eMedicine Specialties > Dermatology > Allergy & Immunology

Contact Dermatitis, Allergic: Differential Diagnoses & Workup

Author: Daniel J Hogan, MD, Clinical Professor of Internal Medicine (Dermatology), NOVA Southeastern University; Investigator, Hill Top Research, Florida Research Center
Contributor Information and Disclosures

Updated: Jul 31, 2009

Differential Diagnoses

Asteatotic Eczema
Onycholysis
Atopic Dermatitis
Perioral Dermatitis
Berloque Dermatitis
Phytophotodermatitis
Contact Dermatitis, Irritant
Pigmented Purpuric Dermatitis
Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma
Prurigo Nodularis
Dermatomyositis
Seborrheic Dermatitis
Drug-Induced Bullous Disorders
Stasis Dermatitis
Drug-Induced Photosensitivity
Tinea Corporis
Erythema Multiforme
Tinea Cruris
Folliculitis
Tinea Pedis
Id Reaction (Autoeczematization)
Transient Acantholytic Dermatosis
Intertrigo
Urticaria, Contact Syndrome
Lichen Nitidus
Lichen Simplex Chronicus
Nummular Dermatitis

Other Problems to Be Considered

Mycosis fungoides

Workup

Laboratory Studies

  • Potassium hydroxide preparation and/or fungal culture to exclude tinea are often indicated for dermatitis of the hands and feet.

Procedures

  • Patch testing11,12,13
    • Patch testing is required to identify the external chemicals to which the person is allergic. The greatest quality-of-life benefits from patch testing occur in patients with recurrent or chronic allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Patch testing is most cost effective and reduces the cost of therapy in patients with severe allergic contact dermatitis.
    • Patch testing must be performed by health care providers trained in the proper technique. Most dermatologists can perform patch testing using the TRUE test (consult the Physicians' Desk Reference), which can identify relevant allergies in as many as one half of affected patients. More extensive patch testing is indicated to identify allergies to chemicals not found in the TRUE test. Such testing typically is available only in a limited number of dermatology offices and clinics.
    • Patch testing procedure
      • Small amounts of appropriate labeled dilutions of chemicals are applied to the skin and occluded for 2 days.
      • Patch tests may be left on for 3 days before removal.
      • For reasons of scheduling, a chemical must remain under a skin patch for a minimum of 1 day to produce a positive patch test reaction 2-7 days following initial application.
      • The patch test must be read not only at 48 hours, when the patch tests customarily are removed, but again between 72 hours and 1 week following initial application.
    • Individuals with suspected allergic contact dermatitis without positive reactions on the TRUE test or with chronic dermatitis or relapsing dermatitis, despite avoiding chemicals to which they are allergic (identified on TRUE test), need additional patch testing. Many individuals have more than 1 contact allergy and may be allergic to 1 or more chemicals found on the TRUE test and on special allergen trays or series. Testing to more allergens increases accuracy of the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. Selection of allergens for testing requires consideration of the patient's history and access to appropriate environmental contactants.
    • Certain chemicals (eg, neomycin) typically produce delayed positive patch test reactions at 4 days or later following initial application. A tendency exists for elderly patients to manifest positive patch test reactions later than younger patients. Do not perform patch testing on patients taking more than 15 mg/d of prednisone. Oral antihistamines may be used during the patch test period if required.
    • Angry back syndrome or excited skin syndrome: If a patient has a large number of positive patch test reactions, retesting the patient sequentially to a small series of these allergens may be necessary to exclude nonspecific false-positive reactions. The syndrome most likely occurs in individuals who have active dermatitis at the time of patch testing or who have a strong positive patch test reaction, both of which may induce local skin hyperreactivity in the area where patches were applied.
    • Additional patch test series or sets include the following:
      • Corticosteroids, particularly tixocortol pivalate and budesonide
      • Ingredients in cosmetics not found in the TRUE test
      • Chemicals used in dentistry that may produce mucosal and lip dermatitis in dental clients or that may produce chronic dermatitis of the hands in dentists and dental team members
      • Chemicals used in hairdressing that may produce facial, ear, and neck dermatitis in clients or chronic hand dermatitis or eyelid dermatitis in hairdressers
      • Fragrances found in cosmetics and a wide range of consumer products
      • Important allergens not found in the TRUE test that are frequent causes of allergic contact dermatitis
        • Bacitracin
        • Acrylates used in dentistry, artificial nails, and printing
        • Chemicals used in baking
        • Pesticides (many cases of dermatitis attributed to pesticides result from other causes, particularly from plants such as poison ivy)
        • Chemicals used in machining, eg, cutting oils and fluids
        • Photographic chemicals used by photographers and photographic developers
        • Plants excluding poison ivy
        • Chemicals in plastics and glues
        • Chemicals found in rubber products not included in the TRUE test
        • Chemicals in shoes and clothing
        • UV protective ingredients in sunscreens
        • Other chemicals producing photo allergic contact dermatitis
        • Miscellaneous allergens
      • The chemicals listed above are tested under Finn chambers or IQ patch test. In photopatch testing, the chemicals are applied in duplicate sets. One set receives 10 J/cm2 (or 1 J/cm2 less than minimum erythema dose to UV-A, whichever is lowest) of UV-A 24 hours after application of the allergens. The other series is protected from UV exposure to differentiate allergic contact dermatitis and photo-accentuated allergic contact dermatitis from photo allergic contact dermatitis. Both sets are read at 48 hours after application, as well as at an additional time point as in routine patch testing.
  • Repeat open application test: For individuals who develop weak or 1+ positive reactions to a chemical, the repeat open application test (ROAT) is useful in determining whether the reaction is significant. ROAT is most useful when an individual has a 1+ reaction to a chemical found in a leave-on consumer product. For example, an individual with a weak reaction to a preservative found in a moisturizer may apply the moisturizer twice a day for a week to the side of the neck or behind an ear. If the individual applies it twice a day for a week without developing clinical dermatitis, the 1+ reaction likely was not meaningful. Conversely, if the individual develops dermatitis following a few days of repeated application of the suspected product, then the weak patch test reaction is highly relevant.
  • Dimethylgloxime test: The dimethylgloxime test is a useful and practical way to identify metallic objects that contain enough nickel to provoke allergic dermatitis in individuals allergic to nickel. Dermatology staff may test suspected metal products in the office, or the individual may purchase a test kit and test objects at home or at work, particularly jewelry or metallic surfaces. Other chemical tests are available for other suspected allergens (eg, formaldehyde, chromate). Occasionally, chemical analyses may be necessary to determine whether a material contains a suspected allergen or to identify new unknown allergens.
  • Skin biopsy may help exclude other disorders, particularly tinea, psoriasis, and cutaneous lymphoma. Skin biopsy of skin lesions of the palms and soles has several potential pitfalls, which include the following:
    • The stratum corneum and epidermis are particularly thick on the palms and soles. This makes the histologic diagnosis of psoriasis more difficult and increases the possibility that the biopsy specimen will lack sufficient dermis for optimal diagnosis.
    • An overly deep skin biopsy of the thenar area can cut the motor nerve, which is the recurrent branch of the median nerve.
    • A biopsy from the sole may leave a chronic painful scar on which the patient must walk.
  • Guideline summaries

Histologic Findings

Histology of allergic contact dermatitis is similar to that found in other forms of eczematous dermatitis. A pattern of subacute chronic dermatitis or acute dermatitis may be seen. The inflammatory infiltrate in the dermis predominately contains lymphocytes and other mononuclear cells. Epidermal edema (ie, spongiosis and microvesicle formation) may be seen, but these changes may be absent in long-standing dermatitis in which thickening of the epidermis (acanthosis) with hyperkeratosis and parakeratosis may be seen in the epidermis and stratum corneum. Allergic contact dermatitis is provokes atypical T-cell infiltrates, simulating mycosis fungoides.

More on Contact Dermatitis, Allergic

Overview: Contact Dermatitis, Allergic
Differential Diagnoses & Workup: Contact Dermatitis, Allergic
Treatment & Medication: Contact Dermatitis, Allergic
Follow-up: Contact Dermatitis, Allergic
Multimedia: Contact Dermatitis, Allergic
References

References

  1. Jacobs JJ, Lehe CL, Hasegawa H, Elliott GR, Das PK. Skin irritants and contact sensitizers induce Langerhans cell migration and maturation at irritant concentration. Exp Dermatol. Jun 2006;15(6):432-40. [Medline].

  2. Novak N, Baurecht H, Schafer T, et al. Loss-of-function mutations in the filaggrin gene and allergic contact sensitization to nickel. J Invest Dermatol. Jun 2008;128(6):1430-5. [Medline].

  3. Green CM, Holden CR, Gawkrodger DJ. Contact allergy to topical medicaments becomes more common with advancing age: an age-stratified study. Contact Dermatitis. Apr 2007;56(4):229-31. [Medline].

  4. Assier-Bonnet H, Revuz J. [Topical neomycin: risks and benefits. Plea for withdrawal]. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 1997;124(10):721-5. [Medline].

  5. Gonul M, Gul U. Detection of contact hypersensitivity to corticosteroids in allergic contact dermatitis patients who do not respond to topical corticosteroids. Contact Dermatitis. Aug 2005;53(2):67-70. [Medline].

  6. Cohen LM, Cohen JL. Erythema multiforme associated with contact dermatitis to poison ivy: three cases and a review of the literature. Cutis. Sep 1998;62(3):139-42. [Medline].

  7. Lu LK, Warshaw EM, Dunnick CA. Prevention of nickel allergy: the case for regulation?. Dermatol Clin. Apr 2009;27(2):155-61, vi-vii. [Medline].

  8. Jacob SE, Zapolanski T, Chayavichitsilp P, Connelly EA, Eichenfield LF. p-Phenylenediamine in black henna tattoos: a practice in need of policy in children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. Aug 2008;162(8):790-2. [Medline].

  9. Thyssen JP, White JM. Epidemiological data on consumer allergy to p-phenylenediamine. Contact Dermatitis. Dec 2008;59(6):327-43. [Medline].

  10. Guin JD, Phillips D. Erythroderma from systemic contact dermatitis: a complication of systemic gentamicin in a patient with contact allergy to neomycin. Cutis. Jun 1989;43(6):564-7. [Medline].

  11. Larkin A, Rietschel RL. The utility of patch tests using larger screening series of allergens. Am J Contact Dermat. Sep 1998;9(3):142-5. [Medline].

  12. Marks JG, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for the detection of delayed-type hypersensitivity to topical allergens. J Am Acad Dermatol. Jun 1998;38(6 Pt 1):911-8. [Medline].

  13. Rajagopalan R, Anderson RT, Sarma S, et al. An economic evaluation of patch testing in the diagnosis and management of allergic contact dermatitis. Am J Contact Dermat. Sep 1998;9(3):149-54. [Medline].

  14. [Guideline] Bernstein IL, Li JT, Bernstein DI, Hamilton R, et al. Allergy diagnostic testing: an updated practice parameter. Part 1. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. Mar 2008;100(3 Suppl 3):S15-S66.

  15. [Guideline] Bernstein IL, Li JT, Bernstein DI, Hamilton R, et al. Allergy diagnostic testing: an updated practice parameter. Part 2. Allergy Asthma Immunol. Mar 2008;100(3 Suppl 3):S66-S121.

  16. Taylor JS, Praditsuwan P, Handel D, Kuffner G. Allergic contact dermatitis from doxepin cream. One-year patch test clinic experience. Arch Dermatol. May 1996;132(5):515-8. [Medline].

  17. Katsarou A, Armenaka M, Vosynioti V, Lagogianni E, Kalogeromitros D, Katsambas A. Tacrolimus ointment 0.1% in the treatment of allergic contact eyelid dermatitis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. Apr 2009;23(4):382-7. [Medline].

  18. Verma KK, Bansal A, Sethuraman G. Parthenium dermatitis treated with azathioprine weekly pulse doses. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. Jan-Feb 2006;72(1):24-7. [Medline].

  19. Shaffer MP, Belsito DV. Allergic contact dermatitis from glutaraldehyde in health-care workers. Contact Dermatitis. Sep 2000;43(3):150-6. [Medline].

  20. Cohen DE, Brancaccio R, Andersen D, Belsito DV. Utility of a standard allergen series alone in the evaluation of allergic contact dermatitis: a retrospective study of 732 patients. J Am Acad Dermatol. Jun 1997;36(6 Pt 1):914-8. [Medline].

  21. Diepgen TL, Coenraads PJ. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. Nov 1999;72(8):496-506. [Medline].

  22. Hogan DJ. The prognosis of occupational contact dermatitis. Occup Med. Jan-Mar 1994;9(1):53-8. [Medline].

  23. Hougeir FG, Yiannias JA, Hinni ML, Hentz JG, el-Azhary RA. Oral metal contact allergy: a pilot study on the cause of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Dermatol. Mar 2006;45(3):265-71. [Medline].

  24. Katagiri K, Arakawa S, Hatano Y, Fujiwara S. Fexofenadine, an H1-receptor antagonist, partially but rapidly inhibits the itch of contact dermatitis induced by diphenylcyclopropenone in patients with alopecia areata. J Dermatol. Feb 2006;33(2):75-9. [Medline].

  25. Kist JM, el-Azhary RA, Hentz JG, Yiannias JA. The contact allergen replacement database and treatment of allergic contact dermatitis. Arch Dermatol. Dec 2004;140(12):1448-50. [Medline].

  26. Kligman AM. The identification of contact allergens by human assay. 3. The maximization test: a procedure for screening and rating contact sensitizers. J Invest Dermatol. Nov 1966;47(5):393-409. [Medline].

  27. Lawley TJ, Kubota Y. Cell adhesion molecules and cutaneous inflammation. Semin Dermatol. Sep 1991;10(3):256-9. [Medline].

  28. Rietschel RL, Fowler JR Jr. Fisher's Contact Dermatitis. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001.

  29. Shah M, Lewis FM, Gawkrodger DJ. Nickel as an occupational allergen. A survey of 368 nickel-sensitive subjects. Arch Dermatol. Oct 1998;134(10):1231-6. [Medline].

  30. Shai A, Halevy S. Direct triggers for ulceration in patients with venous insufficiency. Int J Dermatol. Dec 2005;44(12):1006-9. [Medline].

  31. Tadd C, Feldman S, Thompson S. Only 33% of Visits for Skin Disease in the US in 1995 Were to Dermatologists: Is Decreasing the Number of Dermatologists the Appropriate Response?. Dermatology Online [serial online]. 1998;4:Available at http://dermatology.cdlib.org/DOJvol4num1/original/thompson.html.

  32. Templet JT, Hall S, Belsito DV. Etiology of hand dermatitis among patients referred for patch testing. Dermatitis. Mar 2004;15(1):25-32. [Medline].

  33. Thompson T, Belsito DV. Allergic contact dermatitis from a diisocyanate in wool processing. Contact Dermatitis. Nov 1997;37(5):239. [Medline].

Further Reading

Keywords

contact dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, ACD, allergic dermatitis, skin allergy, contact hypersensitivity

Contributor Information and Disclosures

Author

Daniel J Hogan, MD, Clinical Professor of Internal Medicine (Dermatology), NOVA Southeastern University; Investigator, Hill Top Research, Florida Research Center
Daniel J Hogan, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Academy of Dermatology, American Contact Dermatitis Society, and Canadian Dermatology Association
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Medical Editor

Donald Belsito, MD, Clinical Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Dermatology, University of Missouri at Kansas City; Private Practice, American Dermatology Associates, LLC
Donald Belsito, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Academy of Dermatology, American Contact Dermatitis Society, Dermatology Foundation, Kansas Medical Society, Noah Worcester Dermatological Society, Phi Beta Kappa, and Phi Beta Kappa
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Pharmacy Editor

Richard P Vinson, MD, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Dermatology, Texas Tech University School of Medicine; Consulting Staff, Mountain View Dermatology, PA
Richard P Vinson, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Dermatology, Association of Military Dermatologists, Texas Dermatological Society, and Texas Medical Association
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Managing Editor

Jeffrey P Callen, MD, Professor of Medicine, Chief, Division of Dermatology, University of Louisville School of Medicine
Jeffrey P Callen, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Physicians, and American College of Rheumatology
Disclosure: Amgen Honoraria Consulting; Abbott Honoraria Consulting; Electrical Optical Sciences Honoraria Consulting; Centocor Honoraria Consulting; Genetech Honoraria Consulting; Celgene Honoraria Consulting

CME Editor

Joel M Gelfand, MD, MSCE, Medical Director, Clinical Studies Unit, Assistant Professor, Department of Dermatology, Associate Scholar, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania
Joel M Gelfand, MD, MSCE is a member of the following medical societies: Society for Investigative Dermatology
Disclosure: AMGEN Consulting fee Consulting; AMGEN Grant/research funds None; Genentech Consulting fee Consulting; Centocor Consulting fee Consulting; Centocor Grant/research funds None; Covance Consulting fee Consulting; Shire  Consulting

Chief Editor

Dirk M Elston, MD, Director, Department of Dermatology, Geisinger Medical Center
Dirk M Elston, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Dermatology
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

 
 
HONcode

We subscribe to the
HONcode principles of the
Health On the Net Foundation

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright© 1994- by Medscape.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

DISCLAIMER: The content of this Website is not influenced by sponsors. The site is designed primarily for use by qualified physicians and other medical professionals. The information contained herein should NOT be used as a substitute for the advice of an appropriately qualified and licensed physician or other health care provider. The information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only. In no way should it be considered as offering medical advice. Please check with a physician if you suspect you are ill.