Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contact Dermatitis in Older Adults

A Review of the Literature

  • Review Article
  • Published:
American Journal of Clinical Dermatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Contact dermatitis is a significant health problem affecting the elderly. Impaired epidermal barrier function and delayed cutaneous recovery after insult enhances susceptibility to both irritants and allergens. Exposure to more numerous potential sensitizers and for greater durations influences the rate of allergic contact dermatitis in this population.Medical co-morbidities, including stasis dermatitis and venous ulcerations, further exacerbate this clinical picture. However, while these factors tend to increase the degree of sensitization in the elderly, waning immunity can actually decrease such a propensity. This interplay of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors makes a generalization on trends for contact dermatitis in older adults challenging. The literature has varying reports on the overall incidence of allergic contact dermatitis with advancing age. Nevertheless, it does clearly show that sensitivity to topical medicaments increases with age. Irritant contact dermatitis studies are more consistent, with less reactivity (to irritants) in older compared with younger skin.

Diagnosis of both irritant and allergic contact dermatitis is based on a thorough history, complete skin examination, and comprehensive patch testing. The mainstay of therapy is avoidance of the offending chemical substances and the use of topical along with systemic therapies, depending on the severity of the condition.

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

Table I
Table II
Table III

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Smith ES, Fleischer Jr AB, Feldman SR. Demographics of aging and skin disease. Clin Geriatr Med 2001; 17 (4): 631–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Scalf LA, Shenefelt PD. Contact dermatitis: diagnosing and treating skin conditions in the elderly. Geriatrics 2007; 62 (6): 14–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. de Groot AC. Patch testing: test concentrations and vehicles for 4350 chemicals. 3rd ed. Wapserveen: Acdegroot, 2008

  4. Marks J, Elsner P, Deleo V. Contact and occupational dermatology. 3rd ed. St. Louis (MO): Mosby, 2002

  5. Rietschel RL, Fowler JF. Fisher’s contact dermatitis. 4th ed. Philadelphia (PA): Williams & Wilkins, 1995

  6. Meller S, Lauerma AI, Kopp FM, et al. Chemokine responses distinguish chemical-induced allergic from irritant skin inflammation: memory T cells make the difference. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007; 119 (6): 1470–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Effendy I, Loffler H, Maibach HI. Epidermal cytokines in murine cutaneous irritant responses. J Appl Toxicol 2000; 20 (4): 335–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Eberhard Y, Ortiz S, Ruiz Lascano A, et al. Up-regulation of the chemokine CCL21 in the skin of subjects exposed to irritants. BMCImmunol 2004; 5 (1): 7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. de Jongh CM, John SM, Bruynzeel DP, et al. Cytokine gene polymorphisms and susceptibility to chronic irritant contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 2008; 58 (5): 269–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rietschel RL. Diagnosing irritant contact dermatitis. In: Jackson EM, Goldner R, editors. Irritant contact dermatitis. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc., 1990: 167–71

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lejman E, Stoudemayer T, Grove G, et al. Age differences in poison ivy dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1984; 11: 163–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cua AB, Wilhelm KP, Maiback HI. Cutaneous sodium lauryl sulphate irritation potential: age and regional variability. Br JDermatol 1990; 123: 607–13

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Grove GL, Duncan S, Kligman AM. Effect of ageing on the blistering of human skin with ammonium hydroxide. Br J Dermatol 1982; 107: 393–400

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Marrakchi S, Maibach HI. Sodium lauryl sulfate-induced irritation in the human face: regional and age-related differences. Skin Pharmacol Physiol 2006; 19: 177–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Schwindt DA, Wilhelm KP, Miller DL, et al. Cumulative irritation in older and younger skin: a comparison. Acta Derm Venereol 1998; 78: 279–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Prystowsky SD, Allen AM, Smith RW, et al. Allergic contact hypersensitivity to nickel, neomycin, ethylenediamine, and benzocaine: relationships between age, sex, history of exposure, and reactivity to standard patch tests and use tests in general population. Arch Dermatol 1979; 115: 959–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Goh CL. Prevalence of contact allergy by sex, race and age. Contact Dermatitis 1986; 14: 237–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Young E, van Weelden H, van Osch L. Age and sex distribution of the incidence of contact sensitivity to standard allergens. Contact Dermatitis 1988; 19: 307–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Wantke F, Hemmer W, Jarisch R, et al. Patch test reactions in children, adults and the elderly: a comparative study in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1996; 34: 316–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Uter W, Geier J, Pfahlberg A, et al. The spectrum of contact allergy in elderly patients with and without lower leg dermatitis. Dermatology 2002; 204: 266–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tosti A, Pazzaglia M, Silvani S, et al. The spectrum of allergic contact dermatitis in the elderly. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50 (60): 379–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Piaserico S, Larese F, Recchia G, et al. Allergic contact sensitivity in elderly patients. Aging Clin Exp Res 2004; 16: 221–5

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gupta G, Dawn G, Forsyth A. The trend of allergic contact dermatitis in the elderly population over a 15-year period. Contact Dermatitis 1999; 41: 48–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Wohrl S, Hemmer W, Focke M, et al. Patch testing in children, adults, and the elderly: influence of age and sex on sensitization patterns. Pediatr Dermatol 2003; 20: 119–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schafer T, Bohler E, Ruhdorfer S, et al. Epidemiology of contact allergy in adults. Allergy 2001; 56: 1192–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Green C, Holden C, Gawkrodger D. Contact allergy to topical medicaments becomes more common with advancing age: an age stratified study. Contact Dermatitis 2007; 56: 229–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Goh CL, Ling R. A retrospective epidemiology study of contact eczema among the elderly attending a tertiary dermatology referral centre in Singapore. Singapore Med J 1998; 39 (10): 442–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Walton S, Nayagam AT, Keczkes K. Age and sex incidence of allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1986; 15: 136–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Nethercott JR. Results of routine patch testing of 200 patients in Toronto, Canada. Contact Dermatitis 1982; 8: 389–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Zettersten EM, Ghadially R, Feingold KR, et al. Optimal ratios of topical stratum corneum lipids improve barrier recovery in chronologically aged skin. J Am Acad Dermatol 1997; 37 (3 Pt 1): 403–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Fenske NA, Conrad CB. Aging skin. Am Fam Physician 1988; 37 (2): 219–30

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ghadially R. Aging and the epidermal permeability barrier: implications for contact dermatitis. Am J Contact Dermat 1998; 9 (2): 162–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Mangelsdorf HC, Fleischer AB, Sherertz EF. Patch testing in an aged population without dermatitis: high prevalence of patch test positivity. Am J Contact Derm 1996; 7: 155–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Gilchrest BA, Murphy GF, Soter NA. Effect of chronic aging and ultraviolet irradiation on Langerhans cells in human epidermis. J Invest Dermatol 1982; 79: 85–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Belsito DV, Dersarkissian RM, Thorbecke GJ, et al. Reversal by lymphokines of the age-related hyporesponsiveness to contact sensitization and reduced Ia expression on Langerhans cells. Arch Dermatol Res 1987; 279 Suppl.: S76–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kwangsukstith C, Maibach HI. Effect of age and sex on the induction and elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1995; 33: 289–98

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Schwartz M. Eczematous sensitization in various age groups. J Allergy 1952; 24: 143–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Robinson MK. Population differences in skin structure and physiology and the susceptibility to irritant and allergic contact dermatitis: implications for skin safety testing and risk assessment. Contact Dermatitis 1999; 41: 65–79

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Carlsen B, Menne T, Johansen J. 20 years of standard patch testing in an eczema population with focus on patients with multiple contact allergies. Contact Dermatitis 2007; 57: 76–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Freireich-Astman M, David M, Trattner A. Standard patch test results in patients with contact dermatitis in Israel: age and sex differences. Contact Dermatitis 2007; 56: 103–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Onder M, Oztas M. Contact dermatitis in the elderly. Contact Dermatitis 2003; 48 (4): 232–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Keczkes K, Basheer AM, Wyatt EH. The persistence of allergic contact sensitivity: a 10 year follow-up in 100 patients. Br J Dermatol 1982; 107: 461–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Machet L, Couhe C, Perrinaud A, et al. A high prevalence of sensitization still persists in leg ulcer patients: a retrospective series of 106 patients tested between 2001 and 2002 and a meta-analysis of 1975-2003 data. Br J Dermatol 2004; 150: 929–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Saap L, Fahim S, Arsenault E, et al. Contact sensitivity in patients with leg ulcerations. Arch Dermatol 2004; 140: 1241–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Shaw DW. Allergic contact dermatitis to benzyl alcohol in a hearing aid impression material. Am J Contact Dermat 1999; 10 (4): 228–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Koutis D, Freeman S.Allergic contact stomatitis caused by acrylic monomer in a denture. Australas J Dermatol 2001; 42: 203–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Svedman C, Ekqvist S, Moller H, et al. Unexpected sensitization routes and general frequency of contact allergies in an elderly stented Swedish population. Contact Dermatitis 2007; 56: 338–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Niki Y, Matsumoto H, Otani T, et al. Screening for symptomatic metal sensitivity: a prospective study of 92 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Biomaterials 2005; 26: 1019–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Granchi D, Cenni E, Trisolino G, et al. Sensitivity to implant materials in patients undergoing total hip replacement. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2006; 77 (2): 257–64

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Nazarko L. Managing a common dermatological problem: incontinence dermatitis. Br J Community Nurs 2007; 12 (8): 358–63

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Nedorost S, Stevens S.Diagnosis and treatment of allergic skin disorders in the elderly. Drugs Aging 2001; 18 (11): 827–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Liden C, Norberg K. Nickel on the Swedish market: follow-up after implementation of the Nickel Directive. Contact Dermatitis 2005; 52 (1): 29–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Jensen CS, Lisby S, Baadsgaard O, et al. Decrease in nickel sensitization in a Danish schoolgirl population with ears pierced after implementation of a nickel-exposure regulation. Br J Dermatol 2002; 146 (4): 636–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. American Contact Dermatitis Society. On-line resources [online]. Available from URL: (http://www.contactderm.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3291) [Accessed 2010 Jul 28]

  55. Bolognia JL, Jorizzo JL, Rapini RP. Dermatology. St Louis (MO): Mosby, 2003

  56. Belsito D, Wilson DC, Warshaw E, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial of 0.1% tacrolimus ointment in a model of chronic allergic contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2006; 55: 40–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Thomson KF, Wilkinson SM, Powell S, et al. The prevalence of corticosteroid allergy in two U.K. centres: prescribing implications. Br JDermatol 1999; 141 (5): 863–6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Ruzicka T, Larsen FG, Galewicz D, et al. Oral alitretinoin (9-cis-retinoic acid) therapy for chronic hand dermatitis in patients refractory to standard therapy. Arch Dermatol 2004; 140: 1453–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Ingram JR, Batchelor JM, Williams HC, et al. Alitretinoin as a potential advance in the management of severe chronic hand eczema. Arch Dermatol 2009; 145 (3): 314–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Zhai H, Hannon W, Hahn GS, et al. Strontium nitrate suppresses chemicallyinduced sensory irritation in humans. Contact Dermatitis 2000; 42 (2): 98–100

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Hahn GS. Strontium is a potent and selective inhibitor of sensory irritation. Dermatol Surg 1999; 25 (9): 689–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

No sources of funding were used to prepare this review. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, 55905, 200 First Street Southwest, Rochester, Minnesota, USA

    Amy V. Prakash &  Mark D.P. Davis (Professor of Dermatology/Chair)

Authors
  1. Amy V. Prakash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark D.P. Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark D.P. Davis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Prakash, A.V., Davis, M.D. Contact Dermatitis in Older Adults. Am J Clin Dermatol 11, 373–381 (2010). https://doi.org/10.2165/11319290-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11319290-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation