Advertisement

Allergic Contact Dermatitis

  • John Havens Cary
  • Howard I. Maibach
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Contact dermatitis, generally defined as an inflammation of the skin, results from exposure to an external agent and is most often classified as irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) or allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) (Tan et al. Clin Dermatol 32(1):116–124, 2014). Considerable overlap exists between the two conditions in clinical, histological, and molecular presentation, while the two may also coexist (Taylor and Amado. Contact dermatitis and related conditions. http://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com/medicalpubs/diseasemanagement/dermatology/contact-dermatitis-and-related-conditions/. Accessed 25 Oct 2017, 2010; Lachapelle and Maibach 2012).

A thorough history and physical exam may lead to diagnosis in select cases such as nickel or poison ivy allergy; however, distinction between ACD and ICD is best accomplished through patch testing. Patch testing is an attempt to reproduce the eczematous reaction of ACD on a smaller scale by applying a collection of allergens under occlusion at nonirritating concentrations on intact skin of the affected patient (Mowad et al. J Am Acad Dermatol 74(6):1029–1054, 2016). The clinician must be mindful of the varying patch testing materials and methods, procedural details, patch test reading and scoring, and various patch testing side effects. In treating ACD, the primary focus is avoidance of the allergen with several strategies and supplementary treatment options discussed in the following chapter.

Keywords

Allergen Allergic contact dermatitis Irritant Irritant contact dermatitis Patch testing 

References

  1. Adisesh A, Meyer JD, Cherry NM. Prognosis and work absence due to occupational contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;46(5):273–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrup G. Hand eczema and other hand dermatoses in South Sweden. Acta Derm Venerol (Stockh). 1969;49(Suppl 61):28–37.Google Scholar
  3. Ale SI, Maibach HI. Scientific basis of patch testing. Part I Dermatologie in Beruf und Umwelt Occup and Environ Derm. 2002;50(2):43–50.Google Scholar
  4. Ale SI, Maibach HJ. Operational definition of occupational allergic contact dermatitis. In: Kanerva L, Elsner P, Wahlberg JE, Maibach HI, editors. Condensed handbook of occupational dermatology. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2004. p. 175–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ale SI, Maibach HI. Diagnostic patch test: science and art. In: Zhai H, Wilhelm K-P, Maibach HI, editors. Marzulli and Maibach’s dermatotoxicology. 7th ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2008. p. 673–87.Google Scholar
  6. Andersen KE. The interest of the true test in patch testing. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2002;129:1S148.Google Scholar
  7. Andersen KE, Jensen CD. Long-lasting patch reactions to gold sodium thiosulfate occurs frequently in healthy volunteers. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;56(4):214–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Aro T, Kanerva L, Häyrinen-Immonen R, Silvennoinen-Kassinen S, Konttinen YT, Jolanki R, et al. Long-lasting allergic patch test reaction caused by gold. Contact Dermatitis. 1993;28(5):276–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Ashcroft DM, Dimmock P, Garside R, Stein K, Williams HC. Efficacy and tolerability of topical pimecrolimus and tacrolimus in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J Dermatol. 2005;330(7490):516.Google Scholar
  10. Bahillo-Monné C, Heras-Mendaza F, Casado-Farinas I, Gatica-Ortega M, Conde-Salazar L. Jessner’s lymphocytic infiltrate as Koebner response to patch test. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;57:197–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Barbaud A, Reichert-Penetrat S, TrÉchot P, Jacquin-Petit MA, Ehlinger A, Noirez V, et al. The use of skin testing in the investigation of cutaneous adverse drug reactions. Br J Dermatol. 1998;139(1):49–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bashir SJ, Maibach HI. Compound allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;36(4):179–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Belsito DV. Allergic contact dermatitis. In: Freedberg IM, et al., editors. Fitzpatrick’s dermatology in general medicine. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2003. p. 1164–77.Google Scholar
  14. Björkner B, Bruze M, Dahlquist I, Fregert S, Gruvberger B, Persson K. Contact allergy to the preservative Kathon® CG. Contact Dermatitis. 1986;14(2):85–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Bonneville M, Rozières A, Chabeau G, Saint-Mezard P, Nicolas J-F. Physiopathologie de la dermatite irritante de contact. In: Progrès en dermato-allergologie. Paris: John Libbey Eurotext; 2004. p. 177–87.Google Scholar
  16. Brancaccio RR, Brown LH, Chang YT, Fogelman JP, Mafong EA, Cohen DE. Identification and quantification of para-phenylenediamine in a temporary black henna tattoo. Am J Contact Dermat. 2002;13(1):15–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Brasch J, Frosch PJ, Menné T, Lepoittevin JP. Contact dermatitis. 4th ed. Berlin: Springer; 2006.Google Scholar
  18. Carlsen BC, Andersen KE, Menné T, Johansen JD. Patients with multiple contact allergies: a review. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;58(1):1–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Cashman MW, Reutemann PA, Ehrlich A. Contact dermatitis in the United States: epidemiology, economic impact, and workplace prevention. Dermatol Clin. 2012;30(1):87–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Chew A-L, Maibach HI. Occupational issues of irritant contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2003;76(5):339–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. De Jongh CM, Lutter R, Verberk MM, Kezic S. Differential cytokine expression in skin after single and repeated irritation by sodium lauryl sulphate. Exp Dermatol. 2007;16(12):1032.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Belsito DV, Sasseville D, Maibach HI, Taylor JS, et al. North American contact dermatitis group patch test results 2013–2014. Dermatitis. 2017;28(1):33–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Deleuran M, Clemmensen O, Andersen KE. Contact lupus erythematous. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;43:169–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Devos SA, Mulder JS, Van der Valk PM. The relevance of positive patch test reactions in chronic otitis externa. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;42:354–5.Google Scholar
  25. Eiermann HJ, Larsen W, Maibach HI, Taylor JS, Maibach HI, Adams RM, et al. Prospective study of cosmetic reactions: 1977-1980. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1982;6(5):909–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Fischer TI, Hansen J, Kreilgård B, Maibach HI. The science of patch test standardization. Clin Immunol Allergy. 1989;9:417–34.Google Scholar
  27. Foussereau J, Benezra C, Maibach HI. Occupational contact dermatitis: clinical and chemical aspects. Copenhagan: Munksgaard; 1982.Google Scholar
  28. Fowler JF, Skinner SM, Belsito DV. Allergic contact dermatitis from formaldehyde resins in permanent press clothing: an underdiagnosed cause of generalized dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1992;27(6, Part 1):962–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Fransway AF, Zug KA, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, Fowler JFJ, Maibach HI, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for 2007–2008. Dermatitis. 2013;24(1):10–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Fregert S. Occupational dermatitis in a 10–year material. Contact Dermatitis. 1975;1(2):96–107.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Fregert S. Publication of allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 1985;12(2):123–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Frosch PJ, John SM. Clinical aspects of irritant contact dermatitis. In: Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin J-P, editors. Contact dermatitis. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2011. p. 305–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fyad A, Masmoudi ML, Lachapellh JM. The “edge effect” with patch test materials. Contact Dermatitis. 1987;16(3):147–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Gallant CJ. A long-term follow-up study of patients with hand dermatitis evaluated at St. Michael’s occupational health clinic in 1981 and 1982. Masters thesis, The University of Toronto; (1986).Google Scholar
  35. Giordano-Labadie F, Rancé F, Pellegrin F, Bazex J, Dutau G, Schwarze HP. Frequency of contact allergy in children with atopic dermatitis: results of a prospective study of 137 cases. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;40(4):192–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Goon A, Goh C-L. Noneczematous contact reactions. In: Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin J-P, editors. Contact dermatitis. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2011. p. 415–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gosnell AL, Schmotzer B, Nedorost ST. Polysensitization and individual susceptibility to allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2015;26(3):133–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Hannuksela M, Salo H. The repeated open application test (ROAT). Contact Dermatitis. 1986;14(4):221–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Hoekstra M, van der Heide S, Coenraads PJ, Schuttelaar MLA. Anaphylaxis and severe systemic reactions caused by skin contact with persulfates in hair-bleaching products. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66(6):317–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Hogan DJ, Dannaker CJ, Maibach HI. The prognosis of contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1990;23(2, Part 1):300–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Kanerva L, Estlander T, Jolanki R. Sensitization to patch test acrylates. Contact Dermatitis. 1988;18(1):10–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Lachapelle JM. A left versus right side comparative study of Epiquick™ patch test results in 100 consecutive patients. Contact Dermatitis. 1989;20(1):51–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Lachapelle JM. A proposed relevance scoring system for positive allergic patch test reactions: practical implications and limitations. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;36(1):39–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Lachapelle JM, Maibach HI. Patch testing and prick testing: a practical guide official publication of the ICDRG. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maibach HI, Epstein E. Eczematous psoriasis. Semin Dermatol J. 1983;2:45–50.Google Scholar
  46. Marks JG, DeLeo VA. Contact & occupational dermatology. Philadelphia: Jaypee Brothers, Medical Publishers Pvt. Ltd.; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Marks JG Jr, Elsner P, DeLeo V. Contact and occupational dermatology. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1982.Google Scholar
  48. Menné T, Bachmann E. Permanent disability from nickel allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 1980;6(1):22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Modjahedi SP, Maibach HI. Ethnicity. In: Chew AL, Maibach HI, editors. Irritant dermatitis. Berlin: Springer; 2006. p. 177–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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(3):523–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Mowad CM, Anderson B, Scheinman P, Pootongkam S, Nedorost S, Brod B. Allergic contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74(6):1029–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Nethercott JR, Holness L. Validity of patch test screening trays in the evaluation of patients with allergic contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989;21:568.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. O’Quinn SE, Cole J, Many H. Problems of disability and rehabilitation in patients with chronic skin diseases. Arch Dermatol. 1972;105:35–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Popple A, Williams J, Maxwell G, Gellatly N, Dearman RJ, Kimber I. The lymphocyte transformation test in allergic contact dermatitis: new opportunities. J Immunotoxicol. 2016;13(1):84–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Roenigk HH, Epstein E, Maibach HI. Skin manifestations of psoriasis and eczematous psoriasis: maturation. In: Roenigk HH, Maibach HI, editors. Psoriasis. 3rd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1998. p. 3–11.Google Scholar
  56. Rystedt I. Prognostic factors in atopic dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol. 1985;65(3):206–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Schnuch A, Brasch J, Uter W. Polysensitization and increased susceptibility in contact allergy: a review. Allergy. 2008;63(2):156–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Sperber BR, Allee J, Elenitsas R, James WD. Papular dermatitis and a persistent patch test reaction to gold sodium thiosulfate. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48(4):204–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Swinnen I, Goossens A. An update on airborne contact dermatitis: 2007–2011. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68(4):232–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Tan C-H, Rasool S, Johnston GA. Contact dermatitis: allergic and irritant. Clin Dermatol. 2014;32(1):116–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Taylor JS, Amado A. Contact dermatitis and related conditions. 2010. http://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com/medicalpubs/diseasemanagement/dermatology/contact-dermatitis-and-related-conditions/. Accessed 25 Oct 2017.
  62. Uter WJC, Geier J, Schnuch A. Good clinical practice in patch testing: readings beyond day 2 are necessary: a confirmatory analysis. Am J Contact Dermat. 1996;7(4):231–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Veien NK. Systemic contact dermatitis. Int J Dermatol. 2011;50(12):1445–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Warshaw EM, Belsito DV, Taylor JS, Sasseville D, DeKoven JG, Zirwas MJ, Fransway AF, Mathias CG, Zug KA, DeLeo VA, Fowler JF Jr, Marks JG, Pratt MD, Storrs FJ, Maibach HI. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2009 to 2010. Dermatitis. 2013;24(2):50–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Weiss G, Shemer A, Trau H. The Koebner phenomenon: review of the literature. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2002;16(3):241–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Wilkinson DS, Fregert S, Magnusson B, Bandmann HJ, Calnan CD, Cronin E, Hjorth N, Maibach HJ, Malaten KE, Meneghini CL, Pirilä V. Terminology of contact dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol. 1970;50(4):287–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Wilson EAH, Wolf MS. Working memory and the design of health materials: a cognitive factors perspective. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74(3):318–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Yiannias JA, Winkelmann RK, Connolly SM. Contact sensitivities in palmar plantar pustulosis (acropustulosis). Contact Dermatitis. 1998;39(3):108–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Louisiana State University School of MedicineNew OrleansUSA
  2. 2.Department of DermatologyUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Tim Craig
    • 1
  • Massoud Mahmoudi
    • 2
  1. 1.Penn State UniversityHersheyUSA
  2. 2.Department of MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations