Advertisement

Pruritus pp 145-150 | Cite as

Allergic and Irritant Contact Dermatitis

  • Eduardo Rozas-MuñozEmail author
  • Esther Serra-Baldrich
Chapter

Abstract

Contact dermatitis is an inflammatory skin disease induced by direct contact of a external agent to the skin. It can be classified into two main types: Irritant contact dermatitis and Allergic contact dermatitis. Irritant contact dermatitis represents a non-specific cutaneous response to the toxic or physical effects of environmental agents, while Allergic contact dermatitis represents a specific type IV hypersensitivity reaction to specific haptens. Both types are characterized by a highly variable clinical presentation that includes erythema, papules, vesicles, bullae, scaling and erosions in acute cases, and papules, plaques, lichenification, hyperkeratosis and fisures in the chronic. Pruritus is a very common symptom most frequently associated with Allergic contact dermatitis but also frequent in Irritant contact dermatitis. Furthermore, occasionally pruritus may be the leading or only symptom that guides the clinician to suspect the diagnosis of Contact dermatitis, as it is in the case of Allergic contact dermatitis of the anogenital region or when the process occurs in the elderly. Although the mechanisms underlying the pathogenicity of the inflammatory cutaneous response in irritant and allergic contact dermatitis has been widely studied, little is known about the mechanisms leading to pruritus. This chapter summarizes the most important aspects of contact dermatitis in these specific situations as well as the last insights into the pathogenicity of pruritus in contact dermatitis.

Keywords

Contact dermatitis Allergic contact dermatitis Irritant contact dermatitis Pruritus Anogenital pruritus Pruritus ani Pruritus elderly Transient receptor potential (TRP) ion channels 

References

  1. 1.
    AIe IS, Maibach HI. Irritant contact dermatitis. Rev Environ Health. 2014;29(3):195–206.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rietschel RL. Clues to an accurate diagnosis of contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther. 2004;17(3):224–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ayala F, Nino M, Fabbrocini G, Panariello L, Balato N, Foti C, et al. Quality of life and contact dermatitis: a disease-specific questionnaire. Dermatitis. 2010;21(2):84–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pall PS, Hurwitz OE, King BA, LaMotte RH. Psychophysical measurements of itch and nociceptive sensations in an experimental model of allergic contact dermatitis. J Pain. 2015;16(8):741–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruckner AL, Weston WL. Allergic contact dermatitis in children: a practical approach to management. Skin Therapy Lett. 2002;7(8):3–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haverhoek E, Reid C, Gordon L, Marshman G, Wood J, Selva-Nayagam P. Prospective study of patch testing in patients with vulval pruritus. Australas J Dermatol. 2008;49(2):80–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lambert J. Pruritus in female patients. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:541867.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schlosser BJ. Contact dermatitis of the vulva. Dermatol Clin. 2010;28(4):697–706.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Al-Niaimi F, Felton S, Williams J. Patch testing for vulval symptoms: our experience with 282 patients. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2014;39(4):439–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Margesson LJ. Contact dermatitis of the vulva. Dermatol Ther. 2004;17(1):20–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marren P, Wojnarowska F, Powell S. Allergic contact dermatitis and vulvar dermatoses. Br J Dermatol. 1992;126(1):52–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lewis FM, Harrington CI, Gawkrodger DJ. Contact sensitivity in pruritus vulvae: a common and manageable problem. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;31(4):264–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nardelli A, Degreef H. Goossens A Contact allergic reactions of the vulva: a 14-year review. Dermatitis. 2004;15(3):131–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lucke TW, Fleming CJ, McHenry P, Lever R. Patch testing in vulval dermatoses: how relevant is nickel? Contact Dermatitis. 1998;38(2):111–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vermaat H, Smienk F, Rustemeyer T, Bruynzeel DP, Kirtschig G. Anogenital allergic contact dermatitis, the role of spices and flavour allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;59(4):233–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Silvestri DL, BArmettler S. Pruritus ani as a manifestation of systemic contact dermatitis: resolution with dietary nickel restriction. Dermatitis. 2001;22(1):50–5.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nilzen A, Voss-Lagerlund K. Epicutaneous tests with detergents and a number of other common allergens. Dermatologica. 1962;124:42–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Patil S, Maibach HI. Effect of age and sex on the elicitation of irritant contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;30(5):257–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cua AB, Wilhelm KP, Maibach HI. Cutaneous sodium lauryl sulphate irritation potential: age and regional variability. Br J Dermatol. 1990;123(5):607–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Coenraads PJ, Bleumink E, Nater JP. Susceptibility to primary irritants: age dependence and relation to contact allergic reactions. Contact Dermatitis. 1975;1(6):377–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Skassa-Brociek W, Manderscheid JC, Michel FB, Bousquet J. Skin test reactivity to histamine from infancy to old age. Allergy Clin Immunol. 1987;80(5):711–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fitzpatrick JE. Common inflammatory skin diseases of the elderly. Geriatrics. 1989;44(7):40–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Beauregard S, Gilchrest BA. A survey of skin problems and skin care regimens in the elderly. Arch Dermatol. 1987;123(12):1638–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mangelsdorf HC, Fleischer AB, Sherertz EF. Patch testing in an aged population without dermatitis: high prevalence of patch test positivity. Am J Contact Dermat. 1996;7(3):155–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Piaserico S, Larese F, Recchia GP, Corradin MT, Scardigli F, Gennaro F, et al. Allergic contact sensitivity in elderly patients. North-East Italy Contact Dermatitis Group. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2004;16(3):221–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Elias PM, Ghadially R. The aged epidermal permeability barrier: basis for functional abnormalities. Clin Geriatr Med. 2002;18(1):103–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ghadially R. Aging and the epidermal permeability barrier: implications for contact dermatitis. Am J Contact Dermat. 1998;9(3):162–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wantke F, Hemmer W, Jarisch R, Götz M. Patch test reactions in children, adults and the elderly. A comparative study in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34(5):316–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Uter W, Geier J, Pfahlberg A, Effendy I. The spectrum of contact allergy in elderly patients with and without lower leg dermatitis. Dermatology. 2002;204(4):266–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bangha E, Elsner P. Sensitizations to allergens of the European standard series at the Department of Dermatology in Zurich 1990–1994. Dermatology. 1996;193(1):17–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lundov MD, Opstrup MS, Johansen JD. Methylisothiazolinone contact allergy – growing epidemic. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69(5):271–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smith HR, Basketter DA, McFadden JP. Irritant dermatitis, irritancy and its role in allergic contact dermatitis. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2002;27(2):138–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Funk JO, Maibach HI. Horizons in pharmacologic intervention in allergic contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1994;31(6):999–1014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thurmond RL, Gelfand EW, Dunford PJ. The role of histamine H1 and H4 receptors in allergic inflammation: the search for new antihistamines. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2008;7(1):41–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fu K, Qu L, Shimada SG, Nie H, LaMotte RH. Enhanced scratching elicited by a pruritogen and an algogen in a mouse model of contact hypersensitivity. Neurosci Lett. 2014;579:190–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bourke J, Coulson I, English J. Guidelines for the management of contact dermatitis: an update. British Association of Dermatologists Therapy Guidelines and Audit Subcommittee. Br J Dermatol. 2009;160(5):946–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hoare C, Li Wan Po A, Williams H. Systematic review of treatments for atopic eczema. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(37):1–191.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thomas KS, Armstrong S, Avery A, Po AL, O'Neill C, Young S, et al. Randomised controlled trial of short bursts of a potent topical corticosteroid versus prolonged use of a mild preparation for children with mild or moderate atopic eczema. BMJ. 2002;324(7340):768.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Luger TA. Balancing efficacy and safety in the management of atopic dermatitis: the role of methylprednisolone aceponate. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2011;25(3):251–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ruzicka T. Methylprednisolone aceponate in eczema and other inflammatory skin disorders – a clinical update. Int J Clin Pract. 2006;60(1):85–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bieber T, Vick K, Fölster-Holst R, Belloni-Fortina A, Städtler G, Worm M, et al. Efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone aceponate ointment 0.1% compared to tacrolimus 0.03% in children and adolescents with an acute flare of severe atopic dermatitis. Allergy. 2007;62(2):184–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Curto L, Carnero L, López-Aventin D, Traveria G, Roura G, Giménez-Arnau AM. Fast itch relief in an experimental model for methylprednisolone aceponate topical corticosteroid activity, based on allergic contact eczema to nickel sulphate. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2014;28(10):1356–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. Contact dermatitis: a practice parameter. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2006;97(3 Suppl 2):S1–38.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Meingassner JG, Grassberger M, Fahrngruber H, Moore HD, Schuurman H, Stütz A. A novel anti-inflammatory drug, SDZ ASM 981, for the topical and oral treatment of skin diseases: in vivo pharmacology. Br J Dermatol. 1997;137(4):568–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Queille-Roussel C, Graeber M, Thurston M, Lachapelle JM, Decroix J, de Cuyper C, Ortonne JP. SDZ ASM 981 is the first non-steroid that suppresses established nickel contact dermatitis elicited by allergen challenge. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;42(6):349–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Belsito D, Wilson DC, Warshaw E, Fowler J, Ehrlich A, Anderson B, 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(1):40–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pacor ML, Di Lorenzo G, Martinelli N, Mansueto P, Friso S, Pellitteri ME, et al. Tacrolimus ointment in nickel sulphate-induced steroid-resistant allergic contact dermatitis. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2006;27(6):527–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    van Coevorden AM, Kamphof WG, van Sonderen E, Bruynzeel DP, Coenraads PJ. Comparison of oral psoralen-UV-A with a portable tanning unit at home vs hospital-administered bath psoralen-UV-A in patients with chronic hand eczema: an open-label randomized controlled trial of efficacy. Arch Dermatol. 2004;140(12):1463–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sezer E, Etikan I. Local narrowband UVB phototherapy vs. local PUVA in the treatment of chronic hand eczema. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2007;23(1):10–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Williams C, Wilkinson SM, McShane P, Lewis J, Pennington D, Pierce S, et al. A double-blind, randomized study to assess the effectiveness of different moisturizers in preventing dermatitis induced by hand washing to simulate healthcare use. Br J Dermatol. 2010;162(5):1088–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of DermatologyHospital de la Santa Creu i Sant PauBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations