Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Allergic Contact Dermatitis of the Face: a Review of the Common Agents Involved and Differential Diagnosis

  • Contact Dermatitis (A Gimenez-Arnau, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Allergy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of review

Allergic contact dermatitis is a common form of type IV hypersensitivity reaction in response to exogenous agents directly or indirectly applied to the skin. Although any part of the body may be affected, the face’s frequent exposition to environment, and consumer products, makes it one of the most commonly affected sites by the disease.

Recent findings

As the consumer products are increasing worldwide, the list of potential allergens that may induce an allergic contact dermatitis of the face continues to grow. A correct diagnosis, and identification of the involved allergens, requires a careful interpretation of the clinical manifestations and patch test results (clinical relevance). It is therefore very important for the clinician to recognize the most common clinical manifestations and involved allergens of allergic contact dermatitis of the face to allow a correct diagnosis.

Summary

In this chapter, we review the main current allergens, clinical presentations, and differential diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis affecting the face.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. •• Rozas-Muñoz E, Gamé D, Serra-Baldrich E. Allergic contact dermatitis by anatomical regions: diagnostic clues. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2018 Jul 1 [cited 2020 Mar 19];109(6):485–507. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29031485. This article reviews the main clinical presentations of allergic contact dermatitis and correlates with the potential allergen.

  2. Zirwas MJ. Contact dermatitis to cosmetics. Vol. 56, clinical reviews in allergy and immunology. Humana Press Inc.; 2019 [cited 2020 Mar 19]. p. 119–28. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30421329.

  3. Castanedo-Tardan MP, Zug KA. Patterns of cosmetic contact allergy. Vol. 27, dermatologic clinics. 2009 [cited 2020 Mar 19]. p. 265–80. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19580921.

  4. Park ME, Zippin JH. Allergic contact dermatitis to cosmetics. Vol. 32, dermatologic clinics. 2014 [cited 2020 Mar 19]. p. 1–11. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24267417.

  5. González-Muñoz P, Conde-Salazar L, Vañó-Galván S. Dermatitis alérgica de contacto a cosméticos. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2014 Nov [cited 2020 Mar 19];105(9):822–32. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24656778.

  6. Hamilton T, de Gannes GC. Allergic contact dermatitis to preservatives and fragrances in cosmetics. Skin Therapy Lett. 2011 Apr [cited 2020 Mar 19];16(4):1–4. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21611680.

  7. Laguna C, de la Cuadra J, Martín-González B, Zaragoza V, Martínez-Casimiro L, Alegre V. [Allergic contact dermatitis to cosmetics]. Actas Dermosifiliogr. [cited 2020 Mar 19];100(1):53–60. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19268112.

  8. Castanedo-Tardana MP, Zug KA. Methylisothiazolinone. Vol. 24, Dermatitis. 2013. p. 2–6.

  9. Leiva-Salinas M, Francés L, Silvestre JF. Actualización en la dermatitis de contacto alérgica por metilcloroisotiazolinona/metilisotiazolinona y metilisotiazolinona. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2014 Nov [cited 2020 Mar 19];105(9):840–6. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24626102.

  10. Aerts O, Goossens A, Giordano-Labadie F. Contact allergy caused by methylisothiazolinone: the Belgian-French experience. Vol. 25, European journal of dermatology. John Libbey Eurotext; 2015 [cited 2020 Mar 19]. p. 228–33. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26412037.

  11. Lundov MD, Opstrup MS, Johansen JD. Methylisothiazolinone contact allergy - a growing epidemic. Contact Dermatitis. 2013 Nov [cited 2020 Mar 19];69(5):271–5. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24117738.

  12. Aerts O, Baeck M, Constandt L, Dezfoulian B, Jacobs MC, Kerre S, et al. The dramatic increase in the rate of methylisothiazolinone contact allergy in Belgium: a multicentre study. Contact Dermatitis. 2014 Jul [cited 2020 Mar 19];71(1):41–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24815516.

  13. Guimaraens D, Hernández MI, Gonzalez MA, Condé-Salazar L. Contact allergy to Euxyl K 400 in consecutively patch-tested patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2000 Jul [cited 2020 Mar 19];43(1):55–6. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10902600.

  14. Sasseville D. Hypersensitivity to preservatives. Vol. 17, dermatologic therapy. 2004 [cited 2020 Mar 19]. p. 251–63. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15186371.

  15. Warshaw EM, Schlarbaum JP, Maibach HI, Silverberg JI, Taylor JS, Atwater AR, et al. Facial dermatitis in male patients referred for patch testing: retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1994 to 2016. JAMA Dermatology. 2020 Jan 1 [cited 2020 Mar 19];156(1):79–84. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31774459.

  16. Kuznetsov A V., Erlenkeuser-Uebelhoer I, Thomas P. Contact allergy to propylene glycol and dodecyl gallate mimicking seborrheic dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2006 Nov [cited 2020 Mar 19];55(5):307–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17026702.

  17. Ledieu G, Martin P, Thomas P. [Contact hypersensitivity to Kathon CG. Apropos of 35 cases among 977 tested subjects]. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 1991 [cited 2020 Mar 19];118(3):181–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2064280.

  18. Davis MDP. Unusual patterns in contact dermatitis: medicaments. Dermatol Clin. 2009 Jul [cited 2020 Mar 19];27(3):289–97, vi. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19580923.

  19. • Gilissen L, Huygens S, Goossens A. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by topical herbal remedies: importance of patch testing with the patients’ own products. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78(3):177–84 This paper highlights the importance of patch testing with owns products when evaluating patients with allergic contact dermatitis to herbal remedies.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Friedman ES, Friedman PM, Cohen DE, Washenik K. Allergic contact dermatitis to topical minoxidil solution: etiology and treatment. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002 Feb [cited 2020 Mar 19];46(2):309–12. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11807448.

  21. Corazza M, Borghi A, Ricci M, Sarno O, Virgili A. Patch testing in allergic contact dermatitis from minoxidil. Dermat contact, atopic, Occup drug. [cited 2020 Mar 19];21(4):217–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20646674.

  22. Gilissen L, Goossens A. Frequency and trends of contact allergy to and iatrogenic contact dermatitis caused by topical drugs over a 25-year period. Contact Dermatitis. 2016 Nov 1 [cited 2020 Mar 19];75(5):290–302. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27374131.

  23. • Kim T, Taylor JS, Maibach HI, Chen JK, Honari G. Photopatch testing among members of the American Contact Dermatitis Society. Dermatitis. 2020 Jan 1 [cited 2020 Mar 19];31(1):59–67. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31905187. This paper review the latest photoallergens in United States of America.

  24. González E, González S. Drug photosensitivity, idiopathic photodermatoses, and sunscreens. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1996;35(6):871–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Uter W, Gefeller O, John SM, Schnuch A, Geier J. Contact allergy to ingredients of hair cosmetics - a comparison of female hairdressers and clients based on IVDK 2007-2012 data. Contact Dermatitis. 2014 Jul [cited 2020 Mar 19];71(1):13–20. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24645637.

  26. Uter W, Bensefa-Colas L, Frosch P, Giménez-Arnau A, John SM, Lepoittevin JP, et al. Patch testing with hair cosmetic series in Europe: a critical review and recommendation. Contact Dermatitis. 2015 Aug 1 [cited 2020 Mar 19];73(2):69–81. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26080054.

  27. Fernández-Vozmediano JM, Padilla-Moreno M, Armario-Hita JC, Carranza-Romero C. Patrón de sensibilización por contacto a parafenilendiamina y su detección en tintes capilares. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2011;102(3):206–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fewings J, Menné T. An update of the risk assessment for methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) with focus on rinse-off products. Vol. 41, Contact Dermatitis. Blackwell Munksgaard; 1999 [cited 2020 Mar 19]. p. 1–13. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10416701.

  29. Chen JK, Lampel HP. Gold contact allergy: clues and controversies. Dermat contact, atopic, Occup drug. 2015 Mar 25 [cited 2020 Mar 19];26(2):69–77. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25757078.

  30. Poziomkowska-Gęsicka I, Summer B, Sokołowska M, Thomas P, Kurek M. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by hypersensitivity to gold – description of a clinical case. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78(5):363–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hamann D, Hamann CR, Hamann C, Bruze M, Fowler JF. Response to: can patch test sensitization with gold sodium thiosulfate be ruled out?-A case report. Contact Dermatitis. 2018 Jul 1 [cited 2020 Mar 19];79(1):56–7. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29717789.

  32. Ehrlich A, Belsito DV. Allergic contact dermatitis to gold. Cutis. 2000;65(5):323–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Swinnen I, Goossens A. An update on airborne contact dermatitis: 2007-2011. Vol. 68, Contact Dermatitis. 2013 [cited 2020 Mar 20]. p. 232–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23343440.

  34. • Gilissen L, Boeckxstaens E, Geebelen J, Goossens A. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from systemic drugs. Contact Dermatitis. 2020;82(1):24–30 This paper reviews the most important systemic drugs inducing allergic contact dermatitis.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. •• Kimyon RS, Warshaw EM. Airborne Allergic Contact Dermatitis: Management and Responsible Allergens on the American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Series. Vol. 30, Dermatitis. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2019 [cited 2020 Mar 20]. p. 106–15. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30829811. Excellent review about management and main responsible allergens of airborne contact dermatitis.

  36. Dittmar D, Politiek K, Coenraads P-J, Flach PA, Schuttelaar ML. Allergic contact dermatitis in two employees of an ethylene amine-producing factory. Contact Dermatitis. 2017 May 1 [cited 2020 Mar 20];76(5):310–2. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28386980.

  37. Verma KK, Bansal A, Bhari N, Sethuraman G. Parthenium dermatitis severity score to assess clinical severity of disease. Indian J Dermatol. 2017 [cited 2020 Mar 20];62(1):85–7. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28216730.

  38. Rozas-Muñoz E, Lepoittevin JP, Pujol RM, Giménez-Arnau A. Allergic contact dermatitis to plants: understanding the chemistry will help our diagnostic approach. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2012 [cited 2020 Mar 20];103(6):456–77. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22217935.

  39. Ji J, Ding Y, Qian G. Airborne contact dermatitis caused by the sarcotesta of Ginkgo biloba. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;75(6):384–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Anzai A, Vázquez Herrera NE, Tosti A. Airborne allergic contact dermatitis caused by chamomile tea. Contact Dermatitis. 2015 Apr 1 [cited 2020 Mar 20];72(4):254–5. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25622757.

  41. Cao LY, Sood A, Taylor JS. Hand/face/neck localized pattern: sticky problems-resins. Vol. 27, dermatologic clinics. 2009 [cited 2020 Mar 20]. p. 227–49. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19580919.

  42. Geraut C, Tripodi D, Brunet-Courtois B, Leray F, Geraut L. Occupational dermatitis to epoxydic and phenolic resins. Vol. 19, European journal of dermatology. 2009 [cited 2020 Mar 20]. p. 205–13. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19349256.

  43. Özkaya E. Neighborial allergy: a hidden cause of nonoccupational airborne contact dermatitis in a housewife from epoxy resin. Vol. 23, Dermatitis. 2012 [cited 2020 Mar 20]. p. 124–5. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22653173.

  44. Aerts O, Goossens A, Lambert J, Lepoittevin JP. Contact allergy caused by isothiazolinone derivatives: an overview of non-cosmetic and unusual cosmetic sources. Vol. 27, European Journal of Dermatology. John Libbey Eurotext; 2017. p. 115–22.

  45. Du-Thanh A, Lalande M, Raison-Peyron N, Dereure O. Atypical and severe airborne isothiazolinone contact dermatitis mimicking Kaposi–Juliusberg syndrome. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;76(5):297–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Staser K, Ezra N, Sheehan MP, Mousdicas N. The beak sign: a clinical clue to airborne contact dermatitis. Dermat contact, atopic, Occup drug. 2014 [cited 2020 Mar 20];25(2):97–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24603523.

  47. Wolf R, Orion E, Tüzün Y. Periorbital (eyelid) dermatides. Vol. 32, clinics in dermatology. 2014 [cited 2020 Mar 20]. p. 131–40. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24314387.

  48. Feser A, Mahler V. Periorbital dermatitis: causes, differential diagnoses and therapy. Vol. 8, JDDG - Journal of the German Society of Dermatology. Wiley-VCH Verlag; 2010. p. 159–65.

  49. Temesvári E, Pónyai G, Németh I, Hidvégi B, Sas A, Kárpáti S. Periocular dermatitis: a report of 401 patients. J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol. 2009 Feb [cited 2020 Mar 20];23(2):124–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18761544.

  50. Herro EM, Elsaie ML, Nijhawan RI, Jacob SE. Recommendations for a screening series for allergic contact eyelid dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2012;23(1):17–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Rodríguez-Blanco I, Fernández-Redondo V, Toribio J. Dermatitis en párpados. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2004;95(8):496–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. van Ketel WG, Liem DH. Eyelid dermatitis from nickel contaminated cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis. 1981 Aug 1 [cited 2020 Mar 20];7(4):217–217. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1600-0536.1981.tb04052.x.

  53. Allergic contact dermatitis from nickel in an eye pencil - Zemba - 1992 - Contact Dermatitis - Wiley Online Library. [cited 2020 Mar 20]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1600-0536.1992.tb05224.x.

  54. Zemba C, Romaguaera C, Vilaplana J. Allergic contact dermatitis from nickel in an eye pencil. Contact Dermatitis. 1992 Feb 1 [cited 2020 Mar 20];27(2):116–116. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1600-0536.1992.tb05224.x

  55. • Gilissen L, De Decker L, Hulshagen T, Goossens A. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by topical ophthalmic medications: keep an eye on it! Contact Dermatitis. 2019 May 1 [cited 2020 Mar 20];80(5):291–7. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30629291. Recent paper highlighting the most important allergens and difficulties in diagnosing allergic contact dermatitis from eyedrops.

  56. Novitskaya ES, Dean SJ, Craig JP, Alexandroff AB. Current dilemmas and controversies in allergic contact dermatitis to ophthalmic medications. Clin Dermatol. 2011 May [cited 2020 Mar 20];29(3):295–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21496737.

  57. Nedorost S, Wagman A. Positive patch-test reactions to gold: patients’ perception of relevance and the role of titanium dioxide in cosmetics. Dermatitis. 2005;16(2):67–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Peters K, Gammelgaard B, Menné T. Nickel concentrations in fingernails as a measure of occupational exposure to nickel. Contact Dermatitis. 1991 Oct 1 [cited 2020 Mar 20];25(4):237–41. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1600-0536.1991.tb01851.x

  59. Guin JD. Eyelid dermatitis from methacrylates used for nail enhancement. Contact Dermatitis. 1998 Dec 1 [cited 2020 Mar 20];39(6):312–3. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1600-0536.1998.tb05947.x

  60. Lazzarini R, Duarte I, de Farias DC, Santos CA, Tsai AI. Frequency and main sites of allergic contact dermatitis caused by nail varnish. Dermatitis. 2008 Nov [cited 2020 Mar 20];19(6):319–22. Available from: http://journals.lww.com/01206501-200811000-00005

  61. Tan CH, Rasool S, Johnston GA. Contact dermatitis: allergic and irritant. Vol. 32, clinics in dermatology. 2014 [cited 2020 Mar 20]. p. 116–24. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24314385.

  62. Amin KA, Belsito D V. The aetiology of eyelid dermatitis: a 10-year retrospective analysis. Contact Dermatitis. 2006 Nov 1 [cited 2020 Mar 20];55(5):280–5. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.00927.x

  63. Morren MA, Dooms-Goossens A, Delabie J, de Wolf-Peeters C, Marien K, Degreef H. Contact allergy to isothiazolinone derivatives: Unusual clinical presentations. Dermatology. 1992 [cited 2020 Mar 20];184(4):260–4. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1498392.

  64. Kuznetsov A V., Erlenkeuser-Uebelhoer I, Thomas P. Contact allergy to propylene glycol and dodecyl gallate mimicking seborrheic dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2006 Nov [cited 2020 Mar 20];55(5):307–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17026702.

  65. McCarthy S, Flynn A, Bennett M, Bourke JF. “It’s not lupus, it’s your nails!”. Vol. 80, Contact Dermatitis. Blackwell publishing ltd; 2019 [cited 2020 Mar 20]. p. 67–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30357846.

  66. Ledieu G, Martin P, Thomas P. [Contact hypersensitivity to Kathon CG. Apropos of 35 cases among 977 tested subjects]. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 1991 [cited 2020 Mar 20];118(3):181–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2064280.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology, Hospital de San Pablo, Avenida Videla S/N, 1780000, Coquimbo, Chile

    Eduardo Rozas-Muñoz MD

  2. Dermatology Department, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Badalona, Spain

    Denise Game MD

Authors
  1. Eduardo Rozas-Muñoz MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Denise Game MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eduardo Rozas-Muñoz MD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Eduardo Rozas-Muñoz declares that he has no conflict of interest. Denise Game declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Contact Dermatitis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rozas-Muñoz, E., Game, D. Allergic Contact Dermatitis of the Face: a Review of the Common Agents Involved and Differential Diagnosis. Curr Treat Options Allergy 7, 233–247 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40521-020-00262-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40521-020-00262-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation