American Journal of Clinical Dermatology

, Volume 1, Issue 6, pp 361–368

Transdermal Drug Delivery Systems and Skin Sensitivity Reactions

Incidence and Management
  • Michelle Murphy
  • Andrew J. Carmichael
Review Article


Transdermal devices are now marketed for the delivery of systemic medication through the skin. Advantages associated with transdermal drug delivery include avoidance of first-pass metabolism and variable absorption as well as improved patient compliance. Drugs currently available by this route include scopolamine, nitroglycerin (glyceryl trinitrate), estradiol, nicotine, clonidine, fentanyl, and testosterone. This novel development has brought about a specific constellation of skin problems which vary widely in incidence between drugs. It is important to vary the site of drug administration to minimize these reactions. Any eczematous reaction can be treated with a moderately potent topical corticosteroid. Patients with topical sensitivity are usually tolerant of oral challenge but systemic sensitization has been reported and caution is still advocated before proceeding to this step.

The increasing use of transdermal drug delivery systems across many specialities means that problems of skin sensitivity are of growing relevance to the dermatologist, the hospital specialist, and the primary care physician.


  1. 1.
    Shaw J.E., Urquhart J. Transdermal drug administration — a nuisance becomes an opportunity. BMJ 1981; 283: 875–876PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scheuplein R.J., Blank I.H. Permeability of the skin. Physiologic Rev 1971; 51: 702–747Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown L., Langer R. Transdermal delivery of drugs. Ann Rev Med 1988; 39: 221–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Muller P., Imhof P.R., Burkart F., et al. Human pharmacological studies of a new transdermal system containing nitroglycerin. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1982; 22: 473–480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hadgraft J. Advances in transdermal drug delivery. Practitioner 1995; 240: 656–658Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hurkmans J.F.G.M., Bodde H.E., van Driel L.M.J., et al. Skin irritation caused by transdermal drug delivery system during long-term (5 days) application. Br J Dermatol 1985; 112: 461–467PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Utian W.H. In discussion: Judd H, Ravaikar V, Utain WH, Lawrence W. Panel discussion III. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 156: 1338–1341Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bircher A.J., Howald H., Rufli T.H. Adverse skin reactions to nicotine in a transdermal therapeutic system. Contact Dermatitis 1991: 25: 230–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Homick J.L., Kohl R.L., Reschke M.F., et al. Transdermal scopolamine in the prevention of motion sickness: evaluation of the time course of efficacy. Aviat Space Environ Med 1983; 54: 994–1000PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lindburg M., Forslind B. The effects of occlusion of the skin on the Langerhan’s’ cell and the epidermal mononuclear cells. Acta Dermato-Venerologica (Stockholm) 1981; 61: 201–205Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nieboer C., Bruynzeel D.P., Boorsma D.M. The effect of occlusion of the skin with the transdermal therapeutic system on Langerhans’ cells and the induction of skin irritation. Arch Dermatol 1987; 123: 1499–1502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fisher A.A. Dermatitis due to transdermal therapeutic systems. Cutis 1984; 34: 87–88Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Murray K.B. Hazard of microwave ovens to transdermal delivery system. N Engl J Med 1984; 310: 721PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wrenn K. The hazards of defibrillation through nitroglycerin patches. Ann Emerg Med 1990; 19: 1327–1328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kligman A.M. The identification of contact allergens by human assay: III. The maximization test: a procedure for screening and rating contact sensitizers. J Investigative Dermatol 1966; 47: 393–409Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Price N.M., Schmitt L.G., McGuire J., et al. Transdermal scopolamine in the prevention of motion sickness at sea. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1981; 29: 313–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Popli S., Daugirdas J.T., Neubauer J.A., et al. Transdermal clonidine in mild hypertension. Arch Intern Med 1986; 146: 2140–2144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scheper R.J., von Blomberg B.M.E., De Groot J., et al. Low allergenicity of clonidine impedes studies of sensitization mechanisms in guinea pig models. Contact Dermatitis 1990; 23: 81–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Trozak D.J. Delayed hypersensitivity to scopolamine delivered by a transdermal device. J Am Acad Dermatol 1985; 13: 247–251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gordan C.R., Shupak A, Doweck I., et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by transdermal hyoscine. BMJ 1989; 298: 1220–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dick J.B.C., Northridge D.B., Lawson A.A.H. Skin reactions to long-term transdermal clonidine. Lancet 1987; I: 516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harari Z., Sommer I., Knobel B. Multifocal contact dermatitis to Nitroderm TTS5 with extensive postinflammatory hypermelanosis. Dermatologica 1987; 174: 249–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Carmichael A.J., Foulds I.S. Allergic contact dermatitis from transdermal nitroglycerin. Contact Dermatitis 1989; 21: 113–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    White T.M., Guidry J.R. Rebound hypertension associated with transdermal clonidine and contact dermatitis. West J Med 1986; 145: 104PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chandraratna P.A.N., O’Dell R.E. Allergic reactions to nitroglycerin ointment: report of five cases. Curr Ther Res 1987; 42: 481–484Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hollifield J. Clinical acceptability of transdermal clonidine: a large-scale evaluation by practitioners. Am Heart J 1986; 112: 900–906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maibach H.I. Oral substitution in patients sensitized by transdermal clonidine treatment. Contact Dermatitis 1985; 12: 192–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Goncalo M., Oliveria H.S., Monterio C., et al. Allergic and systemic contact dermatitis from estradiol. Contact Dermatitis 1999; 40: 58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kelly H.W. Controlled-release transdermal drug delivery. Cutis 1985; 35: 204–205PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    van der Willigen A.H., deGraaf Y.P., van Joost T.H. Peri-ocular dermatitis from atropine. Contact Dermatitis 1987; 17: 55–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hendricks A.A., Jr Dec G.W. Contact dermatitis due to nitroglycerin ointment. Arch Dermatol 1979; 115: 853–855PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sausker W.F., Frederick F.D. Allergic contact dermatitis secondary secondary to topical nitroglycerin. J Am Med Assoc 1978; 239: 1743–1744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Apted J. Percutaneous nitroglycerin patches. Med J Aust 1988; 148: 482PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rosenfield A.S., White W.B. Allergic contact dermatitis secondary to transdermal nitroglycerin. Am Heart J 1984; 108: 1061–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Topaz O., Abraham D. Severe allergic contact dermatitis secondary to nitroglycerin in a transdermal therapeutic system. Ann Allergy 1987; 59: 365–366PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Place V.A., Powers M., Darley P.E., et al. A double-blind comparative study of Estraderm and Premarin in the amelioration of postmenopausal symptoms. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 152: 1092–1099PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fisher A.A. Contact dermatitis: highlights from the 1987 Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, San Antonio, Texas. Cutis 1988; 41: 87–88Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schwartz B.K., Clendenning W.E. Allergic contact dermatitis from hydroxypropyl cellulose in a transdermal estradiol patch. Contact Dermatitis 1988; 18: 106–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Corazza M., Virgili A., Mantovani L., et al. Propylene glycol allergy from acyclovir cream with cross-reactivity to hydroxypropyl cellulose in a transdermal estradiol system? Contact Dermatitis 1993; 29 283–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ducros B., Bonnin J.P., Navaranne A., et al. Eczema due to contact with ethanol in oestradiol transdermal patch (Estraderm TTS 50). Nouvelles Dermatologiques 1989; 8: 21–22Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Grebe S.K.G., Adams J.D., Feek C.M. Systemic sensitization to ethanol by transdermal estrogen patches. Arch Dermatol 1993; 129: 379–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    McBurney E.I., Noel S.B., Collins J.H. Contact dermatitis to transdermal estradiol system. J Am Acad Dermatol 1989; 20: 508–510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Carmichael A.J., Foulds I.S. Allergic contact dermatitis to oestradiol in oestrogen patches. Contact Dermatitis 1992; 26: 194–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    El Sayed F., Bayle-Lebey P., Marguery M.C., et al. Systemic sensitization to 17 betaoestradiol induced by transcutaneous administration. Ann Dermatol Venereol 1996; 123 (1): 26–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nicotine patches [editorial]. Drugs Ther Bull 1993; 31: 95-6Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Abelin T., Buchler A., Muller P., et al. Controlled trial of transdermal nicotine patch in tobacco withdrawal. Lancet 1989; I: 7–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Russell M.A.H., Stapleton J.A., Feyerabend C., et al. Targeting heavy smokers in general practice: randomised controlled trial of transdermal nicotine patches. BMJ 1993; 306: 1308–1312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gourlay S.G., Forbes A., Marriner T., et al. Predictors and timing of adverse experiences during transdermal nicotine therapy. Drug Saf 1999; 20 (6): 545–555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Farm G. Contact allergy to nicotine from a nicotine patch. Contact Dermatitis 1993; 29: 214–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Dwyer C.M., Forsyth A. Allergic contact dermatitis from methacrylates in a nicotine transdermal patch. Contact Dermatitis 1994; 30: 309–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bircher A.J., Havald H., Rufli T. Adverse reactions to nicotine in a transdermal therapeutic system. Contact Dermatitis 1991; 25: 230–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    von Bahr B., Wahlberg J.E. Reactivity to nicotine patches wrongly blamed on contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis 1997; 37: 44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mills C.M., Hill S.A., Marks R. Transdermal nicotine suppresses cutaneous inflammation. Arch Dermatol 1997; 133 (7): 823–825PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Boekhorst J.C. Allergic contact dermatitis with transdermal clonidine. Lancet 1983; II: 1031–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Falkner B., Thanki B., Lowenthal D.Y. Trandermal clonidine in the treatment of adolescent hypertension. J Hypertens 1985; 3 Suppl. 4: 61–63Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Horning J.R., Zawada Jr E.T., Simmons J.L., et al. Efficacy and safety of two-year therapy with transdermal clonidine for essential hypertension. Chest 1988; 93: 941–945PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Weber M.A. Transdermal antihypertensive therapy: clinical and metabolic considerations. Am Heart J 1986; 112: 906–912PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    McMahon F.G., Weber M.A. Allergic skin reactions to transdermal clonidine. Lancet 1983; II: 851Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Transdermal antihypertensive drugs [editorial]. Lancet 1987; I: 79-80Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    White T.M., Guidry J.R. Rebound hypertension associated with transdermal clonidine and contact dermatitis. Western J Med 1986; 145: 104Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Groth H., Vetter H., Knuesel J., et al. Allergic skin reactions transdermal clonidine. Lancet 1883; II: 850–851Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ahmedzai S., Brooks D. Transdermal fentanyl versus sustained release oral morphine in cancer pain: preference, efficacy and quality of life. J Pain Symptom Manage 1997; 13 (5): 254–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Stoukides C.A., Stegman M. Diffuse rash associated with transdermal fentanyl. Clin Pharm 1992; 11 (3): 222PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Androderm® Testosterone Transdermal System prescribing information, SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Philadelphia (PA), May 1997Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Bennett N.J. A burn-like lesion caused by a testosterone transdermal system. Burns 1998; 25 (5): 478–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wilson D.E., Kaidbey K., Bouke S.C., et al. Use of topical corticosteroid pretreatment to reduce the incidence and severity of skin reactions associated with testosterone transdermal therapy. Clin Ther 1998; 20 (2): 299–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Buckley D.A., Wilkinson S.M., Higgens E.M. Contact allergy to a testosterone patch. Contact Dermatitis 1999; 39: 91–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Nater J.P., Degroot A.C., editors. Unwanted effects of cosmetics and drugs used in dermatology. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1985: 60Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Gratten C.E.H., Kennedy C.T.C. Allergic contact dermatitis to transdermal clonidine. Contact Dermatitis 1985; 12: 225–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Magnusson B., Kligman A.M. Allergic contact dermatitis in the guinea pig: identification of contact allergies. Springfield (IL): Charles C Thomas, 1986: 60–61Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ross D., Rees M., Godfree V., et al. Randomised crossover comparison of skin irritation with two transdermal oestradiol patches. BMJ 1997; 315 (7103): 288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Berth J.J., Lipsky J.J. Transcutaneous drug delivery: a practical review. Mayo Clin Proc 1995; 70: 581–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Amkraut A.A., Jordan W.P., Taskovich L. Effect of coadministration of corticosteroids on the development of contact sensitization. J Am Acad Dermatol 1996; 35: 27–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michelle Murphy
    • 1
  • Andrew J. Carmichael
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of DermatologySouth Cleveland HospitalMiddlesbroughEngland

Personalised recommendations