Irritant Contact Dermatitis Workup
- Author: Daniel J Hogan, MD; Chief Editor: William D James, MD more...
No diagnostic test exists for irritant contact dermatitis. The diagnosis rests on the exclusion of other cutaneous diseases (especially allergic contact dermatitis) and on the clinical appearance of dermatitis at a site sufficiently exposed to a known cutaneous irritant. Laboratory studies are generally of little value in proving a diagnosis of contact dermatitis. However, they may be of value in eliminating some disorders from the differential diagnosis.
Findings of significantly elevated serum immunoglobulin E occasionally are useful to substantiate an atopic diathesis in the absence of a personal or family history of atopy.
Bacterial and Fungal Studies
A bacterial culture can be obtained in cases complicated by secondary bacterial infection. A potassium hydroxide (KOH) examination of scrapings may be performed and samples for mycology may be obtained to exclude superficial tinea infections or candidal infections, depending on site and morphology of lesions.
Patch testing can be performed to diagnose contact allergies, but no patch test exists that proves that a cutaneous irritant is responsible for a particular case of irritant contact dermatitis. Diagnosis rests on exclusion of allergic contact dermatitis and history of sufficient exposure to a cutaneous irritant. Also see the following summaries of clinical guidelines from the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology:
Skin biopsy of skin lesions of the palms and soles has several potential pitfalls. The stratum corneum and epidermis are particularly thick there, which makes the histologic diagnosis of psoriasis more difficult and increases the possibility that the specimen lacks sufficient dermis for optimal diagnosis. In the thenar area, an overly deep biopsy can cut the recurrent branch of the median nerve. A biopsy from the sole may leave a chronic painful scar on which the patient must walk. A saucerized shave biopsy is usually the most suitable method.
Skin scrapings of cutaneous lesions may help exclude scabies or may reveal fiberglass fibers as a cause of a patient's pruritus.
The histopathology of acute experimental irritant contact dermatitis has been studied to a greater extent than chronic irritant contact dermatitis, which is the primary clinical complaint. Cellular changes seen in the skin vary according to the chemical nature and concentration of the irritant applied, duration of exposure, severity of ensuing response, and time of sampling for acute irritant contact dermatitis. Many primary irritants cause overt necrosis if applied in a sufficiently high concentration for sufficient time.
Most histologic examinations of irritant contact dermatitis reveal some degree of intercellular edema or spongiosis in the epidermis. Spongiosis usually is less pronounced than that seen in allergic contact dermatitis reactions.
Parakeratosis also is observed widely in irritant contact dermatitis reactions.
The histology of chronic irritant contact dermatitis is one of hyperkeratosis with areas of parakeratosis, moderate-to-marked epidermal hyperplasia (acanthosis), and elongation of the rete ridges.
Watkins SA, Maibach HI. The hardening phenomenon in irritant contact dermatitis: an interpretative update. Contact Dermatitis. 2009 Mar. 60(3):123-30. [Medline].
Fluhr JW, Akengin A, Bornkessel A, Fuchs S, Praessler J, Norgauer J, et al. Additive impairment of the barrier function by mechanical irritation, occlusion and sodium lauryl sulphate in vivo. Br J Dermatol. 2005 Jul. 153(1):125-31. [Medline].
Jacobs JJ, Lehé 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].
Heinemann C, Paschold C, Fluhr J, Wigger-Alberti W, Schliemann-Willers S, Farwanah H, et al. Induction of a hardening phenomenon by repeated application of SLS: analysis of lipid changes in the stratum corneum. Acta Derm Venereol. 2005. 85(4):290-5. [Medline].
de Jongh CM, Khrenova L, Verberk MM, Calkoen F, van Dijk FJ, Voss H, et al. Loss-of-function polymorphisms in the filaggrin gene are associated with an increased susceptibility to chronic irritant contact dermatitis: a case-control study. Br J Dermatol. 2008 Sep. 159(3):621-7. [Medline].
Kartono F, Maibach HI. Irritants in combination with a synergistic or additive effect on the skin response: an overview of tandem irritation studies. Contact Dermatitis. 2006 Jun. 54(6):303-12. [Medline].
Löffler H, Kampf G, Schmermund D, Maibach HI. How irritant is alcohol?. Br J Dermatol. 2007 Jul. 157(1):74-81. [Medline].
Weston WL, Morelli JG. Dermatitis under soccer shin guards: allergy or contact irritant reaction?. Pediatr Dermatol. 2006 Jan-Feb. 23(1):19-20. [Medline].
Schmid-Wendtner MH, Korting HC. The pH of the skin surface and its impact on the barrier function. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2006. 19(6):296-302. [Medline].
Forrester BG, Roth VS. Hand dermatitis in intensive care units. J Occup Environ Med. 1998 Oct. 40(10):881-5. [Medline].
Cvetkovski RS, Rothman KJ, Olsen J, Mathiesen B, Iversen L, Johansen JD, et al. Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol. 2005 Jan. 152(1):93-8. [Medline].
Dickel H, Kuss O, Schmidt A, Kretz J, Diepgen TL. Importance of irritant contact dermatitis in occupational skin disease. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2002. 3(4):283-9. [Medline].
Mangion SM, Beulke SH, Braitberg G. Hydrofluoric acid burn from a household rust remover. Med J Aust. 2001 Sep 3. 175(5):270-1. [Medline].
Basketter DA, Marriott M, Gilmour NJ, White IR. Strong irritants masquerading as skin allergens: the case of benzalkonium chloride. Contact Dermatitis. 2004 Apr. 50(4):213-7. [Medline].
Rietschel RL, Fowler JF Jr. Fisher's Contact Dermatitis. 4th ed. Baltimore, Md: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1995.
Bernstein IL, Li JT, Bernstein DI, et al. Allergy diagnostic testing: an updated practice parameter. Part 1. National Guideline Clearinghouse. Mar 2008. [Full Text].
Bernstein IL, Li JT, Bernstein DI, et al. Allergy diagnostic testing: an updated practice parameter. Part 2. National Guideline Clearinghouse. Mar 2008. [Full Text].
Lakshmi C, Srinivas CR, Anand CV, Mathew AC. Irritancy ranking of 31 cleansers in the Indian market in a 24-h patch test. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2008 Aug. 30(4):277-83. [Medline].
Menne T, Johansen JD, Sommerlund M, Veien NK. Hand eczema guidelines based on the Danish guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of hand eczema. Contact Dermatitis. 2011 Jul. 65(1):3-12. [Medline].
Levin C, Zhai H, Bashir S, Chew AL, Anigbogu A, Stern R, et al. Efficacy of corticosteroids in acute experimental irritant contact dermatitis?. Skin Res Technol. 2001 Nov. 7(4):214-8. [Medline].
Fuchs M, Schliemann-Willers S, Heinemann C, Elsner P. Tacrolimus enhances irritation in a 5-day human irritancy in vivo model. Contact Dermatitis. 2002 May. 46(5):290-4. [Medline].
Draelos ZD. New treatments for restoring impaired epidermal barrier permeability: skin barrier repair creams. Clin Dermatol. 2012 May-Jun. 30(3):345-8. [Medline].
Miller DW, Koch SB, Yentzer BA, Clark AR, O'Neill JR, Fountain J, et al. An over-the-counter moisturizer is as clinically effective as, and more cost-effective than, prescription barrier creams in the treatment of children with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis: a randomized, controlled trial. J Drugs Dermatol. 2011 May. 10(5):531-7. [Medline].
Slotosch CM, Kampf G, Löffler H. Effects of disinfectants and detergents on skin irritation. Contact Dermatitis. 2007 Oct. 57(4):235-41. [Medline].