Advertisement

Jewelry: Nickel and Metal-Based Allergic Contact Dermatitis

  • Peter BurkeEmail author
  • Howard I. Maibach
Chapter

Abstract

Metal allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a type IV delayed hypersensitivity reaction. Nickel allergy is the most prevalent of ACD and is the most common positive reaction from diagnostic patch testing. Recently, there has been a growing prevalence of patch test reactivity among other metals such as gold, cobalt, and palladium. Classically, the allergy is associated with pre-sensitization and resultant erythema, edema, and lichenification in the distribution of metal ­contact. The diagnostic standard is patch testing using the standard NACDRG (North American Contact Dermatitis Research Group) series, or the allergen suspended in petrolatum. The primary method of treatment consists of prevention of metal contact; however, medical therapy may be employed for symptomatic relief. Therapy consists of the use of topical corticosteroids in mild–moderate cases and the use of systemic corticosteroids in moderate–severe cases, while other symptoms such as pruritus may be controlled with antipruritics or oral sedating antihistamines.

Keywords

Allergic contact dermatitis Metal Nickel Gold Cobalt Palladium 

References

  1. 1.
    Sharma AD. Relationship between nickel allergy and diet. Indian J Dermatol 2007;73(5):307–12.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pratt MD, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, et al. North America contact dermatitis group patch test results, 2001–2002 study period. Dermatitis 2004;15(4):176–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johansen J, Menne T, Christophersen J, Kaaber K, Veien N. Changes in the pattern of sensitization to common contact allergens in Denmark between 1985–86 and 1997–98, with a special view to the effect of preventive strategies. Br J Dermatol 2000;142:490–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Commission Directive 2004/96/EC of September 2004 amending Council Directive 76/769/EEC as regards restriction on the marketing and use of nickel for piercing post assemblies for the purpose of adapting its Annex I to technical progress.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ruff C, Belsito D. The impact of various patient factors on contact allergy to nickel, cobalt and chromate. J Am Dermatol 2006;55:32–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Neilsen NH, Menne T. Nickel sensitisation and earpiercing in an unselected Danish population. Glostrup allergy study. Contact Derm 1993;29:16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xu H, DiIulio NA, Fairchild RL. T cell populations primed by hapten sensitization in contact sensitivity are distinguished by polarized patterns of cytokine production: Interferon gamma-producing (Tc1) effector CD81 T cells and interleukin(Il) 4/Il-10-producing (Th2) negative regulatory CD41 T cells. J Exp Med 1996;183:1001–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frosch, P, Menne, T. et. al. Contact Dermatitis, 4th Edition. 2006. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 12–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Larsen, J, Bonefeld C, Poulsen S. IL-23 and TH17-mediated inflammation in human allergic contact dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2009;123:486–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bjorkner B, Bruze M, Moller H. High frequency of contact allergy to gold sodium thiosulfate, an indication of gold allergy? Contact Derm 1994;30:144–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Christiansen J, Farm G, Eid-Forest R. Interferon-γ secreted from peripheral blood mononuclear cells as a possible diagnostic marker for allergic contact dermatitis to gold. Contact Derm 2006;55:98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Juliander A, Hindes M, Skare L. Cobalt-containing alloys and their ability to release cobalt and cause dermatitis. Contact Derm 2009;60:165–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liden C, Wahlberg JE. Cross-reactivity to metal compounds studied in Guinea pigs induced withchromate or cobalt. Acta Derm Venereal (Norway) 1994;74(5):341–3.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vincenzi C, Tosti A, Guerra L, et al. Contact dermatitis to palladium: A study of 2300 patients. Am J Contact Derm 1995;6:110–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cohen DE, Jacob SE. Allergic Contact Dermatitis. In: Wolff K, Goldsmith LA, Katz SI, Gilchrest B, Paller AS, Leffell DJ: Fitzpatrick’s Dermatology in General Medicine, 7th Ed. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc; 2008: http://www.accessmedicine.com/content.aspx?aID=2966976.
  16. 16.
    Kanerva L, Forstrom L. Allergic nickel and chromate hand dermatitis induced by orthopaedic metal implant. Contact Derm 2001;44:103–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thyssen J, Maibach H. Nickel release from earrings purchased in the United States: The San Francisco earring study. J Am Acad Dermatol 2008;58:1000–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lachapelle JM, Maibach HI. Patch Testing and Prick Testing. A Practical Guide, 2nd Edition. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003, pp. 46–50.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Davis M, Bhate K, Rohlinger A. Delayed patch reading after 5 days: The Mayo Clinic experience. J Am Acad Dermatol 2008;59:225–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philadelphia College of Osteopathic MedicinePhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.University of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations