Contact Dermatitis

Photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD), a subtype of allergic contact dermatitis that occurs because of the specific combination of exposure to an exogenous chemical applied topically to the skin and UV radiation, may be more common than was once thought.¹ Although the incidence in the general population is unknown, current research points to approximately 20% to 40% of patients with suspected photosensitivity having a PACD diagnosis.² Recently, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) reported that 21% of 373 patients undergoing photopatch testing (PPT) were diagnosed with PACD²; however, PPT is not routinely performed, which may contribute to underdiagnosis.

Mechanism of Disease

Similar to allergic contact dermatitis, PACD is a delayed type IV hypersensitivity reaction; however, it only occurs when an exogenous chemical is applied topically to the skin with concomitant exposure to UV radiation, usually in the UVA range (315–400 nm).^3,4 When exposed to UV radiation, it is thought that the exogenous chemical combines with a protein in the skin and transforms into a photoantigen. In the sensitization phase, the photoantigen is taken up by antigen-presenting cells in the epidermis and transported to local lymph nodes where antigen-specific T cells are generated.⁵ In the elicitation phase, the inflammatory reaction of PACD occurs upon subsequent exposure to the same chemical plus UV radiation.⁴ Development of PACD does not necessarily depend on the dose of the chemical or the amount of UV radiation.⁶ Why certain individuals may be more susceptible is unknown, though major histocompatibility complex haplotypes could be influential.^7,8

Clinical Manifestations

Photoallergic contact dermatitis primarily presents in sun-exposed areas of the skin (eg, face, neck, V area of the chest, dorsal upper extremities) with sparing of naturally photoprotected sites, such as the upper eyelids and nasolabial and retroauricular folds. Other than its characteristic photodistribution, PACD often is clinically indistinguishable from routine allergic contact dermatitis. It manifests as a pruritic, poorly demarcated, eczematous or sometimes vesiculobullous eruption that develops in a delayed fashion—24 to 72 hours after sun exposure. The dermatitis may extend to other parts of the body either through spread of the chemical agent by the hands or clothing or due to the systemic nature of the immune response. The severity of the presentation can vary depending on multiple factors, such as concentration and absorption of the agent, length of exposure, intensity and duration of UV radiation exposure, and individual susceptibility.⁴ Chronic PACD may become lichenified. Generally, rashes resolve after discontinuation of the causative agent; however, long-term exposure may lead to development of chronic actinic dermatitis, with persistent photodistributed eczema regardless of contact with the initial inciting agent.⁹

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for patients presenting with photodistributed dermatitis is broad; therefore, taking a thorough history is important. Considerations include age of onset, timing and persistence of reactions, use of topical and systemic medications (both prescription and over-the-counter [OTC]), personal care products, occupation, and hobbies, as well as a thorough review of systems.

It is important to distinguish PACD from phototoxic contact dermatitis (PTCD)(also known as photoirritant contact dermatitis)(Table). Asking about the onset and timing of the eruption may be critical for distinction, as PTCD can occur within minutes to hours of the first exposure to a chemical and UV radiation, while there is a sensitization delay in PACD.⁶ Phytophotodermatitis is a well-known type of PTCD caused by exposure to furocoumarin-containing plants, most commonly limes.¹⁰ Other causes of PTCD include tar products and certain medications.¹¹ Importantly, PPT to a known phototoxic chemical should never be performed because it will cause a strong reaction in anyone tested, regardless of exposure history.

Diagnosis

Histologically, PACD presents similarly to allergic contact dermatitis with spongiotic dermatitis; therefore, biopsy cannot be relied upon to make the diagnosis.⁶ Photopatch testing is required for definitive diagnosis. It is reasonable to perform PPT in any patient with chronic dermatitis primarily affecting sun-exposed areas without a clear alternative diagnosis.^14,15 Of note, at present there are no North American consensus guidelines for PPT, but typically duplicate sets of photoallergens are applied to both sides of the patient’s back and one side is exposed to UVA radiation. The reactions are compared after 48 to 96 hours.¹⁵ A positive reaction only at the irradiated site is consistent with photoallergy, while a reaction of equal strength at both the irradiated and nonirradiated sites indicates regular contact allergy. The case of a reaction occurring at both sites with a stronger response at the irradiated site is known as photoaggravated contact allergy, which can be thought of as allergic contact dermatitis that worsens but does not solely occur with exposure to sunlight.

Although PPT is necessary for the accurate diagnosis of PACD, it is infrequently used. Two surveys of 112 and 117 American Contact Dermatitis Society members, respectively, have revealed that only around half performed PPT, most of them testing fewer than 20 times per year.^16,17 Additionally, there was variability in the test methodology and allergens employed. Nevertheless, most respondents tested sunscreens, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), fragrances, and their patients’ own products.^16,17 The most common reasons for not performing PPT were lack of equipment, insufficient skills, rare clinical suspicion, and cost. Dermatologists at academic centers performed more PPT than those in other practice settings, including multispecialty group practices and private offices.¹⁶ These findings highlight multiple factors that may contribute to reduced patient access to PPT and thus potential underdiagnosis of PACD.

Common Photoallergens

The most common photoallergens change over time in response to market trends; for example, fragrance was once a top photoallergen in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s but declined in prominence after musk ambrette—the primary allergen associated with PACD at the time—was removed as an ingredient in fragrances.¹⁸

In the largest and most recent PPT series from North America (1999-2009),² sunscreens comprised 7 of the top 10 most common photoallergens, which is consistent with other studies showing sunscreens to be the most common North American photoallergens.^19-22 The frequency of PACD due to sunscreens likely relates to their increasing use worldwide as awareness of photocarcinogenesis and photoaging grows, as well as the common use of UV filters in nonsunscreen personal care products, ranging from lip balms to perfumes and bodywashes. Chemical (organic) UV filters—in particular oxybenzone (benzophenone-3) and avobenzone (butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane)—are the most common sunscreen photoallergens.^2,23 Para-aminobenzoic acid was once a common photoallergen, but it is no longer used in US sunscreens due to safety concerns.^19,20 The physical (inorganic) UV filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are not known photosensitizers.

Methylisothiazolinone (MI) is a highly allergenic preservative commonly used in a wide array of personal care products, including sunscreens.²⁴ In the most recent NACDG patch test data, MI was the second most common contact allergen.²⁵ Allergic contact dermatitis caused by MI in sunscreen can mimic PACD.²⁶ In addition, MI can cause photoaggravated contact dermatitis, with some affected patients experiencing ongoing photosensitivity even after avoiding this allergen.^26-30 The European Union and Canada have introduced restrictions on the use of MI in personal care products, but no such regulatory measures have been taken in the United States to date.^25,31,32

After sunscreens, another common cause of PACD are topical NSAIDs, which are frequently used for musculoskeletal pain relief. These are of particular concern in Europe, where a variety of formulations are widely available OTC.³³ Ketoprofen and etofenamate are responsible for the largest number of PACD reactions in Europe.^2,34,35 Meanwhile, the only OTC topical NSAID available in the United States is diclofenac gel, which was approved in 2020. Cases of PACD due to use of diclofenac gel have been reported in the literature, but testing in larger populations is needed.^36-39

Notably, ketoprofen may co- or cross-react with certain UV filters—oxybenzone and octocrylene—and the lipid-lowering agent fenofibrate due to chemical similarities.^40-43 Despite the relatively high number of photoallergic reactions to ketoprofen in the NACDG photopatch series, only 25% (5/20) were considered clinically relevant (ie, the allergen could not be verified as present in the known skin contactants of the patient, and the patient was not exposed to circumstances in which contact with materials known to contain the allergen would likely occur), which suggests that they likely represented cross-reactions in patients sensitized to sunscreens.²

Other agents that may cause PACD include antimicrobials, plants and plant derivatives, and pesticides.^2,4,18 The antimicrobial fentichlor is a common cause of positive PPT reactions, but it rarely is clinically relevant.⁴⁴

Treatment

The primary management of PACD centers on identification of the causative photoallergen to avoid future exposure. Patients should be educated on the various names by which the causative allergen can be identified on product labels and should be given a list of safe products that are free from relevant allergens and cross-reacting chemicals.⁴⁵ Additionally, sun protection education should be provided. Exposure to UVA radiation can occur through windows, making the use of broad-spectrum sunscreens and protective clothing crucial. In cases of sunscreen-induced PACD, the responsible chemical UV filter(s) should be avoided, or alternatively, patients may use physical sunscreens containing only zinc oxide and/or titanium dioxide as active ingredients, as these are not known to cause PACD.⁴

When avoidance alone is insufficient, topical corticosteroids are the usual first-line treatment for localized PACD. When steroid-sparing treatments are preferred, topical calcineurin inhibitors such as tacrolimus and pimecrolimus may be used. If PACD is more widespread and severe, systemic therapy using steroids or steroid-sparing agents may be necessary to provide symptomatic relief.⁴

Final Interpretation

Photoallergic contact dermatitis is not uncommon, particularly among photosensitive patients. Most cases are due to sunscreens or topical NSAIDs. Consideration of PPT should be given in any patient with a chronic photodistributed dermatitis to evaluate for the possibility of PACD.

Photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD), a subtype of allergic contact dermatitis that occurs because of the specific combination of exposure to an exogenous chemical applied topically to the skin and UV radiation, may be more common than was once thought.¹ Although the incidence in the general population is unknown, current research points to approximately 20% to 40% of patients with suspected photosensitivity having a PACD diagnosis.² Recently, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) reported that 21% of 373 patients undergoing photopatch testing (PPT) were diagnosed with PACD²; however, PPT is not routinely performed, which may contribute to underdiagnosis.

Mechanism of Disease

Similar to allergic contact dermatitis, PACD is a delayed type IV hypersensitivity reaction; however, it only occurs when an exogenous chemical is applied topically to the skin with concomitant exposure to UV radiation, usually in the UVA range (315–400 nm).^3,4 When exposed to UV radiation, it is thought that the exogenous chemical combines with a protein in the skin and transforms into a photoantigen. In the sensitization phase, the photoantigen is taken up by antigen-presenting cells in the epidermis and transported to local lymph nodes where antigen-specific T cells are generated.⁵ In the elicitation phase, the inflammatory reaction of PACD occurs upon subsequent exposure to the same chemical plus UV radiation.⁴ Development of PACD does not necessarily depend on the dose of the chemical or the amount of UV radiation.⁶ Why certain individuals may be more susceptible is unknown, though major histocompatibility complex haplotypes could be influential.^7,8

Clinical Manifestations

Photoallergic contact dermatitis primarily presents in sun-exposed areas of the skin (eg, face, neck, V area of the chest, dorsal upper extremities) with sparing of naturally photoprotected sites, such as the upper eyelids and nasolabial and retroauricular folds. Other than its characteristic photodistribution, PACD often is clinically indistinguishable from routine allergic contact dermatitis. It manifests as a pruritic, poorly demarcated, eczematous or sometimes vesiculobullous eruption that develops in a delayed fashion—24 to 72 hours after sun exposure. The dermatitis may extend to other parts of the body either through spread of the chemical agent by the hands or clothing or due to the systemic nature of the immune response. The severity of the presentation can vary depending on multiple factors, such as concentration and absorption of the agent, length of exposure, intensity and duration of UV radiation exposure, and individual susceptibility.⁴ Chronic PACD may become lichenified. Generally, rashes resolve after discontinuation of the causative agent; however, long-term exposure may lead to development of chronic actinic dermatitis, with persistent photodistributed eczema regardless of contact with the initial inciting agent.⁹

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for patients presenting with photodistributed dermatitis is broad; therefore, taking a thorough history is important. Considerations include age of onset, timing and persistence of reactions, use of topical and systemic medications (both prescription and over-the-counter [OTC]), personal care products, occupation, and hobbies, as well as a thorough review of systems.

It is important to distinguish PACD from phototoxic contact dermatitis (PTCD)(also known as photoirritant contact dermatitis)(Table). Asking about the onset and timing of the eruption may be critical for distinction, as PTCD can occur within minutes to hours of the first exposure to a chemical and UV radiation, while there is a sensitization delay in PACD.⁶ Phytophotodermatitis is a well-known type of PTCD caused by exposure to furocoumarin-containing plants, most commonly limes.¹⁰ Other causes of PTCD include tar products and certain medications.¹¹ Importantly, PPT to a known phototoxic chemical should never be performed because it will cause a strong reaction in anyone tested, regardless of exposure history.

Diagnosis

Histologically, PACD presents similarly to allergic contact dermatitis with spongiotic dermatitis; therefore, biopsy cannot be relied upon to make the diagnosis.⁶ Photopatch testing is required for definitive diagnosis. It is reasonable to perform PPT in any patient with chronic dermatitis primarily affecting sun-exposed areas without a clear alternative diagnosis.^14,15 Of note, at present there are no North American consensus guidelines for PPT, but typically duplicate sets of photoallergens are applied to both sides of the patient’s back and one side is exposed to UVA radiation. The reactions are compared after 48 to 96 hours.¹⁵ A positive reaction only at the irradiated site is consistent with photoallergy, while a reaction of equal strength at both the irradiated and nonirradiated sites indicates regular contact allergy. The case of a reaction occurring at both sites with a stronger response at the irradiated site is known as photoaggravated contact allergy, which can be thought of as allergic contact dermatitis that worsens but does not solely occur with exposure to sunlight.

Although PPT is necessary for the accurate diagnosis of PACD, it is infrequently used. Two surveys of 112 and 117 American Contact Dermatitis Society members, respectively, have revealed that only around half performed PPT, most of them testing fewer than 20 times per year.^16,17 Additionally, there was variability in the test methodology and allergens employed. Nevertheless, most respondents tested sunscreens, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), fragrances, and their patients’ own products.^16,17 The most common reasons for not performing PPT were lack of equipment, insufficient skills, rare clinical suspicion, and cost. Dermatologists at academic centers performed more PPT than those in other practice settings, including multispecialty group practices and private offices.¹⁶ These findings highlight multiple factors that may contribute to reduced patient access to PPT and thus potential underdiagnosis of PACD.

Common Photoallergens

The most common photoallergens change over time in response to market trends; for example, fragrance was once a top photoallergen in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s but declined in prominence after musk ambrette—the primary allergen associated with PACD at the time—was removed as an ingredient in fragrances.¹⁸

In the largest and most recent PPT series from North America (1999-2009),² sunscreens comprised 7 of the top 10 most common photoallergens, which is consistent with other studies showing sunscreens to be the most common North American photoallergens.^19-22 The frequency of PACD due to sunscreens likely relates to their increasing use worldwide as awareness of photocarcinogenesis and photoaging grows, as well as the common use of UV filters in nonsunscreen personal care products, ranging from lip balms to perfumes and bodywashes. Chemical (organic) UV filters—in particular oxybenzone (benzophenone-3) and avobenzone (butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane)—are the most common sunscreen photoallergens.^2,23 Para-aminobenzoic acid was once a common photoallergen, but it is no longer used in US sunscreens due to safety concerns.^19,20 The physical (inorganic) UV filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are not known photosensitizers.

Methylisothiazolinone (MI) is a highly allergenic preservative commonly used in a wide array of personal care products, including sunscreens.²⁴ In the most recent NACDG patch test data, MI was the second most common contact allergen.²⁵ Allergic contact dermatitis caused by MI in sunscreen can mimic PACD.²⁶ In addition, MI can cause photoaggravated contact dermatitis, with some affected patients experiencing ongoing photosensitivity even after avoiding this allergen.^26-30 The European Union and Canada have introduced restrictions on the use of MI in personal care products, but no such regulatory measures have been taken in the United States to date.^25,31,32

After sunscreens, another common cause of PACD are topical NSAIDs, which are frequently used for musculoskeletal pain relief. These are of particular concern in Europe, where a variety of formulations are widely available OTC.³³ Ketoprofen and etofenamate are responsible for the largest number of PACD reactions in Europe.^2,34,35 Meanwhile, the only OTC topical NSAID available in the United States is diclofenac gel, which was approved in 2020. Cases of PACD due to use of diclofenac gel have been reported in the literature, but testing in larger populations is needed.^36-39

Notably, ketoprofen may co- or cross-react with certain UV filters—oxybenzone and octocrylene—and the lipid-lowering agent fenofibrate due to chemical similarities.^40-43 Despite the relatively high number of photoallergic reactions to ketoprofen in the NACDG photopatch series, only 25% (5/20) were considered clinically relevant (ie, the allergen could not be verified as present in the known skin contactants of the patient, and the patient was not exposed to circumstances in which contact with materials known to contain the allergen would likely occur), which suggests that they likely represented cross-reactions in patients sensitized to sunscreens.²

Other agents that may cause PACD include antimicrobials, plants and plant derivatives, and pesticides.^2,4,18 The antimicrobial fentichlor is a common cause of positive PPT reactions, but it rarely is clinically relevant.⁴⁴

Treatment

The primary management of PACD centers on identification of the causative photoallergen to avoid future exposure. Patients should be educated on the various names by which the causative allergen can be identified on product labels and should be given a list of safe products that are free from relevant allergens and cross-reacting chemicals.⁴⁵ Additionally, sun protection education should be provided. Exposure to UVA radiation can occur through windows, making the use of broad-spectrum sunscreens and protective clothing crucial. In cases of sunscreen-induced PACD, the responsible chemical UV filter(s) should be avoided, or alternatively, patients may use physical sunscreens containing only zinc oxide and/or titanium dioxide as active ingredients, as these are not known to cause PACD.⁴

When avoidance alone is insufficient, topical corticosteroids are the usual first-line treatment for localized PACD. When steroid-sparing treatments are preferred, topical calcineurin inhibitors such as tacrolimus and pimecrolimus may be used. If PACD is more widespread and severe, systemic therapy using steroids or steroid-sparing agents may be necessary to provide symptomatic relief.⁴

Final Interpretation

Photoallergic contact dermatitis is not uncommon, particularly among photosensitive patients. Most cases are due to sunscreens or topical NSAIDs. Consideration of PPT should be given in any patient with a chronic photodistributed dermatitis to evaluate for the possibility of PACD.

Photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD), a subtype of allergic contact dermatitis that occurs because of the specific combination of exposure to an exogenous chemical applied topically to the skin and UV radiation, may be more common than was once thought.¹ Although the incidence in the general population is unknown, current research points to approximately 20% to 40% of patients with suspected photosensitivity having a PACD diagnosis.² Recently, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) reported that 21% of 373 patients undergoing photopatch testing (PPT) were diagnosed with PACD²; however, PPT is not routinely performed, which may contribute to underdiagnosis.

Mechanism of Disease

Similar to allergic contact dermatitis, PACD is a delayed type IV hypersensitivity reaction; however, it only occurs when an exogenous chemical is applied topically to the skin with concomitant exposure to UV radiation, usually in the UVA range (315–400 nm).^3,4 When exposed to UV radiation, it is thought that the exogenous chemical combines with a protein in the skin and transforms into a photoantigen. In the sensitization phase, the photoantigen is taken up by antigen-presenting cells in the epidermis and transported to local lymph nodes where antigen-specific T cells are generated.⁵ In the elicitation phase, the inflammatory reaction of PACD occurs upon subsequent exposure to the same chemical plus UV radiation.⁴ Development of PACD does not necessarily depend on the dose of the chemical or the amount of UV radiation.⁶ Why certain individuals may be more susceptible is unknown, though major histocompatibility complex haplotypes could be influential.^7,8

Clinical Manifestations

Photoallergic contact dermatitis primarily presents in sun-exposed areas of the skin (eg, face, neck, V area of the chest, dorsal upper extremities) with sparing of naturally photoprotected sites, such as the upper eyelids and nasolabial and retroauricular folds. Other than its characteristic photodistribution, PACD often is clinically indistinguishable from routine allergic contact dermatitis. It manifests as a pruritic, poorly demarcated, eczematous or sometimes vesiculobullous eruption that develops in a delayed fashion—24 to 72 hours after sun exposure. The dermatitis may extend to other parts of the body either through spread of the chemical agent by the hands or clothing or due to the systemic nature of the immune response. The severity of the presentation can vary depending on multiple factors, such as concentration and absorption of the agent, length of exposure, intensity and duration of UV radiation exposure, and individual susceptibility.⁴ Chronic PACD may become lichenified. Generally, rashes resolve after discontinuation of the causative agent; however, long-term exposure may lead to development of chronic actinic dermatitis, with persistent photodistributed eczema regardless of contact with the initial inciting agent.⁹

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for patients presenting with photodistributed dermatitis is broad; therefore, taking a thorough history is important. Considerations include age of onset, timing and persistence of reactions, use of topical and systemic medications (both prescription and over-the-counter [OTC]), personal care products, occupation, and hobbies, as well as a thorough review of systems.

It is important to distinguish PACD from phototoxic contact dermatitis (PTCD)(also known as photoirritant contact dermatitis)(Table). Asking about the onset and timing of the eruption may be critical for distinction, as PTCD can occur within minutes to hours of the first exposure to a chemical and UV radiation, while there is a sensitization delay in PACD.⁶ Phytophotodermatitis is a well-known type of PTCD caused by exposure to furocoumarin-containing plants, most commonly limes.¹⁰ Other causes of PTCD include tar products and certain medications.¹¹ Importantly, PPT to a known phototoxic chemical should never be performed because it will cause a strong reaction in anyone tested, regardless of exposure history.

Diagnosis

Histologically, PACD presents similarly to allergic contact dermatitis with spongiotic dermatitis; therefore, biopsy cannot be relied upon to make the diagnosis.⁶ Photopatch testing is required for definitive diagnosis. It is reasonable to perform PPT in any patient with chronic dermatitis primarily affecting sun-exposed areas without a clear alternative diagnosis.^14,15 Of note, at present there are no North American consensus guidelines for PPT, but typically duplicate sets of photoallergens are applied to both sides of the patient’s back and one side is exposed to UVA radiation. The reactions are compared after 48 to 96 hours.¹⁵ A positive reaction only at the irradiated site is consistent with photoallergy, while a reaction of equal strength at both the irradiated and nonirradiated sites indicates regular contact allergy. The case of a reaction occurring at both sites with a stronger response at the irradiated site is known as photoaggravated contact allergy, which can be thought of as allergic contact dermatitis that worsens but does not solely occur with exposure to sunlight.

Although PPT is necessary for the accurate diagnosis of PACD, it is infrequently used. Two surveys of 112 and 117 American Contact Dermatitis Society members, respectively, have revealed that only around half performed PPT, most of them testing fewer than 20 times per year.^16,17 Additionally, there was variability in the test methodology and allergens employed. Nevertheless, most respondents tested sunscreens, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), fragrances, and their patients’ own products.^16,17 The most common reasons for not performing PPT were lack of equipment, insufficient skills, rare clinical suspicion, and cost. Dermatologists at academic centers performed more PPT than those in other practice settings, including multispecialty group practices and private offices.¹⁶ These findings highlight multiple factors that may contribute to reduced patient access to PPT and thus potential underdiagnosis of PACD.

Common Photoallergens

The most common photoallergens change over time in response to market trends; for example, fragrance was once a top photoallergen in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s but declined in prominence after musk ambrette—the primary allergen associated with PACD at the time—was removed as an ingredient in fragrances.¹⁸

In the largest and most recent PPT series from North America (1999-2009),² sunscreens comprised 7 of the top 10 most common photoallergens, which is consistent with other studies showing sunscreens to be the most common North American photoallergens.^19-22 The frequency of PACD due to sunscreens likely relates to their increasing use worldwide as awareness of photocarcinogenesis and photoaging grows, as well as the common use of UV filters in nonsunscreen personal care products, ranging from lip balms to perfumes and bodywashes. Chemical (organic) UV filters—in particular oxybenzone (benzophenone-3) and avobenzone (butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane)—are the most common sunscreen photoallergens.^2,23 Para-aminobenzoic acid was once a common photoallergen, but it is no longer used in US sunscreens due to safety concerns.^19,20 The physical (inorganic) UV filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are not known photosensitizers.

Methylisothiazolinone (MI) is a highly allergenic preservative commonly used in a wide array of personal care products, including sunscreens.²⁴ In the most recent NACDG patch test data, MI was the second most common contact allergen.²⁵ Allergic contact dermatitis caused by MI in sunscreen can mimic PACD.²⁶ In addition, MI can cause photoaggravated contact dermatitis, with some affected patients experiencing ongoing photosensitivity even after avoiding this allergen.^26-30 The European Union and Canada have introduced restrictions on the use of MI in personal care products, but no such regulatory measures have been taken in the United States to date.^25,31,32

After sunscreens, another common cause of PACD are topical NSAIDs, which are frequently used for musculoskeletal pain relief. These are of particular concern in Europe, where a variety of formulations are widely available OTC.³³ Ketoprofen and etofenamate are responsible for the largest number of PACD reactions in Europe.^2,34,35 Meanwhile, the only OTC topical NSAID available in the United States is diclofenac gel, which was approved in 2020. Cases of PACD due to use of diclofenac gel have been reported in the literature, but testing in larger populations is needed.^36-39

Notably, ketoprofen may co- or cross-react with certain UV filters—oxybenzone and octocrylene—and the lipid-lowering agent fenofibrate due to chemical similarities.^40-43 Despite the relatively high number of photoallergic reactions to ketoprofen in the NACDG photopatch series, only 25% (5/20) were considered clinically relevant (ie, the allergen could not be verified as present in the known skin contactants of the patient, and the patient was not exposed to circumstances in which contact with materials known to contain the allergen would likely occur), which suggests that they likely represented cross-reactions in patients sensitized to sunscreens.²

Other agents that may cause PACD include antimicrobials, plants and plant derivatives, and pesticides.^2,4,18 The antimicrobial fentichlor is a common cause of positive PPT reactions, but it rarely is clinically relevant.⁴⁴

Treatment

The primary management of PACD centers on identification of the causative photoallergen to avoid future exposure. Patients should be educated on the various names by which the causative allergen can be identified on product labels and should be given a list of safe products that are free from relevant allergens and cross-reacting chemicals.⁴⁵ Additionally, sun protection education should be provided. Exposure to UVA radiation can occur through windows, making the use of broad-spectrum sunscreens and protective clothing crucial. In cases of sunscreen-induced PACD, the responsible chemical UV filter(s) should be avoided, or alternatively, patients may use physical sunscreens containing only zinc oxide and/or titanium dioxide as active ingredients, as these are not known to cause PACD.⁴

When avoidance alone is insufficient, topical corticosteroids are the usual first-line treatment for localized PACD. When steroid-sparing treatments are preferred, topical calcineurin inhibitors such as tacrolimus and pimecrolimus may be used. If PACD is more widespread and severe, systemic therapy using steroids or steroid-sparing agents may be necessary to provide symptomatic relief.⁴

Final Interpretation

Photoallergic contact dermatitis is not uncommon, particularly among photosensitive patients. Most cases are due to sunscreens or topical NSAIDs. Consideration of PPT should be given in any patient with a chronic photodistributed dermatitis to evaluate for the possibility of PACD.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) are 2 common inflammatory skin conditions that may have similar clinical presentations. Historically, it was thought that these conditions could not be diagnosed simultaneously due to their differing immune mechanisms; however, this belief has been challenged by recent evidence suggesting a more nuanced relationship between the 2 disease processes. In this review, we examine the complex interplay between AD and ACD and explain how shifts in conventional understanding of the 2 conditions shaped our evolving recognition of their ability to coexist.

Epidemiology of AD and ACD

Atopic dermatitis is the most common inflammatory skin disease in children and adolescents, with an estimated prevalence reaching 21%.¹ In 60% of cases, onset of AD will occur within the first year of life, and 90% of cases begin within the first 5 years.² Resolution may occur by adulthood; however, AD may continue to impact up to 8% to 9% of adults, with an increased prevalence in those older than 75 years.¹ This may represent an underestimation of the burden of adult AD; one systematic review of 17 studies found that the pooled proportion of adult-onset AD was greater than 25%.³

In contrast, ACD previously was assumed to be a disease that more commonly impacted adults and only rarely children, primarily due to an early misconception that children were not frequently exposed to contact allergens and their immune systems were too immature to react to them even if exposed.^4,5 However, it is now known that children do have risk factors for development of ACD, including a thinner stratum corneum and potentially a more absorbent skin surface.⁴ In addition, a 2022 study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found similar rates of ACD in children (n=1871) and adults (n=41,699) referred for patch testing (55.2% and 57.3%, respectively) as well as similar rates of having at least 1 relevant positive patch test (49.2% and 52.2%).⁶

In opposition to traditional beliefs, these findings highlight that AD and ACD can occur across age groups.

Immune Mechanism

The pathogenesis of AD represents a multifactorial process involving the immune system, cutaneous flora, genetic predisposition, and surrounding environment. Immunologically, acute AD is driven by a predominantly T_H2 helper T-cell response with high levels of IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13⁷; T_H22, T_H17, and T_H1 also have been implicated.⁸ Notably, T_H17 is found in high levels during the acute eczema phase, while T_H1 and T_H22are associated with the chronic phase.⁷

The pathophysiology of ACD is not completely understood. The classic paradigm involves 2 phases: sensitization and elicitation. Sensitization involves antigen-presenting cells that take up allergens absorbed by the skin to present them in regional lymph nodes where antigen-specific T lymphocytes are generated. Elicitation occurs upon re-exposure to the allergen, at which time the primed T lymphocytes are recruited to the skin, causing inflammation.⁹ Allergic contact dermatitis initially was thought to be driven by T_H1 cytokines and IL-17 but now is understood to be more complex.¹⁰ Studies have revealed immune polarization of contact allergens, demonstrating that nickel primarily induces a T_H1/T_H17 response, whereas fragrance and rubber accelerators skew to T_H2; T_H9 and T_H22 also may be involved depending on the causative allergen.^11,12

Of note, the immunologic differences between AD and ACD led early investigators to believe that patients with AD were relatively protected from ACD.¹³ However, as previously described, there are several overlapping cytokines between AD and ACD. Furthermore, research has revealed that risk of contact sensitization might be increased in the chronic eczema phase due to the shared T_H1 pathway.¹⁴ Barrier-disrupted skin (such as that in AD) also may increase the cytokine response and the density of antigen-presenting cells, leading to a proallergic state.¹⁵ This suggests that the immunologic pathways of AD and ACD are more intertwined than was previously understood.

Underlying Risk Factors

Skin barrier dysfunction is a key step in the pathogenesis of AD. Patients with AD commonly have loss-of-function mutations in the filaggrin gene, a protein that is key to the function of the stratum corneum. Loss of this protein may not only impact the immune response as previously noted but also may lead to increased transepidermal water loss and bacterial colonization.¹⁶ Interestingly, a 2014 review examined how this mutation could lead to an increased risk of sensitization to bivalent metal ions via an impaired chelating ability of the skin.¹⁷ Furthermore, a 2016 study conducted in Dutch construction workers revealed an increased risk for contact dermatitis (irritant and allergic) for those with a loss-of-function filaggrin mutation.¹⁸

Importantly, this same mutation may explain why patients with AD tend to have increased skin colonization by Staphylococcus aureus. The abundance of S aureus and the relative decrease in the diversity of other microorganisms on the skin may be associated with increased AD severity.¹⁹ Likewise, S aureus may play a role in the pathogenesis of ACD via production of its exotoxin directed at the T-cell receptor V beta 17 region. In particular, this receptor has been associated with nickel sensitization.¹⁷

Another risk factor to consider is increased exposure to contact sensitizers when treating AD. For instance, management often includes use of over-the-counter emollients, natural or botanical remedies with purported benefits for AD, cleansers, and detergents. However, these products can contain some of the most prevalent contact allergens seen in those with AD, including methyl-isothiazolinone, formaldehyde releasers, and fragrance.²⁰ Topical corticosteroids also are frequently used, and ACD to steroid molecules can occur, particularly to tixocortol-21-pivalate (a marker for class A corticosteroids) and budesonide (a marker for class B corticosteroids).²¹ Other allergens (eg, benzyl alcohol, propylene glycol) also may be found as inactive ingredients of topical corticosteroids.²² These exposures may place AD patients at risk for ACD.

The Coexistence of AD and ACD

Given the overlapping epidemiology, immunology, and potentially increased risk for the development of ACD in patients with AD, it would be reasonable to assume that the 2 diagnoses could coexist; however, is there clinical data to support this idea? Based on recent database reviews, the answer appears to be yes.^20,23-26 An analysis from the Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Registry revealed that 30% of 1142 pediatric patch test cases analyzed were diagnosed as AD and ACD simultaneously.²⁴ The NACDG found similar results in its 2021 review, as 29.5% of children (n=1648) and 20.7% of adults (n=36,834) had a concurrent diagnosis of AD and ACD.²⁰ Notably, older results from these databases also demonstrated an association between the 2 conditions.^23,25,26

It remains unclear whether the prevalence of ACD is higher in those with or without AD. A comprehensive systematic review conducted in 2017 examined this topic through analysis of 74 studies. The results demonstrated a similar prevalence of contact sensitization in individuals with and without AD.²⁷ Another systematic review of 31 studies conducted in 2017 found a higher prevalence for ACD in children without AD; however, the authors noted that the included studies were too variable (eg, size, design, allergens tested) to draw definitive conclusions.²⁸

Even though there is no clear overall increased risk for ACD in patients with AD, research has suggested that certain allergens may be more prevalent in the setting of AD. An NACDG study found that adults with AD had increased odds of reacting to 10 of the top 25 NACDG screening allergens compared to those without AD.²⁰ Other studies have found that AD patients may be more likely to become sensitized to certain allergens, such as fragrance and lanolin.¹⁴

Considerations for Management

Diagnosis of ACD in patients with AD can be challenging because these conditions may present similarly with chronic, pruritic, inflammatory patches and plaques. Chronic ACD may be misdiagnosed as AD if patch testing is not performed.²⁹ Given the prevalence of ACD in the setting of AD, there should be a low threshold to pursue patch testing, especially when dermatitis is recalcitrant to standard therapies or presents in an atypical distribution (ie, perioral, predominantly head/neck, hand and foot, isolated eyelid involvement, buttocks).^4,30 Various allergen series are available for patch testing adults and children including the NACDG Standard Series, American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series, or the Pediatric Baseline Series.^31-33

If potentially relevant allergens are uncovered by patch testing, patients should be counseled on avoidance strategies. However, allergen avoidance may not always lead to complete symptom resolution, especially if AD is present concomitantly with ACD. Therefore, use of topical or systemic therapies still may be required. Topical corticosteroids can be used when dermatitis is acute and localized. Systemic corticosteroids are utilized for both diagnoses when cases are more severe or extensive, but their adverse-effect profile limits long-term use. Other systemic treatments, including conventional agents (ie, azathioprine, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil), biologics, and small molecule inhibitors also may be considered for severe cases.^34,35 Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-4/IL-13, is approved for use in moderate to severe AD in patients 6 months and older. Recent evidence has suggested that dupilumab also may be an effective off-label treatment choice for ACD when allergen avoidance alone is insufficient.³⁶ Studies have been conducted on secukinumab, a monoclonal antibody against IL-17; however, it has not been shown to be effective in either AD or ACD.^37,38 This indicates that targeted biologics may not always be successful in treating these diagnoses, likely due to their complex immune pathways. Finally, there is an emerging role for JAK inhibitors. Three are approved for AD: topical ruxolitinib, oral abrocitinib, and oral upadacitinib.³⁹ Further investigation is needed to determine the efficacy of JAK inhibitors in ACD.

Final Interpretation

Evolving evidence shows that AD and ACD can occur at the same time despite the historical perspective that their immune pathways were too polarized for this to happen. Atopic dermatitis may be an important risk factor for subsequent development of ACD. Management should include a low threshold to perform patch testing, while pharmacotherapies utilized in the treatment of both conditions should be considered.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) are 2 common inflammatory skin conditions that may have similar clinical presentations. Historically, it was thought that these conditions could not be diagnosed simultaneously due to their differing immune mechanisms; however, this belief has been challenged by recent evidence suggesting a more nuanced relationship between the 2 disease processes. In this review, we examine the complex interplay between AD and ACD and explain how shifts in conventional understanding of the 2 conditions shaped our evolving recognition of their ability to coexist.

Epidemiology of AD and ACD

Atopic dermatitis is the most common inflammatory skin disease in children and adolescents, with an estimated prevalence reaching 21%.¹ In 60% of cases, onset of AD will occur within the first year of life, and 90% of cases begin within the first 5 years.² Resolution may occur by adulthood; however, AD may continue to impact up to 8% to 9% of adults, with an increased prevalence in those older than 75 years.¹ This may represent an underestimation of the burden of adult AD; one systematic review of 17 studies found that the pooled proportion of adult-onset AD was greater than 25%.³

In contrast, ACD previously was assumed to be a disease that more commonly impacted adults and only rarely children, primarily due to an early misconception that children were not frequently exposed to contact allergens and their immune systems were too immature to react to them even if exposed.^4,5 However, it is now known that children do have risk factors for development of ACD, including a thinner stratum corneum and potentially a more absorbent skin surface.⁴ In addition, a 2022 study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found similar rates of ACD in children (n=1871) and adults (n=41,699) referred for patch testing (55.2% and 57.3%, respectively) as well as similar rates of having at least 1 relevant positive patch test (49.2% and 52.2%).⁶

In opposition to traditional beliefs, these findings highlight that AD and ACD can occur across age groups.

Immune Mechanism

The pathogenesis of AD represents a multifactorial process involving the immune system, cutaneous flora, genetic predisposition, and surrounding environment. Immunologically, acute AD is driven by a predominantly T_H2 helper T-cell response with high levels of IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13⁷; T_H22, T_H17, and T_H1 also have been implicated.⁸ Notably, T_H17 is found in high levels during the acute eczema phase, while T_H1 and T_H22are associated with the chronic phase.⁷

The pathophysiology of ACD is not completely understood. The classic paradigm involves 2 phases: sensitization and elicitation. Sensitization involves antigen-presenting cells that take up allergens absorbed by the skin to present them in regional lymph nodes where antigen-specific T lymphocytes are generated. Elicitation occurs upon re-exposure to the allergen, at which time the primed T lymphocytes are recruited to the skin, causing inflammation.⁹ Allergic contact dermatitis initially was thought to be driven by T_H1 cytokines and IL-17 but now is understood to be more complex.¹⁰ Studies have revealed immune polarization of contact allergens, demonstrating that nickel primarily induces a T_H1/T_H17 response, whereas fragrance and rubber accelerators skew to T_H2; T_H9 and T_H22 also may be involved depending on the causative allergen.^11,12

Of note, the immunologic differences between AD and ACD led early investigators to believe that patients with AD were relatively protected from ACD.¹³ However, as previously described, there are several overlapping cytokines between AD and ACD. Furthermore, research has revealed that risk of contact sensitization might be increased in the chronic eczema phase due to the shared T_H1 pathway.¹⁴ Barrier-disrupted skin (such as that in AD) also may increase the cytokine response and the density of antigen-presenting cells, leading to a proallergic state.¹⁵ This suggests that the immunologic pathways of AD and ACD are more intertwined than was previously understood.

Underlying Risk Factors

Skin barrier dysfunction is a key step in the pathogenesis of AD. Patients with AD commonly have loss-of-function mutations in the filaggrin gene, a protein that is key to the function of the stratum corneum. Loss of this protein may not only impact the immune response as previously noted but also may lead to increased transepidermal water loss and bacterial colonization.¹⁶ Interestingly, a 2014 review examined how this mutation could lead to an increased risk of sensitization to bivalent metal ions via an impaired chelating ability of the skin.¹⁷ Furthermore, a 2016 study conducted in Dutch construction workers revealed an increased risk for contact dermatitis (irritant and allergic) for those with a loss-of-function filaggrin mutation.¹⁸

Importantly, this same mutation may explain why patients with AD tend to have increased skin colonization by Staphylococcus aureus. The abundance of S aureus and the relative decrease in the diversity of other microorganisms on the skin may be associated with increased AD severity.¹⁹ Likewise, S aureus may play a role in the pathogenesis of ACD via production of its exotoxin directed at the T-cell receptor V beta 17 region. In particular, this receptor has been associated with nickel sensitization.¹⁷

Another risk factor to consider is increased exposure to contact sensitizers when treating AD. For instance, management often includes use of over-the-counter emollients, natural or botanical remedies with purported benefits for AD, cleansers, and detergents. However, these products can contain some of the most prevalent contact allergens seen in those with AD, including methyl-isothiazolinone, formaldehyde releasers, and fragrance.²⁰ Topical corticosteroids also are frequently used, and ACD to steroid molecules can occur, particularly to tixocortol-21-pivalate (a marker for class A corticosteroids) and budesonide (a marker for class B corticosteroids).²¹ Other allergens (eg, benzyl alcohol, propylene glycol) also may be found as inactive ingredients of topical corticosteroids.²² These exposures may place AD patients at risk for ACD.

The Coexistence of AD and ACD

Given the overlapping epidemiology, immunology, and potentially increased risk for the development of ACD in patients with AD, it would be reasonable to assume that the 2 diagnoses could coexist; however, is there clinical data to support this idea? Based on recent database reviews, the answer appears to be yes.^20,23-26 An analysis from the Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Registry revealed that 30% of 1142 pediatric patch test cases analyzed were diagnosed as AD and ACD simultaneously.²⁴ The NACDG found similar results in its 2021 review, as 29.5% of children (n=1648) and 20.7% of adults (n=36,834) had a concurrent diagnosis of AD and ACD.²⁰ Notably, older results from these databases also demonstrated an association between the 2 conditions.^23,25,26

It remains unclear whether the prevalence of ACD is higher in those with or without AD. A comprehensive systematic review conducted in 2017 examined this topic through analysis of 74 studies. The results demonstrated a similar prevalence of contact sensitization in individuals with and without AD.²⁷ Another systematic review of 31 studies conducted in 2017 found a higher prevalence for ACD in children without AD; however, the authors noted that the included studies were too variable (eg, size, design, allergens tested) to draw definitive conclusions.²⁸

Even though there is no clear overall increased risk for ACD in patients with AD, research has suggested that certain allergens may be more prevalent in the setting of AD. An NACDG study found that adults with AD had increased odds of reacting to 10 of the top 25 NACDG screening allergens compared to those without AD.²⁰ Other studies have found that AD patients may be more likely to become sensitized to certain allergens, such as fragrance and lanolin.¹⁴

Considerations for Management

Diagnosis of ACD in patients with AD can be challenging because these conditions may present similarly with chronic, pruritic, inflammatory patches and plaques. Chronic ACD may be misdiagnosed as AD if patch testing is not performed.²⁹ Given the prevalence of ACD in the setting of AD, there should be a low threshold to pursue patch testing, especially when dermatitis is recalcitrant to standard therapies or presents in an atypical distribution (ie, perioral, predominantly head/neck, hand and foot, isolated eyelid involvement, buttocks).^4,30 Various allergen series are available for patch testing adults and children including the NACDG Standard Series, American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series, or the Pediatric Baseline Series.^31-33

If potentially relevant allergens are uncovered by patch testing, patients should be counseled on avoidance strategies. However, allergen avoidance may not always lead to complete symptom resolution, especially if AD is present concomitantly with ACD. Therefore, use of topical or systemic therapies still may be required. Topical corticosteroids can be used when dermatitis is acute and localized. Systemic corticosteroids are utilized for both diagnoses when cases are more severe or extensive, but their adverse-effect profile limits long-term use. Other systemic treatments, including conventional agents (ie, azathioprine, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil), biologics, and small molecule inhibitors also may be considered for severe cases.^34,35 Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-4/IL-13, is approved for use in moderate to severe AD in patients 6 months and older. Recent evidence has suggested that dupilumab also may be an effective off-label treatment choice for ACD when allergen avoidance alone is insufficient.³⁶ Studies have been conducted on secukinumab, a monoclonal antibody against IL-17; however, it has not been shown to be effective in either AD or ACD.^37,38 This indicates that targeted biologics may not always be successful in treating these diagnoses, likely due to their complex immune pathways. Finally, there is an emerging role for JAK inhibitors. Three are approved for AD: topical ruxolitinib, oral abrocitinib, and oral upadacitinib.³⁹ Further investigation is needed to determine the efficacy of JAK inhibitors in ACD.

Final Interpretation

Evolving evidence shows that AD and ACD can occur at the same time despite the historical perspective that their immune pathways were too polarized for this to happen. Atopic dermatitis may be an important risk factor for subsequent development of ACD. Management should include a low threshold to perform patch testing, while pharmacotherapies utilized in the treatment of both conditions should be considered.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) are 2 common inflammatory skin conditions that may have similar clinical presentations. Historically, it was thought that these conditions could not be diagnosed simultaneously due to their differing immune mechanisms; however, this belief has been challenged by recent evidence suggesting a more nuanced relationship between the 2 disease processes. In this review, we examine the complex interplay between AD and ACD and explain how shifts in conventional understanding of the 2 conditions shaped our evolving recognition of their ability to coexist.

Epidemiology of AD and ACD

Atopic dermatitis is the most common inflammatory skin disease in children and adolescents, with an estimated prevalence reaching 21%.¹ In 60% of cases, onset of AD will occur within the first year of life, and 90% of cases begin within the first 5 years.² Resolution may occur by adulthood; however, AD may continue to impact up to 8% to 9% of adults, with an increased prevalence in those older than 75 years.¹ This may represent an underestimation of the burden of adult AD; one systematic review of 17 studies found that the pooled proportion of adult-onset AD was greater than 25%.³

In contrast, ACD previously was assumed to be a disease that more commonly impacted adults and only rarely children, primarily due to an early misconception that children were not frequently exposed to contact allergens and their immune systems were too immature to react to them even if exposed.^4,5 However, it is now known that children do have risk factors for development of ACD, including a thinner stratum corneum and potentially a more absorbent skin surface.⁴ In addition, a 2022 study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found similar rates of ACD in children (n=1871) and adults (n=41,699) referred for patch testing (55.2% and 57.3%, respectively) as well as similar rates of having at least 1 relevant positive patch test (49.2% and 52.2%).⁶

In opposition to traditional beliefs, these findings highlight that AD and ACD can occur across age groups.

Immune Mechanism

The pathogenesis of AD represents a multifactorial process involving the immune system, cutaneous flora, genetic predisposition, and surrounding environment. Immunologically, acute AD is driven by a predominantly T_H2 helper T-cell response with high levels of IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13⁷; T_H22, T_H17, and T_H1 also have been implicated.⁸ Notably, T_H17 is found in high levels during the acute eczema phase, while T_H1 and T_H22are associated with the chronic phase.⁷

The pathophysiology of ACD is not completely understood. The classic paradigm involves 2 phases: sensitization and elicitation. Sensitization involves antigen-presenting cells that take up allergens absorbed by the skin to present them in regional lymph nodes where antigen-specific T lymphocytes are generated. Elicitation occurs upon re-exposure to the allergen, at which time the primed T lymphocytes are recruited to the skin, causing inflammation.⁹ Allergic contact dermatitis initially was thought to be driven by T_H1 cytokines and IL-17 but now is understood to be more complex.¹⁰ Studies have revealed immune polarization of contact allergens, demonstrating that nickel primarily induces a T_H1/T_H17 response, whereas fragrance and rubber accelerators skew to T_H2; T_H9 and T_H22 also may be involved depending on the causative allergen.^11,12

Of note, the immunologic differences between AD and ACD led early investigators to believe that patients with AD were relatively protected from ACD.¹³ However, as previously described, there are several overlapping cytokines between AD and ACD. Furthermore, research has revealed that risk of contact sensitization might be increased in the chronic eczema phase due to the shared T_H1 pathway.¹⁴ Barrier-disrupted skin (such as that in AD) also may increase the cytokine response and the density of antigen-presenting cells, leading to a proallergic state.¹⁵ This suggests that the immunologic pathways of AD and ACD are more intertwined than was previously understood.

Underlying Risk Factors

Skin barrier dysfunction is a key step in the pathogenesis of AD. Patients with AD commonly have loss-of-function mutations in the filaggrin gene, a protein that is key to the function of the stratum corneum. Loss of this protein may not only impact the immune response as previously noted but also may lead to increased transepidermal water loss and bacterial colonization.¹⁶ Interestingly, a 2014 review examined how this mutation could lead to an increased risk of sensitization to bivalent metal ions via an impaired chelating ability of the skin.¹⁷ Furthermore, a 2016 study conducted in Dutch construction workers revealed an increased risk for contact dermatitis (irritant and allergic) for those with a loss-of-function filaggrin mutation.¹⁸

Importantly, this same mutation may explain why patients with AD tend to have increased skin colonization by Staphylococcus aureus. The abundance of S aureus and the relative decrease in the diversity of other microorganisms on the skin may be associated with increased AD severity.¹⁹ Likewise, S aureus may play a role in the pathogenesis of ACD via production of its exotoxin directed at the T-cell receptor V beta 17 region. In particular, this receptor has been associated with nickel sensitization.¹⁷

Another risk factor to consider is increased exposure to contact sensitizers when treating AD. For instance, management often includes use of over-the-counter emollients, natural or botanical remedies with purported benefits for AD, cleansers, and detergents. However, these products can contain some of the most prevalent contact allergens seen in those with AD, including methyl-isothiazolinone, formaldehyde releasers, and fragrance.²⁰ Topical corticosteroids also are frequently used, and ACD to steroid molecules can occur, particularly to tixocortol-21-pivalate (a marker for class A corticosteroids) and budesonide (a marker for class B corticosteroids).²¹ Other allergens (eg, benzyl alcohol, propylene glycol) also may be found as inactive ingredients of topical corticosteroids.²² These exposures may place AD patients at risk for ACD.

The Coexistence of AD and ACD

Given the overlapping epidemiology, immunology, and potentially increased risk for the development of ACD in patients with AD, it would be reasonable to assume that the 2 diagnoses could coexist; however, is there clinical data to support this idea? Based on recent database reviews, the answer appears to be yes.^20,23-26 An analysis from the Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Registry revealed that 30% of 1142 pediatric patch test cases analyzed were diagnosed as AD and ACD simultaneously.²⁴ The NACDG found similar results in its 2021 review, as 29.5% of children (n=1648) and 20.7% of adults (n=36,834) had a concurrent diagnosis of AD and ACD.²⁰ Notably, older results from these databases also demonstrated an association between the 2 conditions.^23,25,26

It remains unclear whether the prevalence of ACD is higher in those with or without AD. A comprehensive systematic review conducted in 2017 examined this topic through analysis of 74 studies. The results demonstrated a similar prevalence of contact sensitization in individuals with and without AD.²⁷ Another systematic review of 31 studies conducted in 2017 found a higher prevalence for ACD in children without AD; however, the authors noted that the included studies were too variable (eg, size, design, allergens tested) to draw definitive conclusions.²⁸

Even though there is no clear overall increased risk for ACD in patients with AD, research has suggested that certain allergens may be more prevalent in the setting of AD. An NACDG study found that adults with AD had increased odds of reacting to 10 of the top 25 NACDG screening allergens compared to those without AD.²⁰ Other studies have found that AD patients may be more likely to become sensitized to certain allergens, such as fragrance and lanolin.¹⁴

Considerations for Management

Diagnosis of ACD in patients with AD can be challenging because these conditions may present similarly with chronic, pruritic, inflammatory patches and plaques. Chronic ACD may be misdiagnosed as AD if patch testing is not performed.²⁹ Given the prevalence of ACD in the setting of AD, there should be a low threshold to pursue patch testing, especially when dermatitis is recalcitrant to standard therapies or presents in an atypical distribution (ie, perioral, predominantly head/neck, hand and foot, isolated eyelid involvement, buttocks).^4,30 Various allergen series are available for patch testing adults and children including the NACDG Standard Series, American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series, or the Pediatric Baseline Series.^31-33

If potentially relevant allergens are uncovered by patch testing, patients should be counseled on avoidance strategies. However, allergen avoidance may not always lead to complete symptom resolution, especially if AD is present concomitantly with ACD. Therefore, use of topical or systemic therapies still may be required. Topical corticosteroids can be used when dermatitis is acute and localized. Systemic corticosteroids are utilized for both diagnoses when cases are more severe or extensive, but their adverse-effect profile limits long-term use. Other systemic treatments, including conventional agents (ie, azathioprine, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil), biologics, and small molecule inhibitors also may be considered for severe cases.^34,35 Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-4/IL-13, is approved for use in moderate to severe AD in patients 6 months and older. Recent evidence has suggested that dupilumab also may be an effective off-label treatment choice for ACD when allergen avoidance alone is insufficient.³⁶ Studies have been conducted on secukinumab, a monoclonal antibody against IL-17; however, it has not been shown to be effective in either AD or ACD.^37,38 This indicates that targeted biologics may not always be successful in treating these diagnoses, likely due to their complex immune pathways. Finally, there is an emerging role for JAK inhibitors. Three are approved for AD: topical ruxolitinib, oral abrocitinib, and oral upadacitinib.³⁹ Further investigation is needed to determine the efficacy of JAK inhibitors in ACD.

Final Interpretation

Evolving evidence shows that AD and ACD can occur at the same time despite the historical perspective that their immune pathways were too polarized for this to happen. Atopic dermatitis may be an important risk factor for subsequent development of ACD. Management should include a low threshold to perform patch testing, while pharmacotherapies utilized in the treatment of both conditions should be considered.

No time of the year is more exciting than the unveiling of the American Contact Dermatitis Society Allergen of the Year. Sometimes the selected allergen represents a completely novel cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) with an unpronounceable chemical name. Not this time! The 2022 Allergen of the Year is likely to be lurking in your kitchen drawer at this very moment, as this year aluminum was chosen for this most prestigious honor.¹ But do not throw out your aluminum foil just yet—aluminum allergy tends to be confined to specific scenarios. In this article, we highlight the growing recognition of aluminum contact allergy, particularly in the pediatric population, focusing on distinct presentations of aluminum ACD, unique sources of exposure, and nuances of patch testing to this metal.

Aluminum Is All Around Us

As the third most common element in the Earth’s crust, aluminum can be found quite literally everywhere.¹ However, aluminum rarely is found in its pure elemental form; instead, it reacts with other elements around it, most commonly oxygen, to form aluminum-containing compounds. Known for their stability and safety, aluminum and its salts are incorporated in myriad products ranging from electronic equipment to foods and their packaging, medications, cosmetics, orthopedic and dental implants, and even tattoos. Aluminum also is found in the air and water supply and may even be encountered in certain workplaces, such as aircraft and machine industries. As such, contact with aluminum is all but certain in modern life.

The use of aluminum in consumer products is widely accepted as safe by public health agencies in the United States.² Although there has been public concern that aluminum could be linked to development of breast cancer or Alzheimer disease, there is no clear evidence that these conditions are associated with routine aluminum exposure through ingestion or consumer products.^3-5

Aluminum Contact Allergy

In part because of its ubiquity and in part because of the stability of aluminum-containing compounds, it was long thought that aluminum was nonallergenic. Contact allergy to elemental aluminum is rare; on the other hand, aluminum salts (the forms we are likely to encounter in daily life) are now recognized in the field of contact dermatitis as allergens of significance, particularly in the pediatric population.^1,6

First reported as a possible occupational allergen in 1944,⁷ aluminum allergy came to prominence in the 1990s in association with vaccines. Aluminum is included in some vaccines as an adjuvant that bolsters the immune response⁸; the eTable lists currently available aluminum-containing vaccines in the United States; of note, none of the COVID-19 vaccines approved in the United States or Europe contain aluminum.¹¹ Although the use of aluminum in vaccines is considered to be safe by the US Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,^12,13 a small number of children become sensitized to aluminum through vaccines and may develop persistent pruritic subcutaneous nodules (also known as vaccination granulomas) at the injection site; however, the incidence of this adverse effect was less than 1% in large studies including as many as 76,000 children, suggesting that it is relatively rare.^14,15 Upon patch testing, aluminum allergy has been detected in 77% to 95% of such cases.¹⁴ There is wide variation in the onset of the nodules ranging from weeks to years following vaccination.¹⁵ Due to pruritus, the examination may reveal accompanying excoriations, hyperpigmentation, and sometimes hypertrichosis at the injection site. Aluminum allergy related to vaccination also can manifest with widespread eruptions representing systemic contact dermatitis.¹⁶

Along with vaccines, the second major source of aluminum sensitization is allergen-specific immunotherapies administered by allergists/immunologists, many of which contain aluminum hydroxide.^17,18

On the consumer product front, antiperspirants are the most common source of cutaneous exposure to aluminum. Aluminum complexes react with electrolytes in sweat to form plugs in eccrine ducts, thereby preventing sweat excretion.⁶ Allergic contact dermatitis to these products presents with axillary-vault dermatitis. There also have been reports of ACD to aluminum in sunscreen and toothpaste, with the latter implicated in causing systemic ACD.^19,20

Prevalence of Sensitization to Aluminum

There have been a few large-scale studies evaluating rates of sensitization to aluminum in general patch-test patient populations; additionally, because of the complexities of testing this metal, investigators have utilized differing formulations for patch testing. A recent Swedish study found that 0.9% of 5448 adults and 5.1% of 196 children showed positive reactions to aluminum chloride hexahydrate (ACH) 10% in petrolatum and/or aluminum lactate 12% in petrolatum.²¹ Notably, there was a significant association between aluminum allergy and history of atopy for both adults (P=.0056) and children (P=.046), which remains to be further explored. A systematic review and meta-analysis found comparable rates of aluminum allergy in 0.4% of adults and 5.6% of children without vaccine granulomas who were tested.²² With this evidence in mind, it has been recommended by contact dermatitis experts that aluminum be included in pediatric baseline patch test series and also investigated for potential inclusion in baseline series for adults.¹

Differential Diagnosis of Aluminum ACD

The differential diagnosis for subcutaneous nodules following vaccination is broad and includes various forms of panniculitis, sarcoidosis, foreign body reactions, vascular malformations, infections, and malignancies.^23-25 The diagnosis may be obscured in cases with delayed onset. Biopsy is not mandatory to establish the diagnosis; although variable histopathologic findings have been reported, a common feature is histiocytes with abundant granular cytoplasm.²⁶ It may be possible to demonstrate the presence of aluminum particles in tissue using electron microscopy and X-ray microanalysis.

For those patients who present with axillary-vault dermatitis, the differential includes ACD to more common allergens in antiperspirants (eg, fragrance), as well as other axillary dermatoses including inverse psoriasis, erythrasma, Hailey-Hailey disease, and various forms of intertrigo. Dermatitis localized to the axillary rim suggests textile allergy.

Patch Testing to Aluminum

Due to its physicochemical properties, patch testing for aluminum allergy is complicated, and historically there has been a lack of consensus on the ideal test formulation.^1,27,28 At this time, it appears that the most sensitive formulation for patch testing to aluminum is ACH 10% in petrolatum.¹ Some contact dermatitis experts recommend that children younger than 8 years should be tested with ACH 2% in petrolatum to minimize the risk of extreme patch test reactions.^29,30 In some patients sensitized to aluminum, the use of aluminum patch test chambers has been noted to produce false-positive reactions, taking the form of multiple ring-shaped reactions to the chambers themselves or reactions to certain allergens whose chemical properties cause corrosion of the aluminum within the chambers.^31-33 Therefore, when testing for suspected aluminum allergy, plastic chambers should be used; given the higher prevalence of aluminum allergy in children, some clinics routinely use plastic chambers for all pediatric patch testing.³⁴ Importantly, elemental aluminum, including empty aluminum test chambers or aluminum foil, alone is not sufficient for patch testing as it lacks sensitivity.¹ Additionally, nearly 20% of positive tests will be missed if a day 7 reading is not performed, making delayed reading a must in cases with high suspicion for aluminum allergy.²¹

Management of Aluminum Allergy

The development of pruritic subcutaneous nodules is uncomfortable for children and their guardians alike and may be associated with prolonged symptoms that negatively impact quality of life^35,36; nonetheless, expert authorities have determined that the preventive benefits of childhood vaccination far outweigh any risk posed by the presence of aluminum in vaccines.^12,13,37 Because aluminum-free formulations may not be available for all vaccines, it is essential to educate patients and families who may be at risk for developing vaccine hesitancy or avoidance.^35,36,38 Given the hypothesis that epidermal dendritic cells mediate aluminum sensitization, it has been proposed that vaccine administration via deep intramuscular rather than subcutaneous injection may mitigate the risk, but more evidence is needed to support this approach.^39,40 The good news is that the nodules tend to fade with age, with a median time to resolution of 18 to 49 months.¹⁴ In addition, patients may experience loss of sensitization to aluminum over time⁴¹; in one study, 77% of 241 children lost patch test reactivity when retested 5 to 9 years later.⁴² The exact reason for this diminishment of reactivity is not well understood. Adjunctive treatments to relieve symptoms of vaccine granulomas include topical and intralesional corticosteroids and antihistamines.

For patients reacting to aluminum in antiperspirants, there are many aluminum-free formulations on the market as well as recipes for homemade antiperspirants.⁶ On a case-by-case basis, patients may need to avoid aluminum-containing medications, permanent tattoos, and orthopedic or dental implants. To the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence suggesting a need to avoid aluminum in foods and their containers in routine daily life; although some patients report exacerbations of their symptoms associated with food-related aluminum exposures (eg, canned food, dried fruit) and improvement with dietary modification, further investigation is needed to confirm the relevance of these sources of contact.^36,38 For patients who require allergen-specific immunotherapy, aluminum-free allergen extracts are available.⁶

Final Interpretation

Exposure to aluminum is ubiquitous; although relatively uncommon, awareness of the potential for ACD to aluminum is increasingly important, particularly in children. Given the prevalence of aluminum contact allergy, it has been recommended by contact dermatitis experts for inclusion in baseline pediatric patch test series.¹ Although it is a complex issue, the development of ACD in a small proportion of children exposed to aluminum in vaccines does not outweigh the benefit of vaccination for almost all children. When conducting patch testing to aluminum, studies support testing to ACH 10% in petrolatum for adults, and consider reducing the concentration to ACH 2% for children.

Acknowledgment—The authors thank Ian Fritz, MD (South Portland, Maine), for his critical input during preparation of this article.

No time of the year is more exciting than the unveiling of the American Contact Dermatitis Society Allergen of the Year. Sometimes the selected allergen represents a completely novel cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) with an unpronounceable chemical name. Not this time! The 2022 Allergen of the Year is likely to be lurking in your kitchen drawer at this very moment, as this year aluminum was chosen for this most prestigious honor.¹ But do not throw out your aluminum foil just yet—aluminum allergy tends to be confined to specific scenarios. In this article, we highlight the growing recognition of aluminum contact allergy, particularly in the pediatric population, focusing on distinct presentations of aluminum ACD, unique sources of exposure, and nuances of patch testing to this metal.

Aluminum Is All Around Us

As the third most common element in the Earth’s crust, aluminum can be found quite literally everywhere.¹ However, aluminum rarely is found in its pure elemental form; instead, it reacts with other elements around it, most commonly oxygen, to form aluminum-containing compounds. Known for their stability and safety, aluminum and its salts are incorporated in myriad products ranging from electronic equipment to foods and their packaging, medications, cosmetics, orthopedic and dental implants, and even tattoos. Aluminum also is found in the air and water supply and may even be encountered in certain workplaces, such as aircraft and machine industries. As such, contact with aluminum is all but certain in modern life.

The use of aluminum in consumer products is widely accepted as safe by public health agencies in the United States.² Although there has been public concern that aluminum could be linked to development of breast cancer or Alzheimer disease, there is no clear evidence that these conditions are associated with routine aluminum exposure through ingestion or consumer products.^3-5

Aluminum Contact Allergy

In part because of its ubiquity and in part because of the stability of aluminum-containing compounds, it was long thought that aluminum was nonallergenic. Contact allergy to elemental aluminum is rare; on the other hand, aluminum salts (the forms we are likely to encounter in daily life) are now recognized in the field of contact dermatitis as allergens of significance, particularly in the pediatric population.^1,6

First reported as a possible occupational allergen in 1944,⁷ aluminum allergy came to prominence in the 1990s in association with vaccines. Aluminum is included in some vaccines as an adjuvant that bolsters the immune response⁸; the eTable lists currently available aluminum-containing vaccines in the United States; of note, none of the COVID-19 vaccines approved in the United States or Europe contain aluminum.¹¹ Although the use of aluminum in vaccines is considered to be safe by the US Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,^12,13 a small number of children become sensitized to aluminum through vaccines and may develop persistent pruritic subcutaneous nodules (also known as vaccination granulomas) at the injection site; however, the incidence of this adverse effect was less than 1% in large studies including as many as 76,000 children, suggesting that it is relatively rare.^14,15 Upon patch testing, aluminum allergy has been detected in 77% to 95% of such cases.¹⁴ There is wide variation in the onset of the nodules ranging from weeks to years following vaccination.¹⁵ Due to pruritus, the examination may reveal accompanying excoriations, hyperpigmentation, and sometimes hypertrichosis at the injection site. Aluminum allergy related to vaccination also can manifest with widespread eruptions representing systemic contact dermatitis.¹⁶

Along with vaccines, the second major source of aluminum sensitization is allergen-specific immunotherapies administered by allergists/immunologists, many of which contain aluminum hydroxide.^17,18

On the consumer product front, antiperspirants are the most common source of cutaneous exposure to aluminum. Aluminum complexes react with electrolytes in sweat to form plugs in eccrine ducts, thereby preventing sweat excretion.⁶ Allergic contact dermatitis to these products presents with axillary-vault dermatitis. There also have been reports of ACD to aluminum in sunscreen and toothpaste, with the latter implicated in causing systemic ACD.^19,20

Prevalence of Sensitization to Aluminum

There have been a few large-scale studies evaluating rates of sensitization to aluminum in general patch-test patient populations; additionally, because of the complexities of testing this metal, investigators have utilized differing formulations for patch testing. A recent Swedish study found that 0.9% of 5448 adults and 5.1% of 196 children showed positive reactions to aluminum chloride hexahydrate (ACH) 10% in petrolatum and/or aluminum lactate 12% in petrolatum.²¹ Notably, there was a significant association between aluminum allergy and history of atopy for both adults (P=.0056) and children (P=.046), which remains to be further explored. A systematic review and meta-analysis found comparable rates of aluminum allergy in 0.4% of adults and 5.6% of children without vaccine granulomas who were tested.²² With this evidence in mind, it has been recommended by contact dermatitis experts that aluminum be included in pediatric baseline patch test series and also investigated for potential inclusion in baseline series for adults.¹

Differential Diagnosis of Aluminum ACD

The differential diagnosis for subcutaneous nodules following vaccination is broad and includes various forms of panniculitis, sarcoidosis, foreign body reactions, vascular malformations, infections, and malignancies.^23-25 The diagnosis may be obscured in cases with delayed onset. Biopsy is not mandatory to establish the diagnosis; although variable histopathologic findings have been reported, a common feature is histiocytes with abundant granular cytoplasm.²⁶ It may be possible to demonstrate the presence of aluminum particles in tissue using electron microscopy and X-ray microanalysis.

For those patients who present with axillary-vault dermatitis, the differential includes ACD to more common allergens in antiperspirants (eg, fragrance), as well as other axillary dermatoses including inverse psoriasis, erythrasma, Hailey-Hailey disease, and various forms of intertrigo. Dermatitis localized to the axillary rim suggests textile allergy.

Patch Testing to Aluminum

Due to its physicochemical properties, patch testing for aluminum allergy is complicated, and historically there has been a lack of consensus on the ideal test formulation.^1,27,28 At this time, it appears that the most sensitive formulation for patch testing to aluminum is ACH 10% in petrolatum.¹ Some contact dermatitis experts recommend that children younger than 8 years should be tested with ACH 2% in petrolatum to minimize the risk of extreme patch test reactions.^29,30 In some patients sensitized to aluminum, the use of aluminum patch test chambers has been noted to produce false-positive reactions, taking the form of multiple ring-shaped reactions to the chambers themselves or reactions to certain allergens whose chemical properties cause corrosion of the aluminum within the chambers.^31-33 Therefore, when testing for suspected aluminum allergy, plastic chambers should be used; given the higher prevalence of aluminum allergy in children, some clinics routinely use plastic chambers for all pediatric patch testing.³⁴ Importantly, elemental aluminum, including empty aluminum test chambers or aluminum foil, alone is not sufficient for patch testing as it lacks sensitivity.¹ Additionally, nearly 20% of positive tests will be missed if a day 7 reading is not performed, making delayed reading a must in cases with high suspicion for aluminum allergy.²¹

Management of Aluminum Allergy

The development of pruritic subcutaneous nodules is uncomfortable for children and their guardians alike and may be associated with prolonged symptoms that negatively impact quality of life^35,36; nonetheless, expert authorities have determined that the preventive benefits of childhood vaccination far outweigh any risk posed by the presence of aluminum in vaccines.^12,13,37 Because aluminum-free formulations may not be available for all vaccines, it is essential to educate patients and families who may be at risk for developing vaccine hesitancy or avoidance.^35,36,38 Given the hypothesis that epidermal dendritic cells mediate aluminum sensitization, it has been proposed that vaccine administration via deep intramuscular rather than subcutaneous injection may mitigate the risk, but more evidence is needed to support this approach.^39,40 The good news is that the nodules tend to fade with age, with a median time to resolution of 18 to 49 months.¹⁴ In addition, patients may experience loss of sensitization to aluminum over time⁴¹; in one study, 77% of 241 children lost patch test reactivity when retested 5 to 9 years later.⁴² The exact reason for this diminishment of reactivity is not well understood. Adjunctive treatments to relieve symptoms of vaccine granulomas include topical and intralesional corticosteroids and antihistamines.

For patients reacting to aluminum in antiperspirants, there are many aluminum-free formulations on the market as well as recipes for homemade antiperspirants.⁶ On a case-by-case basis, patients may need to avoid aluminum-containing medications, permanent tattoos, and orthopedic or dental implants. To the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence suggesting a need to avoid aluminum in foods and their containers in routine daily life; although some patients report exacerbations of their symptoms associated with food-related aluminum exposures (eg, canned food, dried fruit) and improvement with dietary modification, further investigation is needed to confirm the relevance of these sources of contact.^36,38 For patients who require allergen-specific immunotherapy, aluminum-free allergen extracts are available.⁶

Final Interpretation

Exposure to aluminum is ubiquitous; although relatively uncommon, awareness of the potential for ACD to aluminum is increasingly important, particularly in children. Given the prevalence of aluminum contact allergy, it has been recommended by contact dermatitis experts for inclusion in baseline pediatric patch test series.¹ Although it is a complex issue, the development of ACD in a small proportion of children exposed to aluminum in vaccines does not outweigh the benefit of vaccination for almost all children. When conducting patch testing to aluminum, studies support testing to ACH 10% in petrolatum for adults, and consider reducing the concentration to ACH 2% for children.

Acknowledgment—The authors thank Ian Fritz, MD (South Portland, Maine), for his critical input during preparation of this article.

No time of the year is more exciting than the unveiling of the American Contact Dermatitis Society Allergen of the Year. Sometimes the selected allergen represents a completely novel cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) with an unpronounceable chemical name. Not this time! The 2022 Allergen of the Year is likely to be lurking in your kitchen drawer at this very moment, as this year aluminum was chosen for this most prestigious honor.¹ But do not throw out your aluminum foil just yet—aluminum allergy tends to be confined to specific scenarios. In this article, we highlight the growing recognition of aluminum contact allergy, particularly in the pediatric population, focusing on distinct presentations of aluminum ACD, unique sources of exposure, and nuances of patch testing to this metal.

Aluminum Is All Around Us

As the third most common element in the Earth’s crust, aluminum can be found quite literally everywhere.¹ However, aluminum rarely is found in its pure elemental form; instead, it reacts with other elements around it, most commonly oxygen, to form aluminum-containing compounds. Known for their stability and safety, aluminum and its salts are incorporated in myriad products ranging from electronic equipment to foods and their packaging, medications, cosmetics, orthopedic and dental implants, and even tattoos. Aluminum also is found in the air and water supply and may even be encountered in certain workplaces, such as aircraft and machine industries. As such, contact with aluminum is all but certain in modern life.

The use of aluminum in consumer products is widely accepted as safe by public health agencies in the United States.² Although there has been public concern that aluminum could be linked to development of breast cancer or Alzheimer disease, there is no clear evidence that these conditions are associated with routine aluminum exposure through ingestion or consumer products.^3-5

Aluminum Contact Allergy

In part because of its ubiquity and in part because of the stability of aluminum-containing compounds, it was long thought that aluminum was nonallergenic. Contact allergy to elemental aluminum is rare; on the other hand, aluminum salts (the forms we are likely to encounter in daily life) are now recognized in the field of contact dermatitis as allergens of significance, particularly in the pediatric population.^1,6

First reported as a possible occupational allergen in 1944,⁷ aluminum allergy came to prominence in the 1990s in association with vaccines. Aluminum is included in some vaccines as an adjuvant that bolsters the immune response⁸; the eTable lists currently available aluminum-containing vaccines in the United States; of note, none of the COVID-19 vaccines approved in the United States or Europe contain aluminum.¹¹ Although the use of aluminum in vaccines is considered to be safe by the US Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,^12,13 a small number of children become sensitized to aluminum through vaccines and may develop persistent pruritic subcutaneous nodules (also known as vaccination granulomas) at the injection site; however, the incidence of this adverse effect was less than 1% in large studies including as many as 76,000 children, suggesting that it is relatively rare.^14,15 Upon patch testing, aluminum allergy has been detected in 77% to 95% of such cases.¹⁴ There is wide variation in the onset of the nodules ranging from weeks to years following vaccination.¹⁵ Due to pruritus, the examination may reveal accompanying excoriations, hyperpigmentation, and sometimes hypertrichosis at the injection site. Aluminum allergy related to vaccination also can manifest with widespread eruptions representing systemic contact dermatitis.¹⁶

Along with vaccines, the second major source of aluminum sensitization is allergen-specific immunotherapies administered by allergists/immunologists, many of which contain aluminum hydroxide.^17,18

On the consumer product front, antiperspirants are the most common source of cutaneous exposure to aluminum. Aluminum complexes react with electrolytes in sweat to form plugs in eccrine ducts, thereby preventing sweat excretion.⁶ Allergic contact dermatitis to these products presents with axillary-vault dermatitis. There also have been reports of ACD to aluminum in sunscreen and toothpaste, with the latter implicated in causing systemic ACD.^19,20

Prevalence of Sensitization to Aluminum

There have been a few large-scale studies evaluating rates of sensitization to aluminum in general patch-test patient populations; additionally, because of the complexities of testing this metal, investigators have utilized differing formulations for patch testing. A recent Swedish study found that 0.9% of 5448 adults and 5.1% of 196 children showed positive reactions to aluminum chloride hexahydrate (ACH) 10% in petrolatum and/or aluminum lactate 12% in petrolatum.²¹ Notably, there was a significant association between aluminum allergy and history of atopy for both adults (P=.0056) and children (P=.046), which remains to be further explored. A systematic review and meta-analysis found comparable rates of aluminum allergy in 0.4% of adults and 5.6% of children without vaccine granulomas who were tested.²² With this evidence in mind, it has been recommended by contact dermatitis experts that aluminum be included in pediatric baseline patch test series and also investigated for potential inclusion in baseline series for adults.¹

Differential Diagnosis of Aluminum ACD

The differential diagnosis for subcutaneous nodules following vaccination is broad and includes various forms of panniculitis, sarcoidosis, foreign body reactions, vascular malformations, infections, and malignancies.^23-25 The diagnosis may be obscured in cases with delayed onset. Biopsy is not mandatory to establish the diagnosis; although variable histopathologic findings have been reported, a common feature is histiocytes with abundant granular cytoplasm.²⁶ It may be possible to demonstrate the presence of aluminum particles in tissue using electron microscopy and X-ray microanalysis.

For those patients who present with axillary-vault dermatitis, the differential includes ACD to more common allergens in antiperspirants (eg, fragrance), as well as other axillary dermatoses including inverse psoriasis, erythrasma, Hailey-Hailey disease, and various forms of intertrigo. Dermatitis localized to the axillary rim suggests textile allergy.

Patch Testing to Aluminum

Due to its physicochemical properties, patch testing for aluminum allergy is complicated, and historically there has been a lack of consensus on the ideal test formulation.^1,27,28 At this time, it appears that the most sensitive formulation for patch testing to aluminum is ACH 10% in petrolatum.¹ Some contact dermatitis experts recommend that children younger than 8 years should be tested with ACH 2% in petrolatum to minimize the risk of extreme patch test reactions.^29,30 In some patients sensitized to aluminum, the use of aluminum patch test chambers has been noted to produce false-positive reactions, taking the form of multiple ring-shaped reactions to the chambers themselves or reactions to certain allergens whose chemical properties cause corrosion of the aluminum within the chambers.^31-33 Therefore, when testing for suspected aluminum allergy, plastic chambers should be used; given the higher prevalence of aluminum allergy in children, some clinics routinely use plastic chambers for all pediatric patch testing.³⁴ Importantly, elemental aluminum, including empty aluminum test chambers or aluminum foil, alone is not sufficient for patch testing as it lacks sensitivity.¹ Additionally, nearly 20% of positive tests will be missed if a day 7 reading is not performed, making delayed reading a must in cases with high suspicion for aluminum allergy.²¹

Management of Aluminum Allergy

The development of pruritic subcutaneous nodules is uncomfortable for children and their guardians alike and may be associated with prolonged symptoms that negatively impact quality of life^35,36; nonetheless, expert authorities have determined that the preventive benefits of childhood vaccination far outweigh any risk posed by the presence of aluminum in vaccines.^12,13,37 Because aluminum-free formulations may not be available for all vaccines, it is essential to educate patients and families who may be at risk for developing vaccine hesitancy or avoidance.^35,36,38 Given the hypothesis that epidermal dendritic cells mediate aluminum sensitization, it has been proposed that vaccine administration via deep intramuscular rather than subcutaneous injection may mitigate the risk, but more evidence is needed to support this approach.^39,40 The good news is that the nodules tend to fade with age, with a median time to resolution of 18 to 49 months.¹⁴ In addition, patients may experience loss of sensitization to aluminum over time⁴¹; in one study, 77% of 241 children lost patch test reactivity when retested 5 to 9 years later.⁴² The exact reason for this diminishment of reactivity is not well understood. Adjunctive treatments to relieve symptoms of vaccine granulomas include topical and intralesional corticosteroids and antihistamines.

For patients reacting to aluminum in antiperspirants, there are many aluminum-free formulations on the market as well as recipes for homemade antiperspirants.⁶ On a case-by-case basis, patients may need to avoid aluminum-containing medications, permanent tattoos, and orthopedic or dental implants. To the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence suggesting a need to avoid aluminum in foods and their containers in routine daily life; although some patients report exacerbations of their symptoms associated with food-related aluminum exposures (eg, canned food, dried fruit) and improvement with dietary modification, further investigation is needed to confirm the relevance of these sources of contact.^36,38 For patients who require allergen-specific immunotherapy, aluminum-free allergen extracts are available.⁶

Final Interpretation

Exposure to aluminum is ubiquitous; although relatively uncommon, awareness of the potential for ACD to aluminum is increasingly important, particularly in children. Given the prevalence of aluminum contact allergy, it has been recommended by contact dermatitis experts for inclusion in baseline pediatric patch test series.¹ Although it is a complex issue, the development of ACD in a small proportion of children exposed to aluminum in vaccines does not outweigh the benefit of vaccination for almost all children. When conducting patch testing to aluminum, studies support testing to ACH 10% in petrolatum for adults, and consider reducing the concentration to ACH 2% for children.

Acknowledgment—The authors thank Ian Fritz, MD (South Portland, Maine), for his critical input during preparation of this article.

Dupilumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. Through inhibition of the IL-4R α subunit, it prevents activation of the IL-4/IL-13 signaling cascade. This dampens the T _H 2 inflammatory response, thereby improving the symptoms associated with atopic dermatitis. ^1,2 Recent literature suggests that dupilumab may be useful in the treatment of other chronic dermatologic conditions, including allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) refractory to allergen avoidance and other treatments. Herein, we provide an overview of ACD, the role that dupilumab may play in its management, and its impact on patch testing results.

Pathogenesis of ACD

Allergic contact dermatitis is a cell-mediated type IV hypersensitivity reaction that develops through 2 distinct stages. In the sensitization phase, an allergen penetrates the skin and subsequently is engulfed by a cutaneous antigen-presenting cell. The allergen is then combined with a peptide to form a complex that is presented to naïve T lymphocytes in regional lymph nodes. The result is clonal expansion of a T-cell population that recognizes the allergen. In the elicitation phase, repeat exposure to the allergen leads to the recruitment of primed T cells to the skin, followed by cytokine release, inflammation, and resultant dermatitis.³

Historically, ACD was thought to be primarily driven by the T_H1 inflammatory response; however, it is now known that T_H2, T_H9, T_H17, and T_H22 also may play a role in its pathogenesis.^4,5 Another key finding is that the immune response in ACD appears to be at least partially allergen specific. Molecular profiling has revealed that nickel primarily induces a T_H1/T_H17 response, while allergens such as fragrance and rubber primarily induce a T_H2 response.⁴

Management of ACD

Allergen avoidance is the mainstay of ACD treatment; however, in some patients, this approach does not always improve symptoms. In addition, eliminating the source of the allergen may not be possible in those with certain occupational, environmental, or medical exposures.

There are no FDA-approved treatments for ACD. When allergen avoidance alone is insufficient, first-line pharmacologic therapy typically includes topical or oral corticosteroids, the choice of which depends on the extent and severity of the dermatitis; however, a steroid-sparing agent often is preferred to avoid the unfavorable effects of long-term steroid use. Other systemic treatments for ACD include methotrexate, cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and azathioprine.⁶ These agents are used for severe ACD and typically are chosen as a last resort due to their immunosuppressive activity.

Phototherapy is another option, often as an adjunct to other therapies. Narrowband UVB and psoralen plus UVA have both been used. Psoralen plus UVA tends to have more side effects; therefore, narrowband UVB often is preferred.^7,8

Use of Dupilumab in ACD

Biologics are unique, as they can target a single step in the immune response to improve a wide variety of symptoms. Research investigating their role as a treatment modality for ACD is still evolving alongside our increasing knowledge of its pathophysiology.⁹ Of note, studies examining the anti–IL-17 biologic secukinumab revealed it to be ineffective against ACD,^10,11 which suggests that targeting specific immune components may not always result in improvement of ACD symptoms, likely because its pathophysiology involves several pathways.

There have been multiple reports demonstrating the effectiveness of dupilumab in the treatment of ACD (eTable).^12-20 The findings from these studies show that dupilumab can improve recalcitrant dermatitis caused by a broad range of contact allergens, including nickel. This highlights its ability to improve ACD caused by allergens with a T_H1 bias, despite its primarily T_H2-dampening effects. Notably, several studies have reported successful use of dupilumab for systemic ACD.^12,18 In addition, dupilumab may be able to improve symptoms of ACD in as little as 1 to 4 weeks. Unlike some systemic therapies for ACD, dupilumab also benefits from its lack of notable immunosuppressive effects.⁹ A phase 4 clinical trial at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts) is recruiting participants, with a primary goal of investigating dupilumab’s impact on ACD in patients who have not improved despite allergen avoidance (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03935971).

There are a few potential disadvantages to dupilumab. Because it is not yet FDA approved for the treatment of ACD, insurance companies may deny coverage, making it likely to be unaffordable for most patients. Furthermore, the side-effect profile has not been fully characterized. In addition to ocular adverse effects, a growing number of studies have reported face and neck erythema after starting dupilumab. Although the cause is unclear, one theory is that the inhibition of IL-4/IL-13 leads to T_H1/T_H17 polarization, thereby worsening ACD caused by allergens that activate a T_H1-predominant response.²¹ Finally, not all cases of ACD respond to dupilumab.²²

Patch Testing While on Dupilumab

Diagnosing ACD is a challenging process. An accurate history and physical examination are critical, and patch testing remains the gold standard when it comes to identifying the source of the contact allergen(s).

There is ongoing debate among contact dermatitis experts regarding the diagnostic accuracy of patch testing for those on immunomodulators or immunosuppressants, as these medications can dampen positive results and increase the risk for false-negative readings.²³ Consequently, some have questioned whether patch testing on dupilumab is accurate or feasible.²⁴ Contact dermatitis experts have examined patch testing results before and after initiation of dupilumab to further investigate. Puza and Atwater²⁵ established that patients are able to mount a positive patch test reaction while on dupilumab. Moreover, a retrospective review by Raffi et al²⁶ found that out of 125 before therapy/on therapy patch test pairs, only 13 were lost after administration of dupilumab. Although this would suggest that dupilumab has little impact on patch testing, Jo et al²⁷ found in a systematic review that patch test reactions may remain positive, change to negative, or become newly positive after dupilumab initiation.

This inconsistency in results may relate to the allergen-specific pathogenesis of ACD—one allergen may have a different response to the mechanism of dupilumab than another.^28,29 More recently, de Wijs et al³⁰ reported a series of 20 patients in whom more than two-thirds of prior positive patch test reactions were lost after retesting on dupilumab; there were no clear trends according to the immune polarity of the allergens. This finding suggests that patient-specific factors also should be considered, as this too could have an impact on the reliability of patch test findings after starting dupilumab.²⁹

Final Interpretation

Given its overall excellent safety profile, dupilumab may be a feasible off-label option for patients with ACD that does not respond to allergen avoidance or for those who experience adverse effects from traditional therapies; however, it remains difficult to obtain through insurance because it is not yet FDA approved for ACD. Likewise, its impact on the accuracy of patch testing is not yet well defined. Further investigations are needed to elucidate the pathophysiology of ACD and to guide further use of dupilumab in its treatment.

Dupilumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. Through inhibition of the IL-4R α subunit, it prevents activation of the IL-4/IL-13 signaling cascade. This dampens the T _H 2 inflammatory response, thereby improving the symptoms associated with atopic dermatitis. ^1,2 Recent literature suggests that dupilumab may be useful in the treatment of other chronic dermatologic conditions, including allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) refractory to allergen avoidance and other treatments. Herein, we provide an overview of ACD, the role that dupilumab may play in its management, and its impact on patch testing results.

Pathogenesis of ACD

Allergic contact dermatitis is a cell-mediated type IV hypersensitivity reaction that develops through 2 distinct stages. In the sensitization phase, an allergen penetrates the skin and subsequently is engulfed by a cutaneous antigen-presenting cell. The allergen is then combined with a peptide to form a complex that is presented to naïve T lymphocytes in regional lymph nodes. The result is clonal expansion of a T-cell population that recognizes the allergen. In the elicitation phase, repeat exposure to the allergen leads to the recruitment of primed T cells to the skin, followed by cytokine release, inflammation, and resultant dermatitis.³

Historically, ACD was thought to be primarily driven by the T_H1 inflammatory response; however, it is now known that T_H2, T_H9, T_H17, and T_H22 also may play a role in its pathogenesis.^4,5 Another key finding is that the immune response in ACD appears to be at least partially allergen specific. Molecular profiling has revealed that nickel primarily induces a T_H1/T_H17 response, while allergens such as fragrance and rubber primarily induce a T_H2 response.⁴

Management of ACD

Allergen avoidance is the mainstay of ACD treatment; however, in some patients, this approach does not always improve symptoms. In addition, eliminating the source of the allergen may not be possible in those with certain occupational, environmental, or medical exposures.

There are no FDA-approved treatments for ACD. When allergen avoidance alone is insufficient, first-line pharmacologic therapy typically includes topical or oral corticosteroids, the choice of which depends on the extent and severity of the dermatitis; however, a steroid-sparing agent often is preferred to avoid the unfavorable effects of long-term steroid use. Other systemic treatments for ACD include methotrexate, cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and azathioprine.⁶ These agents are used for severe ACD and typically are chosen as a last resort due to their immunosuppressive activity.

Phototherapy is another option, often as an adjunct to other therapies. Narrowband UVB and psoralen plus UVA have both been used. Psoralen plus UVA tends to have more side effects; therefore, narrowband UVB often is preferred.^7,8

Use of Dupilumab in ACD

Biologics are unique, as they can target a single step in the immune response to improve a wide variety of symptoms. Research investigating their role as a treatment modality for ACD is still evolving alongside our increasing knowledge of its pathophysiology.⁹ Of note, studies examining the anti–IL-17 biologic secukinumab revealed it to be ineffective against ACD,^10,11 which suggests that targeting specific immune components may not always result in improvement of ACD symptoms, likely because its pathophysiology involves several pathways.

There have been multiple reports demonstrating the effectiveness of dupilumab in the treatment of ACD (eTable).^12-20 The findings from these studies show that dupilumab can improve recalcitrant dermatitis caused by a broad range of contact allergens, including nickel. This highlights its ability to improve ACD caused by allergens with a T_H1 bias, despite its primarily T_H2-dampening effects. Notably, several studies have reported successful use of dupilumab for systemic ACD.^12,18 In addition, dupilumab may be able to improve symptoms of ACD in as little as 1 to 4 weeks. Unlike some systemic therapies for ACD, dupilumab also benefits from its lack of notable immunosuppressive effects.⁹ A phase 4 clinical trial at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts) is recruiting participants, with a primary goal of investigating dupilumab’s impact on ACD in patients who have not improved despite allergen avoidance (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03935971).

There are a few potential disadvantages to dupilumab. Because it is not yet FDA approved for the treatment of ACD, insurance companies may deny coverage, making it likely to be unaffordable for most patients. Furthermore, the side-effect profile has not been fully characterized. In addition to ocular adverse effects, a growing number of studies have reported face and neck erythema after starting dupilumab. Although the cause is unclear, one theory is that the inhibition of IL-4/IL-13 leads to T_H1/T_H17 polarization, thereby worsening ACD caused by allergens that activate a T_H1-predominant response.²¹ Finally, not all cases of ACD respond to dupilumab.²²

Patch Testing While on Dupilumab

Diagnosing ACD is a challenging process. An accurate history and physical examination are critical, and patch testing remains the gold standard when it comes to identifying the source of the contact allergen(s).

There is ongoing debate among contact dermatitis experts regarding the diagnostic accuracy of patch testing for those on immunomodulators or immunosuppressants, as these medications can dampen positive results and increase the risk for false-negative readings.²³ Consequently, some have questioned whether patch testing on dupilumab is accurate or feasible.²⁴ Contact dermatitis experts have examined patch testing results before and after initiation of dupilumab to further investigate. Puza and Atwater²⁵ established that patients are able to mount a positive patch test reaction while on dupilumab. Moreover, a retrospective review by Raffi et al²⁶ found that out of 125 before therapy/on therapy patch test pairs, only 13 were lost after administration of dupilumab. Although this would suggest that dupilumab has little impact on patch testing, Jo et al²⁷ found in a systematic review that patch test reactions may remain positive, change to negative, or become newly positive after dupilumab initiation.

This inconsistency in results may relate to the allergen-specific pathogenesis of ACD—one allergen may have a different response to the mechanism of dupilumab than another.^28,29 More recently, de Wijs et al³⁰ reported a series of 20 patients in whom more than two-thirds of prior positive patch test reactions were lost after retesting on dupilumab; there were no clear trends according to the immune polarity of the allergens. This finding suggests that patient-specific factors also should be considered, as this too could have an impact on the reliability of patch test findings after starting dupilumab.²⁹

Final Interpretation

Given its overall excellent safety profile, dupilumab may be a feasible off-label option for patients with ACD that does not respond to allergen avoidance or for those who experience adverse effects from traditional therapies; however, it remains difficult to obtain through insurance because it is not yet FDA approved for ACD. Likewise, its impact on the accuracy of patch testing is not yet well defined. Further investigations are needed to elucidate the pathophysiology of ACD and to guide further use of dupilumab in its treatment.

Dupilumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. Through inhibition of the IL-4R α subunit, it prevents activation of the IL-4/IL-13 signaling cascade. This dampens the T _H 2 inflammatory response, thereby improving the symptoms associated with atopic dermatitis. ^1,2 Recent literature suggests that dupilumab may be useful in the treatment of other chronic dermatologic conditions, including allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) refractory to allergen avoidance and other treatments. Herein, we provide an overview of ACD, the role that dupilumab may play in its management, and its impact on patch testing results.

Pathogenesis of ACD

Allergic contact dermatitis is a cell-mediated type IV hypersensitivity reaction that develops through 2 distinct stages. In the sensitization phase, an allergen penetrates the skin and subsequently is engulfed by a cutaneous antigen-presenting cell. The allergen is then combined with a peptide to form a complex that is presented to naïve T lymphocytes in regional lymph nodes. The result is clonal expansion of a T-cell population that recognizes the allergen. In the elicitation phase, repeat exposure to the allergen leads to the recruitment of primed T cells to the skin, followed by cytokine release, inflammation, and resultant dermatitis.³

Historically, ACD was thought to be primarily driven by the T_H1 inflammatory response; however, it is now known that T_H2, T_H9, T_H17, and T_H22 also may play a role in its pathogenesis.^4,5 Another key finding is that the immune response in ACD appears to be at least partially allergen specific. Molecular profiling has revealed that nickel primarily induces a T_H1/T_H17 response, while allergens such as fragrance and rubber primarily induce a T_H2 response.⁴

Management of ACD

Allergen avoidance is the mainstay of ACD treatment; however, in some patients, this approach does not always improve symptoms. In addition, eliminating the source of the allergen may not be possible in those with certain occupational, environmental, or medical exposures.

There are no FDA-approved treatments for ACD. When allergen avoidance alone is insufficient, first-line pharmacologic therapy typically includes topical or oral corticosteroids, the choice of which depends on the extent and severity of the dermatitis; however, a steroid-sparing agent often is preferred to avoid the unfavorable effects of long-term steroid use. Other systemic treatments for ACD include methotrexate, cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and azathioprine.⁶ These agents are used for severe ACD and typically are chosen as a last resort due to their immunosuppressive activity.

Phototherapy is another option, often as an adjunct to other therapies. Narrowband UVB and psoralen plus UVA have both been used. Psoralen plus UVA tends to have more side effects; therefore, narrowband UVB often is preferred.^7,8

Use of Dupilumab in ACD

Biologics are unique, as they can target a single step in the immune response to improve a wide variety of symptoms. Research investigating their role as a treatment modality for ACD is still evolving alongside our increasing knowledge of its pathophysiology.⁹ Of note, studies examining the anti–IL-17 biologic secukinumab revealed it to be ineffective against ACD,^10,11 which suggests that targeting specific immune components may not always result in improvement of ACD symptoms, likely because its pathophysiology involves several pathways.

There have been multiple reports demonstrating the effectiveness of dupilumab in the treatment of ACD (eTable).^12-20 The findings from these studies show that dupilumab can improve recalcitrant dermatitis caused by a broad range of contact allergens, including nickel. This highlights its ability to improve ACD caused by allergens with a T_H1 bias, despite its primarily T_H2-dampening effects. Notably, several studies have reported successful use of dupilumab for systemic ACD.^12,18 In addition, dupilumab may be able to improve symptoms of ACD in as little as 1 to 4 weeks. Unlike some systemic therapies for ACD, dupilumab also benefits from its lack of notable immunosuppressive effects.⁹ A phase 4 clinical trial at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts) is recruiting participants, with a primary goal of investigating dupilumab’s impact on ACD in patients who have not improved despite allergen avoidance (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03935971).

There are a few potential disadvantages to dupilumab. Because it is not yet FDA approved for the treatment of ACD, insurance companies may deny coverage, making it likely to be unaffordable for most patients. Furthermore, the side-effect profile has not been fully characterized. In addition to ocular adverse effects, a growing number of studies have reported face and neck erythema after starting dupilumab. Although the cause is unclear, one theory is that the inhibition of IL-4/IL-13 leads to T_H1/T_H17 polarization, thereby worsening ACD caused by allergens that activate a T_H1-predominant response.²¹ Finally, not all cases of ACD respond to dupilumab.²²

Patch Testing While on Dupilumab

Diagnosing ACD is a challenging process. An accurate history and physical examination are critical, and patch testing remains the gold standard when it comes to identifying the source of the contact allergen(s).

There is ongoing debate among contact dermatitis experts regarding the diagnostic accuracy of patch testing for those on immunomodulators or immunosuppressants, as these medications can dampen positive results and increase the risk for false-negative readings.²³ Consequently, some have questioned whether patch testing on dupilumab is accurate or feasible.²⁴ Contact dermatitis experts have examined patch testing results before and after initiation of dupilumab to further investigate. Puza and Atwater²⁵ established that patients are able to mount a positive patch test reaction while on dupilumab. Moreover, a retrospective review by Raffi et al²⁶ found that out of 125 before therapy/on therapy patch test pairs, only 13 were lost after administration of dupilumab. Although this would suggest that dupilumab has little impact on patch testing, Jo et al²⁷ found in a systematic review that patch test reactions may remain positive, change to negative, or become newly positive after dupilumab initiation.

This inconsistency in results may relate to the allergen-specific pathogenesis of ACD—one allergen may have a different response to the mechanism of dupilumab than another.^28,29 More recently, de Wijs et al³⁰ reported a series of 20 patients in whom more than two-thirds of prior positive patch test reactions were lost after retesting on dupilumab; there were no clear trends according to the immune polarity of the allergens. This finding suggests that patient-specific factors also should be considered, as this too could have an impact on the reliability of patch test findings after starting dupilumab.²⁹

Final Interpretation

Given its overall excellent safety profile, dupilumab may be a feasible off-label option for patients with ACD that does not respond to allergen avoidance or for those who experience adverse effects from traditional therapies; however, it remains difficult to obtain through insurance because it is not yet FDA approved for ACD. Likewise, its impact on the accuracy of patch testing is not yet well defined. Further investigations are needed to elucidate the pathophysiology of ACD and to guide further use of dupilumab in its treatment.

In the first part of this 2-part series (Cutis. 2021;108:271-275), we discussed topical medicament allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from acne and rosacea medications, antimicrobials, antihistamines, and topical pain preparations. In part 2 of this series, we focus on topical corticosteroids, immunomodulators, and anesthetics.

Corticosteroids

Given their anti-inflammatory and immune-modulating effects, topical corticosteroids are utilized for the treatment of contact dermatitis and yet also are frequent culprits of ACD. The North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) demonstrated a 4% frequency of positive patch tests to at least one corticosteroid from 2007 to 2014; the relevant allergens were tixocortol pivalate (TP)(2.3%), budesonide (0.9%), hydrocortisone-17-butyrate (0.4%), clobetasol-17-propionate (0.3%), and desoximetasone (0.2%).¹ Corticosteroid contact allergy can be difficult to recognize and may present as a flare of the underlying condition being treated. Clinically, these rashes may demonstrate an edge effect, characterized by pronounced dermatitis adjacent to and surrounding the treatment area due to concentrated anti-inflammatory effects in the center.

Traditionally, corticosteroids are divided into 4 basic structural groups—classes A, B, C, and D—based on the Coopman et al² classification (Table). The class D corticosteroids were further subdivided into classes D1, defined by C16-methyl substitution and halogenation of the B ring, and D2, which lacks the aforementioned substitutions.⁴ However, more recently Baeck et al⁵ simplified this classification into 3 main groups of steroids based on molecular modeling in combination with patch test results. Group 1 combines the nonmethylated and (mostly) nonhalogenated class A and D2 molecules plus budesonide; group 2 accounts for some halogenated class B molecules with the C16, C17 cis ketal or diol structure; and group 3 includes halogenated and C16-methylated molecules from classes C and D1.⁴ For the purposes of this review, discussion of classes A through D refers to the Coopman et al² classification, and groups 1 through 3 refers to Baeck et al.⁵

Tixocortol pivalate is used as a surrogate marker for hydrocortisone allergy and other class A corticosteroids and is part of the group 1 steroid classification. Interestingly, patients with TP-positive patch tests may not exhibit signs or symptoms of ACD from the use of hydrocortisone products. Repeat open application testing (ROAT) or provocative use testing may elicit a positive response in these patients, especially with the use of hydrocortisone cream (vs ointment), likely due to greater transepidermal penetration.⁶ There is little consensus on the optimal concentration of TP for patch testing. Although TP 1% often is recommended, studies have shown mixed findings of notable differences between high (1% petrolatum) and low (0.1% petrolatum) concentrations of TP.^7,8

Budesonide also is part of group 1 and is a marker for contact allergy to class B corticosteroids, such as triamcinolone and fluocinonide. Cross-reactions between budesonide and other corticosteroids traditionally classified as group B may be explained by structural similarities, whereas cross-reactions with certain class D corticosteroids, such as hydrocortisone-17-butyrate, may be better explained by the diastereomer composition of budesonide.^9,10 In a European study, budesonide 0.01% and TP 0.1% included in the European Baseline Series detected 85% (23/27) of cases of corticosteroid allergies.¹¹ Use of inhaled budesonide can provoke recall dermatitis and therefore should be avoided in allergic patients.¹²

Testing for ACD to topical steroids is complex, as the potent anti-inflammatory properties of these medications can complicate results. Selecting the appropriate test, vehicle, and concentration can help avoid false negatives. Although intradermal testing previously was thought to be superior to patch testing in detecting topical corticosteroid contact allergy, newer data have demonstrated strong concordance between the two methods.^13,14 The risk for skin atrophy, particularly with the use of suspensions, limits the use of intradermal testing.¹⁴ An ethanol vehicle is recommended for patch testing, except when testing with TP or budesonide when petrolatum provides greater corticosteroid stability.^14-16 An irritant pattern or a rim effect on patch testing often is considered positive when testing corticosteroids, as the effect of the steroid itself can diminish a positive reaction. As a result, 0.1% dilutions sometimes are favored over 1% test concentrations.^14,15,17 Late readings (>7 days) may be necessary to detect positive reactions in both adults and children.^18,19

The authors (M.R., A.R.A.) find these varied classifications of steroids daunting (and somewhat confusing!). In general, when ACD to topical steroids is suspected, in addition to standard patch testing with a corticosteroid series, ROAT of the suspected steroid may be necessary, as the rules of steroid classification may not be reproducible in the real world. For patients with only corticosteroid allergy, calcineurin inhibitors are a safe alternative.

Immunomodulators

Calcipotriol is a vitamin D analogue commonly used to treat psoriasis. Although it is a well-known irritant, ACD to topical calcipotriol rarely has been reported.^20-23 Topical calcipotriol does not seem to cross-react with other vitamin D analogues, including tacalcitol and calcitriol.^21,24 Based on the literature and the nonirritant reactive thresholds described by Fullerton et al,²⁵ recommended patch test concentrations of calcipotriol in isopropanol are 2 to 10 µg/mL. Given its immunomodulating effects, calcipotriol may suppress contact hypersensitization from other allergens, similar to the effects seen with UV radiation.²⁶

Calcineurin inhibitors act on the nuclear factor of activated T cells signaling pathway, resulting in downstream suppression of proinflammatory cytokines. Contact allergy to these topical medications is rare and mainly has involved pimecrolimus.^27-30 In one case, a patient with a previously documented topical tacrolimus contact allergy demonstrated cross-reactivity with pimecrolimus on a double-blinded, right-vs-left ROAT, as well as by patch testing with pimecrolimus cream 1%, which was only weakly positive (+).²⁷ Patch test concentrations of 2.5% or higher may be required to elicit positive reactions to tacrolimus, as shown in one case where this was attributed to high molecular weight and poor extrafacial skin absorption of tacrolimus.³⁰ In an unusual case, a patient reacted positively to patch testing and ROAT using pimecrolimus cream 1% but not pimecrolimus 1% to 5% in petrolatum or alcohol nor the individual excipients, illustrating the importance of testing with both active and inactive ingredients.²⁹

Anesthetics

Local anesthetics can be separated into 2 main groups—amides and esters—based on their chemical structures. From 2001 to 2004, the NACDG patch tested 10,061 patients and found 344 (3.4%) with a positive reaction to at least one topical anesthetic.³¹ We will discuss some of the allergic cutaneous reactions associated with topical benzocaine (an ester) and lidocaine and prilocaine (amides).

According to the NACDG, the estimated prevalence of topical benzocaine allergy from 2001 to 2018 was roughly 3%.³² Allergic contact dermatitis has been reported in patients who used topical benzocaine to treat localized pain disorders, including herpes zoster and dental pain.^33,34 Benzocaine may be used in the anogenital region in the form of antihemorrhoidal creams and in condoms and is a considerably more common allergen in those with anogenital dermatitis compared to those without.^35-38 Although cross-reactions within the same anesthetic group are common, clinicians also should be aware of the potential for concomitant sensitivity between unrelated local anesthetics.^39-41

From 2001 to 2018, the prevalence of ACD to topical lidocaine was estimated to be 7.9%, according to the NACDG.³² A topical anesthetic containing both lidocaine and prilocaine often is used preprocedurally and can be a source of ACD. Interestingly, several cases of ACD to combination lidocaine/prilocaine cream demonstrated positive patch tests to prilocaine but not lidocaine, despite their structural similarities.^42-44 One case report described simultaneous positive reactions to both prilocaine 5% and lidocaine 1%.⁴⁵

There are a few key points to consider when working up contact allergy to local anesthetics. Patients who develop positive patch test reactions to a local anesthetic should undergo further testing to better understand alternatives and future use. As previously mentioned, ACD to one anesthetic does not necessarily preclude the use of other related anesthetics. Intradermal testing may help differentiate immediate and delayed-type allergic reactions to local anesthetics and should therefore follow positive patch tests.⁴⁶ Importantly, a delayed reading (ie, after day 6 or 7) also should be performed as part of intradermal testing. Patients with positive patch tests but negative intradermal test results may be able to tolerate systemic anesthetic use.⁴⁷

Patch Testing for Potential Medicament ACD

In this article, we touched on several topical medications that have nuanced patch testing specifications given their immunomodulating effects. A simplified outline of recommended patch test concentrations is provided in the eTable, and we encourage you to revisit these useful resources as needed. In many cases, referral to a specialized patch test clinic may be necessary. Although they are not reviewed in this article, always consider inactive ingredients such as preservatives, softening agents, and emulsifiers in the setting of medicament dermatitis, as they also may be culprits of ACD.

Final Interpretation

In this 2-part series, we covered ACD to several common topical drugs with a focus on active ingredients as the source of allergy, and yet this is just the tip of the iceberg. Topical medicaments are prevalent in the field of dermatology, and associated cases of ACD have been reported proportionately. Consider ACD when topical medication efficacy plateaus, triggers new-onset dermatitis, or seems to exacerbate an underlying dermatitis.

In the first part of this 2-part series (Cutis. 2021;108:271-275), we discussed topical medicament allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from acne and rosacea medications, antimicrobials, antihistamines, and topical pain preparations. In part 2 of this series, we focus on topical corticosteroids, immunomodulators, and anesthetics.

Corticosteroids

Given their anti-inflammatory and immune-modulating effects, topical corticosteroids are utilized for the treatment of contact dermatitis and yet also are frequent culprits of ACD. The North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) demonstrated a 4% frequency of positive patch tests to at least one corticosteroid from 2007 to 2014; the relevant allergens were tixocortol pivalate (TP)(2.3%), budesonide (0.9%), hydrocortisone-17-butyrate (0.4%), clobetasol-17-propionate (0.3%), and desoximetasone (0.2%).¹ Corticosteroid contact allergy can be difficult to recognize and may present as a flare of the underlying condition being treated. Clinically, these rashes may demonstrate an edge effect, characterized by pronounced dermatitis adjacent to and surrounding the treatment area due to concentrated anti-inflammatory effects in the center.

Traditionally, corticosteroids are divided into 4 basic structural groups—classes A, B, C, and D—based on the Coopman et al² classification (Table). The class D corticosteroids were further subdivided into classes D1, defined by C16-methyl substitution and halogenation of the B ring, and D2, which lacks the aforementioned substitutions.⁴ However, more recently Baeck et al⁵ simplified this classification into 3 main groups of steroids based on molecular modeling in combination with patch test results. Group 1 combines the nonmethylated and (mostly) nonhalogenated class A and D2 molecules plus budesonide; group 2 accounts for some halogenated class B molecules with the C16, C17 cis ketal or diol structure; and group 3 includes halogenated and C16-methylated molecules from classes C and D1.⁴ For the purposes of this review, discussion of classes A through D refers to the Coopman et al² classification, and groups 1 through 3 refers to Baeck et al.⁵

Tixocortol pivalate is used as a surrogate marker for hydrocortisone allergy and other class A corticosteroids and is part of the group 1 steroid classification. Interestingly, patients with TP-positive patch tests may not exhibit signs or symptoms of ACD from the use of hydrocortisone products. Repeat open application testing (ROAT) or provocative use testing may elicit a positive response in these patients, especially with the use of hydrocortisone cream (vs ointment), likely due to greater transepidermal penetration.⁶ There is little consensus on the optimal concentration of TP for patch testing. Although TP 1% often is recommended, studies have shown mixed findings of notable differences between high (1% petrolatum) and low (0.1% petrolatum) concentrations of TP.^7,8

Budesonide also is part of group 1 and is a marker for contact allergy to class B corticosteroids, such as triamcinolone and fluocinonide. Cross-reactions between budesonide and other corticosteroids traditionally classified as group B may be explained by structural similarities, whereas cross-reactions with certain class D corticosteroids, such as hydrocortisone-17-butyrate, may be better explained by the diastereomer composition of budesonide.^9,10 In a European study, budesonide 0.01% and TP 0.1% included in the European Baseline Series detected 85% (23/27) of cases of corticosteroid allergies.¹¹ Use of inhaled budesonide can provoke recall dermatitis and therefore should be avoided in allergic patients.¹²

Testing for ACD to topical steroids is complex, as the potent anti-inflammatory properties of these medications can complicate results. Selecting the appropriate test, vehicle, and concentration can help avoid false negatives. Although intradermal testing previously was thought to be superior to patch testing in detecting topical corticosteroid contact allergy, newer data have demonstrated strong concordance between the two methods.^13,14 The risk for skin atrophy, particularly with the use of suspensions, limits the use of intradermal testing.¹⁴ An ethanol vehicle is recommended for patch testing, except when testing with TP or budesonide when petrolatum provides greater corticosteroid stability.^14-16 An irritant pattern or a rim effect on patch testing often is considered positive when testing corticosteroids, as the effect of the steroid itself can diminish a positive reaction. As a result, 0.1% dilutions sometimes are favored over 1% test concentrations.^14,15,17 Late readings (>7 days) may be necessary to detect positive reactions in both adults and children.^18,19

The authors (M.R., A.R.A.) find these varied classifications of steroids daunting (and somewhat confusing!). In general, when ACD to topical steroids is suspected, in addition to standard patch testing with a corticosteroid series, ROAT of the suspected steroid may be necessary, as the rules of steroid classification may not be reproducible in the real world. For patients with only corticosteroid allergy, calcineurin inhibitors are a safe alternative.

Immunomodulators

Calcipotriol is a vitamin D analogue commonly used to treat psoriasis. Although it is a well-known irritant, ACD to topical calcipotriol rarely has been reported.^20-23 Topical calcipotriol does not seem to cross-react with other vitamin D analogues, including tacalcitol and calcitriol.^21,24 Based on the literature and the nonirritant reactive thresholds described by Fullerton et al,²⁵ recommended patch test concentrations of calcipotriol in isopropanol are 2 to 10 µg/mL. Given its immunomodulating effects, calcipotriol may suppress contact hypersensitization from other allergens, similar to the effects seen with UV radiation.²⁶

Calcineurin inhibitors act on the nuclear factor of activated T cells signaling pathway, resulting in downstream suppression of proinflammatory cytokines. Contact allergy to these topical medications is rare and mainly has involved pimecrolimus.^27-30 In one case, a patient with a previously documented topical tacrolimus contact allergy demonstrated cross-reactivity with pimecrolimus on a double-blinded, right-vs-left ROAT, as well as by patch testing with pimecrolimus cream 1%, which was only weakly positive (+).²⁷ Patch test concentrations of 2.5% or higher may be required to elicit positive reactions to tacrolimus, as shown in one case where this was attributed to high molecular weight and poor extrafacial skin absorption of tacrolimus.³⁰ In an unusual case, a patient reacted positively to patch testing and ROAT using pimecrolimus cream 1% but not pimecrolimus 1% to 5% in petrolatum or alcohol nor the individual excipients, illustrating the importance of testing with both active and inactive ingredients.²⁹

Anesthetics

Local anesthetics can be separated into 2 main groups—amides and esters—based on their chemical structures. From 2001 to 2004, the NACDG patch tested 10,061 patients and found 344 (3.4%) with a positive reaction to at least one topical anesthetic.³¹ We will discuss some of the allergic cutaneous reactions associated with topical benzocaine (an ester) and lidocaine and prilocaine (amides).

According to the NACDG, the estimated prevalence of topical benzocaine allergy from 2001 to 2018 was roughly 3%.³² Allergic contact dermatitis has been reported in patients who used topical benzocaine to treat localized pain disorders, including herpes zoster and dental pain.^33,34 Benzocaine may be used in the anogenital region in the form of antihemorrhoidal creams and in condoms and is a considerably more common allergen in those with anogenital dermatitis compared to those without.^35-38 Although cross-reactions within the same anesthetic group are common, clinicians also should be aware of the potential for concomitant sensitivity between unrelated local anesthetics.^39-41

From 2001 to 2018, the prevalence of ACD to topical lidocaine was estimated to be 7.9%, according to the NACDG.³² A topical anesthetic containing both lidocaine and prilocaine often is used preprocedurally and can be a source of ACD. Interestingly, several cases of ACD to combination lidocaine/prilocaine cream demonstrated positive patch tests to prilocaine but not lidocaine, despite their structural similarities.^42-44 One case report described simultaneous positive reactions to both prilocaine 5% and lidocaine 1%.⁴⁵

There are a few key points to consider when working up contact allergy to local anesthetics. Patients who develop positive patch test reactions to a local anesthetic should undergo further testing to better understand alternatives and future use. As previously mentioned, ACD to one anesthetic does not necessarily preclude the use of other related anesthetics. Intradermal testing may help differentiate immediate and delayed-type allergic reactions to local anesthetics and should therefore follow positive patch tests.⁴⁶ Importantly, a delayed reading (ie, after day 6 or 7) also should be performed as part of intradermal testing. Patients with positive patch tests but negative intradermal test results may be able to tolerate systemic anesthetic use.⁴⁷

Patch Testing for Potential Medicament ACD

In this article, we touched on several topical medications that have nuanced patch testing specifications given their immunomodulating effects. A simplified outline of recommended patch test concentrations is provided in the eTable, and we encourage you to revisit these useful resources as needed. In many cases, referral to a specialized patch test clinic may be necessary. Although they are not reviewed in this article, always consider inactive ingredients such as preservatives, softening agents, and emulsifiers in the setting of medicament dermatitis, as they also may be culprits of ACD.

Final Interpretation

In this 2-part series, we covered ACD to several common topical drugs with a focus on active ingredients as the source of allergy, and yet this is just the tip of the iceberg. Topical medicaments are prevalent in the field of dermatology, and associated cases of ACD have been reported proportionately. Consider ACD when topical medication efficacy plateaus, triggers new-onset dermatitis, or seems to exacerbate an underlying dermatitis.

In the first part of this 2-part series (Cutis. 2021;108:271-275), we discussed topical medicament allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from acne and rosacea medications, antimicrobials, antihistamines, and topical pain preparations. In part 2 of this series, we focus on topical corticosteroids, immunomodulators, and anesthetics.

Corticosteroids

Given their anti-inflammatory and immune-modulating effects, topical corticosteroids are utilized for the treatment of contact dermatitis and yet also are frequent culprits of ACD. The North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) demonstrated a 4% frequency of positive patch tests to at least one corticosteroid from 2007 to 2014; the relevant allergens were tixocortol pivalate (TP)(2.3%), budesonide (0.9%), hydrocortisone-17-butyrate (0.4%), clobetasol-17-propionate (0.3%), and desoximetasone (0.2%).¹ Corticosteroid contact allergy can be difficult to recognize and may present as a flare of the underlying condition being treated. Clinically, these rashes may demonstrate an edge effect, characterized by pronounced dermatitis adjacent to and surrounding the treatment area due to concentrated anti-inflammatory effects in the center.

Traditionally, corticosteroids are divided into 4 basic structural groups—classes A, B, C, and D—based on the Coopman et al² classification (Table). The class D corticosteroids were further subdivided into classes D1, defined by C16-methyl substitution and halogenation of the B ring, and D2, which lacks the aforementioned substitutions.⁴ However, more recently Baeck et al⁵ simplified this classification into 3 main groups of steroids based on molecular modeling in combination with patch test results. Group 1 combines the nonmethylated and (mostly) nonhalogenated class A and D2 molecules plus budesonide; group 2 accounts for some halogenated class B molecules with the C16, C17 cis ketal or diol structure; and group 3 includes halogenated and C16-methylated molecules from classes C and D1.⁴ For the purposes of this review, discussion of classes A through D refers to the Coopman et al² classification, and groups 1 through 3 refers to Baeck et al.⁵

Tixocortol pivalate is used as a surrogate marker for hydrocortisone allergy and other class A corticosteroids and is part of the group 1 steroid classification. Interestingly, patients with TP-positive patch tests may not exhibit signs or symptoms of ACD from the use of hydrocortisone products. Repeat open application testing (ROAT) or provocative use testing may elicit a positive response in these patients, especially with the use of hydrocortisone cream (vs ointment), likely due to greater transepidermal penetration.⁶ There is little consensus on the optimal concentration of TP for patch testing. Although TP 1% often is recommended, studies have shown mixed findings of notable differences between high (1% petrolatum) and low (0.1% petrolatum) concentrations of TP.^7,8

Budesonide also is part of group 1 and is a marker for contact allergy to class B corticosteroids, such as triamcinolone and fluocinonide. Cross-reactions between budesonide and other corticosteroids traditionally classified as group B may be explained by structural similarities, whereas cross-reactions with certain class D corticosteroids, such as hydrocortisone-17-butyrate, may be better explained by the diastereomer composition of budesonide.^9,10 In a European study, budesonide 0.01% and TP 0.1% included in the European Baseline Series detected 85% (23/27) of cases of corticosteroid allergies.¹¹ Use of inhaled budesonide can provoke recall dermatitis and therefore should be avoided in allergic patients.¹²

Testing for ACD to topical steroids is complex, as the potent anti-inflammatory properties of these medications can complicate results. Selecting the appropriate test, vehicle, and concentration can help avoid false negatives. Although intradermal testing previously was thought to be superior to patch testing in detecting topical corticosteroid contact allergy, newer data have demonstrated strong concordance between the two methods.^13,14 The risk for skin atrophy, particularly with the use of suspensions, limits the use of intradermal testing.¹⁴ An ethanol vehicle is recommended for patch testing, except when testing with TP or budesonide when petrolatum provides greater corticosteroid stability.^14-16 An irritant pattern or a rim effect on patch testing often is considered positive when testing corticosteroids, as the effect of the steroid itself can diminish a positive reaction. As a result, 0.1% dilutions sometimes are favored over 1% test concentrations.^14,15,17 Late readings (>7 days) may be necessary to detect positive reactions in both adults and children.^18,19

The authors (M.R., A.R.A.) find these varied classifications of steroids daunting (and somewhat confusing!). In general, when ACD to topical steroids is suspected, in addition to standard patch testing with a corticosteroid series, ROAT of the suspected steroid may be necessary, as the rules of steroid classification may not be reproducible in the real world. For patients with only corticosteroid allergy, calcineurin inhibitors are a safe alternative.

Immunomodulators

Calcipotriol is a vitamin D analogue commonly used to treat psoriasis. Although it is a well-known irritant, ACD to topical calcipotriol rarely has been reported.^20-23 Topical calcipotriol does not seem to cross-react with other vitamin D analogues, including tacalcitol and calcitriol.^21,24 Based on the literature and the nonirritant reactive thresholds described by Fullerton et al,²⁵ recommended patch test concentrations of calcipotriol in isopropanol are 2 to 10 µg/mL. Given its immunomodulating effects, calcipotriol may suppress contact hypersensitization from other allergens, similar to the effects seen with UV radiation.²⁶

Calcineurin inhibitors act on the nuclear factor of activated T cells signaling pathway, resulting in downstream suppression of proinflammatory cytokines. Contact allergy to these topical medications is rare and mainly has involved pimecrolimus.^27-30 In one case, a patient with a previously documented topical tacrolimus contact allergy demonstrated cross-reactivity with pimecrolimus on a double-blinded, right-vs-left ROAT, as well as by patch testing with pimecrolimus cream 1%, which was only weakly positive (+).²⁷ Patch test concentrations of 2.5% or higher may be required to elicit positive reactions to tacrolimus, as shown in one case where this was attributed to high molecular weight and poor extrafacial skin absorption of tacrolimus.³⁰ In an unusual case, a patient reacted positively to patch testing and ROAT using pimecrolimus cream 1% but not pimecrolimus 1% to 5% in petrolatum or alcohol nor the individual excipients, illustrating the importance of testing with both active and inactive ingredients.²⁹

Anesthetics

Local anesthetics can be separated into 2 main groups—amides and esters—based on their chemical structures. From 2001 to 2004, the NACDG patch tested 10,061 patients and found 344 (3.4%) with a positive reaction to at least one topical anesthetic.³¹ We will discuss some of the allergic cutaneous reactions associated with topical benzocaine (an ester) and lidocaine and prilocaine (amides).

According to the NACDG, the estimated prevalence of topical benzocaine allergy from 2001 to 2018 was roughly 3%.³² Allergic contact dermatitis has been reported in patients who used topical benzocaine to treat localized pain disorders, including herpes zoster and dental pain.^33,34 Benzocaine may be used in the anogenital region in the form of antihemorrhoidal creams and in condoms and is a considerably more common allergen in those with anogenital dermatitis compared to those without.^35-38 Although cross-reactions within the same anesthetic group are common, clinicians also should be aware of the potential for concomitant sensitivity between unrelated local anesthetics.^39-41

From 2001 to 2018, the prevalence of ACD to topical lidocaine was estimated to be 7.9%, according to the NACDG.³² A topical anesthetic containing both lidocaine and prilocaine often is used preprocedurally and can be a source of ACD. Interestingly, several cases of ACD to combination lidocaine/prilocaine cream demonstrated positive patch tests to prilocaine but not lidocaine, despite their structural similarities.^42-44 One case report described simultaneous positive reactions to both prilocaine 5% and lidocaine 1%.⁴⁵

There are a few key points to consider when working up contact allergy to local anesthetics. Patients who develop positive patch test reactions to a local anesthetic should undergo further testing to better understand alternatives and future use. As previously mentioned, ACD to one anesthetic does not necessarily preclude the use of other related anesthetics. Intradermal testing may help differentiate immediate and delayed-type allergic reactions to local anesthetics and should therefore follow positive patch tests.⁴⁶ Importantly, a delayed reading (ie, after day 6 or 7) also should be performed as part of intradermal testing. Patients with positive patch tests but negative intradermal test results may be able to tolerate systemic anesthetic use.⁴⁷

Patch Testing for Potential Medicament ACD

In this article, we touched on several topical medications that have nuanced patch testing specifications given their immunomodulating effects. A simplified outline of recommended patch test concentrations is provided in the eTable, and we encourage you to revisit these useful resources as needed. In many cases, referral to a specialized patch test clinic may be necessary. Although they are not reviewed in this article, always consider inactive ingredients such as preservatives, softening agents, and emulsifiers in the setting of medicament dermatitis, as they also may be culprits of ACD.

Final Interpretation

In this 2-part series, we covered ACD to several common topical drugs with a focus on active ingredients as the source of allergy, and yet this is just the tip of the iceberg. Topical medicaments are prevalent in the field of dermatology, and associated cases of ACD have been reported proportionately. Consider ACD when topical medication efficacy plateaus, triggers new-onset dermatitis, or seems to exacerbate an underlying dermatitis.

Topical medications frequently are prescribed in dermatology and provide the advantages of direct skin penetration and targeted application while typically sparing patients from systemic effects. Adverse cutaneous effects include allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), irritant contact dermatitis (ICD), photosensitivity, urticaria, hyperpigmentation or hypopigmentation, atrophy, periorificial dermatitis, and acneform eruptions. Allergic contact dermatitis can develop from the active drug or vehicle components.

Patients with medicament ACD often present with symptoms of pruritus and dermatitis at the site of topical application. They may express concern that the medication is no longer working or seems to be making things worse. Certain sites are more prone to developing medicament dermatitis, including the face, groin, and lower legs. Older adults may be more at risk. Other risk factors include pre-existing skin diseases such as stasis dermatitis, acne, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and genital dermatoses.¹ A review of 14,911 patch-tested patients from a single referral clinic revealed that 17.4% had iatrogenic contact dermatitis, with the most common culprits being topical antibiotics, antiseptics, and steroids.²

In this 2-part series, we will focus on the active drug as a source of ACD. Part 1 explores ACD associated with acne and rosacea medications, antimicrobials, antihistamines, and topical pain preparations.

Acne and Rosacea Medications

Retinoids—Topical retinoids are first-line acne treatments that help normalize skin keratinization. Irritant contact dermatitis from retinoids is a well-known and common side effect. Although far less common than ICD, ACD from topical retinoid use has been reported.^3,4 Reactions to tretinoin are most frequently reported in the literature compared to adapalene gel⁵ and tazarotene foam, which have lower potential for sensitization.⁶ Allergic contact dermatitis also has been reported from retinyl palmitate^7,8 in cosmetic creams and from occupational exposure in settings of industrial vitamin A production.⁹ Both ICD and ACD from topical retinoids can present with pruritus, erythema, and scaling. Given this clinical overlap between ACD and ICD, patch testing is crucial in differentiating the underlying etiology of the dermatitis.

Benzoyl Peroxide—Benzoyl peroxide (BP) is another popular topical acne treatment that targets Cutibacterium acnes, a bacterium often implicated in the pathogenesis of acne vulgaris. Similar to retinoids, ICD is more common than ACD. Several cases of ACD to BP have been reported.^10-14 Occasionally, honey-colored crusting associated with ACD to BP can mimic impetigo.¹⁰ Aside from use of BP as an acne treatment, other potential exposures to BP include bleached flour¹³ and orthopedic bone cement. Occupations at risk for potential BP exposure include dental technicians¹⁵ and those working in plastic manufacturing.

Brimonidine—Brimonidine tartrate is a selective α₂-adrenergic agonist initially used to treat open-angle glaucoma and also is used as a topical treatment for rosacea. Allergic reactions to brimonidine eye drops may present with periorbital hyperpigmentation and pruritic bullous lesions.¹⁶ Case reports of topical brimonidine ACD have demonstrated mixed patch test results, with positive patch tests to Mirvaso (Galderma) as is but negative patch tests to pure brimonidine tartrate 0.33%.^17,18 Ringuet and Houle¹⁹ reported the first known positive patch test reaction to pure topical brimonidine, testing with brimonidine tartrate 1% in petrolatum.^20,21 Clinicians should be attuned to ACD to topical brimonidine in patients previously treated for glaucoma, as prior use of ophthalmic preparations may result in sensitization.^18,20

Antimicrobials

Clindamycin—Clindamycin targets bacterial protein synthesis and is an effective adjunct in the treatment of acne. Despite its widespread and often long-term use, topical clindamycin is a weak sensitizer.²² To date, limited case reports on ACD to topical clindamycin exist.^23-28 Rare clinical patterns of ACD to clindamycin include mimickers of irritant retinoid dermatitis, erythema multiforme, or pustular rosacea.^25,26,29

Metronidazole—Metronidazole is a bactericidal agent that disrupts nucleic acid synthesis with additional anti-inflammatory properties used in the treatment of rosacea. Allergic contact dermatitis to topical metronidazole has been reported.^30-34 In 2006, Beutner at al³⁵ patch tested 215 patients using metronidazole gel 1%, which revealed no positive reactions to indicate contact sensitization. Similarly, Jappe et al³⁶ found no positive reactions to metronidazole 2% in petrolatum in their prospective analysis of 78 rosacea patients, further highlighting the exceptionally low incidence of ACD. Cross-reaction with isothiazolinone, which shares structurally similar properties to metronidazole, has been speculated.^31,34 One patient developed an acute reaction to metronidazole gel 0.75% within 24 hours of application, suggesting that isothiazolinone may act as a sensitizer, though this relationship has not been proven.³¹

Neomycin—Neomycin blocks bacterial protein synthesis and is available in both prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) formulations. It commonly is used to treat and prevent superficial wound infections as an OTC antibiotic and also has otic, ophthalmologic, gastroenterologic, urologic, and peritoneal formulations. It also can be used in the dental and veterinary fields and is present in some animal feeds and in trace amounts in some vaccines for humans. Neomycin is a common antibiotic contact allergen, and the most recently reported 2017-2018 North American Contact Dermatitis Group data cycle placed it at number 12 with 5.4% positivity.³⁷ Co-reactions with bacitracin can occur, substantially limiting OTC topical antibiotic options for allergic patients. A safe alternative for patients with neomycin (and bacitracin and polymyxin) contact allergy is prescription mupirocin.

Bacitracin—Bacitracin interferes with peptidoglycan and cell-wall synthesis to treat superficial cutaneous infections. Similar to neomycin, it also can be found in OTC antibiotic ointments as well as in antibacterial bandages. There are several case reports of patients with both type IV delayed hypersensitivity (contact dermatitis) and type I anaphylactic reactions to bacitracin^38-40; patch testers should be aware of this rare association. Bacitracin was positive in 5.5% of patch tested patients in the 2017-2018 North American Contact Dermatitis Group data cycle,³⁷ and as with neomycin, bacitracin also is commonly patch tested in most screening patch test series.

Polymyxin—Polymyxin is a polypeptide topical antibiotic that is used to treat superficial wound infections and can be used in combination with neomycin and/or bacitracin. Historically, it is a less common antibiotic allergen; however, it is now frequently included in comprehensive patch test series, as the frequency of positive reactions seems to be increasing, probably due to polysensitization with neomycin and bacitracin.

Nystatin—Nystatin is an antifungal that binds to ergosterol and disrupts the cell wall. Cases exist of ACD to topical nystatin as well as systemic ACD from oral exposure, though both are quite rare. Authors have surmised that the overall low rates of ACD may be due to poor skin absorption of nystatin, which also can confound patch testing.^41,42 For patients with suspected ACD to nystatin, repeat open application testing also can be performed to confirm allergy.

Imidazole Antifungals—Similar to nystatins, imidazole antifungals also work by disrupting the fungal cell wall. Imidazole antifungal preparations that have been reported to cause ACD include clotrimazole, miconazole, econazole, and isoconazole, and although cross-reactivity patterns have been described, they are not always reproducible with patch testing.⁴³ In one reported case, tioconazole found in an antifungal nail lacquer triggered ACD involving not only the fingers and toes but also the trunk.⁴⁴ Erythema multiforme–like reactions also have been described from topical use.⁴⁵ Commercial patch test preparations of the most common imidazole allergens do exist. Nonimidazole antifungals remain a safe option for allergic patients.

Antihistamines

Antihistamines, or H1-receptor antagonists, are marketed to be applied topically for relief of pruritus associated with allergic cutaneous reactions. Ironically, they are known to be potent sensitizers themselves. There are 6 main chemical classes of antihistamines: phenothiazines, ethylenediamines, ethanolamines, alkylamines, piperazines, and piperidines. Goossens and Linsen⁴⁶ patch tested 12,460 patients from 1978 to 1997 and found the most positive reactions to promethazine (phenothiazine)(n=12), followed by diphenhydramine (ethanolamine)(n=8) and clemizole (benzimidazole)(n=6). The authors also noted cross-reactions between diphenhydramine derivatives and between promethazine and chlorpromazine.⁴⁶

Doxepin is a tricyclic antidepressant with antihistamine activity and is a well-documented sensitizer.^47-52 Taylor et al⁴⁷ evaluated 97 patients with chronic dermatoses, and patch testing revealed 17 (17.5%) positive reactions to doxepin cream, 13 (76.5%) of which were positive reactions to both the commercial cream and the active ingredient. Patch testing using doxepin dilution as low as 0.5% in petrolatum is sufficient to provoke a strong (++) allergic reaction.^50,51 Early-onset ACD following the use of doxepin cream suggests the possibility of prior sensitization, perhaps with a structurally similar phenothiazine drug.⁵¹ A keen suspicion for ACD in patients using doxepin cream for longer than the recommended duration can help make the diagnosis.^49,52

Topical Analgesics

Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs—Ketoprofen is one of the most frequent culprits of photoallergic contact dermatitis. Pruritic, papulovesicular, and bullous lesions typically develop acutely weeks after exposure. Prolonged photosensitivity is common and can last years after discontinuation of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.⁵³ Cases of cross-reactions and co-sensitization to structurally similar substances have been reported, including to benzophenone-related chemicals in sunscreen and aldehyde groups in fragrance mix.^53,54

Diclofenac gel generally is well tolerated in the topical treatment of joint pain and inflammation. In the setting of ACD, patients typically present with dermatitis localized to the area of application.⁵⁵ Immediate cessation and avoidance of topical diclofenac are crucial components of management. Although systemic contact dermatitis has been reported with oral diclofenac use,⁵⁶ a recent report suggested that oral diclofenac may be well tolerated for some patients with topical ACD.⁵⁷

Publications on bufexamac-induced ACD mainly consist of international reports, as this medication has been discontinued in the United States. Bufexamac is a highly sensitizing agent that can lead to severe polymorphic eruptions requiring treatment with prednisolone and even hospitalization.⁵⁸ In one Australian case report, a mother developed an edematous, erythematous, papulovesicular eruption on the breast while breastfeeding her baby, who was being treated with bufexamac cream 5% for infantile eczema.⁵⁹ Carprofen-induced photoallergic contact dermatitis is associated with occupational exposure in pharmaceutical workers.^60,61 A few case reports on other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including etofenamate and aceclofenac, have been published.^62,63

Compounded Medications—Compounded topical analgesics, which help to control pain via multiple combined effects, have gained increasing popularity in the management of chronic neuropathic pain disorders. Only a few recent retrospective studies assessing the efficacy and safety of these medications have mentioned suspected allergic cutaneous reactions.^62,63 In 2015, Turrentine et al⁶⁴ reported a case of ACD to cyclobenzaprine in a compound containing ketamine 10%, diclofenac 5%, baclofen 2%, bupivacaine 1%, cyclobenzaprine 2%, gabapentin 6%, ibuprofen 3%, and pentoxifylline 3% in a proprietary cream base. When patients present with suspected ACD to a compounded pain medication, obtaining individual components for patch testing is key to determining the allergic ingredient(s). We suspect that we will see a rise in reports of ACD as these topical compounds become readily adopted in clinical practices.

Patch Testing for Diagnosis

When patients present with symptoms concerning for ACD to medicaments, the astute clinician should promptly stop the suspected topical medication and consider patch testing. For common allergens such as neomycin, bacitracin, or ethylenediamine, commercial patch test preparations exist and should be used; however, for drugs that do not have a commercial patch test preparation, the patient’s product can be applied as is, keeping in mind that certain preparations (such as retinoids) can cause irritant patch test reactions, which may confound the reading. Alternatively, individual ingredients in the medication’s formulation can be requested from the manufacturer or a compounding pharmacy for targeted testing. Suggested concentrations for patch testing based on the literature and expert reference are listed in the Table. The authors (M.R., A.R.A.) frequently rely on an expert reference⁶⁶ to determine ideal concentrations for patch testing. Referral to a specialized patch test clinic may be appropriate.

Final Interpretation

Although their intent is to heal, topical medicaments also can be a source of ACD. The astute clinician should consider ACD when topicals either no longer seem to help the patient or trigger new-onset dermatitis. Patch testing directly with the culprit medicament, or individual medication ingredients when needed, can lead to the diagnosis, though caution is advised. Stay tuned for part 2 of this series in which we will discuss ACD to topical steroids, immunomodulators, and anesthetic medications.

Topical medications frequently are prescribed in dermatology and provide the advantages of direct skin penetration and targeted application while typically sparing patients from systemic effects. Adverse cutaneous effects include allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), irritant contact dermatitis (ICD), photosensitivity, urticaria, hyperpigmentation or hypopigmentation, atrophy, periorificial dermatitis, and acneform eruptions. Allergic contact dermatitis can develop from the active drug or vehicle components.

Patients with medicament ACD often present with symptoms of pruritus and dermatitis at the site of topical application. They may express concern that the medication is no longer working or seems to be making things worse. Certain sites are more prone to developing medicament dermatitis, including the face, groin, and lower legs. Older adults may be more at risk. Other risk factors include pre-existing skin diseases such as stasis dermatitis, acne, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and genital dermatoses.¹ A review of 14,911 patch-tested patients from a single referral clinic revealed that 17.4% had iatrogenic contact dermatitis, with the most common culprits being topical antibiotics, antiseptics, and steroids.²

In this 2-part series, we will focus on the active drug as a source of ACD. Part 1 explores ACD associated with acne and rosacea medications, antimicrobials, antihistamines, and topical pain preparations.

Acne and Rosacea Medications

Retinoids—Topical retinoids are first-line acne treatments that help normalize skin keratinization. Irritant contact dermatitis from retinoids is a well-known and common side effect. Although far less common than ICD, ACD from topical retinoid use has been reported.^3,4 Reactions to tretinoin are most frequently reported in the literature compared to adapalene gel⁵ and tazarotene foam, which have lower potential for sensitization.⁶ Allergic contact dermatitis also has been reported from retinyl palmitate^7,8 in cosmetic creams and from occupational exposure in settings of industrial vitamin A production.⁹ Both ICD and ACD from topical retinoids can present with pruritus, erythema, and scaling. Given this clinical overlap between ACD and ICD, patch testing is crucial in differentiating the underlying etiology of the dermatitis.

Benzoyl Peroxide—Benzoyl peroxide (BP) is another popular topical acne treatment that targets Cutibacterium acnes, a bacterium often implicated in the pathogenesis of acne vulgaris. Similar to retinoids, ICD is more common than ACD. Several cases of ACD to BP have been reported.^10-14 Occasionally, honey-colored crusting associated with ACD to BP can mimic impetigo.¹⁰ Aside from use of BP as an acne treatment, other potential exposures to BP include bleached flour¹³ and orthopedic bone cement. Occupations at risk for potential BP exposure include dental technicians¹⁵ and those working in plastic manufacturing.

Brimonidine—Brimonidine tartrate is a selective α₂-adrenergic agonist initially used to treat open-angle glaucoma and also is used as a topical treatment for rosacea. Allergic reactions to brimonidine eye drops may present with periorbital hyperpigmentation and pruritic bullous lesions.¹⁶ Case reports of topical brimonidine ACD have demonstrated mixed patch test results, with positive patch tests to Mirvaso (Galderma) as is but negative patch tests to pure brimonidine tartrate 0.33%.^17,18 Ringuet and Houle¹⁹ reported the first known positive patch test reaction to pure topical brimonidine, testing with brimonidine tartrate 1% in petrolatum.^20,21 Clinicians should be attuned to ACD to topical brimonidine in patients previously treated for glaucoma, as prior use of ophthalmic preparations may result in sensitization.^18,20

Antimicrobials

Clindamycin—Clindamycin targets bacterial protein synthesis and is an effective adjunct in the treatment of acne. Despite its widespread and often long-term use, topical clindamycin is a weak sensitizer.²² To date, limited case reports on ACD to topical clindamycin exist.^23-28 Rare clinical patterns of ACD to clindamycin include mimickers of irritant retinoid dermatitis, erythema multiforme, or pustular rosacea.^25,26,29

Metronidazole—Metronidazole is a bactericidal agent that disrupts nucleic acid synthesis with additional anti-inflammatory properties used in the treatment of rosacea. Allergic contact dermatitis to topical metronidazole has been reported.^30-34 In 2006, Beutner at al³⁵ patch tested 215 patients using metronidazole gel 1%, which revealed no positive reactions to indicate contact sensitization. Similarly, Jappe et al³⁶ found no positive reactions to metronidazole 2% in petrolatum in their prospective analysis of 78 rosacea patients, further highlighting the exceptionally low incidence of ACD. Cross-reaction with isothiazolinone, which shares structurally similar properties to metronidazole, has been speculated.^31,34 One patient developed an acute reaction to metronidazole gel 0.75% within 24 hours of application, suggesting that isothiazolinone may act as a sensitizer, though this relationship has not been proven.³¹

Neomycin—Neomycin blocks bacterial protein synthesis and is available in both prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) formulations. It commonly is used to treat and prevent superficial wound infections as an OTC antibiotic and also has otic, ophthalmologic, gastroenterologic, urologic, and peritoneal formulations. It also can be used in the dental and veterinary fields and is present in some animal feeds and in trace amounts in some vaccines for humans. Neomycin is a common antibiotic contact allergen, and the most recently reported 2017-2018 North American Contact Dermatitis Group data cycle placed it at number 12 with 5.4% positivity.³⁷ Co-reactions with bacitracin can occur, substantially limiting OTC topical antibiotic options for allergic patients. A safe alternative for patients with neomycin (and bacitracin and polymyxin) contact allergy is prescription mupirocin.

Bacitracin—Bacitracin interferes with peptidoglycan and cell-wall synthesis to treat superficial cutaneous infections. Similar to neomycin, it also can be found in OTC antibiotic ointments as well as in antibacterial bandages. There are several case reports of patients with both type IV delayed hypersensitivity (contact dermatitis) and type I anaphylactic reactions to bacitracin^38-40; patch testers should be aware of this rare association. Bacitracin was positive in 5.5% of patch tested patients in the 2017-2018 North American Contact Dermatitis Group data cycle,³⁷ and as with neomycin, bacitracin also is commonly patch tested in most screening patch test series.

Polymyxin—Polymyxin is a polypeptide topical antibiotic that is used to treat superficial wound infections and can be used in combination with neomycin and/or bacitracin. Historically, it is a less common antibiotic allergen; however, it is now frequently included in comprehensive patch test series, as the frequency of positive reactions seems to be increasing, probably due to polysensitization with neomycin and bacitracin.

Nystatin—Nystatin is an antifungal that binds to ergosterol and disrupts the cell wall. Cases exist of ACD to topical nystatin as well as systemic ACD from oral exposure, though both are quite rare. Authors have surmised that the overall low rates of ACD may be due to poor skin absorption of nystatin, which also can confound patch testing.^41,42 For patients with suspected ACD to nystatin, repeat open application testing also can be performed to confirm allergy.

Imidazole Antifungals—Similar to nystatins, imidazole antifungals also work by disrupting the fungal cell wall. Imidazole antifungal preparations that have been reported to cause ACD include clotrimazole, miconazole, econazole, and isoconazole, and although cross-reactivity patterns have been described, they are not always reproducible with patch testing.⁴³ In one reported case, tioconazole found in an antifungal nail lacquer triggered ACD involving not only the fingers and toes but also the trunk.⁴⁴ Erythema multiforme–like reactions also have been described from topical use.⁴⁵ Commercial patch test preparations of the most common imidazole allergens do exist. Nonimidazole antifungals remain a safe option for allergic patients.

Antihistamines

Antihistamines, or H1-receptor antagonists, are marketed to be applied topically for relief of pruritus associated with allergic cutaneous reactions. Ironically, they are known to be potent sensitizers themselves. There are 6 main chemical classes of antihistamines: phenothiazines, ethylenediamines, ethanolamines, alkylamines, piperazines, and piperidines. Goossens and Linsen⁴⁶ patch tested 12,460 patients from 1978 to 1997 and found the most positive reactions to promethazine (phenothiazine)(n=12), followed by diphenhydramine (ethanolamine)(n=8) and clemizole (benzimidazole)(n=6). The authors also noted cross-reactions between diphenhydramine derivatives and between promethazine and chlorpromazine.⁴⁶

Doxepin is a tricyclic antidepressant with antihistamine activity and is a well-documented sensitizer.^47-52 Taylor et al⁴⁷ evaluated 97 patients with chronic dermatoses, and patch testing revealed 17 (17.5%) positive reactions to doxepin cream, 13 (76.5%) of which were positive reactions to both the commercial cream and the active ingredient. Patch testing using doxepin dilution as low as 0.5% in petrolatum is sufficient to provoke a strong (++) allergic reaction.^50,51 Early-onset ACD following the use of doxepin cream suggests the possibility of prior sensitization, perhaps with a structurally similar phenothiazine drug.⁵¹ A keen suspicion for ACD in patients using doxepin cream for longer than the recommended duration can help make the diagnosis.^49,52

Topical Analgesics

Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs—Ketoprofen is one of the most frequent culprits of photoallergic contact dermatitis. Pruritic, papulovesicular, and bullous lesions typically develop acutely weeks after exposure. Prolonged photosensitivity is common and can last years after discontinuation of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.⁵³ Cases of cross-reactions and co-sensitization to structurally similar substances have been reported, including to benzophenone-related chemicals in sunscreen and aldehyde groups in fragrance mix.^53,54

Diclofenac gel generally is well tolerated in the topical treatment of joint pain and inflammation. In the setting of ACD, patients typically present with dermatitis localized to the area of application.⁵⁵ Immediate cessation and avoidance of topical diclofenac are crucial components of management. Although systemic contact dermatitis has been reported with oral diclofenac use,⁵⁶ a recent report suggested that oral diclofenac may be well tolerated for some patients with topical ACD.⁵⁷

Publications on bufexamac-induced ACD mainly consist of international reports, as this medication has been discontinued in the United States. Bufexamac is a highly sensitizing agent that can lead to severe polymorphic eruptions requiring treatment with prednisolone and even hospitalization.⁵⁸ In one Australian case report, a mother developed an edematous, erythematous, papulovesicular eruption on the breast while breastfeeding her baby, who was being treated with bufexamac cream 5% for infantile eczema.⁵⁹ Carprofen-induced photoallergic contact dermatitis is associated with occupational exposure in pharmaceutical workers.^60,61 A few case reports on other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including etofenamate and aceclofenac, have been published.^62,63

Compounded Medications—Compounded topical analgesics, which help to control pain via multiple combined effects, have gained increasing popularity in the management of chronic neuropathic pain disorders. Only a few recent retrospective studies assessing the efficacy and safety of these medications have mentioned suspected allergic cutaneous reactions.^62,63 In 2015, Turrentine et al⁶⁴ reported a case of ACD to cyclobenzaprine in a compound containing ketamine 10%, diclofenac 5%, baclofen 2%, bupivacaine 1%, cyclobenzaprine 2%, gabapentin 6%, ibuprofen 3%, and pentoxifylline 3% in a proprietary cream base. When patients present with suspected ACD to a compounded pain medication, obtaining individual components for patch testing is key to determining the allergic ingredient(s). We suspect that we will see a rise in reports of ACD as these topical compounds become readily adopted in clinical practices.

Patch Testing for Diagnosis

When patients present with symptoms concerning for ACD to medicaments, the astute clinician should promptly stop the suspected topical medication and consider patch testing. For common allergens such as neomycin, bacitracin, or ethylenediamine, commercial patch test preparations exist and should be used; however, for drugs that do not have a commercial patch test preparation, the patient’s product can be applied as is, keeping in mind that certain preparations (such as retinoids) can cause irritant patch test reactions, which may confound the reading. Alternatively, individual ingredients in the medication’s formulation can be requested from the manufacturer or a compounding pharmacy for targeted testing. Suggested concentrations for patch testing based on the literature and expert reference are listed in the Table. The authors (M.R., A.R.A.) frequently rely on an expert reference⁶⁶ to determine ideal concentrations for patch testing. Referral to a specialized patch test clinic may be appropriate.

Final Interpretation

Although their intent is to heal, topical medicaments also can be a source of ACD. The astute clinician should consider ACD when topicals either no longer seem to help the patient or trigger new-onset dermatitis. Patch testing directly with the culprit medicament, or individual medication ingredients when needed, can lead to the diagnosis, though caution is advised. Stay tuned for part 2 of this series in which we will discuss ACD to topical steroids, immunomodulators, and anesthetic medications.

Topical medications frequently are prescribed in dermatology and provide the advantages of direct skin penetration and targeted application while typically sparing patients from systemic effects. Adverse cutaneous effects include allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), irritant contact dermatitis (ICD), photosensitivity, urticaria, hyperpigmentation or hypopigmentation, atrophy, periorificial dermatitis, and acneform eruptions. Allergic contact dermatitis can develop from the active drug or vehicle components.

Patients with medicament ACD often present with symptoms of pruritus and dermatitis at the site of topical application. They may express concern that the medication is no longer working or seems to be making things worse. Certain sites are more prone to developing medicament dermatitis, including the face, groin, and lower legs. Older adults may be more at risk. Other risk factors include pre-existing skin diseases such as stasis dermatitis, acne, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and genital dermatoses.¹ A review of 14,911 patch-tested patients from a single referral clinic revealed that 17.4% had iatrogenic contact dermatitis, with the most common culprits being topical antibiotics, antiseptics, and steroids.²

In this 2-part series, we will focus on the active drug as a source of ACD. Part 1 explores ACD associated with acne and rosacea medications, antimicrobials, antihistamines, and topical pain preparations.

Acne and Rosacea Medications

Retinoids—Topical retinoids are first-line acne treatments that help normalize skin keratinization. Irritant contact dermatitis from retinoids is a well-known and common side effect. Although far less common than ICD, ACD from topical retinoid use has been reported.^3,4 Reactions to tretinoin are most frequently reported in the literature compared to adapalene gel⁵ and tazarotene foam, which have lower potential for sensitization.⁶ Allergic contact dermatitis also has been reported from retinyl palmitate^7,8 in cosmetic creams and from occupational exposure in settings of industrial vitamin A production.⁹ Both ICD and ACD from topical retinoids can present with pruritus, erythema, and scaling. Given this clinical overlap between ACD and ICD, patch testing is crucial in differentiating the underlying etiology of the dermatitis.

Benzoyl Peroxide—Benzoyl peroxide (BP) is another popular topical acne treatment that targets Cutibacterium acnes, a bacterium often implicated in the pathogenesis of acne vulgaris. Similar to retinoids, ICD is more common than ACD. Several cases of ACD to BP have been reported.^10-14 Occasionally, honey-colored crusting associated with ACD to BP can mimic impetigo.¹⁰ Aside from use of BP as an acne treatment, other potential exposures to BP include bleached flour¹³ and orthopedic bone cement. Occupations at risk for potential BP exposure include dental technicians¹⁵ and those working in plastic manufacturing.

Brimonidine—Brimonidine tartrate is a selective α₂-adrenergic agonist initially used to treat open-angle glaucoma and also is used as a topical treatment for rosacea. Allergic reactions to brimonidine eye drops may present with periorbital hyperpigmentation and pruritic bullous lesions.¹⁶ Case reports of topical brimonidine ACD have demonstrated mixed patch test results, with positive patch tests to Mirvaso (Galderma) as is but negative patch tests to pure brimonidine tartrate 0.33%.^17,18 Ringuet and Houle¹⁹ reported the first known positive patch test reaction to pure topical brimonidine, testing with brimonidine tartrate 1% in petrolatum.^20,21 Clinicians should be attuned to ACD to topical brimonidine in patients previously treated for glaucoma, as prior use of ophthalmic preparations may result in sensitization.^18,20

Antimicrobials

Clindamycin—Clindamycin targets bacterial protein synthesis and is an effective adjunct in the treatment of acne. Despite its widespread and often long-term use, topical clindamycin is a weak sensitizer.²² To date, limited case reports on ACD to topical clindamycin exist.^23-28 Rare clinical patterns of ACD to clindamycin include mimickers of irritant retinoid dermatitis, erythema multiforme, or pustular rosacea.^25,26,29

Metronidazole—Metronidazole is a bactericidal agent that disrupts nucleic acid synthesis with additional anti-inflammatory properties used in the treatment of rosacea. Allergic contact dermatitis to topical metronidazole has been reported.^30-34 In 2006, Beutner at al³⁵ patch tested 215 patients using metronidazole gel 1%, which revealed no positive reactions to indicate contact sensitization. Similarly, Jappe et al³⁶ found no positive reactions to metronidazole 2% in petrolatum in their prospective analysis of 78 rosacea patients, further highlighting the exceptionally low incidence of ACD. Cross-reaction with isothiazolinone, which shares structurally similar properties to metronidazole, has been speculated.^31,34 One patient developed an acute reaction to metronidazole gel 0.75% within 24 hours of application, suggesting that isothiazolinone may act as a sensitizer, though this relationship has not been proven.³¹

Neomycin—Neomycin blocks bacterial protein synthesis and is available in both prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) formulations. It commonly is used to treat and prevent superficial wound infections as an OTC antibiotic and also has otic, ophthalmologic, gastroenterologic, urologic, and peritoneal formulations. It also can be used in the dental and veterinary fields and is present in some animal feeds and in trace amounts in some vaccines for humans. Neomycin is a common antibiotic contact allergen, and the most recently reported 2017-2018 North American Contact Dermatitis Group data cycle placed it at number 12 with 5.4% positivity.³⁷ Co-reactions with bacitracin can occur, substantially limiting OTC topical antibiotic options for allergic patients. A safe alternative for patients with neomycin (and bacitracin and polymyxin) contact allergy is prescription mupirocin.

Bacitracin—Bacitracin interferes with peptidoglycan and cell-wall synthesis to treat superficial cutaneous infections. Similar to neomycin, it also can be found in OTC antibiotic ointments as well as in antibacterial bandages. There are several case reports of patients with both type IV delayed hypersensitivity (contact dermatitis) and type I anaphylactic reactions to bacitracin^38-40; patch testers should be aware of this rare association. Bacitracin was positive in 5.5% of patch tested patients in the 2017-2018 North American Contact Dermatitis Group data cycle,³⁷ and as with neomycin, bacitracin also is commonly patch tested in most screening patch test series.

Polymyxin—Polymyxin is a polypeptide topical antibiotic that is used to treat superficial wound infections and can be used in combination with neomycin and/or bacitracin. Historically, it is a less common antibiotic allergen; however, it is now frequently included in comprehensive patch test series, as the frequency of positive reactions seems to be increasing, probably due to polysensitization with neomycin and bacitracin.

Nystatin—Nystatin is an antifungal that binds to ergosterol and disrupts the cell wall. Cases exist of ACD to topical nystatin as well as systemic ACD from oral exposure, though both are quite rare. Authors have surmised that the overall low rates of ACD may be due to poor skin absorption of nystatin, which also can confound patch testing.^41,42 For patients with suspected ACD to nystatin, repeat open application testing also can be performed to confirm allergy.

Imidazole Antifungals—Similar to nystatins, imidazole antifungals also work by disrupting the fungal cell wall. Imidazole antifungal preparations that have been reported to cause ACD include clotrimazole, miconazole, econazole, and isoconazole, and although cross-reactivity patterns have been described, they are not always reproducible with patch testing.⁴³ In one reported case, tioconazole found in an antifungal nail lacquer triggered ACD involving not only the fingers and toes but also the trunk.⁴⁴ Erythema multiforme–like reactions also have been described from topical use.⁴⁵ Commercial patch test preparations of the most common imidazole allergens do exist. Nonimidazole antifungals remain a safe option for allergic patients.

Antihistamines

Antihistamines, or H1-receptor antagonists, are marketed to be applied topically for relief of pruritus associated with allergic cutaneous reactions. Ironically, they are known to be potent sensitizers themselves. There are 6 main chemical classes of antihistamines: phenothiazines, ethylenediamines, ethanolamines, alkylamines, piperazines, and piperidines. Goossens and Linsen⁴⁶ patch tested 12,460 patients from 1978 to 1997 and found the most positive reactions to promethazine (phenothiazine)(n=12), followed by diphenhydramine (ethanolamine)(n=8) and clemizole (benzimidazole)(n=6). The authors also noted cross-reactions between diphenhydramine derivatives and between promethazine and chlorpromazine.⁴⁶

Doxepin is a tricyclic antidepressant with antihistamine activity and is a well-documented sensitizer.^47-52 Taylor et al⁴⁷ evaluated 97 patients with chronic dermatoses, and patch testing revealed 17 (17.5%) positive reactions to doxepin cream, 13 (76.5%) of which were positive reactions to both the commercial cream and the active ingredient. Patch testing using doxepin dilution as low as 0.5% in petrolatum is sufficient to provoke a strong (++) allergic reaction.^50,51 Early-onset ACD following the use of doxepin cream suggests the possibility of prior sensitization, perhaps with a structurally similar phenothiazine drug.⁵¹ A keen suspicion for ACD in patients using doxepin cream for longer than the recommended duration can help make the diagnosis.^49,52

Topical Analgesics

Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs—Ketoprofen is one of the most frequent culprits of photoallergic contact dermatitis. Pruritic, papulovesicular, and bullous lesions typically develop acutely weeks after exposure. Prolonged photosensitivity is common and can last years after discontinuation of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.⁵³ Cases of cross-reactions and co-sensitization to structurally similar substances have been reported, including to benzophenone-related chemicals in sunscreen and aldehyde groups in fragrance mix.^53,54

Diclofenac gel generally is well tolerated in the topical treatment of joint pain and inflammation. In the setting of ACD, patients typically present with dermatitis localized to the area of application.⁵⁵ Immediate cessation and avoidance of topical diclofenac are crucial components of management. Although systemic contact dermatitis has been reported with oral diclofenac use,⁵⁶ a recent report suggested that oral diclofenac may be well tolerated for some patients with topical ACD.⁵⁷

Publications on bufexamac-induced ACD mainly consist of international reports, as this medication has been discontinued in the United States. Bufexamac is a highly sensitizing agent that can lead to severe polymorphic eruptions requiring treatment with prednisolone and even hospitalization.⁵⁸ In one Australian case report, a mother developed an edematous, erythematous, papulovesicular eruption on the breast while breastfeeding her baby, who was being treated with bufexamac cream 5% for infantile eczema.⁵⁹ Carprofen-induced photoallergic contact dermatitis is associated with occupational exposure in pharmaceutical workers.^60,61 A few case reports on other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including etofenamate and aceclofenac, have been published.^62,63

Compounded Medications—Compounded topical analgesics, which help to control pain via multiple combined effects, have gained increasing popularity in the management of chronic neuropathic pain disorders. Only a few recent retrospective studies assessing the efficacy and safety of these medications have mentioned suspected allergic cutaneous reactions.^62,63 In 2015, Turrentine et al⁶⁴ reported a case of ACD to cyclobenzaprine in a compound containing ketamine 10%, diclofenac 5%, baclofen 2%, bupivacaine 1%, cyclobenzaprine 2%, gabapentin 6%, ibuprofen 3%, and pentoxifylline 3% in a proprietary cream base. When patients present with suspected ACD to a compounded pain medication, obtaining individual components for patch testing is key to determining the allergic ingredient(s). We suspect that we will see a rise in reports of ACD as these topical compounds become readily adopted in clinical practices.

Patch Testing for Diagnosis

When patients present with symptoms concerning for ACD to medicaments, the astute clinician should promptly stop the suspected topical medication and consider patch testing. For common allergens such as neomycin, bacitracin, or ethylenediamine, commercial patch test preparations exist and should be used; however, for drugs that do not have a commercial patch test preparation, the patient’s product can be applied as is, keeping in mind that certain preparations (such as retinoids) can cause irritant patch test reactions, which may confound the reading. Alternatively, individual ingredients in the medication’s formulation can be requested from the manufacturer or a compounding pharmacy for targeted testing. Suggested concentrations for patch testing based on the literature and expert reference are listed in the Table. The authors (M.R., A.R.A.) frequently rely on an expert reference⁶⁶ to determine ideal concentrations for patch testing. Referral to a specialized patch test clinic may be appropriate.

Final Interpretation

Although their intent is to heal, topical medicaments also can be a source of ACD. The astute clinician should consider ACD when topicals either no longer seem to help the patient or trigger new-onset dermatitis. Patch testing directly with the culprit medicament, or individual medication ingredients when needed, can lead to the diagnosis, though caution is advised. Stay tuned for part 2 of this series in which we will discuss ACD to topical steroids, immunomodulators, and anesthetic medications.

Plants can contribute to a variety of dermatoses. The Toxicodendron genus, which includes poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac, is a well-known and common cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), but many other plants can cause direct or airborne contact dermatitis, especially in gardeners, florists, and farmers. This article provides an overview of different plant-related dermatoses and culprit plants as well as how these dermatoses should be diagnosed and treated.

Epidemiology

Plant dermatoses affect more than 50 million individuals each year.^1,2 In the United States, the Toxicodendron genus causes ACD in more than 70% of exposed individuals, leading to medical visits.³ An urgent care visit for a plant-related dermatitis is estimated to cost $168, while an emergency department visit can cost 3 times as much.⁴ Although less common, Compositae plants are another important culprit of plant dermatitis, particularly in gardeners, florists, and farmers. Data from the 2017-2018 North American Contact Dermatitis Group screening series (N=4947) showed sesquiterpene lactones and Compositae to be positive in 0.5% of patch-tested patients.⁵

Plant Dermatitis Classifications

Plant dermatitis can be classified into 5 main categories: ACD, mechanical irritant contact dermatitis, chemical irritant contact dermatitis, light-mediated dermatitis, and pseudophytodermatitis.⁶

Allergic contact dermatitis is an immune-mediated type IV delayed hypersensitivity reaction. The common molecular allergens in plants include phenols, α-methylene-γ-butyrolactones, quinones, terpenes, disulfides, isothiocyanates, and polyacetylenic derivatives.⁶

Plant contact dermatitis due to mechanical and chemical irritants is precipitated by multiple mechanisms, including disruption of the epidermal barrier and subsequent cytokine release from keratinocytes.⁷ Nonimmunologic contact urticaria from plants is thought to be a type of irritant reaction precipitated by mechanical or chemical trauma.⁸

Light-mediated dermatitis includes phytophotodermatitis and photoallergic contact dermatitis. Phytophotodermatitis is a phototoxic reaction triggered by exposure to both plant-derived furanocoumarin and UVA light.⁹ By contrast, photoallergic contact dermatitis is a delayed hypersensitivity reaction from prior sensitization to a light-activated antigen.¹⁰

Pseudophytodermatitis, as its name implies, is not truly mediated by an allergen or irritant intrinsic to the plant but rather by dyes, waxes, insecticides, or arthropods that inhabit the plant or are secondarily applied.⁶

Common Plant Allergens

Anacardiaceae Family
Most of the allergenic plants within the Anacardiaceae family belong to the Toxicodendron genus, which encompasses poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), poison oak (Toxicodendron pubescens,Toxicodendron quercifolium, Toxicodendron diversiloum), and poison sumac (Toxicodendron vernix). Poison ivy is the celebrity of the Anacardiaceae family and contributes to most cases of plant-related ACD. It is found in every state in the continental United States. Poison oak is another common culprit found in the western and southeastern United States.¹¹ Plants within the Anacardiaceae family contain an oleoresin called urushiol, which is the primary sensitizing substance. Although poison ivy and poison oak grow well in full sun to partial shade, poison sumac typically is found in damp swampy areas east of the Rocky Mountains. Most cases of ACD related to Anacardiaceae species are due to direct contact with urushiol from a Toxicodendron plant, but burning of brush containing Toxicodendron can cause airborne exposure when urushiol oil is carried by smoke particles.¹² Sensitization to Toxicodendron can cause ACD to other Anacardiaceae species such as the Japanese lacquer tree (Toxicodendron vernicifluum), mango tree (Mangifera indica), cashew tree (Anacardium occidentale), and Indian marking nut tree (Semecarpus anacardium).⁶ Cross-reactions to components of the ginkgo tree (Ginkgo biloba) also are possible.

Toxicodendron plants can be more easily identified and avoided with knowledge of their characteristic leaf patterns. The most dependable way to identify poison ivy and poison oak species is to look for plants with 3 leaves, giving rise to the common saying, “Leaves of three, leave them be.” Poison sumac plants have groups of 7 to 13 leaves arranged as pairs along a central rib. Another helpful finding is a black deposit that Toxicodendron species leave behind following trauma to the leaves. Urushiol oxidizes when exposed to air and turns into a black deposit that can be seen on damaged leaves themselves or can be demonstrated in a black spot test to verify if a plant is a Toxicodendron species. The test is performed by gathering (carefully, without direct contact) a few leaves in a paper towel and crushing them to release sap. Within minutes, the sap will turn black if the plant is indeed a Toxicodendron species.¹³Pruritic, edematous, erythematous papules, plaques, and eventual vesicles in a linear distribution are suspicious for Toxicodendron exposure. Although your pet will not develop Toxicodendron ACD, oleoresin-contaminated pets can transfer the oils to their owners after coming into contact with these plants. Toxicodendron dermatitis also can be acquired from oleoresin-contaminated fomites such as clothing and shoes worn in the garden or when hiking. Toxicodendron dermatitis can appear at different sites on the body at different times depending on the amount of oleoresin exposure as well as epidermal thickness. For example, the oleoresin can be transferred from the hands to body areas with a thinner stratum corneum (eg, genitalia) and cause subsequent dermatitis.¹

Compositae Family
The Compositae family (also known as Asteraceae) is a large plant family with more than 20,000 species, including numerous weeds, wildflowers, and vegetables. The flowers, leaves, stems, and pollens of the Compositae family are coated by cyclic esters called sesquiterpene lactones. Mitchell and Dupuis¹⁴ showed that sesquiterpene lactones are the allergens responsible for ACD to various Compositae plants, including ragweed (Ambrosia), sneezeweed (Helenium), and chrysanthemums (Chrysanthemum). Common Compositae vegetables such as lettuce (Lactuca sativa) have been reported to cause ACD in chefs, grocery store produce handlers, gardeners, and even owners of lettuce-eating pet guinea pigs and turtles.¹⁵ Similarly, artichokes (Cynara scolymus) can cause ACD in gardeners.¹⁶ Exposure to Compositae species also has been implicated in photoallergic reactions, and studies have demonstrated that some patients with chronic actinic dermatitis also have positive patch test reactions to Compositae species and/or sesquiterpene lactones.^17,18

In addition to direct contact with Compositae plants, airborne exposure to sesquiterpene lactones can cause ACD.¹⁴ The pattern of airborne contact dermatitis typically involves exposed areas such as the eyelids, central face, and/or neck. The beak sign also can be a clue to airborne contact dermatitis, which involves dermatitis of the face that spares the nasal tip and/or nasal ridge. It is thought that the beak sign may result from increased sebaceous gland concentration on the nose, which prevents penetration of allergens and irritants.¹⁹ Unlike photoallergic contact dermatitis, which also can involve the face, airborne ACD frequently involves photoprotected areas such as the submandibular chin and the upper lip. Davies and Kersey²⁰ reported the case of a groundsman who was cutting grass with dandelions (Taraxacum officinale) and was found to have associated airborne ACD of the face, neck, and forearms due to Compositae allergy. In a different setting, the aromas of chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla) have been reported to cause airborne ACD in a tea drinker.²¹ Paulsen²² found that ingestion of chamomile tea can induce systemic ACD in sensitized individuals.

Alstroemeriaceae, Liliaceae, and Primulaceae
Florists are exposed to many plant species and have a high prevalence of ACD. Thiboutot et al²³ found that 15 of 57 (26%) floral workers experienced hand dermatitis that cleared with time away from work. The Peruvian lily (Alstroemeria, Alstroemeriaceae family), which contains tuliposide A, was found to be the leading cause of sensitization.²³ Tulips (Tulipa, Liliaceae family), as the flower name suggests, also contain tuliposide A, which along with mechanical irritation from the course tecta fibers on the bulbs lead to a dermatitis known as tulip fingers.^24,25 Poison primrose (Primula obconica, Primulaceae family), cultivated for its highly colorful flowers, contains the contact allergen primin.⁶ A common clinical presentation of ACD for any of these culprit flowers is localized dermatitis of the thumb and index finger in a florist or gardener.

Plants That Cause Irritant Reactions

Cactuses
Although the long spines of the Cactaceae family of cactuses is a warning for passersby, it is the small and nearly invisible barbed hairs (glochids) that inflict a more dramatic cutaneous reaction. The prickly pear cactus (Opuntia species) is a good example of such a plant, as its glochids cause mechanical irritation but also can become embedded in the skin and result in subcutaneous granulomas known as sabra dermatitis.²⁶

Stinging Nettle
The dermatologic term urticaria owes its namesake to the stinging nettle plant, which comes from the family Urticaceae. The stinging nettle has small hairs on its leaves, referred to as stinging trichomes, which have needlelike tips that pierce the skin and inject a mix of histamine, formic acid, and acetylcholine, causing a pruritic dermatitis that may last up to 12 hours.²⁷ The plant is found worldwide and is a common weed in North America.

Phytophotodermatitis

Lemons and limes (Rutaceae family) are common culprits of phytophotodermatitis, often causing what is known as a margarita burn after outdoor consumption or preparation of this tasty citrus beverage.²⁸ An accidental spray of lime juice on the skin while adding it to a beer, guacamole, salsa, or any other food or beverage also can cause phytophotodermatitis.^29-31 Although the juice of lemons and limes contains psoralens, the rind can contain a 6- to 186-fold increased concentration.³² Psoralen is the photoactive agent in Rutaceae plants that intercalates in double-stranded DNA and promotes intrastrand cross-links when exposed to UVA light, which ultimately leads to dermatitis.⁹ Phytophotodermatitis commonly causes erythema, edema, and painful bullae on sun-exposed areas and classically heals with hyperpigmentation.

Pseudophytodermatitis can occur in grain farmers and harvesters who handle wheat and/or barley and incidentally come in contact with insects and chemicals on the plant material. Pseudophytodermatitis from mites in the wheat and/or barley plant can occur at harvest time when contact with the plant material is high. Insects such as the North American itch mite (Pediculoides ventricosus) can cause petechiae, wheals, and pustules. In addition, insecticides such as malathion and arsenical sprays that are applied to plant leaves can cause pseudophytodermatitis, which may be initially diagnosed as dermatitis to the plant itself.⁶

Patch Testing to Plants

When a patient presents with recurrent or persistent dermatitis and a plant contact allergen is suspected, patch testing is indicated. Most comprehensive patch test series contain various plant allergens, such as sesquiterpene lactones, Compositae mix, and limonene hydroperoxides, and patch testing to a specialized plant series may be necessary. Poison ivy/oak/sumac allergens typically are not included in patch test series because of the high prevalence of allergic reactions to these chemicals and the likelihood of sensitization when patch testing with urushiol. Compositae contact sensitization can be difficult to diagnose because neither sesquiterpene lactone mix 0.1% nor parthenolide 0.1% are sensitive enough to pick up all Compositae allergies.^33,34 Paulsen and Andersen³⁴ proposed that if Compositae sensitization is suspected, testing should include sesquiterpene lactone, parthenolide, and Compositae mix II 2.5%, as well as other potential Compositae allergens based on the patient’s history.³⁴

Because plants can have geographic variability and contain potentially unknown allergens,³⁵ testing to plant components may increase the diagnostic yield of patch testing. Dividing the plant into component parts (ie, stem, bulb, leaf, flower) is helpful, as different components have different allergen concentrations. It is important to consult expert resources before proceeding with plant component patch testing because irritant reactions are frequent and may confound the testing.³⁶

Prevention and Treatment

For all plant dermatoses, the mainstay of prevention is to avoid contact with the offending plant material. Gloves can be an important protective tool for plant dermatitis prevention; the correct material depends on the plant species being handled. Rubber gloves should not be worn to protect against Toxicodendron plants since the catechols in urushiol are soluble in rubber; vinyl gloves should be worn instead.⁶ Marks³⁷ found that tuliposide A, the allergen in the Peruvian lily (Alstroemeria), penetrates both vinyl and latex gloves; it does not penetrate nitrile gloves. If exposed, the risk of dermatitis can be decreased if the allergen is washed away with soap and water as soon as possible. Some allergens such as Toxicodendron are absorbed quickly and need to be washed off within 10 minutes of exposure.⁶ Importantly, exposed gardening gloves may continue to perpetuate ACD if the allergen is not also washed off the gloves themselves.

For light-mediated dermatoses, sun avoidance or use of an effective sunscreen can reduce symptoms in an individual who has already been exposed.¹⁰ UVA light activates psoralen-mediated dermatitis but not until 30 to 120 minutes after absorption into the skin.³⁸

Barrier creams are thought to be protective against plant ACD through a variety of mechanisms. The cream itself is meant to reduce skin contact to an allergen or irritant. Additionally, barrier creams contain active ingredients such as silicone, hydrocarbons, and aluminum chlorohydrate, which are thought to trap or transform offending agents before contacting the skin. When contact with a Toxicodendron species is anticipated, Marks et al³⁹ found that dermatitis was absent or significantly reduced when 144 patients were pretreated with quaternium-18 bentonite lotion 5% (P<.0001).

Although allergen avoidance and use of gloves and barrier creams are the mainstays of preventing plant dermatoses, treatment often is required to control postexposure symptoms. For all plant dermatoses, topical corticosteroids can be used to reduce inflammation and pruritus. In some cases, systemic steroids may be necessary. To prevent rebound of dermatitis, patients often require a 3-week or longer course of oral steroids to quell the reaction, particularly if the dermatitis is vigorous or an id reaction is present.⁴⁰ Antihistamines and cold compresses also can provide symptomatic relief.

Final Interpretation

Plants can cause a variety of dermatoses. Although Toxicodendron plants are the most frequent cause of ACD, it is important to keep in mind that florists, gardeners, and farmers are exposed to a large variety of allergens, irritants, and phototoxic agents that cause dermatoses as well. Confirmation of plant-induced ACD involves patch testing against suspected species. Prevention involves use of appropriate barriers and avoidance of implicated plants. Treatment includes topical steroids, antihistamines, and prednisone.

Plants can contribute to a variety of dermatoses. The Toxicodendron genus, which includes poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac, is a well-known and common cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), but many other plants can cause direct or airborne contact dermatitis, especially in gardeners, florists, and farmers. This article provides an overview of different plant-related dermatoses and culprit plants as well as how these dermatoses should be diagnosed and treated.

Epidemiology

Plant dermatoses affect more than 50 million individuals each year.^1,2 In the United States, the Toxicodendron genus causes ACD in more than 70% of exposed individuals, leading to medical visits.³ An urgent care visit for a plant-related dermatitis is estimated to cost $168, while an emergency department visit can cost 3 times as much.⁴ Although less common, Compositae plants are another important culprit of plant dermatitis, particularly in gardeners, florists, and farmers. Data from the 2017-2018 North American Contact Dermatitis Group screening series (N=4947) showed sesquiterpene lactones and Compositae to be positive in 0.5% of patch-tested patients.⁵

Plant Dermatitis Classifications

Plant dermatitis can be classified into 5 main categories: ACD, mechanical irritant contact dermatitis, chemical irritant contact dermatitis, light-mediated dermatitis, and pseudophytodermatitis.⁶

Allergic contact dermatitis is an immune-mediated type IV delayed hypersensitivity reaction. The common molecular allergens in plants include phenols, α-methylene-γ-butyrolactones, quinones, terpenes, disulfides, isothiocyanates, and polyacetylenic derivatives.⁶

Plant contact dermatitis due to mechanical and chemical irritants is precipitated by multiple mechanisms, including disruption of the epidermal barrier and subsequent cytokine release from keratinocytes.⁷ Nonimmunologic contact urticaria from plants is thought to be a type of irritant reaction precipitated by mechanical or chemical trauma.⁸

Light-mediated dermatitis includes phytophotodermatitis and photoallergic contact dermatitis. Phytophotodermatitis is a phototoxic reaction triggered by exposure to both plant-derived furanocoumarin and UVA light.⁹ By contrast, photoallergic contact dermatitis is a delayed hypersensitivity reaction from prior sensitization to a light-activated antigen.¹⁰

Pseudophytodermatitis, as its name implies, is not truly mediated by an allergen or irritant intrinsic to the plant but rather by dyes, waxes, insecticides, or arthropods that inhabit the plant or are secondarily applied.⁶

Common Plant Allergens

Anacardiaceae Family
Most of the allergenic plants within the Anacardiaceae family belong to the Toxicodendron genus, which encompasses poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), poison oak (Toxicodendron pubescens,Toxicodendron quercifolium, Toxicodendron diversiloum), and poison sumac (Toxicodendron vernix). Poison ivy is the celebrity of the Anacardiaceae family and contributes to most cases of plant-related ACD. It is found in every state in the continental United States. Poison oak is another common culprit found in the western and southeastern United States.¹¹ Plants within the Anacardiaceae family contain an oleoresin called urushiol, which is the primary sensitizing substance. Although poison ivy and poison oak grow well in full sun to partial shade, poison sumac typically is found in damp swampy areas east of the Rocky Mountains. Most cases of ACD related to Anacardiaceae species are due to direct contact with urushiol from a Toxicodendron plant, but burning of brush containing Toxicodendron can cause airborne exposure when urushiol oil is carried by smoke particles.¹² Sensitization to Toxicodendron can cause ACD to other Anacardiaceae species such as the Japanese lacquer tree (Toxicodendron vernicifluum), mango tree (Mangifera indica), cashew tree (Anacardium occidentale), and Indian marking nut tree (Semecarpus anacardium).⁶ Cross-reactions to components of the ginkgo tree (Ginkgo biloba) also are possible.

Toxicodendron plants can be more easily identified and avoided with knowledge of their characteristic leaf patterns. The most dependable way to identify poison ivy and poison oak species is to look for plants with 3 leaves, giving rise to the common saying, “Leaves of three, leave them be.” Poison sumac plants have groups of 7 to 13 leaves arranged as pairs along a central rib. Another helpful finding is a black deposit that Toxicodendron species leave behind following trauma to the leaves. Urushiol oxidizes when exposed to air and turns into a black deposit that can be seen on damaged leaves themselves or can be demonstrated in a black spot test to verify if a plant is a Toxicodendron species. The test is performed by gathering (carefully, without direct contact) a few leaves in a paper towel and crushing them to release sap. Within minutes, the sap will turn black if the plant is indeed a Toxicodendron species.¹³Pruritic, edematous, erythematous papules, plaques, and eventual vesicles in a linear distribution are suspicious for Toxicodendron exposure. Although your pet will not develop Toxicodendron ACD, oleoresin-contaminated pets can transfer the oils to their owners after coming into contact with these plants. Toxicodendron dermatitis also can be acquired from oleoresin-contaminated fomites such as clothing and shoes worn in the garden or when hiking. Toxicodendron dermatitis can appear at different sites on the body at different times depending on the amount of oleoresin exposure as well as epidermal thickness. For example, the oleoresin can be transferred from the hands to body areas with a thinner stratum corneum (eg, genitalia) and cause subsequent dermatitis.¹

Compositae Family
The Compositae family (also known as Asteraceae) is a large plant family with more than 20,000 species, including numerous weeds, wildflowers, and vegetables. The flowers, leaves, stems, and pollens of the Compositae family are coated by cyclic esters called sesquiterpene lactones. Mitchell and Dupuis¹⁴ showed that sesquiterpene lactones are the allergens responsible for ACD to various Compositae plants, including ragweed (Ambrosia), sneezeweed (Helenium), and chrysanthemums (Chrysanthemum). Common Compositae vegetables such as lettuce (Lactuca sativa) have been reported to cause ACD in chefs, grocery store produce handlers, gardeners, and even owners of lettuce-eating pet guinea pigs and turtles.¹⁵ Similarly, artichokes (Cynara scolymus) can cause ACD in gardeners.¹⁶ Exposure to Compositae species also has been implicated in photoallergic reactions, and studies have demonstrated that some patients with chronic actinic dermatitis also have positive patch test reactions to Compositae species and/or sesquiterpene lactones.^17,18

In addition to direct contact with Compositae plants, airborne exposure to sesquiterpene lactones can cause ACD.¹⁴ The pattern of airborne contact dermatitis typically involves exposed areas such as the eyelids, central face, and/or neck. The beak sign also can be a clue to airborne contact dermatitis, which involves dermatitis of the face that spares the nasal tip and/or nasal ridge. It is thought that the beak sign may result from increased sebaceous gland concentration on the nose, which prevents penetration of allergens and irritants.¹⁹ Unlike photoallergic contact dermatitis, which also can involve the face, airborne ACD frequently involves photoprotected areas such as the submandibular chin and the upper lip. Davies and Kersey²⁰ reported the case of a groundsman who was cutting grass with dandelions (Taraxacum officinale) and was found to have associated airborne ACD of the face, neck, and forearms due to Compositae allergy. In a different setting, the aromas of chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla) have been reported to cause airborne ACD in a tea drinker.²¹ Paulsen²² found that ingestion of chamomile tea can induce systemic ACD in sensitized individuals.

Alstroemeriaceae, Liliaceae, and Primulaceae
Florists are exposed to many plant species and have a high prevalence of ACD. Thiboutot et al²³ found that 15 of 57 (26%) floral workers experienced hand dermatitis that cleared with time away from work. The Peruvian lily (Alstroemeria, Alstroemeriaceae family), which contains tuliposide A, was found to be the leading cause of sensitization.²³ Tulips (Tulipa, Liliaceae family), as the flower name suggests, also contain tuliposide A, which along with mechanical irritation from the course tecta fibers on the bulbs lead to a dermatitis known as tulip fingers.^24,25 Poison primrose (Primula obconica, Primulaceae family), cultivated for its highly colorful flowers, contains the contact allergen primin.⁶ A common clinical presentation of ACD for any of these culprit flowers is localized dermatitis of the thumb and index finger in a florist or gardener.

Plants That Cause Irritant Reactions

Cactuses
Although the long spines of the Cactaceae family of cactuses is a warning for passersby, it is the small and nearly invisible barbed hairs (glochids) that inflict a more dramatic cutaneous reaction. The prickly pear cactus (Opuntia species) is a good example of such a plant, as its glochids cause mechanical irritation but also can become embedded in the skin and result in subcutaneous granulomas known as sabra dermatitis.²⁶

Stinging Nettle
The dermatologic term urticaria owes its namesake to the stinging nettle plant, which comes from the family Urticaceae. The stinging nettle has small hairs on its leaves, referred to as stinging trichomes, which have needlelike tips that pierce the skin and inject a mix of histamine, formic acid, and acetylcholine, causing a pruritic dermatitis that may last up to 12 hours.²⁷ The plant is found worldwide and is a common weed in North America.

Phytophotodermatitis

Lemons and limes (Rutaceae family) are common culprits of phytophotodermatitis, often causing what is known as a margarita burn after outdoor consumption or preparation of this tasty citrus beverage.²⁸ An accidental spray of lime juice on the skin while adding it to a beer, guacamole, salsa, or any other food or beverage also can cause phytophotodermatitis.^29-31 Although the juice of lemons and limes contains psoralens, the rind can contain a 6- to 186-fold increased concentration.³² Psoralen is the photoactive agent in Rutaceae plants that intercalates in double-stranded DNA and promotes intrastrand cross-links when exposed to UVA light, which ultimately leads to dermatitis.⁹ Phytophotodermatitis commonly causes erythema, edema, and painful bullae on sun-exposed areas and classically heals with hyperpigmentation.

Pseudophytodermatitis can occur in grain farmers and harvesters who handle wheat and/or barley and incidentally come in contact with insects and chemicals on the plant material. Pseudophytodermatitis from mites in the wheat and/or barley plant can occur at harvest time when contact with the plant material is high. Insects such as the North American itch mite (Pediculoides ventricosus) can cause petechiae, wheals, and pustules. In addition, insecticides such as malathion and arsenical sprays that are applied to plant leaves can cause pseudophytodermatitis, which may be initially diagnosed as dermatitis to the plant itself.⁶

Patch Testing to Plants

When a patient presents with recurrent or persistent dermatitis and a plant contact allergen is suspected, patch testing is indicated. Most comprehensive patch test series contain various plant allergens, such as sesquiterpene lactones, Compositae mix, and limonene hydroperoxides, and patch testing to a specialized plant series may be necessary. Poison ivy/oak/sumac allergens typically are not included in patch test series because of the high prevalence of allergic reactions to these chemicals and the likelihood of sensitization when patch testing with urushiol. Compositae contact sensitization can be difficult to diagnose because neither sesquiterpene lactone mix 0.1% nor parthenolide 0.1% are sensitive enough to pick up all Compositae allergies.^33,34 Paulsen and Andersen³⁴ proposed that if Compositae sensitization is suspected, testing should include sesquiterpene lactone, parthenolide, and Compositae mix II 2.5%, as well as other potential Compositae allergens based on the patient’s history.³⁴

Because plants can have geographic variability and contain potentially unknown allergens,³⁵ testing to plant components may increase the diagnostic yield of patch testing. Dividing the plant into component parts (ie, stem, bulb, leaf, flower) is helpful, as different components have different allergen concentrations. It is important to consult expert resources before proceeding with plant component patch testing because irritant reactions are frequent and may confound the testing.³⁶

Prevention and Treatment

For all plant dermatoses, the mainstay of prevention is to avoid contact with the offending plant material. Gloves can be an important protective tool for plant dermatitis prevention; the correct material depends on the plant species being handled. Rubber gloves should not be worn to protect against Toxicodendron plants since the catechols in urushiol are soluble in rubber; vinyl gloves should be worn instead.⁶ Marks³⁷ found that tuliposide A, the allergen in the Peruvian lily (Alstroemeria), penetrates both vinyl and latex gloves; it does not penetrate nitrile gloves. If exposed, the risk of dermatitis can be decreased if the allergen is washed away with soap and water as soon as possible. Some allergens such as Toxicodendron are absorbed quickly and need to be washed off within 10 minutes of exposure.⁶ Importantly, exposed gardening gloves may continue to perpetuate ACD if the allergen is not also washed off the gloves themselves.

For light-mediated dermatoses, sun avoidance or use of an effective sunscreen can reduce symptoms in an individual who has already been exposed.¹⁰ UVA light activates psoralen-mediated dermatitis but not until 30 to 120 minutes after absorption into the skin.³⁸

Barrier creams are thought to be protective against plant ACD through a variety of mechanisms. The cream itself is meant to reduce skin contact to an allergen or irritant. Additionally, barrier creams contain active ingredients such as silicone, hydrocarbons, and aluminum chlorohydrate, which are thought to trap or transform offending agents before contacting the skin. When contact with a Toxicodendron species is anticipated, Marks et al³⁹ found that dermatitis was absent or significantly reduced when 144 patients were pretreated with quaternium-18 bentonite lotion 5% (P<.0001).

Although allergen avoidance and use of gloves and barrier creams are the mainstays of preventing plant dermatoses, treatment often is required to control postexposure symptoms. For all plant dermatoses, topical corticosteroids can be used to reduce inflammation and pruritus. In some cases, systemic steroids may be necessary. To prevent rebound of dermatitis, patients often require a 3-week or longer course of oral steroids to quell the reaction, particularly if the dermatitis is vigorous or an id reaction is present.⁴⁰ Antihistamines and cold compresses also can provide symptomatic relief.

Final Interpretation

Plants can cause a variety of dermatoses. Although Toxicodendron plants are the most frequent cause of ACD, it is important to keep in mind that florists, gardeners, and farmers are exposed to a large variety of allergens, irritants, and phototoxic agents that cause dermatoses as well. Confirmation of plant-induced ACD involves patch testing against suspected species. Prevention involves use of appropriate barriers and avoidance of implicated plants. Treatment includes topical steroids, antihistamines, and prednisone.

Plants can contribute to a variety of dermatoses. The Toxicodendron genus, which includes poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac, is a well-known and common cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), but many other plants can cause direct or airborne contact dermatitis, especially in gardeners, florists, and farmers. This article provides an overview of different plant-related dermatoses and culprit plants as well as how these dermatoses should be diagnosed and treated.

Epidemiology

Plant dermatoses affect more than 50 million individuals each year.^1,2 In the United States, the Toxicodendron genus causes ACD in more than 70% of exposed individuals, leading to medical visits.³ An urgent care visit for a plant-related dermatitis is estimated to cost $168, while an emergency department visit can cost 3 times as much.⁴ Although less common, Compositae plants are another important culprit of plant dermatitis, particularly in gardeners, florists, and farmers. Data from the 2017-2018 North American Contact Dermatitis Group screening series (N=4947) showed sesquiterpene lactones and Compositae to be positive in 0.5% of patch-tested patients.⁵

Plant Dermatitis Classifications

Plant dermatitis can be classified into 5 main categories: ACD, mechanical irritant contact dermatitis, chemical irritant contact dermatitis, light-mediated dermatitis, and pseudophytodermatitis.⁶

Allergic contact dermatitis is an immune-mediated type IV delayed hypersensitivity reaction. The common molecular allergens in plants include phenols, α-methylene-γ-butyrolactones, quinones, terpenes, disulfides, isothiocyanates, and polyacetylenic derivatives.⁶

Plant contact dermatitis due to mechanical and chemical irritants is precipitated by multiple mechanisms, including disruption of the epidermal barrier and subsequent cytokine release from keratinocytes.⁷ Nonimmunologic contact urticaria from plants is thought to be a type of irritant reaction precipitated by mechanical or chemical trauma.⁸

Light-mediated dermatitis includes phytophotodermatitis and photoallergic contact dermatitis. Phytophotodermatitis is a phototoxic reaction triggered by exposure to both plant-derived furanocoumarin and UVA light.⁹ By contrast, photoallergic contact dermatitis is a delayed hypersensitivity reaction from prior sensitization to a light-activated antigen.¹⁰

Pseudophytodermatitis, as its name implies, is not truly mediated by an allergen or irritant intrinsic to the plant but rather by dyes, waxes, insecticides, or arthropods that inhabit the plant or are secondarily applied.⁶

Common Plant Allergens

Anacardiaceae Family
Most of the allergenic plants within the Anacardiaceae family belong to the Toxicodendron genus, which encompasses poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), poison oak (Toxicodendron pubescens,Toxicodendron quercifolium, Toxicodendron diversiloum), and poison sumac (Toxicodendron vernix). Poison ivy is the celebrity of the Anacardiaceae family and contributes to most cases of plant-related ACD. It is found in every state in the continental United States. Poison oak is another common culprit found in the western and southeastern United States.¹¹ Plants within the Anacardiaceae family contain an oleoresin called urushiol, which is the primary sensitizing substance. Although poison ivy and poison oak grow well in full sun to partial shade, poison sumac typically is found in damp swampy areas east of the Rocky Mountains. Most cases of ACD related to Anacardiaceae species are due to direct contact with urushiol from a Toxicodendron plant, but burning of brush containing Toxicodendron can cause airborne exposure when urushiol oil is carried by smoke particles.¹² Sensitization to Toxicodendron can cause ACD to other Anacardiaceae species such as the Japanese lacquer tree (Toxicodendron vernicifluum), mango tree (Mangifera indica), cashew tree (Anacardium occidentale), and Indian marking nut tree (Semecarpus anacardium).⁶ Cross-reactions to components of the ginkgo tree (Ginkgo biloba) also are possible.

Toxicodendron plants can be more easily identified and avoided with knowledge of their characteristic leaf patterns. The most dependable way to identify poison ivy and poison oak species is to look for plants with 3 leaves, giving rise to the common saying, “Leaves of three, leave them be.” Poison sumac plants have groups of 7 to 13 leaves arranged as pairs along a central rib. Another helpful finding is a black deposit that Toxicodendron species leave behind following trauma to the leaves. Urushiol oxidizes when exposed to air and turns into a black deposit that can be seen on damaged leaves themselves or can be demonstrated in a black spot test to verify if a plant is a Toxicodendron species. The test is performed by gathering (carefully, without direct contact) a few leaves in a paper towel and crushing them to release sap. Within minutes, the sap will turn black if the plant is indeed a Toxicodendron species.¹³Pruritic, edematous, erythematous papules, plaques, and eventual vesicles in a linear distribution are suspicious for Toxicodendron exposure. Although your pet will not develop Toxicodendron ACD, oleoresin-contaminated pets can transfer the oils to their owners after coming into contact with these plants. Toxicodendron dermatitis also can be acquired from oleoresin-contaminated fomites such as clothing and shoes worn in the garden or when hiking. Toxicodendron dermatitis can appear at different sites on the body at different times depending on the amount of oleoresin exposure as well as epidermal thickness. For example, the oleoresin can be transferred from the hands to body areas with a thinner stratum corneum (eg, genitalia) and cause subsequent dermatitis.¹

Compositae Family
The Compositae family (also known as Asteraceae) is a large plant family with more than 20,000 species, including numerous weeds, wildflowers, and vegetables. The flowers, leaves, stems, and pollens of the Compositae family are coated by cyclic esters called sesquiterpene lactones. Mitchell and Dupuis¹⁴ showed that sesquiterpene lactones are the allergens responsible for ACD to various Compositae plants, including ragweed (Ambrosia), sneezeweed (Helenium), and chrysanthemums (Chrysanthemum). Common Compositae vegetables such as lettuce (Lactuca sativa) have been reported to cause ACD in chefs, grocery store produce handlers, gardeners, and even owners of lettuce-eating pet guinea pigs and turtles.¹⁵ Similarly, artichokes (Cynara scolymus) can cause ACD in gardeners.¹⁶ Exposure to Compositae species also has been implicated in photoallergic reactions, and studies have demonstrated that some patients with chronic actinic dermatitis also have positive patch test reactions to Compositae species and/or sesquiterpene lactones.^17,18

In addition to direct contact with Compositae plants, airborne exposure to sesquiterpene lactones can cause ACD.¹⁴ The pattern of airborne contact dermatitis typically involves exposed areas such as the eyelids, central face, and/or neck. The beak sign also can be a clue to airborne contact dermatitis, which involves dermatitis of the face that spares the nasal tip and/or nasal ridge. It is thought that the beak sign may result from increased sebaceous gland concentration on the nose, which prevents penetration of allergens and irritants.¹⁹ Unlike photoallergic contact dermatitis, which also can involve the face, airborne ACD frequently involves photoprotected areas such as the submandibular chin and the upper lip. Davies and Kersey²⁰ reported the case of a groundsman who was cutting grass with dandelions (Taraxacum officinale) and was found to have associated airborne ACD of the face, neck, and forearms due to Compositae allergy. In a different setting, the aromas of chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla) have been reported to cause airborne ACD in a tea drinker.²¹ Paulsen²² found that ingestion of chamomile tea can induce systemic ACD in sensitized individuals.

Alstroemeriaceae, Liliaceae, and Primulaceae
Florists are exposed to many plant species and have a high prevalence of ACD. Thiboutot et al²³ found that 15 of 57 (26%) floral workers experienced hand dermatitis that cleared with time away from work. The Peruvian lily (Alstroemeria, Alstroemeriaceae family), which contains tuliposide A, was found to be the leading cause of sensitization.²³ Tulips (Tulipa, Liliaceae family), as the flower name suggests, also contain tuliposide A, which along with mechanical irritation from the course tecta fibers on the bulbs lead to a dermatitis known as tulip fingers.^24,25 Poison primrose (Primula obconica, Primulaceae family), cultivated for its highly colorful flowers, contains the contact allergen primin.⁶ A common clinical presentation of ACD for any of these culprit flowers is localized dermatitis of the thumb and index finger in a florist or gardener.

Plants That Cause Irritant Reactions

Cactuses
Although the long spines of the Cactaceae family of cactuses is a warning for passersby, it is the small and nearly invisible barbed hairs (glochids) that inflict a more dramatic cutaneous reaction. The prickly pear cactus (Opuntia species) is a good example of such a plant, as its glochids cause mechanical irritation but also can become embedded in the skin and result in subcutaneous granulomas known as sabra dermatitis.²⁶

Stinging Nettle
The dermatologic term urticaria owes its namesake to the stinging nettle plant, which comes from the family Urticaceae. The stinging nettle has small hairs on its leaves, referred to as stinging trichomes, which have needlelike tips that pierce the skin and inject a mix of histamine, formic acid, and acetylcholine, causing a pruritic dermatitis that may last up to 12 hours.²⁷ The plant is found worldwide and is a common weed in North America.

Phytophotodermatitis

Lemons and limes (Rutaceae family) are common culprits of phytophotodermatitis, often causing what is known as a margarita burn after outdoor consumption or preparation of this tasty citrus beverage.²⁸ An accidental spray of lime juice on the skin while adding it to a beer, guacamole, salsa, or any other food or beverage also can cause phytophotodermatitis.^29-31 Although the juice of lemons and limes contains psoralens, the rind can contain a 6- to 186-fold increased concentration.³² Psoralen is the photoactive agent in Rutaceae plants that intercalates in double-stranded DNA and promotes intrastrand cross-links when exposed to UVA light, which ultimately leads to dermatitis.⁹ Phytophotodermatitis commonly causes erythema, edema, and painful bullae on sun-exposed areas and classically heals with hyperpigmentation.

Pseudophytodermatitis can occur in grain farmers and harvesters who handle wheat and/or barley and incidentally come in contact with insects and chemicals on the plant material. Pseudophytodermatitis from mites in the wheat and/or barley plant can occur at harvest time when contact with the plant material is high. Insects such as the North American itch mite (Pediculoides ventricosus) can cause petechiae, wheals, and pustules. In addition, insecticides such as malathion and arsenical sprays that are applied to plant leaves can cause pseudophytodermatitis, which may be initially diagnosed as dermatitis to the plant itself.⁶

Patch Testing to Plants

When a patient presents with recurrent or persistent dermatitis and a plant contact allergen is suspected, patch testing is indicated. Most comprehensive patch test series contain various plant allergens, such as sesquiterpene lactones, Compositae mix, and limonene hydroperoxides, and patch testing to a specialized plant series may be necessary. Poison ivy/oak/sumac allergens typically are not included in patch test series because of the high prevalence of allergic reactions to these chemicals and the likelihood of sensitization when patch testing with urushiol. Compositae contact sensitization can be difficult to diagnose because neither sesquiterpene lactone mix 0.1% nor parthenolide 0.1% are sensitive enough to pick up all Compositae allergies.^33,34 Paulsen and Andersen³⁴ proposed that if Compositae sensitization is suspected, testing should include sesquiterpene lactone, parthenolide, and Compositae mix II 2.5%, as well as other potential Compositae allergens based on the patient’s history.³⁴

Because plants can have geographic variability and contain potentially unknown allergens,³⁵ testing to plant components may increase the diagnostic yield of patch testing. Dividing the plant into component parts (ie, stem, bulb, leaf, flower) is helpful, as different components have different allergen concentrations. It is important to consult expert resources before proceeding with plant component patch testing because irritant reactions are frequent and may confound the testing.³⁶

Prevention and Treatment

For all plant dermatoses, the mainstay of prevention is to avoid contact with the offending plant material. Gloves can be an important protective tool for plant dermatitis prevention; the correct material depends on the plant species being handled. Rubber gloves should not be worn to protect against Toxicodendron plants since the catechols in urushiol are soluble in rubber; vinyl gloves should be worn instead.⁶ Marks³⁷ found that tuliposide A, the allergen in the Peruvian lily (Alstroemeria), penetrates both vinyl and latex gloves; it does not penetrate nitrile gloves. If exposed, the risk of dermatitis can be decreased if the allergen is washed away with soap and water as soon as possible. Some allergens such as Toxicodendron are absorbed quickly and need to be washed off within 10 minutes of exposure.⁶ Importantly, exposed gardening gloves may continue to perpetuate ACD if the allergen is not also washed off the gloves themselves.

For light-mediated dermatoses, sun avoidance or use of an effective sunscreen can reduce symptoms in an individual who has already been exposed.¹⁰ UVA light activates psoralen-mediated dermatitis but not until 30 to 120 minutes after absorption into the skin.³⁸

Barrier creams are thought to be protective against plant ACD through a variety of mechanisms. The cream itself is meant to reduce skin contact to an allergen or irritant. Additionally, barrier creams contain active ingredients such as silicone, hydrocarbons, and aluminum chlorohydrate, which are thought to trap or transform offending agents before contacting the skin. When contact with a Toxicodendron species is anticipated, Marks et al³⁹ found that dermatitis was absent or significantly reduced when 144 patients were pretreated with quaternium-18 bentonite lotion 5% (P<.0001).

Although allergen avoidance and use of gloves and barrier creams are the mainstays of preventing plant dermatoses, treatment often is required to control postexposure symptoms. For all plant dermatoses, topical corticosteroids can be used to reduce inflammation and pruritus. In some cases, systemic steroids may be necessary. To prevent rebound of dermatitis, patients often require a 3-week or longer course of oral steroids to quell the reaction, particularly if the dermatitis is vigorous or an id reaction is present.⁴⁰ Antihistamines and cold compresses also can provide symptomatic relief.

Final Interpretation

Plants can cause a variety of dermatoses. Although Toxicodendron plants are the most frequent cause of ACD, it is important to keep in mind that florists, gardeners, and farmers are exposed to a large variety of allergens, irritants, and phototoxic agents that cause dermatoses as well. Confirmation of plant-induced ACD involves patch testing against suspected species. Prevention involves use of appropriate barriers and avoidance of implicated plants. Treatment includes topical steroids, antihistamines, and prednisone.

The world is an increasingly diverse place, which has particular relevance for the dermatologist. Skin color plays a significant role in diagnostic approach, as there are important differences in how cutaneous disease presents in patients with skin of color (SOC). Therefore, education about these differences is imperative. In this review, we focus on allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and patch testing in patients with SOC. We discuss allergens common to this demographic and challenges encountered in patch testing patients with SOC. We also identify key health care disparities in the evaluation and management of ACD in this population.

Has contact allergy in SOC populations been studied in North America?

Over the last 2 decades, there have been only a handful of North American studies that address contact allergy in SOC populations. Patch test results from 114 Black patients and 877 White patients at the Cleveland Clinic from 1988 to 1991 showed that overall allergy frequency was relatively similar (43.0% vs 43.6%). There were notable differences in allergen sensitization. Paraphenylenediamine (PPD), which is used in hair dye, had more positive patch test reactions in Black patients (10.6% vs 4.5%), and both PPD (21.2% vs 4.2%) and imidazolidinyl urea, a formaldehyde-releasing preservative (9.1% vs 2.6%), were more frequently allergenic in Black men compared to White men.¹ Patch test results from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group from 1992 to 1998 described similar results, with minimal variation in the prevalence of ACD among 1014 Black and 8610 White patients (47%–49% vs 46%–49%).² Positive patch test reactions to PPD were higher in Black patients for 2 of 3 test cycles (13.5% vs 5.8% [1994-1996] and 10.3% vs 5.3% [1996-1998]). Positive patch test reactions were higher in White patients for dimethylol dimethyl hydantoin, a formaldehyde-releasing preservative, also for 2 of 3 test cycles (1.8% vs 0% [1992-1994] and 2.8% vs 0.3% [1994-1996]). Finally, positive patch test reactions to thioureas (rubber accelerators) had a mixed picture: 2 test cycles were higher in Black patients (1.9% vs 1.0% [1992-1994] and 1.3% vs 0.7% [1994-1996]), but the third cycle (1996-1998) was lower (0.7% vs 1.4%). Positive patch test reactions to the metal cobalt chloride were higher in Black patients in just 1 test cycle (9.2% vs 6.6% [1992-1994]). The authors suggested that the use of darker hair dyes in the Black community may lead to more sensitization to PPD. They also theorized that this population’s more frequent use of ointment-based skin care products may make them less susceptible to sensitization to preservatives such as formaldehyde, which more commonly are found in water-based products such as creams. They concluded that differences in sensitization patterns likely were driven by cultural practices affecting exposures.²

In 2016, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group reported patch test results in 434 Black and 6634 White patients (1998-2006).³ Again, ACD prevalence was about the same in both groups (45.9% vs 43.6%). However, they reported several allergens with different reaction patterns. Black patients had higher risk ratios (RRs) for 3 rubber accelerators: mercaptobenzothiazole (RR, 2.10), mercapto mix (RR, 2.27), and thiuram mix (RR, 1.44). They also reacted to PPD (RR, 1.56) and the antibiotic bacitracin (RR, 1.34) at higher frequencies than White patients, who more frequently reacted to formaldehyde (RR, 0.58); the formaldehyde-releasing preservatives quaternium-15 (RR, 0.63) and diazolidinyl urea (in petrolatum: RR, 0.44; aqueous: RR, 0.47); the clothing finish ethylene urea melamine formalin resin (RR, 0.45); and the fragrances fragrance mix 1 (RR, 0.65) and balsam of Peru (RR, 0.55).³

Patch testing of 139 African American or Black patients at the Cleveland Clinic (2003-2012) revealed that this population most commonly had positive reactions to nickel (27.5%), fragrance mix (18.1%), bacitracin (13.0%), balsam of Peru (12.3%), and PPD (10.9%). The authors highlighted unique features of physical examination in patients with darker skin types, including lichenification and/or hyperpigmentation in those with ACD and the potential for lack of erythema and/or a papular reaction with patch test readings.⁴ Recently, data was presented at the American Contact Dermatitis Society Annual Meeting (March 2021) on patterns of ACD in Black and White patch tested patients in Philadelphia (2009-2019).⁵ Using the North American 80 comprehensive series, the researchers documented statistically significant differences in allergen sensitivity between the 2 groups. Black patients reacted to disperse blue dye (P=.019) and textile dye mix (P=.001) at higher frequencies. There was a nonsignificant trend of more frequent positive reactions to PPD in Black patients (11% vs 6%).⁵

Notably, all of these studies examined only 1 or 2 racial groups with a focus on Black patients. Some authors commented that this was due to low numbers of Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Native American patients in tested populations.^2,3,5 With approximately 13% of the US population self-identifying as Black,⁶ these patients and other minority races typically are underrepresented in large patch test studies. More data on patch test results for these groups is necessary for a complete understanding of patch testing in patients with SOC.

What are the challenges in patch testing SOC populations?

Patch testing in patients with SOC requires additional skills and experience. Darker skin does not reveal erythema as strikingly as lighter skin, making it more difficult to appreciate subtle color changes. Moreover, multiple studies have shown that ACD can have different presentations in Black patients.^4,7,8 Lichenification and hyperpigmentation may be early signs of ACD in comparison to bright erythema and vesicles that can be seen in lighter skin types. It also has been reported that scalp ACD can be mistaken for seborrheic dermatitis due to lack of erythema.⁷ Without a high degree of clinical suspicion, a diagnosis of ACD can be missed in this patient population.

Patch test interpretation also can be challenging in patients with SOC. An early papular or follicular eruption with minimal erythema can signal a positive reaction.^4,7 Because of these potentially subtle changes, patch testers should exercise care and attention when reading results for SOC populations. We recommend ample side lighting, palpation for adequate identification of positive reactions, and double-checking for positives that may have been overlooked on the initial review of findings.^4,7

What health care disparities impact the evaluation and management of ACD?

There are many factors at play in this dialogue. The challenges we identified in diagnosing ACD in darker skin types are important to consider. Lack of familiarity with these unique features can lead to a delay in diagnosis and ultimately a delay in referral for patch testing. This is where dermatology training can help fill in the gap, but are the majority of programs equipped to do so? Inadequate education and exposure to patients with SOC is an issue for many dermatology residency programs. Surveys of residents and program directors in geographically less diverse regions may not receive adequate education or exposure to patients with SOC.⁹ Further, there is a lack of representation of SOC images for general dermatologic conditions in textbooks,^10,11 which has a profound impact on the dermatologist’s ability to recognize common diseases in darker skin types. A 2019 survey of more than 5000 images from 2 dermatology textbooks showed SOC images comprised 22% to 32% of the total images.¹¹ However, SOC images are overrepresented in textbooks for sexually transmitted infections, constituting 47% to 58% of the images; they made up 28% of images for nonvenereal infections.¹¹ Why is that? In this article, we have shown the prevalence of ACD to be nearly equivalent in Black and White patients, yet a perusal of ACD images in dermatology textbooks will tell a different story. This trend deserves our attention; perhaps it is highlighting patterns of systemic racism seen in medicine. If our primary teaching materials are perpetuating stereotypes, we must consider the impact this can have on our personal implicit biases and the health care disparities that can ensue.

Additional factors impact time to diagnosis of ACD and referral for patch testing. A retrospective study examining distance to a North Carolina patch test referral clinic showed that patients living further from the clinic experienced a longer duration of dermatitis prior to patch test consultation and tended to live in areas with a higher county poverty rate.¹² Specifically, a 17.9% increase (P<.001) in the median duration of dermatitis was observed for every 50-mile increase in distance to the patch test clinic. County poverty rate was measured by the percentage of residents living below the poverty threshold; for every 5% increase in county poverty rate, a 16.3% increase (P<.032) in duration of dermatitis was found.¹²

These data highlight a relationship with which many dermatologists are familiar and underscore a need for dermatologists to practice in areas that are more geographically accessible. The recently increased utilization of telehealth modalities can potentially help to bridge this gap by decreasing delays in diagnosis and providing more affordable options for evaluation by a dermatologist for patients with socioeconomic obstacles.

Final Interpretation

The prevalence of ACD among Black and White patients is similar; however, there are important differences in patch test reaction frequencies that may be related to the diverse exposure patterns for each group. Additionally, patients with SOC may have unique clinical presentations of ACD, such as lichenification and hyperpigmentation. Darker skin types also may require specialized techniques for accurate patch test readings. It is imperative that dermatologists are trained to recognize all of these features. Health care disparities come in many forms and, in this setting, can result in delayed referral for patch testing. Additional studies are needed to further examine these health care disparities and identify potential solutions.

The world is an increasingly diverse place, which has particular relevance for the dermatologist. Skin color plays a significant role in diagnostic approach, as there are important differences in how cutaneous disease presents in patients with skin of color (SOC). Therefore, education about these differences is imperative. In this review, we focus on allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and patch testing in patients with SOC. We discuss allergens common to this demographic and challenges encountered in patch testing patients with SOC. We also identify key health care disparities in the evaluation and management of ACD in this population.

Has contact allergy in SOC populations been studied in North America?

Over the last 2 decades, there have been only a handful of North American studies that address contact allergy in SOC populations. Patch test results from 114 Black patients and 877 White patients at the Cleveland Clinic from 1988 to 1991 showed that overall allergy frequency was relatively similar (43.0% vs 43.6%). There were notable differences in allergen sensitization. Paraphenylenediamine (PPD), which is used in hair dye, had more positive patch test reactions in Black patients (10.6% vs 4.5%), and both PPD (21.2% vs 4.2%) and imidazolidinyl urea, a formaldehyde-releasing preservative (9.1% vs 2.6%), were more frequently allergenic in Black men compared to White men.¹ Patch test results from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group from 1992 to 1998 described similar results, with minimal variation in the prevalence of ACD among 1014 Black and 8610 White patients (47%–49% vs 46%–49%).² Positive patch test reactions to PPD were higher in Black patients for 2 of 3 test cycles (13.5% vs 5.8% [1994-1996] and 10.3% vs 5.3% [1996-1998]). Positive patch test reactions were higher in White patients for dimethylol dimethyl hydantoin, a formaldehyde-releasing preservative, also for 2 of 3 test cycles (1.8% vs 0% [1992-1994] and 2.8% vs 0.3% [1994-1996]). Finally, positive patch test reactions to thioureas (rubber accelerators) had a mixed picture: 2 test cycles were higher in Black patients (1.9% vs 1.0% [1992-1994] and 1.3% vs 0.7% [1994-1996]), but the third cycle (1996-1998) was lower (0.7% vs 1.4%). Positive patch test reactions to the metal cobalt chloride were higher in Black patients in just 1 test cycle (9.2% vs 6.6% [1992-1994]). The authors suggested that the use of darker hair dyes in the Black community may lead to more sensitization to PPD. They also theorized that this population’s more frequent use of ointment-based skin care products may make them less susceptible to sensitization to preservatives such as formaldehyde, which more commonly are found in water-based products such as creams. They concluded that differences in sensitization patterns likely were driven by cultural practices affecting exposures.²

In 2016, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group reported patch test results in 434 Black and 6634 White patients (1998-2006).³ Again, ACD prevalence was about the same in both groups (45.9% vs 43.6%). However, they reported several allergens with different reaction patterns. Black patients had higher risk ratios (RRs) for 3 rubber accelerators: mercaptobenzothiazole (RR, 2.10), mercapto mix (RR, 2.27), and thiuram mix (RR, 1.44). They also reacted to PPD (RR, 1.56) and the antibiotic bacitracin (RR, 1.34) at higher frequencies than White patients, who more frequently reacted to formaldehyde (RR, 0.58); the formaldehyde-releasing preservatives quaternium-15 (RR, 0.63) and diazolidinyl urea (in petrolatum: RR, 0.44; aqueous: RR, 0.47); the clothing finish ethylene urea melamine formalin resin (RR, 0.45); and the fragrances fragrance mix 1 (RR, 0.65) and balsam of Peru (RR, 0.55).³

Patch testing of 139 African American or Black patients at the Cleveland Clinic (2003-2012) revealed that this population most commonly had positive reactions to nickel (27.5%), fragrance mix (18.1%), bacitracin (13.0%), balsam of Peru (12.3%), and PPD (10.9%). The authors highlighted unique features of physical examination in patients with darker skin types, including lichenification and/or hyperpigmentation in those with ACD and the potential for lack of erythema and/or a papular reaction with patch test readings.⁴ Recently, data was presented at the American Contact Dermatitis Society Annual Meeting (March 2021) on patterns of ACD in Black and White patch tested patients in Philadelphia (2009-2019).⁵ Using the North American 80 comprehensive series, the researchers documented statistically significant differences in allergen sensitivity between the 2 groups. Black patients reacted to disperse blue dye (P=.019) and textile dye mix (P=.001) at higher frequencies. There was a nonsignificant trend of more frequent positive reactions to PPD in Black patients (11% vs 6%).⁵

Notably, all of these studies examined only 1 or 2 racial groups with a focus on Black patients. Some authors commented that this was due to low numbers of Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Native American patients in tested populations.^2,3,5 With approximately 13% of the US population self-identifying as Black,⁶ these patients and other minority races typically are underrepresented in large patch test studies. More data on patch test results for these groups is necessary for a complete understanding of patch testing in patients with SOC.

What are the challenges in patch testing SOC populations?

Patch testing in patients with SOC requires additional skills and experience. Darker skin does not reveal erythema as strikingly as lighter skin, making it more difficult to appreciate subtle color changes. Moreover, multiple studies have shown that ACD can have different presentations in Black patients.^4,7,8 Lichenification and hyperpigmentation may be early signs of ACD in comparison to bright erythema and vesicles that can be seen in lighter skin types. It also has been reported that scalp ACD can be mistaken for seborrheic dermatitis due to lack of erythema.⁷ Without a high degree of clinical suspicion, a diagnosis of ACD can be missed in this patient population.

Patch test interpretation also can be challenging in patients with SOC. An early papular or follicular eruption with minimal erythema can signal a positive reaction.^4,7 Because of these potentially subtle changes, patch testers should exercise care and attention when reading results for SOC populations. We recommend ample side lighting, palpation for adequate identification of positive reactions, and double-checking for positives that may have been overlooked on the initial review of findings.^4,7

What health care disparities impact the evaluation and management of ACD?

There are many factors at play in this dialogue. The challenges we identified in diagnosing ACD in darker skin types are important to consider. Lack of familiarity with these unique features can lead to a delay in diagnosis and ultimately a delay in referral for patch testing. This is where dermatology training can help fill in the gap, but are the majority of programs equipped to do so? Inadequate education and exposure to patients with SOC is an issue for many dermatology residency programs. Surveys of residents and program directors in geographically less diverse regions may not receive adequate education or exposure to patients with SOC.⁹ Further, there is a lack of representation of SOC images for general dermatologic conditions in textbooks,^10,11 which has a profound impact on the dermatologist’s ability to recognize common diseases in darker skin types. A 2019 survey of more than 5000 images from 2 dermatology textbooks showed SOC images comprised 22% to 32% of the total images.¹¹ However, SOC images are overrepresented in textbooks for sexually transmitted infections, constituting 47% to 58% of the images; they made up 28% of images for nonvenereal infections.¹¹ Why is that? In this article, we have shown the prevalence of ACD to be nearly equivalent in Black and White patients, yet a perusal of ACD images in dermatology textbooks will tell a different story. This trend deserves our attention; perhaps it is highlighting patterns of systemic racism seen in medicine. If our primary teaching materials are perpetuating stereotypes, we must consider the impact this can have on our personal implicit biases and the health care disparities that can ensue.

Additional factors impact time to diagnosis of ACD and referral for patch testing. A retrospective study examining distance to a North Carolina patch test referral clinic showed that patients living further from the clinic experienced a longer duration of dermatitis prior to patch test consultation and tended to live in areas with a higher county poverty rate.¹² Specifically, a 17.9% increase (P<.001) in the median duration of dermatitis was observed for every 50-mile increase in distance to the patch test clinic. County poverty rate was measured by the percentage of residents living below the poverty threshold; for every 5% increase in county poverty rate, a 16.3% increase (P<.032) in duration of dermatitis was found.¹²

These data highlight a relationship with which many dermatologists are familiar and underscore a need for dermatologists to practice in areas that are more geographically accessible. The recently increased utilization of telehealth modalities can potentially help to bridge this gap by decreasing delays in diagnosis and providing more affordable options for evaluation by a dermatologist for patients with socioeconomic obstacles.

Final Interpretation

The prevalence of ACD among Black and White patients is similar; however, there are important differences in patch test reaction frequencies that may be related to the diverse exposure patterns for each group. Additionally, patients with SOC may have unique clinical presentations of ACD, such as lichenification and hyperpigmentation. Darker skin types also may require specialized techniques for accurate patch test readings. It is imperative that dermatologists are trained to recognize all of these features. Health care disparities come in many forms and, in this setting, can result in delayed referral for patch testing. Additional studies are needed to further examine these health care disparities and identify potential solutions.

The world is an increasingly diverse place, which has particular relevance for the dermatologist. Skin color plays a significant role in diagnostic approach, as there are important differences in how cutaneous disease presents in patients with skin of color (SOC). Therefore, education about these differences is imperative. In this review, we focus on allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and patch testing in patients with SOC. We discuss allergens common to this demographic and challenges encountered in patch testing patients with SOC. We also identify key health care disparities in the evaluation and management of ACD in this population.

Has contact allergy in SOC populations been studied in North America?

Over the last 2 decades, there have been only a handful of North American studies that address contact allergy in SOC populations. Patch test results from 114 Black patients and 877 White patients at the Cleveland Clinic from 1988 to 1991 showed that overall allergy frequency was relatively similar (43.0% vs 43.6%). There were notable differences in allergen sensitization. Paraphenylenediamine (PPD), which is used in hair dye, had more positive patch test reactions in Black patients (10.6% vs 4.5%), and both PPD (21.2% vs 4.2%) and imidazolidinyl urea, a formaldehyde-releasing preservative (9.1% vs 2.6%), were more frequently allergenic in Black men compared to White men.¹ Patch test results from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group from 1992 to 1998 described similar results, with minimal variation in the prevalence of ACD among 1014 Black and 8610 White patients (47%–49% vs 46%–49%).² Positive patch test reactions to PPD were higher in Black patients for 2 of 3 test cycles (13.5% vs 5.8% [1994-1996] and 10.3% vs 5.3% [1996-1998]). Positive patch test reactions were higher in White patients for dimethylol dimethyl hydantoin, a formaldehyde-releasing preservative, also for 2 of 3 test cycles (1.8% vs 0% [1992-1994] and 2.8% vs 0.3% [1994-1996]). Finally, positive patch test reactions to thioureas (rubber accelerators) had a mixed picture: 2 test cycles were higher in Black patients (1.9% vs 1.0% [1992-1994] and 1.3% vs 0.7% [1994-1996]), but the third cycle (1996-1998) was lower (0.7% vs 1.4%). Positive patch test reactions to the metal cobalt chloride were higher in Black patients in just 1 test cycle (9.2% vs 6.6% [1992-1994]). The authors suggested that the use of darker hair dyes in the Black community may lead to more sensitization to PPD. They also theorized that this population’s more frequent use of ointment-based skin care products may make them less susceptible to sensitization to preservatives such as formaldehyde, which more commonly are found in water-based products such as creams. They concluded that differences in sensitization patterns likely were driven by cultural practices affecting exposures.²

In 2016, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group reported patch test results in 434 Black and 6634 White patients (1998-2006).³ Again, ACD prevalence was about the same in both groups (45.9% vs 43.6%). However, they reported several allergens with different reaction patterns. Black patients had higher risk ratios (RRs) for 3 rubber accelerators: mercaptobenzothiazole (RR, 2.10), mercapto mix (RR, 2.27), and thiuram mix (RR, 1.44). They also reacted to PPD (RR, 1.56) and the antibiotic bacitracin (RR, 1.34) at higher frequencies than White patients, who more frequently reacted to formaldehyde (RR, 0.58); the formaldehyde-releasing preservatives quaternium-15 (RR, 0.63) and diazolidinyl urea (in petrolatum: RR, 0.44; aqueous: RR, 0.47); the clothing finish ethylene urea melamine formalin resin (RR, 0.45); and the fragrances fragrance mix 1 (RR, 0.65) and balsam of Peru (RR, 0.55).³

Patch testing of 139 African American or Black patients at the Cleveland Clinic (2003-2012) revealed that this population most commonly had positive reactions to nickel (27.5%), fragrance mix (18.1%), bacitracin (13.0%), balsam of Peru (12.3%), and PPD (10.9%). The authors highlighted unique features of physical examination in patients with darker skin types, including lichenification and/or hyperpigmentation in those with ACD and the potential for lack of erythema and/or a papular reaction with patch test readings.⁴ Recently, data was presented at the American Contact Dermatitis Society Annual Meeting (March 2021) on patterns of ACD in Black and White patch tested patients in Philadelphia (2009-2019).⁵ Using the North American 80 comprehensive series, the researchers documented statistically significant differences in allergen sensitivity between the 2 groups. Black patients reacted to disperse blue dye (P=.019) and textile dye mix (P=.001) at higher frequencies. There was a nonsignificant trend of more frequent positive reactions to PPD in Black patients (11% vs 6%).⁵

Notably, all of these studies examined only 1 or 2 racial groups with a focus on Black patients. Some authors commented that this was due to low numbers of Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Native American patients in tested populations.^2,3,5 With approximately 13% of the US population self-identifying as Black,⁶ these patients and other minority races typically are underrepresented in large patch test studies. More data on patch test results for these groups is necessary for a complete understanding of patch testing in patients with SOC.

What are the challenges in patch testing SOC populations?

Patch testing in patients with SOC requires additional skills and experience. Darker skin does not reveal erythema as strikingly as lighter skin, making it more difficult to appreciate subtle color changes. Moreover, multiple studies have shown that ACD can have different presentations in Black patients.^4,7,8 Lichenification and hyperpigmentation may be early signs of ACD in comparison to bright erythema and vesicles that can be seen in lighter skin types. It also has been reported that scalp ACD can be mistaken for seborrheic dermatitis due to lack of erythema.⁷ Without a high degree of clinical suspicion, a diagnosis of ACD can be missed in this patient population.

Patch test interpretation also can be challenging in patients with SOC. An early papular or follicular eruption with minimal erythema can signal a positive reaction.^4,7 Because of these potentially subtle changes, patch testers should exercise care and attention when reading results for SOC populations. We recommend ample side lighting, palpation for adequate identification of positive reactions, and double-checking for positives that may have been overlooked on the initial review of findings.^4,7

What health care disparities impact the evaluation and management of ACD?

There are many factors at play in this dialogue. The challenges we identified in diagnosing ACD in darker skin types are important to consider. Lack of familiarity with these unique features can lead to a delay in diagnosis and ultimately a delay in referral for patch testing. This is where dermatology training can help fill in the gap, but are the majority of programs equipped to do so? Inadequate education and exposure to patients with SOC is an issue for many dermatology residency programs. Surveys of residents and program directors in geographically less diverse regions may not receive adequate education or exposure to patients with SOC.⁹ Further, there is a lack of representation of SOC images for general dermatologic conditions in textbooks,^10,11 which has a profound impact on the dermatologist’s ability to recognize common diseases in darker skin types. A 2019 survey of more than 5000 images from 2 dermatology textbooks showed SOC images comprised 22% to 32% of the total images.¹¹ However, SOC images are overrepresented in textbooks for sexually transmitted infections, constituting 47% to 58% of the images; they made up 28% of images for nonvenereal infections.¹¹ Why is that? In this article, we have shown the prevalence of ACD to be nearly equivalent in Black and White patients, yet a perusal of ACD images in dermatology textbooks will tell a different story. This trend deserves our attention; perhaps it is highlighting patterns of systemic racism seen in medicine. If our primary teaching materials are perpetuating stereotypes, we must consider the impact this can have on our personal implicit biases and the health care disparities that can ensue.

Additional factors impact time to diagnosis of ACD and referral for patch testing. A retrospective study examining distance to a North Carolina patch test referral clinic showed that patients living further from the clinic experienced a longer duration of dermatitis prior to patch test consultation and tended to live in areas with a higher county poverty rate.¹² Specifically, a 17.9% increase (P<.001) in the median duration of dermatitis was observed for every 50-mile increase in distance to the patch test clinic. County poverty rate was measured by the percentage of residents living below the poverty threshold; for every 5% increase in county poverty rate, a 16.3% increase (P<.032) in duration of dermatitis was found.¹²

These data highlight a relationship with which many dermatologists are familiar and underscore a need for dermatologists to practice in areas that are more geographically accessible. The recently increased utilization of telehealth modalities can potentially help to bridge this gap by decreasing delays in diagnosis and providing more affordable options for evaluation by a dermatologist for patients with socioeconomic obstacles.

Final Interpretation

The prevalence of ACD among Black and White patients is similar; however, there are important differences in patch test reaction frequencies that may be related to the diverse exposure patterns for each group. Additionally, patients with SOC may have unique clinical presentations of ACD, such as lichenification and hyperpigmentation. Darker skin types also may require specialized techniques for accurate patch test readings. It is imperative that dermatologists are trained to recognize all of these features. Health care disparities come in many forms and, in this setting, can result in delayed referral for patch testing. Additional studies are needed to further examine these health care disparities and identify potential solutions.

It’s time for the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) Allergen of the Year! For 2021, the esteemed award goes to acetophenone azine (AA). If you have never heard of this chemical, you are not alone. Acetophenone azine has been identified in foam materials made of the copolymer ethyl-vinyl acetate (EVA). Contact allergy to AA initially was reported in 2016.¹ There are only a few European and Canadian case reports and one case series of AA contact allergy in the literature, all of which are associated with foam shin pads or shin guards, shoe insoles, and/or flip-flops.^2-6 Acetophenone azine is an important emerging allergen, and in this column, we will introduce you to AA and the sneaky places it can lurk and cause allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). We also highlight diagnosis, management, and patch testing for AA contact allergy.

AA Contact Allergy in the Literature

The first case of AA contact allergy was reported in Europe in 2016 when a 13-year-old male soccer player developed severe lower leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis associated with wearing foam shin guards.¹ Patch testing to standard and supplemental trays was negative or not relevant; however, the patient exhibited strong reactions when patch tested directly to a piece of the shin guard soaked in acetone, water, and ethanol. Additional testing with AA diluted in acetone, water, and petrolatum resulted in positive patch test reactions to acetone dilutions of 1%, 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001% and aqueous solutions of 1% and 0.1%. Chromatographic analyses with high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) of shin guard extracts confirmed the culprit allergen to be AA.¹

In the following months, the same clinic saw 2 more cases of AA contact allergy.² An 11-year-old male soccer player developed lower leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis from wearing shin guards. Months later, he also developed dermatitis on the soles of the feet, which was attributed to wearing flip-flops. Patch tests to pieces of the shin guards and flip-flops were positive; AA in acetone 0.1% and 0.01% also was positive. As you might expect, HPLC again confirmed the presence of AA in the shin guards and flip-flops. The third patient was a 12-year-old boy with dermatitis on the soles of both feet; later he also developed a generalized dermatitis. Patch testing to pieces of the insoles of his sneakers and AA in acetone 0.1% and 0.01% was positive. Again, HPLC was positive for the presence of AA in the insoles of his sneakers.²

Several more cases of AA contact allergy have been reported in the literature. A 29-year-old European male hockey player demonstrated contact allergy to the gray foam of his shin pads as well as localized leg dermatitis followed by generalized dermatitis (are you noticing a trend yet?), and later dermatitis on the soles of the feet with positive patch-test reactions to pieces of his shin pads and shoe insoles as well as AA 0.1% and 0.01% in acetone.³ A 6-year-old Canadian male soccer player presented with leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis and dermatitis on the soles of the feet with positive reactions to pieces of his shin pads and shoe insoles as well as to AA 1% and 0.1% in petrolatum.⁴ A 17-year-old British male (another trend, all males so far!) hockey player developed dermatitis localized to the legs and positive patch tests to the worn foam inner lining of his shin pads as well as to AA 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001% in acetone.⁵Finally, Darrigade et al⁶ published a case series of 6 European children with AA contact allergy associated with shin pads and shoes; all had localized leg dermatitis, and some had generalized dermatitis. Patch testing to pieces of shin pads and shoe parts as well as to AA 0.1% in petrolatum and/or acetone showed with positive reactions to the foam pieces and AA in all 6 patients.

What’s the Deal With AA?

Acetophenone azine (also known as methylphenylketazine or bis[1-phenylethylidene]hydrazine) is composed of 2 acetophenone structures and a hydrazine moiety. It has been identified in EVA foam, which can be found in sports equipment such as shin pads or shin guards, shoes, and flip-flops. Raison-Peyron et al¹ confirmed the presence of AA in EVA foam but reported that they did not know the exact reason for its presence. The authors theorized that AA might be a catalyst during EVA polymerization and also noted that it has antimicrobial and antihelminthic activity.¹ Several authors noted that AA could be a by-product of EVA synthesis and that sports equipment manufacturers might not be aware of its presence in EVA.^2,4-6 Some noted that AA concentration was higher in shin guards than in shoe insoles; they thought this explained why patients reacted first to their shin guards and were perhaps even initially sensitized to the shin guards, as well as why shoe insole contact allergy commonly was reported later or only after allergy to shin guards had already developed.^4,6

Differential Diagnosis of Shin Pad or Shin Guard Dermatitis

We would be remiss if we did not mention the appropriate differential diagnosis when shin pad or shin guard dermatitis is identified. In fact, in most cases, shin guard dermatitis results from irritant contact dermatitis from friction, heat, and/or perspiration. Acetophenone azine contact allergy is not the most likely diagnosis when your sports-savvy, shin guard–wearing patient presents with anterior lower leg dermatitis. However, when conservative therapy (eg, barrier between the shin guard and the skin, control or management of perspiration, topical corticosteroid therapy) fails, patch testing to evaluate for ACD is indicated.

Management of AA Contact Allergy

As astute readers of this column are already aware, treatment of ACD requires strict allergen avoidance. You will find that we have the same recommendations for AA contact allergy. Given that there are only a handful of cases in the literature, there are limited recommendations on practical allergen avoidance other than “don’t wear the problem shin guards, shoe insoles, or flip-flops.” However, Darrigade et al⁶ recommended wearing polyurethane shin guards and leather insoles as alternatives when AA contact allergy is suspected or confirmed. They also made it clear that thick socks worn between shin guards and the skin often are not good enough to avoid ACD because the relevant allergens may achieve skin contact despite the barrier.⁶

Patch Testing for AA Contact Allergy

Historically, ACD to shin guards or shin pads, insoles of shoes, and even flip-flops has been associated with rubber-related chemicals such as mercapto mix, thiuram mix, N-isopropyl-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine, thioureas, and carbamates, as well as dyes, benzoyl peroxide, and urea formaldehyde or phenol formaldehyde resins.¹ Most of these chemicals can be tested with standard screening series or supplemental series. Patients with contact allergy to AA may have negative patch testing to screening series and/or supplemental series and may have strong positive reactions to pieces of suspected foam shin pads or shin guards, shoes, and/or flip-flops. Although Koumaki et al⁵ recommended patch testing for AA contact allergy with AA 0.1% in acetone, Besner Morin et al⁴ mentioned that petrolatum may be a more desirable vehicle because it could maintain stability for a longer period of time. In fact, a 2021 article highlighting the American Contact Dermatitis Society Allergen of the Year recommends testing with either AA 0.1% in acetone or AA 0.1% in petrolatum.⁷ Unfortunately, AA is not commercially available for purchase at the time of publication. We are hopeful that this will change in the near future.

Final Interpretation

Acetophenone azine is an emerging allergen commonly identified in EVA foam and attributed to contact allergy to shin guards or pads, soles of shoes, and flip-flops. Most cases have been reported in Europe and Canada and have been identified in young male athletes. In addition to standard patch testing, athletes with lower leg dermatitis and/or dermatitis of the soles of the feet should undergo patch testing with AA 0.1% in acetone or petrolatum and pieces of the equipment and/or footwear.

It’s time for the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) Allergen of the Year! For 2021, the esteemed award goes to acetophenone azine (AA). If you have never heard of this chemical, you are not alone. Acetophenone azine has been identified in foam materials made of the copolymer ethyl-vinyl acetate (EVA). Contact allergy to AA initially was reported in 2016.¹ There are only a few European and Canadian case reports and one case series of AA contact allergy in the literature, all of which are associated with foam shin pads or shin guards, shoe insoles, and/or flip-flops.^2-6 Acetophenone azine is an important emerging allergen, and in this column, we will introduce you to AA and the sneaky places it can lurk and cause allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). We also highlight diagnosis, management, and patch testing for AA contact allergy.

AA Contact Allergy in the Literature

The first case of AA contact allergy was reported in Europe in 2016 when a 13-year-old male soccer player developed severe lower leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis associated with wearing foam shin guards.¹ Patch testing to standard and supplemental trays was negative or not relevant; however, the patient exhibited strong reactions when patch tested directly to a piece of the shin guard soaked in acetone, water, and ethanol. Additional testing with AA diluted in acetone, water, and petrolatum resulted in positive patch test reactions to acetone dilutions of 1%, 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001% and aqueous solutions of 1% and 0.1%. Chromatographic analyses with high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) of shin guard extracts confirmed the culprit allergen to be AA.¹

In the following months, the same clinic saw 2 more cases of AA contact allergy.² An 11-year-old male soccer player developed lower leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis from wearing shin guards. Months later, he also developed dermatitis on the soles of the feet, which was attributed to wearing flip-flops. Patch tests to pieces of the shin guards and flip-flops were positive; AA in acetone 0.1% and 0.01% also was positive. As you might expect, HPLC again confirmed the presence of AA in the shin guards and flip-flops. The third patient was a 12-year-old boy with dermatitis on the soles of both feet; later he also developed a generalized dermatitis. Patch testing to pieces of the insoles of his sneakers and AA in acetone 0.1% and 0.01% was positive. Again, HPLC was positive for the presence of AA in the insoles of his sneakers.²

Several more cases of AA contact allergy have been reported in the literature. A 29-year-old European male hockey player demonstrated contact allergy to the gray foam of his shin pads as well as localized leg dermatitis followed by generalized dermatitis (are you noticing a trend yet?), and later dermatitis on the soles of the feet with positive patch-test reactions to pieces of his shin pads and shoe insoles as well as AA 0.1% and 0.01% in acetone.³ A 6-year-old Canadian male soccer player presented with leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis and dermatitis on the soles of the feet with positive reactions to pieces of his shin pads and shoe insoles as well as to AA 1% and 0.1% in petrolatum.⁴ A 17-year-old British male (another trend, all males so far!) hockey player developed dermatitis localized to the legs and positive patch tests to the worn foam inner lining of his shin pads as well as to AA 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001% in acetone.⁵Finally, Darrigade et al⁶ published a case series of 6 European children with AA contact allergy associated with shin pads and shoes; all had localized leg dermatitis, and some had generalized dermatitis. Patch testing to pieces of shin pads and shoe parts as well as to AA 0.1% in petrolatum and/or acetone showed with positive reactions to the foam pieces and AA in all 6 patients.

What’s the Deal With AA?

Acetophenone azine (also known as methylphenylketazine or bis[1-phenylethylidene]hydrazine) is composed of 2 acetophenone structures and a hydrazine moiety. It has been identified in EVA foam, which can be found in sports equipment such as shin pads or shin guards, shoes, and flip-flops. Raison-Peyron et al¹ confirmed the presence of AA in EVA foam but reported that they did not know the exact reason for its presence. The authors theorized that AA might be a catalyst during EVA polymerization and also noted that it has antimicrobial and antihelminthic activity.¹ Several authors noted that AA could be a by-product of EVA synthesis and that sports equipment manufacturers might not be aware of its presence in EVA.^2,4-6 Some noted that AA concentration was higher in shin guards than in shoe insoles; they thought this explained why patients reacted first to their shin guards and were perhaps even initially sensitized to the shin guards, as well as why shoe insole contact allergy commonly was reported later or only after allergy to shin guards had already developed.^4,6

Differential Diagnosis of Shin Pad or Shin Guard Dermatitis

We would be remiss if we did not mention the appropriate differential diagnosis when shin pad or shin guard dermatitis is identified. In fact, in most cases, shin guard dermatitis results from irritant contact dermatitis from friction, heat, and/or perspiration. Acetophenone azine contact allergy is not the most likely diagnosis when your sports-savvy, shin guard–wearing patient presents with anterior lower leg dermatitis. However, when conservative therapy (eg, barrier between the shin guard and the skin, control or management of perspiration, topical corticosteroid therapy) fails, patch testing to evaluate for ACD is indicated.

Management of AA Contact Allergy

As astute readers of this column are already aware, treatment of ACD requires strict allergen avoidance. You will find that we have the same recommendations for AA contact allergy. Given that there are only a handful of cases in the literature, there are limited recommendations on practical allergen avoidance other than “don’t wear the problem shin guards, shoe insoles, or flip-flops.” However, Darrigade et al⁶ recommended wearing polyurethane shin guards and leather insoles as alternatives when AA contact allergy is suspected or confirmed. They also made it clear that thick socks worn between shin guards and the skin often are not good enough to avoid ACD because the relevant allergens may achieve skin contact despite the barrier.⁶

Patch Testing for AA Contact Allergy

Historically, ACD to shin guards or shin pads, insoles of shoes, and even flip-flops has been associated with rubber-related chemicals such as mercapto mix, thiuram mix, N-isopropyl-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine, thioureas, and carbamates, as well as dyes, benzoyl peroxide, and urea formaldehyde or phenol formaldehyde resins.¹ Most of these chemicals can be tested with standard screening series or supplemental series. Patients with contact allergy to AA may have negative patch testing to screening series and/or supplemental series and may have strong positive reactions to pieces of suspected foam shin pads or shin guards, shoes, and/or flip-flops. Although Koumaki et al⁵ recommended patch testing for AA contact allergy with AA 0.1% in acetone, Besner Morin et al⁴ mentioned that petrolatum may be a more desirable vehicle because it could maintain stability for a longer period of time. In fact, a 2021 article highlighting the American Contact Dermatitis Society Allergen of the Year recommends testing with either AA 0.1% in acetone or AA 0.1% in petrolatum.⁷ Unfortunately, AA is not commercially available for purchase at the time of publication. We are hopeful that this will change in the near future.

Final Interpretation

Acetophenone azine is an emerging allergen commonly identified in EVA foam and attributed to contact allergy to shin guards or pads, soles of shoes, and flip-flops. Most cases have been reported in Europe and Canada and have been identified in young male athletes. In addition to standard patch testing, athletes with lower leg dermatitis and/or dermatitis of the soles of the feet should undergo patch testing with AA 0.1% in acetone or petrolatum and pieces of the equipment and/or footwear.

It’s time for the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) Allergen of the Year! For 2021, the esteemed award goes to acetophenone azine (AA). If you have never heard of this chemical, you are not alone. Acetophenone azine has been identified in foam materials made of the copolymer ethyl-vinyl acetate (EVA). Contact allergy to AA initially was reported in 2016.¹ There are only a few European and Canadian case reports and one case series of AA contact allergy in the literature, all of which are associated with foam shin pads or shin guards, shoe insoles, and/or flip-flops.^2-6 Acetophenone azine is an important emerging allergen, and in this column, we will introduce you to AA and the sneaky places it can lurk and cause allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). We also highlight diagnosis, management, and patch testing for AA contact allergy.

AA Contact Allergy in the Literature

The first case of AA contact allergy was reported in Europe in 2016 when a 13-year-old male soccer player developed severe lower leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis associated with wearing foam shin guards.¹ Patch testing to standard and supplemental trays was negative or not relevant; however, the patient exhibited strong reactions when patch tested directly to a piece of the shin guard soaked in acetone, water, and ethanol. Additional testing with AA diluted in acetone, water, and petrolatum resulted in positive patch test reactions to acetone dilutions of 1%, 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001% and aqueous solutions of 1% and 0.1%. Chromatographic analyses with high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) of shin guard extracts confirmed the culprit allergen to be AA.¹

In the following months, the same clinic saw 2 more cases of AA contact allergy.² An 11-year-old male soccer player developed lower leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis from wearing shin guards. Months later, he also developed dermatitis on the soles of the feet, which was attributed to wearing flip-flops. Patch tests to pieces of the shin guards and flip-flops were positive; AA in acetone 0.1% and 0.01% also was positive. As you might expect, HPLC again confirmed the presence of AA in the shin guards and flip-flops. The third patient was a 12-year-old boy with dermatitis on the soles of both feet; later he also developed a generalized dermatitis. Patch testing to pieces of the insoles of his sneakers and AA in acetone 0.1% and 0.01% was positive. Again, HPLC was positive for the presence of AA in the insoles of his sneakers.²

Several more cases of AA contact allergy have been reported in the literature. A 29-year-old European male hockey player demonstrated contact allergy to the gray foam of his shin pads as well as localized leg dermatitis followed by generalized dermatitis (are you noticing a trend yet?), and later dermatitis on the soles of the feet with positive patch-test reactions to pieces of his shin pads and shoe insoles as well as AA 0.1% and 0.01% in acetone.³ A 6-year-old Canadian male soccer player presented with leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis and dermatitis on the soles of the feet with positive reactions to pieces of his shin pads and shoe insoles as well as to AA 1% and 0.1% in petrolatum.⁴ A 17-year-old British male (another trend, all males so far!) hockey player developed dermatitis localized to the legs and positive patch tests to the worn foam inner lining of his shin pads as well as to AA 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001% in acetone.⁵Finally, Darrigade et al⁶ published a case series of 6 European children with AA contact allergy associated with shin pads and shoes; all had localized leg dermatitis, and some had generalized dermatitis. Patch testing to pieces of shin pads and shoe parts as well as to AA 0.1% in petrolatum and/or acetone showed with positive reactions to the foam pieces and AA in all 6 patients.

What’s the Deal With AA?

Acetophenone azine (also known as methylphenylketazine or bis[1-phenylethylidene]hydrazine) is composed of 2 acetophenone structures and a hydrazine moiety. It has been identified in EVA foam, which can be found in sports equipment such as shin pads or shin guards, shoes, and flip-flops. Raison-Peyron et al¹ confirmed the presence of AA in EVA foam but reported that they did not know the exact reason for its presence. The authors theorized that AA might be a catalyst during EVA polymerization and also noted that it has antimicrobial and antihelminthic activity.¹ Several authors noted that AA could be a by-product of EVA synthesis and that sports equipment manufacturers might not be aware of its presence in EVA.^2,4-6 Some noted that AA concentration was higher in shin guards than in shoe insoles; they thought this explained why patients reacted first to their shin guards and were perhaps even initially sensitized to the shin guards, as well as why shoe insole contact allergy commonly was reported later or only after allergy to shin guards had already developed.^4,6

Differential Diagnosis of Shin Pad or Shin Guard Dermatitis

We would be remiss if we did not mention the appropriate differential diagnosis when shin pad or shin guard dermatitis is identified. In fact, in most cases, shin guard dermatitis results from irritant contact dermatitis from friction, heat, and/or perspiration. Acetophenone azine contact allergy is not the most likely diagnosis when your sports-savvy, shin guard–wearing patient presents with anterior lower leg dermatitis. However, when conservative therapy (eg, barrier between the shin guard and the skin, control or management of perspiration, topical corticosteroid therapy) fails, patch testing to evaluate for ACD is indicated.

Management of AA Contact Allergy

As astute readers of this column are already aware, treatment of ACD requires strict allergen avoidance. You will find that we have the same recommendations for AA contact allergy. Given that there are only a handful of cases in the literature, there are limited recommendations on practical allergen avoidance other than “don’t wear the problem shin guards, shoe insoles, or flip-flops.” However, Darrigade et al⁶ recommended wearing polyurethane shin guards and leather insoles as alternatives when AA contact allergy is suspected or confirmed. They also made it clear that thick socks worn between shin guards and the skin often are not good enough to avoid ACD because the relevant allergens may achieve skin contact despite the barrier.⁶

Patch Testing for AA Contact Allergy

Historically, ACD to shin guards or shin pads, insoles of shoes, and even flip-flops has been associated with rubber-related chemicals such as mercapto mix, thiuram mix, N-isopropyl-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine, thioureas, and carbamates, as well as dyes, benzoyl peroxide, and urea formaldehyde or phenol formaldehyde resins.¹ Most of these chemicals can be tested with standard screening series or supplemental series. Patients with contact allergy to AA may have negative patch testing to screening series and/or supplemental series and may have strong positive reactions to pieces of suspected foam shin pads or shin guards, shoes, and/or flip-flops. Although Koumaki et al⁵ recommended patch testing for AA contact allergy with AA 0.1% in acetone, Besner Morin et al⁴ mentioned that petrolatum may be a more desirable vehicle because it could maintain stability for a longer period of time. In fact, a 2021 article highlighting the American Contact Dermatitis Society Allergen of the Year recommends testing with either AA 0.1% in acetone or AA 0.1% in petrolatum.⁷ Unfortunately, AA is not commercially available for purchase at the time of publication. We are hopeful that this will change in the near future.

Final Interpretation

Acetophenone azine is an emerging allergen commonly identified in EVA foam and attributed to contact allergy to shin guards or pads, soles of shoes, and flip-flops. Most cases have been reported in Europe and Canada and have been identified in young male athletes. In addition to standard patch testing, athletes with lower leg dermatitis and/or dermatitis of the soles of the feet should undergo patch testing with AA 0.1% in acetone or petrolatum and pieces of the equipment and/or footwear.