable effects of cosmetics and toiletries. Pharmacol Res 2009; 59: 101–6.
Salverda JGW, Bragt PJC, de Wit-Bos L, et al. Results of a cosmetovigilance survey in The Netherlands. Contact Dermatitis 2013; 68: 139–48.
Zweers PGMA, Gilmour NJ, Hepburn PA, et al. Causality methods in cosmetovigilance: comparison of Colipa and PLM versus global introspection. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 2012; 63: 409–12.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Vigan, M., Castelain, F. Cosmetovigilance: definition, regulation and use “in practice”. Eur J Dermatol 24, 643–649 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1684/ejd.2014.2493
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1684/ejd.2014.2493