Contact Urticaria Syndrome Workup

  • Author: Saqib Bashir, MB, ChB, MD, MRCP; Chief Editor: Dirk M Elston, MD   more...
 
Updated: Jan 11, 2012
 

Laboratory Studies

  • The total serum IgE level does not provide insight into the clinical contribution that an allergen is making to the patient's symptoms.
  • If the etiology is immunologic contact urticaria, the RAST result (for allergen-specific IgE) may be positive for the offending substance. Nonimmunologic contact urticaria cannot be diagnosed by the RAST.
Next

Imaging Studies

  • Radiologic imaging is not necessary in the dermatologic workup of contact urticaria syndrome.
  • As a research tool, ultrasonography can be used to document the extent of edema.
Previous
Next

Other Tests

  • Commonly used topical application techniques in both immunologic contact urticaria and nonimmunologic contact urticaria are the prick test, the chamber prick test, the scratch test, the open test, and the chamber test. In any of the above in vivo tests, performing positive (histamine, 1 mg/mL) and negative (normal saline) control tests is important. Prick testing theoretically has the lowest risk of anaphylaxis because only minute amounts of allergen are introduced into the skin. However, anaphylaxis is a risk in all of the above test methods if the patient has immunologic contact urticaria.
  • The use test is a method in which a research subject known to be affected uses the causative substance in the same way as when the symptoms first appeared; for example, wearing surgical gloves on wet hands provokes latex immunologic contact urticaria. A use test can provoke anaphylaxis in patients with immunologic contact urticaria; therefore, clinicians should proceed cautiously with such testing. However, use testing can be especially helpful in patients with nonimmunologic contact urticaria. A positive reaction comprises a wheal and flare and sometimes an eruption of vesicles.
    • Serial dilutions are useful in determining the test dose. Examples of concentrations that have been used in dilution series in alcohol vehicles are 250, 125, 62, and 31 mmol/L for benzoic acid and 50, 10, 2, and 0.5 mmol/L for methyl nicotinate.
    • Initially, the upper back, the flexor aspect of the upper arm, or the forearm is the site used. However, if the reaction is negative, previously or currently affected skin should be tested because site variability exists in both nonimmunologic contact urticaria and immunologic contact urticaria.
    • Repeated use of the same site may result in tachyphylaxis and can cause false-negative results.
  • In the open test, 0.1 mL of the test substance is spread over a 3 X 3-cm area on the desired site.
    • Lahti[27] suggests using alcoholic vehicles. The addition of propylene glycol to a vehicle enhances the sensitivity of the test compared with previously used petrolatum and water vehicles.
    • The test sites are usually read at 20, 40, and 60 minutes to see the maximal response.
    • Immunologic contact urticaria reactions typically appear within 15-20 minutes, whereas nonimmunologic contact urticaria reactions can be delayed up to 45-60 minutes following application.
  • The chamber test is an occlusive method of applying the substance to be tested.
    • The substances to be tested are applied in small aluminum containers (Finn Chamber, Epitest Ltd; Hyryl, Finland) and attached to the skin via a porous tape.
    • The chambers are applied for 15 minutes, and the results are read at 20, 40, and 60 minutes.
    • The advantages of this method are that occlusion enhances percutaneous penetration; therefore, the sensitivity of the test is probably higher. Additionally, a smaller area of the skin is required than in an open test.
    • For unexplained reasons, the chamber method may provide less responsiveness than the open test.
  • The prick test, the scratch test, and the chamber prick test are the most commonly used in vivo techniques for detecting immunologic contact urticaria. However, if these results are negative and immunologic contact urticaria remains in the differential diagnosis, the chamber test, the open test, or the use test may be necessary. An in vitro RAST may also be beneficial for establishing the diagnosis and determining the cross-reactivity (eg, latex and banana).
  • In all of the above referenced in vitro test methods, contact urticaria can be graded visually by marking the degree of erythema and edema on an ordinal scale, as described for erythema and edema under Skin findings in Physical.
  • Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antihistamines, and exposure to UV light can cause false-negative results, as can tachyphylaxis.
  • In testing for immunologic contact urticaria in patients with a history of extracutaneous involvement, particular care must be taken to use low concentrations of test substances and to have resuscitation equipment immediately available in case of anaphylaxis.
Previous
Next

Procedures

  • No invasive procedures are indicated in the routine management of contact urticaria syndrome.
  • Skin biopsy is not necessary in the routine management of contact urticaria syndrome.
Previous
Proceed to Treatment & Management
 
 
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author

Saqib Bashir, MB, ChB, MD, MRCP  Consultant Dermatologist and Dermatological Surgeon, King's College Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, UK; Research Fellow, Department of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine

Saqib Bashir, MB, ChB, MD, MRCP is a member of the following medical societies: British Association of Dermatologists, British Medical Association, Royal College of Physicians, and Royal Society of Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Coauthor(s)

Howard I Maibach, MD  Professor and Vice Chairperson, Department of Dermatology, University of California School of Medicine at San Francisco; Consulting Staff, University of California Hospitals

Howard I Maibach, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Forensic Examiners, American College of Physicians, American Contact Dermatitis Society, American Dermatological Association, American Federation for Clinical Research, American Medical Association, California Medical Association, Pacific Dermatologic Association, and Society for Investigative Dermatology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editor Board

Donald Belsito, MD  Professor of Clinical Dermatology, Department of Dermatology, Columbia University Medical Center

Donald Belsito, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Academy of Dermatology, American Contact Dermatitis Society, Dermatology Foundation, New York County Medical Society, New York Dermatological Society, Noah Worcester Dermatological Society, and Phi Beta Kappa

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Richard P Vinson, MD  Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Dermatology, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Paul L Foster 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.

Jeffrey P Callen, MD  Professor of Medicine (Dermatology), 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; Celgene Honoraria Safety Monitoring Committee

Catherine M Quirk, MD  Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania

Catherine M Quirk, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha and American Academy of Dermatology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Dirk M Elston, MD  Director, Ackerman Academy of Dermatopathology, New York

Dirk M Elston, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Dermatology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

References

  1. Maibach HI, Johnson HL. Contact urticaria syndrome. Contact urticaria to diethyltoluamide (immediate-type hypersensitivity). Arch Dermatol. Jun 1975;111(6):726-30. [Medline].

  2. Turjanmaa K, Alenius H, Makinen-Kiljunen S, Reunala T, Palosuo T. Natural rubber latex allergy. Allergy. Sep 1996;51(9):593-602. [Medline].

  3. Shriner DL, Maibach HI. Regional variation of nonimmunologic contact urticaria. Functional map of the human face. Skin Pharmacol. 1996;9(5):312-21. [Medline].

  4. Elpern DJ. The syndrome of immediate reactivities (contact urticaria syndrome). An historical study from a dermatology practice. II. The atopic diathesis and drug reactions. Hawaii Med J. Dec 1985;44(12):466-8. [Medline].

  5. Elpern DJ. The syndrome of immediate reactivities (contact urticaria syndrome) an historical study from a dermatology practice. III. General discussion and conclusions. Hawaii Med J. Jan 1986;45(1):10-2. [Medline].

  6. Ownby DR, Ownby HE, McCullough J, Shafer AW. The prevalence of anti-latex IgE antibodies in 1000 volunteer blood donors. J Allergy Clin Immunol. Jun 1996;97(6):1188-92. [Medline].

  7. Suneja T, Belsito DV. Occupational dermatoses in health care workers evaluated for suspected allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. May 2008;58(5):285-90. [Medline].

  8. Kanerva L, Toikkanen J, Jolanki R, Estlander T. Statistical data on occupational contact urticaria. Contact Dermatitis. Oct 1996;35(4):229-33. [Medline].

  9. Kanerva L, Toikkanen J, Jolanki R, Estlander T. Statistical data on occupational contact urticaria. Contact Dermatitis. Oct 1996;35(4):229-33. [Medline].

  10. Allmers H, Schmengler J, John SM. Decreasing incidence of occupational contact urticaria caused by natural rubber latex allergy in German health care workers. J Allergy Clin Immunol. Aug 2004;114(2):347-51. [Medline].

  11. Tang MB, Leow YH, Ng V, Koh D, Goh CL. Latex sensitisation in healthcare workers in Singapore. Ann Acad Med Singapore. Jun 2005;34(5):376-82. [Medline].

  12. Turjanmaa K. Incidence of immediate allergy to latex gloves in hospital personnel. Contact Dermatitis. Nov 1987;17(5):270-5. [Medline].

  13. Ausili E, Tabacco F, Focarelli B, Nucera E, Patriarca G, Rendeli C. Prevalence of latex allergy in spina bifida: genetic and environmental risk factors. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. May-Jun 2007;11(3):149-53. [Medline].

  14. Draisci G, Nucera E, Pollastrini E, Forte E, Zanfini B, Pinto R. Anaphylactic reactions during cesarean section. Int J Obstet Anesth. Jan 2007;16(1):63-7. [Medline].

  15. Williams JD, Lee AY, Matheson MC, Frowen KE, Noonan AM, Nixon RL. Occupational contact urticaria: Australian data. Br J Dermatol. Jul 2008;159(1):125-31. [Medline].

  16. Amin S, Maibach HI. Immunologic Contact Urticaria Definition. In: Amin S, Lahti A, Maibach HI, eds. Contact Urticaria Syndrome. New York, NY: Informa Healthcare USA; 1997:11-26.

  17. Gimenez-Arnau A, Maurer M, De La Cuadra J, Maibach H. Immediate contact skin reactions, an update of Contact Urticaria, Contact Urticaria Syndrome and Protein Contact Dermatitis -- "A Never Ending Story". Eur J Dermatol. Sep-Oct 2010;20(5):552-62. [Medline].

  18. Frosch PJ, Kligman AM. The soap chamber test. A new method for assessing the irritancy of soaps. J Am Acad Dermatol. Jul 1979;1(1):35-41. [Medline].

  19. Gollhausen R, Kligman AM. Human assay for identifying substances which induce non-allergic contact urticaria: the NICU-test. Contact Dermatitis. Aug 1985;13(2):98-106. [Medline].

  20. von Krogh G, Maibach HI. The Contact Urticaria Syndrome - 1982. Semin Dermatol. 1982;1:59-66.

  21. Spoerl D, Scherer K, Bircher AJ. Contact urticaria with systemic symptoms due to hexylene glycol in a topical corticosteroid: case report and review of hypersensitivity to glycols. Dermatology. 2010;220(3):238-42. [Medline].

  22. Amaro C, Goossens A. Immunological occupational contact urticaria and contact dermatitis from proteins: a review. Contact Dermatitis. Feb 2008;58(2):67-75. [Medline].

  23. Asero R. Peach-induced contact urticaria is associated with lipid transfer protein sensitization. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2011;154(4):345-8. [Medline].

  24. Garty BZ, Danon YL. Processionary caterpillar dermatitis. Pediatr Dermatol. Mar 1985;2(3):194-6. [Medline].

  25. Vega J, Vega JM, Moneo I, Armentia A, Caballero ML, Miranda A. Occupational immunologic contact urticaria from pine processionary caterpillar (Thaumetopoea pityocampa): experience in 30 cases. Contact Dermatitis. Feb 2004;50(2):60-4. [Medline].

  26. Vega JM, Moneo I, Armentia A, Vega J, De la Fuente R, Fernandez A. Pine processionary caterpillar as a new cause of immunologic contact urticaria. Contact Dermatitis. Sep 2000;43(3):129-32. [Medline].

  27. Lahti A. Non-immunologic contact urticaria. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh). 1980;Suppl 91:1-49. [Medline].

  28. Filon FL, Radman G. Latex allergy: a follow up study of 1040 healthcare workers. Occup Environ Med. Feb 2006;63(2):121-5. [Medline].

  29. Bourrain JL. Occupational contact urticaria. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. Feb 2006;30(1):39-46. [Medline].

  30. Hannuksela M. Mechanisms in contact urticaria. Clin Dermatol. Jul-Aug 1997;15(4):619-22. [Medline].

  31. Jaeger D, Kleinhans D, Czuppon AB, Baur X. Latex-specific proteins causing immediate-type cutaneous, nasal, bronchial, and systemic reactions. J Allergy Clin Immunol. Mar 1992;89(3):759-68. [Medline].

  32. Jovanovic M, Karadaglic D, Brkic S. Contact urticaria and allergic contact dermatitis to lidocaine in a patient sensitive to benzocaine and propolis. Contact Dermatitis. Feb 2006;54(2):124-6. [Medline].

  33. Lahti A. Nonimmunologic Contact Urticaria. In: Amin S, Lahti A, Maibach HI, eds. Contact Urticaria Syndrome. New York, NY: Informa Healthcare USA; 1997:5-10.

  34. Lahti A. Immediate contact reactions. In: Rycroft RJG, Menne T, Frosch PJ, eds. Textbook of Contact Dermatitis. 2nd ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 1995:Chapters 2, 3.

  35. Majmudar V, Azam NA, Finch T. Contact urticaria to Cannabis sativa. Contact Dermatitis. Feb 2006;54(2):127. [Medline].

 
Previous
Next
 
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2012 by WebMD LLC.
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.