Advertisement

Metal Allergy pp 423-434 | Cite as

Metal Allergy: Nickel

  • Carola Lidén
Chapter

Abstract

Nickel is the most common skin sensitizer, affecting large proportions of the population. Nickel allergy is more prevalent among girls and women than boys and men, owing to differences in exposure patterns. There are large differences in prevalence between age groups, countries and occupations, over time. Skin exposure to nickel in various consumer articles results in nickel allergy and dermatitis on exposed body parts, including the hands. Occupational exposure to nickel is an important cause of occupational skin disease, particularly hand eczema. Nickel allergy has started to decline in some countries owing to the EU restriction of nickel.

Nickel is used in numerous products and materials, and it is difficult to avoid nickel. It is necessary to identify sources of exposure in the workplace, home and leisure environment for exposure reduction and prevention of dermatitis. The dimethylglyoxime (DMG) test is a useful tool. Nickel release can also be quantified by immersion in artificial sweat, and it is now possible to quantify nickel on the skin.

Patients with hand eczema and nickel allergy often have recurrent vesicular hand eczema. Occupational nickel exposure should be considered in nickel-allergic patients with hand eczema. Nickel sulphate 5% is used in the European baseline series. It is safe to use, patch test sensitization has not been reported, and the proportion of irritant and doubtful reactions is low. Patients with nickel allergy and contact dermatitis should be encouraged to use the DMG test to minimize nickel exposure from personal items, in the workplace and during leisure.

References

  1. 1.
    Flint GN. A metallurgical approach to metal contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;39:213–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lidén C. Nickel. In: Rustemeyer T, Elsner P, John SM, Maibach HI, editors. Kanerva’s occupational dermatology. 2nd ed. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2012. p. 485–94. (chapter 43).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lidén C, Bruze M, Thyssen JP, Menné T. Metals. In: Johansen JD, Frosch P, Lepoittevin J-P, editors. Contact dermatitis. 5th ed. Berlin: Springer; 2011. p. 643–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garg S, Thyssen JP, Uter W, Schnuch A, Johansen JD, Menné T, Belloni Fortina A, Statham B, Gawkrodger DJ. Nickel allergy following European Union regulation in Denmark, Germany, Italy and the U.K. Br J Dermatol. 2013;169:854–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fall S, Bruze M, Isaksson M, Lidén C, Matura M, Stenberg B, Lindberg M. Contact allergy trends in Sweden - a retrospective comparison of patch test data from 1992, 2000, and 2009. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72:297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Uter W, Gefeller O, Gimenez-Arnau A, Frosch P, Johansen JD, Schuttelaar ML, Rustemeyer T, Filon FL, Dugonik A, Bircher A, Wilkinson M. Characteristics of patients patch tested in the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA) network, 2009-2012. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73:82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Uter W, Filon FL, Rui F, Balato A, Wilkinson M, Ecisz BK, Chomiczewska-Skora D, Kiec-Swierczynska M, Schuttelaar MLA, Frosch PJ, Bircher AJ. ESSCA results with nickel, cobalt and chromium, 2009-2012. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;75:117–U186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Belsito DV, Sasseville D, Maibach HI, Taylor JS, Marks JG, Fowler JF Jr, Mathias CG, DeLeo VA, Pratt MD, Zirwas MJ, Zug KA. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2013–2014. Dermatitis. 2016;28:33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Simonsen AB, Deleuran M, Mortz CG, Johansen JD, Sommerlund M. Allergic contact dermatitis in Danish children referred for patch testing - a nationwide multicentre study. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:104–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fortina AB, Cooper SM, Spiewak R, Fontana E, Schnuch A, Uter W. Patch test results in children and adolescents across Europe. Analysis of the ESSCA Network 2002-2010. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2015;26:446–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zug KA, Pham AK, Belsito DV, DeKoven JG, DeLeo VA, Fowler JF, Fransway AF, Maibach HI, Marks JG, Mathias CGT, Pratt MD, Sasseville D, Storrs FJ, Taylor JS, Warshaw EM, Zirwas MJ. Patch testing in children from 2005 to 2012: Results from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group. Dermatitis. 2014;25:345–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Peltonen L. Nickel sensitivity in the general population. Contact Dermatitis. 1979;5:27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nielsen NH, Menné T. Allergic contact sensitization in an unselected Danish population. The Glostrup Allergy Study, Denmark. Acta Derm Venereol. 1992;72:456–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thyssen JP, Linneberg A, Menné T, Nielsen NH, Johansen JD. Contact allergy to allergens of the TRUE-test (panels 1 and 2) has decreased modestly in the general population. Br J Dermatol. 2009;161:1124–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Diepgen TL, Ofenloch RF, Bruze M, Bertuccio P, Cazzaniga S, Coenraads PJ, Elsner P, Goncalo M, Svensson A, Naldi L. Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population in different European regions. Br J Dermatol. 2016;174:319–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mortz CG, Lauritsen JM, Bindslev-Jensen C, Andersen KE. Prevalence of atopic dermatitis, asthma, allergic rhinitis, and hand and contact dermatitis in adolescents. The odense adolescence cohort study on atopic diseases and dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2001;144:523–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fors R, Persson M, Bergström E, Stenlund H, Stymne B, Stenberg B. Nickel allergy–prevalence in a population of Swedish youths from patch test and questionnaire data. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;58:80–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krecisz B, Chomiczewska D, Palczynski C, Kiec-Swierczynska M. Contact allergy to metals in adolescents. Nickel release from metal accessories 7 years after the implementation of the EU Nickel Directive in Poland. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67:270–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lagrelius M, Wahlgren CF, Matura M, Kull I, Lidén C. High prevalence of contact allergy in adolescence: results from the population-based BAMSE birth cohort. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;74:44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gawkrodger DJ, McLeod CW, Dobson K. Nickel skin levels in different occupations and an estimate of the threshold for reacting to a single open application of nickel in nickel-allergic subjects. Br J Dermatol. 2012;166:82–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shah M, Lewis FM, Gawkrodger DJ. Nickel as an occupational allergen - a survey of 368 nickel-sensitive subjects. Arch Dermatol. 1998;134:1231–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shum KW, Meyer JD, Chen Y, Cherry N, Gawkrodger DJ. Occupational contact dermatitis to nickel: experience of the British dermatologists (EPIDERM) and occupational physicians (OPRA) surveillance schemes. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60:954–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Richardson C, Hamann CR, Hamann D, Thyssen JP. Mobile phone dermatitis in children and adults: a review of the literature. Pediatr Allergy Immunol Pulmonol. 2014;27:60–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thyssen JP, Gawkrodger DJ, White IR, Julander A, Menné T, Lidén C. Coin exposure may cause allergic nickel dermatitis: a review. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68:3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jensen P, Hamann D, Hamann CR, Jellesen MS, Jacob SE, Thyssen JP. Nickel and cobalt release from children’s toys purchased in Denmark and the United States. Dermatitis. 2014;25:356–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kickinger-Lorsch A, Bruckner T, Mahler V. Nickel and cobalt release from metal alloys of tools-a current analysis in Germany. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73:289–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lidén C, Röndell E, Skare L, Nalbanti A. Nickel release from tools on the Swedish market. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;39:127–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ringborg E, Lidén C, Julander A. Nickel on the market: a baseline survey of articles in ‘prolonged contact’ with skin. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;75:77–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goldenberg A, Vassantachart J, Lin EJ, Lampel HP, Jacob SE. Nickel allergy in adults in the U.S.: 1962 to 2015. Dermatitis. 2015;26:216–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thyssen JP, Menné T, Johansen JD. Identification of metallic items that caused nickel dermatitis in Danish patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;63:151–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    CEN. Screening tests for nickel release from alloys and coatings in items that come into direct and prolonged contact with the skin. CEN/CR 12471:2002. European Committee for Standardisation; 2002.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thyssen JP, Skare L, Lundgren L, Menné T, Johansen JD, Maibach HI, Lidén C. Sensitivity and specificity of the nickel spot (dimethylglyoxime) test. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;62:279–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    CEN. Reference test method for release of nickel from all post assemblies which are inserted into pierced parts of the human body and articles intended to come into direct and prolonged contact with the skin. EN 1811:2011+A1:2015. European Committee for Standardisation; 2015.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Erfani B, Lidén C, Midander K. Short and frequent skin contact with nickel. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73:222–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Julander A, Midander K, Herting G, Thyssen JP, White IR, Odnevall Wallinder I, Lidén C. New UK nickel-plated steel coins constitute an increased allergy and eczema risk. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68:323–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lidén C, Carter S. Nickel release from coins. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;44:160–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Biesterbos J, Yazar K, Lidén C. Nickel on the Swedish market: follow-up 10 years after entry into force of the EU Nickel Directive. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;63:333–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lidén C, Johnsson S. Nickel on the Swedish market before the Nickel Directive. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;44:7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lidén C, Norberg K. Nickel on the Swedish market. Follow-up after implementation of the Nickel Directive. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;52:29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Thyssen JP, Menné T, Lidén C, White IR, White J, Spiewak R, Johansen JD. Excessive nickel release from earrings purchased from independent shops and street markets–a field study from Warsaw and London. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2011;25:1021–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jensen P, Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Skare L, Menné T, Lidén C. Occupational hand eczema caused by nickel and evaluated by quantitative exposure assessment. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64:32–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Julander A, Boman A, Johanson G, Lidén C Occupational skin exposure to chemicals. With focus on skin exposure assessment, skin sensitisation and prevention by exposure reduction. The Nordic Expert Group for Criteria Documentation of Health Risks from Chemicals. Arbete och Hälsa (in press). 2017.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lidén C, Skare L, Nise G, Vahter M. Deposition of nickel, chromium, and cobalt on the skin in some occupations - assessment by acid wipe sampling. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;58:347–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Julander A, Skare L, Vahter M, Lidén C. Nickel deposited on the skin-visualization by DMG test. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64:151–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Friedmann PS, Sanchez-Elsner T, Schnuch A. Genetic factors in susceptibility to contact sensitivity. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72:263–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Martin SF. New concepts in cutaneous allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72:2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schram SE, Warshaw EM, Laumann A. Nickel hypersensitivity: a clinical review and call to action. Int J Dermatol. 2010;49:115–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Thyssen JP, Menné T. Metal allergy--A review on exposures, penetration, genetics, prevalence, and clinical implications. Chem Res Toxicol. 2010;23:309–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Thyssen JP, McFadden JP, Kimber I. The multiple factors affecting the association between atopic dermatitis and contact sensitization. Allergy. 2014;69:28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Basketter DA, Scholes EW, Kimber I. The performance of the local lymph-node assay with chemicals identified as contact allergens in the human maximization test. Food Chem Toxicol. 1994;32:543–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Vennegaard MT, Dyring-Andersen B, Skov L, Nielsen MM, Schmidt JD, Bzorek M, Poulsen SS, Thomsen AR, Woetmann A, Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Odum N, Menné T, Geisler C, Bonefeld CM. Epicutaneous exposure to nickel induces nickel allergy in mice via a MyD88-dependent and interleukin-1-dependent pathway. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;71:224–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wahlberg JE. Nickel: Animal sensitization assays. In: Maibach HI, Menné T, editors. Nickel and the skin: immunology and toxicology. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1989.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lidén C, Wahlberg JE. Cross-reactivity to metal compounds studied in guinea pigs induced with chromate or cobalt. Acta Derm Venereol. 1994;74:341–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wahlberg JE, Boman AS. Cross-reactivity to palladium and nickel studied in the guinea-pig. Acta Derm Venereol. 1992;72:95–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wahlberg JE, Lidén C. Cross-reactivity patterns of cobalt and nickel studied with repeated open applications (ROATS) to the skin of guinea pigs. Am J Contact Dermat. 2000;11:42–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hegewald J, Uter W, Pfahlberg A, Geier J, Schnuch A. A multifactorial analysis of concurrent patch-test reactions to nickel, cobalt, and chromate. Allergy. 2005;60:372–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lidén C, Andersson N, Julander A, Matura M. Cobalt allergy: suitable test concentration, and concomitant reactivity to nickel and chromium. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;74:360–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Meding B, Lidén C, Berglind N. Self-diagnosed dermatitis in adults - Results from a population survey in Stockholm. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;45:341–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Menné T, Borgan O, Green A. Nickel allergy and hand dermatitis in a stratified sample of the Danish female population: an epidemiological study including a statistic appendix. Acta Derm Venereol. 1982;62:35–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Boonstra MB, Christoffers WA, Coenraads PJ, Schuttelaar MLA. Patch test results of hand eczema patients: relation to clinical types. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015;29:940–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Fregert S. Occupational dermatitis in a 10-year material. Contact Dermatitis. 1975;1:96–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hald M, Agner T, Blands J, Ravn H, Johansen JD. Allergens associated with severe symptoms of hand eczema and a poor prognosis. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;61:101–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Thyssen JP, Linneberg A, Menné T, Nielsen NH, Johansen JD. The association between hand eczema and nickel allergy has weakened among young women in the general population following the Danish nickel regulation: results from two cross-sectional studies. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;61:342–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Josefson A, Färm G, Magnuson A, Meding B. Nickel allergy as risk factor for hand eczema: a population-based study. Br J Dermatol. 2009;160:828–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Johansen JD, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, Andersen KE, Bircher A, Bruze M, Cannavo A, Gimenez-Arnau A, Goncalo M, Goossens A, John SM, Lidén C, Lindberg M, Mahler V, Matura M, Rustemeyer T, Serup J, Spiewak R, Thyssen JP, Vigan M, White IR, Wilkinson M, Uter W. European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing - recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73:195–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Geier J, Uter W, Lessmann H, Schnuch A. The positivity ratio--another parameter to assess the diagnostic quality of a patch test preparation. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48:280–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Warshaw EM, Nelsen DD, Sasseville D, Belsito DV, Maibach HI, Zug KA, Fowler JF Jr, Taylor JS, DeLeo VA, Marks JG Jr, Storrs FJ, Mathias CG, Pratt MD, Rietschel RL. Positivity ratio and reaction index: patch-test quality-control metrics applied to the north american contact dermatitis group database. Dermatitis. 2010;21:91–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Mortz CG, Kjaer HF, Eller E, Osterballe M, Norberg LA, Host A, Bindslev-Jensen C, Andersen KE. Positive nickel patch tests in infants are of low clinical relevance and rarely reproducible. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2013;24:84–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Haudrechy P, Mantout B, Frappaz A, Rousseau D, Chabeau G, Faure M, Claudy A. Nickel release from stainless steels. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;37:113–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Lidén C, Menné T, Burrows D. Nickel-containing alloys and platings and their ability to cause dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 1996;134:193–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Menné T, Brandup F, Thestrup-Pedersen K, Veien NK, Andersen JR, Yding F, Valeur G. Patch test reactivity to nickel alloys. Contact Dermatitis. 1987;16:255–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Fischer LA, Menné T, Voelund A, Johansen JD. Can exposure limitations for well-known contact allergens be simplified? An analysis of dose-response patch test data. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64:337–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Fischer LA, Johansen JD, Menné T. Nickel allergy: relationship between patch test and repeated open application test thresholds. Br J Dermatol. 2007;157:723–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Environmental MedicineKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations