Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Allergic Contact Dermatitis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Clinical Contact Dermatitis

  • 470 Accesses

Abstract

Allergic contact dermatitis develops owing to a delayed type cell-mediated sensitization to contact with exogenous factors. It is essentially localized at the site of exposure to the noxa and is accompanied by variable pruritus. It seems that some subjects are more prone to sensitization to environmental allergens than others, even if the total number of sensitized individuals in a population depends on the degree of skin exposure. The morphological picture features a remarkable polymorphism as regards the clinical signs, type of eruption and evolution. The objective manifestations of the classic picture differ according to the clinical phase of the disease: the acute form manifests with erythemato-edemato-vesicular patches with blurred margins. In the subacute phase, puntiform scubs appear while the erythema and exudation decline. Infiltrative plaques will appear in the chronic form. Other clinical-morphologic varieties are frequently observed: lichenified eczema, hyperkeratotic eczema, nummular contact dermatitis, and dry eczema of the hands. It is not usually easy to trace the culprit substance based on the clinical picture, although some clinical patterns can indicate a particular group of substances, or even a specific allergen. A particular characteristic of allergic contact dermatitis is the presence of lesions at a distance from the primitive focus where the original contact with the hapten occurred (“idic” eruptions). The spread of contact dermatitis, that can even progress as far as a picture of erythroderma, can be caused by multiple factors (chronic contact with the allergenes responsible, inappropriate topical or systemic treatments, poly- and cross-sensitization). Regarding the aetiopathogenic assessment, it is important to take into account factors such as polysensitization, co-sensitization, and cross-sensitization. As regards the evolution of the dermatitis over time, there are various possibilities. The diagnosis is based on clinical and allergological (patch tests) criteria. Excluding the rare and serious erythrodermic condition, the prognosis is favorable, also in terms of the patient’s quality of life.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Meneghini CL, Angelini G. Le dermatiti da contatto. Lombardo Ed, Roma; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Angelini G, Vena GA. Dermatite allergica da contatto. In: Angelini G, Vena GA, editors. Dermatologia Professionale e ambientale, vol. II. ISED, Brescia; 1999, p. 483.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rycroft RJG, Menné T, Frosch PJ, et al, editors. Textbook of contact dermatitis, 3rd ed. Springer, Berlin; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sulzberger MB, Rostenberg A. Acquired specific hypersensivity (allergy) to simple chemicals. J Immunol. 1939;35:17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Landsteiner K, Rostenberg A, Sulzberger MB. Individual differences in susceptibility to eczematous sensitization with single chemical substances. J Invest Dermatol. 1939;2:25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Moss C, Friedmann PS, Shuster S, et al. Susceptibility and amplification of sensitivity in contact dermatitis. Clin Exp Immunol. 1985;61:232.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Forsbeck M, Skog E, Ytterborn CH. Delayed type of allergy and atopic disease among twins. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh). 1968;48:192.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Menné T, Holm NV. Nickel allergy in a female twin population. Int J Dermatol. 1983;22:22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Menné T, Holm NV. Genetic susceptibility in human allergic contact sensitization. Semin Dermatol. 1986;5:301.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Agner T, Menné T. Individual predisposition to irritant and allergic contact dermatitis. In: Rycroft RJG, Menné T, Frosch PJ, et al, editors. Textbook of contact dermatitis, 3rd ed. Springer, Berlin; 2001. p 174.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Leiden JJ, Kligman AM. Allergic contact dermatitis. Sex differences. Contact Dermatitis. 1977;3:333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Walker FB, Smith PD, Maibach HI. Genetic factors in human allergic contact dermatitis. Int Arch Allergy. 1967;32:453.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schønning L, Hjorth N. Sex difference in capacity for sensitization. Contact Dermatitis. 1979;5:100.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rees JI, Friedmann PS, Matthews JNS. Sex differences in susceptibility to development of contact sensitization to DNCB. Br J Dermatol. 1989;120:371.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Meijer C, Bredberg M, Fisher T, et al. Ear piercing and nickel and cobalt sensitization in 520 young Swedish men doing compulsory military service. Contact Dermatitis. 1995;32:147.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Agner T, Damm P, Skauby SO. Menstrual cycle and skin reactivity. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1991;34:566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Agner T. Non invasive measuring methods for the investigation of irritant patch test reactions. A study of patients with hand eczema, atopic dermatitis and controls. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh). 1992; 173(suppl):1.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Harvell J, Hussona-Saeed I, Maibach HI. Changes in transepidermal water loss and cutaneous blood flow during the menstrual cycle. J Invest Dermatol. 1992;98:601.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bonamonte D, Foti C, Ieva R, et al. Skin reactivity in relation to the menstrual cycle. Giorn Ital Dermatol Venereol. 2005;140:229.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Alexander S. Patch testing and menstruation. Lancet. 1988;2:751.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. McLelland J, Lawrence CM. Premenstrual exacerbation of nickel allergy. Br J Dermatol. 1991;125:83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hindsén M, Bruze M, Christensen OB. Individual variation in nickel patch test reactivity. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 1999;10:62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rohold AE, Halkier-Sørensen L, Andersen KE, et al. Nickel patch test reactivity and the menstrual cycle. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh). 1994;74(suppl):383.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Aktan S, Aktan E, Inanir I, et al. Reproducibility of the Finn Chamber® nickel patch test in two differnt phases of the ovulatory menstrual cycle. Dermatology. 1998;197:235.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tamer E, Ikizoglu G, Toy GG, et al. Comparison of nickel patch test reactivity in phases of the menstrual cycle. Int J Dermatol. 2003;42:455.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Myers MJ, Butler LD, Petersen BH. Estradiol-induced alteration in the immune system. II. Suppression of cellular immunity in the rat is not the result of direct estrogenic action. Immunopharmacology. 1986; 11:47.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Manyonda IT, Pereira RS, Makinde V, et al. Effect of 17 beta-oestradiol on lymphocytes subpopulations, delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity responses and mixed lymphocyte reactions in post-menopausal women. Maturitas. 1992;14:201.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bonamonte D, Foti C, Antelmi AR, et al. Nickel contact allergy and menstrual cycle. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;52:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bonamonte D, Foti C, Carpentieri A, et al. Dermatite allergica da contatto in età pediatrica. Ann Ital Dermatol Allergol. 2010;64:1.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kligman AM. The identification of contact allergens by human assay. II. Factors influencing the induction and measurements of allergic contact dermatitis. J Invest Dermatol. 1966; 47:375.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Pinnagoda J, Tupker R, Agner T, et al. Guidelines for transepidermal water loss (TEWL) measurement. A report from the standardization group of the European Contact Dermatitis Society. Contact Dermatitis. 1990; 22:164.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Dooms-Goossens A, Debusschere KM, Gevers DM, et al. Contact dermatitis caused by airborne agents. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1986;15:1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Angelini G, Vena GA. Airborne contact dermatitis. Clin Dermatol. 1992;10:123.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Malten KE. Thoughts on irritant contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1982;7:238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Angelini G, Vena GA, Giglio G. Nummular eczema and contact allergy. Bull Dermatol Allergol Profes. 1987;2:170.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Bonamonte D, Foti C, Vestita M, et al. Nummular eczema and contact allergy: a retrospective study. Dermatitis. 2012;23:153.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Meneghini CL. Le dermatiti eczematose professionali. Milano: Giorn Ital Dermatol Venereol; 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Meneghini CL, Tagliavini R. L’eczema da contatto. Simposi Clinici. 1966;3:1.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Zelickson BD, Mc Evoy MT, Fronway AF. Patch testing in prurigo nodularis. Contact Dermatitis. 1989;20:231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Vena GA, Foti C, Grandolfo M, et al. Mercury exanthem. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;31:214.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. McFadden JP (2001) Hand eczema. In: Rycroft RJG, Menné T, Frosch PJ, et al, editors. Textbook of contact dermatitis, 3rd ed. Springer, Berlin; 2001. p 404.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Lynde CW, Mitchell JC. Unusual complication of allergic contact dermatitis of the hands. Recurrent lymphangitis and persistent lymphoedema. Contact Dermatitis, 1982; 8:279.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Worm AM, Staberg B, Thomsen K. Persistent oedema in allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1983;9:517.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Cronin E. “New” allergens of clinical importance. Semin Dermatol. 1982;1:33.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Held JL, Ruszkowski AM, DeLeo VA. Consort contact dermatitis due to oak moss. Arch Dermatol. 1988;124:261.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Bonamonte D, Foti C, Vestita M, et al. Noneczematous contact dermatitis. ISRN Allergy. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/361746.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Bonamonte D, Cavani A, Angelini G. Allergic contact dermatitis. In: Giannetti A, Del Forno C, editors. Textbook of dermatology and sexually transmitted diseases, vol 2. Piccin, Nuova Libraria, Padova; 2013. p. 933.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Menné T, Veien N, Sjølin K-E, et al. Systemic contact dermatitis. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 1994;5:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Veien NK. Systemically induced eczema in adults. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh), 1989; 147(suppl):1.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Weston WC, Weston JA. Allergic contact dermatitis in children. Am J Dis Child. 1984;138:932.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Romaguera C, Vilaplana J. Contact dermatitis in children: 6 years experience (1992–1997). Contact Dermatitis. 1998;39:277.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Brosch J, Geier J. Patch test results in schoolchildren. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;37:286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Wantke F, Hemmer W, Jarish R, et al. Patch test reactions in children, adults and the elderly. A comparative study in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis, 1996; 34:316.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Berardesca E, Maibach HI. Contact dermatitis in blacks. Dermatol Clin. 1988;6:363.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Meneghini CL, Angelini G. Atopic and occupational and contact allergy. Immunology and Allergy Clinics of North America. Urticaria and Exogenous Dermatoses. WB Saunders Company, Philadelphia; 1989, p. 223.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Angelini G, Vena GA (1989) Allergia da contatto al nichel. Considerazioni su vecchie e nuove acquisizioni. Boll Dermatol Allergol Profes 4:5.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Bonamonte D. Allergeni della serie standard. In: Angelini G, Vena GA, editors. Dermatologia professionale e ambientale, vol. 2. ISED, Brescia; 1999. p. 413.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Bonamonte D. Altri allergeni per pacth test. In: Angelini G, Vena GA, editors. Dermatologia professionale e ambientale, vol. II. ISED, Brescia; 1999. P. 471.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Angelini G. Topical drugs. In: Rycroft RJG, Menné T, Frosch PJ, editors. Textbook of contact dermatitis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1995. p. 477.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  60. Meneghini CL, Angelini G. Secondary polymorphic eruptions in allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatologica. 1981;163:63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Angelini G, Vena GA, Meneghini CL. Allergic contact dermatitis to some medicaments. Contact Dermatitis. 1985;12:263.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Angelini G, Vena GA, Grandolfo M, et al. Iatrogenic contact dermatitis and eczematous reactions. Clin Dermatol. 1993;11:467.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Bonamonte D, Foti C, Romita P, et al. Colors and contact dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2014;25:155.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Meneghini CL, Angelini G. Contact dermatitis from pyrrolnitrin (an antimycotic agent). Contact Dermatitis. 1975;1:288.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Meneghini CL, Angelini G. Contact dermatitis from pyrrolnitrin. Contact Dermatitis. 1982;8:55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Bonamonte D, Filoni A, Verni P, et al. Dermatitis caused by Coelenterates. In: Bonamonte D, Angelini G, editors. Aquatic dermatology. Biotic, chemical and physical agents. Springer, Berlin; 2016. p. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Marks JG Jr. Poison ivy and poison oak allergic contact dermatitis. Immunology and Allergy Clinics of North America. Urticaria and Exogenous Dermatoses. WB Saunders Company, Philadelphia; 1989. p. 497.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Angelini G, Vena GA, Meneghini CL. Contact dermatitis with Ficus carica. In: Frosch PJ, Dooms-Goossens A, Lachapelle JM, et al., editors. Current topics in contact dermatitis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1983. p. 163.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Bonamonte D, Foti C, Lionetti N, et al. Photoallergic contact dermatitis to 8-methoxypsoralen in Ficus carica. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;62:343.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Hemingway JD, Malokhia MM. The dissolution of metallic nickel in artificial sweat. Contact Dermatitis. 1987;16:314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Kanan MW. Contact dermatitis in Kuwait. J Kuwait Med Assol. 1969;3:129.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Fisher AA. Nickel dermatitis in men. Cutis. 1985;35:424.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. De Corres LF, Garrastazu MT, Solocta R, et al. Nickel contact dermatitis in a blood bank. Contact Dermatitis. 1982;8:32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Oakley AMM, Ive FA, Car MM. Skin clips are controindicated when there is nickel allergy. J R Soc Med. 1987;80:390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Meneghini CL, Angelini G. Primary and secondary sites of occupational contact dermatitis. Derm Beruf Umwelt. 1984;32:205.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Dupuis G, Benezra C. Allergic contact dermatitis to simple chemicals. A molecolar approch. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York; 1982. p. 87.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Baer RL. Cross-sensitization phenomena. In: Mackenna RMB, editor. Modern trends in dermatology. Butterworths, London: Second series; 1954. p. 232.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Sidi E, Hincky J, Hincky M. Le rôle de la constitution chimique dans les allergies de contact. Rev Franç Allerg. 1964;4:1.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Foussereau J, Benezra C, Maibach HI. Occupational contact dermatitis. Clinical and chemical aspects: Munksgaard, Copenhagen; 1982. p. 47.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Mayer RL. Compounds of quinone structure as allergens and cancerogenic agents. Experentia. 1950;6:241.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Fregert S, Rosman H. Hypersensitivity to diethylstilbestrol with cross-sensitization to benzestrol. Acta Derm Venereol. 1962;42:290.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Bonamonte D, Foti C, Vestita M, et al. Parabens: an endless story. Ann Ital Dermatol Allergol. 2013;67:41.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Stampf JL, Schlewer G, Ducombs G, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis due to sesquiterpene lactones. A comparative study of human and animal sensitivity to α-methylene-γ-butyrolactone and derivatives. Br J Dermatol, 1978; 99:163.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Pirilä V, Pirilä L. Sensitization to the neomycin group of antibiotics. Acta Derm Venereol. 1966;46:489.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Helleström S, Lodin A, Raika G, et al. Sensitization of pigs with 3-carene. Acta Derm Venereol. 1963;43:311.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Meneghini CL, Angelini G. Behaviour of contact allergy and new sensitivities on subsequent patch tests. Contact Dermatitis. 1977;3:138.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Vena GA, Foti C, Angelini G. Studio sulle variazioni nel tempo della sensibilizzazione da contatto. Boll Dermatol Allergol Profes. 1992;7:247.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Meneghini CL. Contributo allo studio delle dermatosi professionali da cemento e calce. Giorn Ital Dermatol. 1952;93:303.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Petruzzellis V, Rantuccio F, Meneghini CL, et al. In tema di morbilità cutanea da cemento in cantieri edili e nelle cementerie. Giorn Ital Dermatol Min Med. 1969;110:485.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Rantuccio F, Meneghini CL, Riboldi A, et al. L’esame clinico-allergologico nelle visite di assunzione: 5 anni di osservazioni. Atti Simposio Prevenzione Dermatosi Professionali, Monte Porzio Catone, 25–26 maggio; 1970. p. 303.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Meneghini CL, Rantuccio F, Lomuto M. A propos de réactions de sensibilization sur 281 cas. Ann Dermatol Syphilol. 1972;99:161.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Lowney ED. Immunologic unresponsiveness to a contact sensitizer in man. J Invest Dermatol. 1968;51:411.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. van der Burg CKH. Hand eczema in hairdressers and nurses: a prospective study. Contact Dermatitis. 1986;14:275.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Polak C, Rinck A. Mechanism of sensitization in DNCB-contact sensitive guinea pigs. J Invest Dermatol. 1978;70:98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Asherson GL, Zembala M, Pereira MACC, et al. Production of immunity and unresponsiveness in the mouse by feeding contact sensitizing agents and the role of suppressor cells in the Peyer’s patches, mesenteric lymph nodes and other lymphoid tissues. Cell Immunol. 1977;33:145.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy

    Caterina Foti, Domenico Bonamonte & Pietro Verni

  2. Professor of Dermatology, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy

    Gianni Angelini

Authors
  1. Caterina Foti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Domenico Bonamonte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pietro Verni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gianni Angelini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caterina Foti .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Dermatology, Bari, Italy

    Gianni Angelini

  2. Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy

    Domenico Bonamonte

  3. Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy

    Caterina Foti

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Foti, C., Bonamonte, D., Verni, P., Angelini, G. (2021). Allergic Contact Dermatitis. In: Angelini, G., Bonamonte, D., Foti, C. (eds) Clinical Contact Dermatitis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49332-5_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49332-5_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-49331-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-49332-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation