Allergic Contact Dermatitis Workup
- Author: Daniel J Hogan, MD; Chief Editor: William D James, MD more...
A guideline summary on allergy testing is available from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (Allergy Diagnostic Testing: An Updated Practice Parameter).
Potassium hydroxide preparation and/or fungal culture to exclude tinea are often indicated for dermatitis of the hands and feet. This will identify disorders such as tinea pedis.
Patch testing[19, 20, 21] 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 should be performed by healthcare providers trained in the proper technique. Most dermatologists can perform patch testing using the TRUE test, 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.
The patch testing procedure is as follows:
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 reactions 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 may occur. 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 are as follows:
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
Chemicals in plastics and glues
Chemicals found in rubber products not included in the TRUE test
Chemicals in shoes and clothing
Ultraviolet (UV) protective ingredients in sunscreens
Other chemicals producing photo allergic contact dermatitis
The chemicals listed above are tested under Finn chambers, allergEAZE chambers, or the IQ Chamber patch test. In photopatch testing, the chemicals are applied in duplicate sets. One set receives 10 J/cm2 of UV-A (or 1 J/cm2 less than the minimum erythema dose, whichever is lowest) 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.
The safety of patch testing in pregnancy has not been studied; however, the minute amounts of allergens applied appear unlikely to be absorbed in sufficient amounts to harm the fetus. Nonetheless, as with all treatments in pregnant women, the benefits of testing should be weighed against any potential, albeit undocumented, risk.
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 clinical dermatitis does not develop, the 1+ reaction likely was not meaningful. Conversely, if dermatitis develops after a few days of repeated application of the suspected product, then the weak patch test reaction is highly relevant.
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, cobalt, 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, however.
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.
The 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 may provoke atypical T-cell infiltrates, simulating mycosis fungoides.
Novak N, Baurecht H, Schafer T, Rodriguez E, et al. Loss-of-function mutations in the filaggrin gene and allergic contact sensitization to nickel. J Invest Dermatol. 2008 Jun. 128(6):1430-5. [Medline].
Lu LK, Warshaw EM, Dunnick CA. Prevention of nickel allergy: the case for regulation?. Dermatol Clin. 2009 Apr. 27(2):155-61, vi-vii. [Medline].
Thyssen JP, Linneberg A, Menne 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 Nov. 161(5):1124-9. [Medline].
Moennich JN, Zirwas M, Jacob SE. Nickel-induced facial dermatitis: adolescents beware of the cell phone. Cutis. 2009 Oct. 84(4):199-200. [Medline].
Ponten A, Hamnerius N, Bruze M, et al. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by sterile non-latex protective gloves: clinical investigation and chemical analyses. Contact Dermatitis. 2013 Feb. 68(2):103-10. [Medline].
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. 2008 Aug. 162(8):790-2. [Medline].
Thyssen JP, White JM. Epidemiological data on consumer allergy to p-phenylenediamine. Contact Dermatitis. 2008 Dec. 59(6):327-43. [Medline].
Lundov MD, Krongaard T, Menne TL, Johansen JD. Methylisothiazolinone contact allergy: a review. Br J Dermatol. 2011 Dec. 165(6):1178-82. [Medline].
Schnuch A, Mildau G, Kratz EM, Uter W. Risk of sensitization to preservatives estimated on the basis of patch test data and exposure, according to a sample of 3541 leave-on products. Contact Dermatitis. 2011 Sep. 65(3):167-74. [Medline].
Brared Christensson J, Andersen KE, Bruze M, et al. Air-oxidized linalool: a frequent cause of fragrance contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2012 Nov. 67(5):247-59. [Medline].
Niklasson IB, Delaine T, Islam MN, Karlsson R, Luthman K, Karlberg AT. Cinnamyl alcohol oxidizes rapidly upon air exposure. Contact Dermatitis. 2013 Mar. 68(3):129-38. [Medline].
Guin JD, Phillips D. Erythroderma from systemic contact dermatitis: a complication of systemic gentamicin in a patient with contact allergy to neomycin. Cutis. 1989 Jun. 43(6):564-7. [Medline].
Green CM, Holden CR, Gawkrodger DJ. Contact allergy to topical medicaments becomes more common with advancing age: an age-stratified study. Contact Dermatitis. 2007 Apr. 56(4):229-31. [Medline].
Assier-Bonnet H, Revuz J. [Topical neomycin: risks and benefits. Plea for withdrawal]. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 1997. 124(10):721-5. [Medline].
Gonul M, Gul U. Detection of contact hypersensitivity to corticosteroids in allergic contact dermatitis patients who do not respond to topical corticosteroids. Contact Dermatitis. 2005 Aug. 53(2):67-70. [Medline].
Cohen LM, Cohen JL. Erythema multiforme associated with contact dermatitis to poison ivy: three cases and a review of the literature. Cutis. 1998 Sep. 62(3):139-42. [Medline].
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. 1997 Jun. 36(6 Pt 1):914-8. [Medline].
[Guideline] Bernstein IL, Li JT, Bernstein DI, et al. Allergy diagnostic testing: an updated practice parameter. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2008 Mar. 100(3 Suppl 3):S1-148. [Medline].
Larkin A, Rietschel RL. The utility of patch tests using larger screening series of allergens. Am J Contact Dermat. 1998 Sep. 9(3):142-5. [Medline].
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. 1998 Jun. 38(6 Pt 1):911-8. [Medline].
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. 1998 Sep. 9(3):149-54. [Medline].
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. 2006 Jun. 15(6):432-40. [Medline].
Taylor JS, Praditsuwan P, Handel D, Kuffner G. Allergic contact dermatitis from doxepin cream. One-year patch test clinic experience. Arch Dermatol. 1996 May. 132(5):515-8. [Medline].
Baeck M, Chemelle JA, Rasse C, Terreux R, Goossens A. C(16) -methyl corticosteroids are far less allergenic than the non-methylated molecules. Contact Dermatitis. 2011 Jun. 64(6):305-312. [Medline].
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. 2009 Apr. 23(4):382-7. [Medline].
Katsarou A, Makris M, Papagiannaki K, Lagogianni E, Tagka A, Kalogeromitros D. Tacrolimus 0.1% vs mometasone furoate topical treatment in allergic contact hand eczema: a prospective randomized clinical study. Eur J Dermatol. 2012 Mar-Apr. 22(2):192-6. [Medline].
Verma KK, Bansal A, Sethuraman G. Parthenium dermatitis treated with azathioprine weekly pulse doses. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2006 Jan-Feb. 72(1):24-7. [Medline].
Shaffer MP, Belsito DV. Allergic contact dermatitis from glutaraldehyde in health-care workers. Contact Dermatitis. 2000 Sep. 43(3):150-6. [Medline].
Pot LM, Scheitza SM, Coenraads PJ, Blomeke B. Penetration and haptenation of p-phenylenediamine. Contact Dermatitis. 2013 Apr. 68(4):193-207. [Medline].
Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Linneberg A, Menne T, Engkilde K. The association between contact sensitization and atopic disease by linkage of a clinical database and a nationwide patient registry. Allergy. 2012 Sep. 67(9):1157-64. [Medline].