User login
Ob.Gyn. Says Collaboration with Dermatologists Essential for Managing Vulvar Dermatoses
— and she believes collaboration with dermatologists is essential, especially for complex cases in what she calls a neglected, data-poor area of medicine.
She also recommends that dermatologists have a good understanding of the vestibule, “one of the most important structures in vulvar medicine,” and that they become equipped to recognize generalized and localized causes of vulvar pain and/or itch.
“The problem is, we don’t talk about [vulvovaginal pain and itch] ... it’s taboo and we’re not taught about it in medical school,” Cigna, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at The George Washington University (GWU), Washington, DC, said in a grand rounds lecture held recently at the GWU School of Medicine and Health Sciences Department of Dermatology.
“There are dermatologists who don’t have much training in vulvar dermatology, and a lot of gyns don’t get as much training” as they should, she said in an interview after the lecture. “So who’s looking at people’s vulvar skin and figuring out what’s going on and giving them effective treatments and evidence-based education?”
Cigna and dermatologist Emily Murphy, MD, will be co-directors of a joint ob.gyn-dermatology Vulvar Dermatology Clinic at GWU that will be launched in 2025, with monthly clinics for particularly challenging cases where the etiology is unclear or treatment is ineffective. “We want to collaborate in a more systematic way and put our heads together and think creatively about what will improve patient care,” Cigna said in the interview.
Dermatologists have valuable expertise in the immunology and genetic factors involved in skin disorders, Cigna said. Moreover, Murphy, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the Vulvar Health Program at GWU, said in an interview, dermatologists “are comfortable in going to off-label systemic medications that ob.gyns may not use that often” and bring to the table expertise in various types of procedures.
Murphy recently trained with Melissa Mauskar, MD, associate of dermatology and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and founder and director of the Gynecologic Dermatology Clinic there. “It’s so important for dermatologists to be involved. It just takes some extra training that residents aren’t getting right now,” said Murphy, a member of the newly formed Vulvar Dermatoses Research Consortium.
In her grand rounds lecture, Cigna offered pearls to dermatologists for approaching a history and exam and covered highlights of the diagnosis and treatment of various problems, from vulvar Candida infections and lichen simplex chronicus to vulvar lichen sclerosus (LS), vulvar lichen planus (LP), vulvar Crohn’s disease, pudendal neuralgia, and pelvic floor muscle spasm, as well as the role of mast cell proliferation in vulvar issues.
Approaching the History and Exam
A comprehensive history covers the start, duration, and location of pain and/or itching as well as a detailed timeline (such as timing of potential causes, including injuries or births) and symptoms (such as burning, cutting, aching, and stinging). The question of whether pain “is on the outside, at the entrance, or deeper inside” is “crucial, especially for those in dermatology,” Cigna emphasized.
“And if you’re seeing a patient for a vulvar condition, please ask them about sex. Ask, is this affecting your sexual or intimate life with your partner because this can also give you a clue about what’s going on and how you can help them,” she told the audience of dermatologists.
Queries about trauma history (physical and emotional/verbal), competitive sports (such as daily cycling, equestrian, and heavy weight lifting), endometriosis/gynecologic surgery, connective tissue disorders (such as Ehler-Danlos syndrome), and irritable bowel syndrome are all potentially important to consider. It is important to ask about anxiety, depression, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, which do not cause — but are highly associated with — vulvar dermatoses, she said.
A surprisingly large number of people with vulvovaginal issues are being diagnosed with Ehler-Danlos syndrome, so “I’m always asking, are you hypermobile because this might be affecting the musculoskeletal system, which might be affecting the pelvis,” Cigna said. “Anything that affects the pelvis can affect the vulva as well.”
The pelvic examination should be “offered” rather than assumed to be part of the exam, as part of a trauma-informed approach that is crucial for earning trust, she advised. “Just saying, ‘we’re going to talk, and then I can offer you an exam if you like’…patients like it. It helps them feel safer and more open.”
Many diagnoses are differentiated by eliciting pain on the anterior vs the posterior half of the vulvar vestibule — the part of the vulva that lies between the labia minora and is composed of nonkeratinized tissue with embryonic origins in the endoderm. “If you touch on the keratinized skin (of the vulva) and they don’t have pain, but on the vestibule they do have pain, and there is no pain inside the vagina, this suggests there is a vestibular problem,” said Cigna.
Pain/tenderness isolated to the posterior half of the vestibule suggests a muscular cause, and pain in both the posterior and anterior parts of the vestibule suggests a cause that is more systemic or diffuse, which could be a result of a hormonal issue such as one related to oral contraceptives or decreased testosterone, or a nerve-related process.
Cigna uses gentle swipes of a Q-tip moistened with water or gel to examine the vulva rather than a poke or touch, with the exception being the posterior vestibule, which overlies muscle insertion sites. “Make sure to get a baseline in remote areas such as the inner thigh, and always distinguish between ‘scratchy/sensitive’ sensations and pain,” she said, noting the value of having the patient hold a mirror on her inner thigh.
Causes of Vulvar Itch: Infectious and Noninfectious
With vulvar candidiasis, a common infectious cause of vulvar itch, “you have to ask if they’re also itching on the inside because if you treat them with a topical and you don’t treat the vaginal yeast infection that may be co-occurring, they’ll keep reseeding their vulvar skin,” Cigna said, “and it will never be fully treated.”
Candida albicans is the most common cause of vulvar or vulvovaginal candidiasis, and resistance to antifungals has been rising. Non-albicans Candida “tends to have even higher resistance rates,” she said. Ordering a sensitivity panel along with the culture is helpful, but “comprehensive vaginal biome” panels are generally not useful. “It’s hard to correlate the information clinically,” she said, “and there’s not always a lot of information about susceptibilities, which is what I really like to know.”
Cigna’s treatments for vaginal infections include miconazole, terconazole, and fluconazole (and occasionally, itraconazole or voriconazole — a “decision we don’t take lightly”). Vulvar treatments include nystatin ointment, clotrimazole cream, and miconazole cream. Often, optimal treatment involves addressing “both inside and out,” she said, noting the importance of also killing yeast in undergarment fabric.
“In my experience, Diflucan [oral fluconazole] doesn’t treat persistent vulvar cutaneous skin yeast well, so while I might try Diflucan, I typically use something topical as well,” she said. “And with vaginal yeast, we do use boric acid from time to time, especially for non-albicans species because it tends to be a little more effective.”
Noninfectious causes of vulvar itch include allergic, neuropathic, and muscular causes, as well as autoimmune dermatoses and mast cell activation syndrome. Well known in dermatology are acute contact dermatitis and lichen simplex chronicus — both characterized by induration, thickening, and a “puffy” erythematous appearance, and worsening of pruritus at night. What may be less appreciated is the long list of implicated allergens , including Always menstrual pads made of a plastic-containing “dry weave” material, Cigna said. There are at least several cotton-only, low-preservative feminine products available on the market, she noted.
Common Autoimmune Vulvar Dermatoses: LS and LP
Vulvar LS has traditionally been thought to affect mainly prepubertal and postmenopausal women, but the autoimmune condition is now known to affect more reproductive-age people with vulvas than previously appreciated, Cigna said.
And notably, in an observational web-based study of premenopausal women (aged 18-50 years) with biopsy-confirmed vulvar LS, the leading symptom was not itch but dyspareunia and tearing with intercourse. This means “we’re missing people,” said Cigna, an author of the study. “We think the reason we’re not seeing itch as commonly in this population is that itch is likely mediated by the low estrogen state of pre- and postmenopausal people.”
Vulvar LS also occurs in pregnancy, with symptoms that are either stable or decrease during pregnancy and increase in the postpartum period, as demonstrated in a recently published online survey.
Patients with vulvar LS can present with hypopigmentation, lichenification, and scarring and architectural changes, the latter of which can involve clitoral phimosis, labial resorption, and narrowing of the introitus. (The vaginal mucosa is unaffected.) The presentation can be subtle, especially in premenopausal women, and differentiation between LS, vitiligo, and yeast is sometimes necessary.
A timely biopsy-driven definitive diagnosis is important because vulvar LS increases the risk for cancer if it’s not adequately treated and because long-term steroid use can affect the accuracy of pathology reports. “We really care about keeping this disease in remission as much as possible,” Cigna said. Experts in the field recommend long-term maintenance therapy with a mid-ultra-potent steroid one to three times/week or an alternative. “I’ve just started using ruxolitinib cream, a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, and tacrolimus, a calcineurin inhibitor,” she said.
With vulvar LP, based on current evidence, the risk for malignant transformation is low, but “it crosses into the vagina and can cause vaginal adhesions, so if you’re diagnosing someone with lichen planus, you need to make sure you’re talking with them about dilators, and if you’re not comfortable, send them to [gyn],” she said.
The use of vulvoscopy is important for one’s ability to see the fine Wickham’s striae that often characterize vulvar LP, she noted. Medical treatments for vulvar LP include topical calcineurin inhibitors, high-potency steroids, and JAK inhibitors.
Surgical treatment of vulvar granuloma fissuratum caused by vulvar LS is possible (when the patient is in complete remission, to prevent koebnerization), with daily post-op application of clobetasol and retraction of tissues, noted Cigna, the author of a study on vulvar lysis of adhesions.
With both LS and LP, Cigna said, “don’t forget (consideration of) hormones” as an adjunctive treatment, especially in postmenopausal women. “Patients in a low hormone state will have more flares.”
Vulvar Crohn’s
“We all have to know how to look for this,” Cigna said. “Unilateral or asymmetric swelling is classic, but don’t rule out the diagnosis if you see symmetric swelling.” Patients also typically have linear “knife-like” fissures or ulcerations, the vulva “is very indurated,” and “swelling is so intense, the patients are miserable,” she said.
Vulvar Crohn’s disease may precede intestinal disease in 20%-30% of patients, so referral to a gastroenterologist — and ideally subsequent collaboration — is important, as vulvar manifestations are treated with systemic medications typical for Crohn’s.
A biopsy is required for diagnosis, and the pathologist should be advised to look for lichenified squamous mucosa with the Touton giant cell reaction. “Vulvar Crohn’s is a rare enough disorder that if you don’t have an experienced or informed pathologist looking at your specimen, they may miss it because they won’t be looking for it,” Cigna added in the interview. “You should be really clear about what you’re looking for.”
Neuropathic Itch, Pelvic Floor Muscle Spasm
Patients with pudendal neuralgia — caused by an injured, entrapped, or irritated pudendal nerve (originating from S2-S4) — typically present with chronic vulvar and pelvic pain that is often unprovoked and worsens with sitting. Itching upon touch is often another symptom, and some patients describe a foreign body sensation. The cause is often trauma (such as an accident or childbirth-related) as opposed to myofascial irritation, Cigna explained in her lecture.
“Your exam will be largely normal, with no skin findings, so patients will get sent away if you don’t know to look for pudendal neuralgia by pressing on the pudendal nerve or doing (or referring for) a diagnostic nerve block,” Cigna added in the interview.
Persistent genital arousal disorder (PGAD) is “more global” in that it can also originate not only from the pudendal nerve but also from nerve roots higher in the spine or even from the brain. “People feel a sense of arousal, but some describe it as an itch,” Cigna said in her lecture, referring to a 2021 consensus document on PGAD/genito-pelvic dysesthesia by the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health as a valuable resource for understanding and managing the condition.
Diagnosis and treatment usually start with a pudendal nerve block with a combination of steroid and anesthetic. If this does not relieve arousal/itching, the next step may be an MRI to look higher in the spine.
Pelvic Floor Muscle Spasm
Vulvar pain, skin itching, and irritation can be symptoms of pelvic floor muscle spasm. “Oftentimes people come to me and say, ‘I have a dermatologic problem,’” Cigna said. “The skin may look red and erythematous, but it’s probably more likely a muscle problem when you’re not finding anything, and no amount of steroid will help the itch go away when the problem lies underneath.”
Co-occurring symptoms can include vaginal dryness, clitoral pain, urethral discomfort, bladder pain/irritation, increased urgency, constipation, and anal fissures. The first-line treatment approach is pelvic floor therapy.
“Pelvic floor therapy is not just for incontinence. It’s also for pain and discomfort from muscles,” she said, noting that most patients with vulvar disorders are referred for pelvic floor therapy. “Almost all of them end up having pelvic floor dysfunction because the pelvic floor muscles spasm whenever there’s pain or inflammation.”
A Cautionary Word on Vulvodynia, and a Mast Cell Paradigm to Explore
Vulvodynia is defined as persistent pain of at least 3 months’ duration with no clear cause. “These are the patients with no skin findings,” Cigna said. But in most cases, she said, careful investigation identifies causes that are musculoskeletal, hormonal, or nerve-related.
“It’s a term that’s thrown around a lot — it’s kind of a catchall. Yet it should be a small minority of patients who truly have a diagnosis of vulvodynia,” she said.
In the early stages of investigation is the idea that mast cell proliferation and mast cell activation may play a role in some cases of vulvar and vestibular pain and itching. “We see that some patients with vulvodynia and vestibulodynia have mast cells that are increased in number in the epithelium and beneath the epithelium, and nerve staining shows an increased number of nerve endings traveling into the epithelium,” Cigna said.
“We do diagnose some people clinically” based on urticaria and other symptoms suggestive of mast cell proliferation/activation (such as flushing, abdominal cramping, diarrhea, hypotensive syncope or near syncope, and tachycardia), and “then we send them to the allergist for testing,” Cigna said.
Cigna and Murphy have no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
— and she believes collaboration with dermatologists is essential, especially for complex cases in what she calls a neglected, data-poor area of medicine.
She also recommends that dermatologists have a good understanding of the vestibule, “one of the most important structures in vulvar medicine,” and that they become equipped to recognize generalized and localized causes of vulvar pain and/or itch.
“The problem is, we don’t talk about [vulvovaginal pain and itch] ... it’s taboo and we’re not taught about it in medical school,” Cigna, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at The George Washington University (GWU), Washington, DC, said in a grand rounds lecture held recently at the GWU School of Medicine and Health Sciences Department of Dermatology.
“There are dermatologists who don’t have much training in vulvar dermatology, and a lot of gyns don’t get as much training” as they should, she said in an interview after the lecture. “So who’s looking at people’s vulvar skin and figuring out what’s going on and giving them effective treatments and evidence-based education?”
Cigna and dermatologist Emily Murphy, MD, will be co-directors of a joint ob.gyn-dermatology Vulvar Dermatology Clinic at GWU that will be launched in 2025, with monthly clinics for particularly challenging cases where the etiology is unclear or treatment is ineffective. “We want to collaborate in a more systematic way and put our heads together and think creatively about what will improve patient care,” Cigna said in the interview.
Dermatologists have valuable expertise in the immunology and genetic factors involved in skin disorders, Cigna said. Moreover, Murphy, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the Vulvar Health Program at GWU, said in an interview, dermatologists “are comfortable in going to off-label systemic medications that ob.gyns may not use that often” and bring to the table expertise in various types of procedures.
Murphy recently trained with Melissa Mauskar, MD, associate of dermatology and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and founder and director of the Gynecologic Dermatology Clinic there. “It’s so important for dermatologists to be involved. It just takes some extra training that residents aren’t getting right now,” said Murphy, a member of the newly formed Vulvar Dermatoses Research Consortium.
In her grand rounds lecture, Cigna offered pearls to dermatologists for approaching a history and exam and covered highlights of the diagnosis and treatment of various problems, from vulvar Candida infections and lichen simplex chronicus to vulvar lichen sclerosus (LS), vulvar lichen planus (LP), vulvar Crohn’s disease, pudendal neuralgia, and pelvic floor muscle spasm, as well as the role of mast cell proliferation in vulvar issues.
Approaching the History and Exam
A comprehensive history covers the start, duration, and location of pain and/or itching as well as a detailed timeline (such as timing of potential causes, including injuries or births) and symptoms (such as burning, cutting, aching, and stinging). The question of whether pain “is on the outside, at the entrance, or deeper inside” is “crucial, especially for those in dermatology,” Cigna emphasized.
“And if you’re seeing a patient for a vulvar condition, please ask them about sex. Ask, is this affecting your sexual or intimate life with your partner because this can also give you a clue about what’s going on and how you can help them,” she told the audience of dermatologists.
Queries about trauma history (physical and emotional/verbal), competitive sports (such as daily cycling, equestrian, and heavy weight lifting), endometriosis/gynecologic surgery, connective tissue disorders (such as Ehler-Danlos syndrome), and irritable bowel syndrome are all potentially important to consider. It is important to ask about anxiety, depression, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, which do not cause — but are highly associated with — vulvar dermatoses, she said.
A surprisingly large number of people with vulvovaginal issues are being diagnosed with Ehler-Danlos syndrome, so “I’m always asking, are you hypermobile because this might be affecting the musculoskeletal system, which might be affecting the pelvis,” Cigna said. “Anything that affects the pelvis can affect the vulva as well.”
The pelvic examination should be “offered” rather than assumed to be part of the exam, as part of a trauma-informed approach that is crucial for earning trust, she advised. “Just saying, ‘we’re going to talk, and then I can offer you an exam if you like’…patients like it. It helps them feel safer and more open.”
Many diagnoses are differentiated by eliciting pain on the anterior vs the posterior half of the vulvar vestibule — the part of the vulva that lies between the labia minora and is composed of nonkeratinized tissue with embryonic origins in the endoderm. “If you touch on the keratinized skin (of the vulva) and they don’t have pain, but on the vestibule they do have pain, and there is no pain inside the vagina, this suggests there is a vestibular problem,” said Cigna.
Pain/tenderness isolated to the posterior half of the vestibule suggests a muscular cause, and pain in both the posterior and anterior parts of the vestibule suggests a cause that is more systemic or diffuse, which could be a result of a hormonal issue such as one related to oral contraceptives or decreased testosterone, or a nerve-related process.
Cigna uses gentle swipes of a Q-tip moistened with water or gel to examine the vulva rather than a poke or touch, with the exception being the posterior vestibule, which overlies muscle insertion sites. “Make sure to get a baseline in remote areas such as the inner thigh, and always distinguish between ‘scratchy/sensitive’ sensations and pain,” she said, noting the value of having the patient hold a mirror on her inner thigh.
Causes of Vulvar Itch: Infectious and Noninfectious
With vulvar candidiasis, a common infectious cause of vulvar itch, “you have to ask if they’re also itching on the inside because if you treat them with a topical and you don’t treat the vaginal yeast infection that may be co-occurring, they’ll keep reseeding their vulvar skin,” Cigna said, “and it will never be fully treated.”
Candida albicans is the most common cause of vulvar or vulvovaginal candidiasis, and resistance to antifungals has been rising. Non-albicans Candida “tends to have even higher resistance rates,” she said. Ordering a sensitivity panel along with the culture is helpful, but “comprehensive vaginal biome” panels are generally not useful. “It’s hard to correlate the information clinically,” she said, “and there’s not always a lot of information about susceptibilities, which is what I really like to know.”
Cigna’s treatments for vaginal infections include miconazole, terconazole, and fluconazole (and occasionally, itraconazole or voriconazole — a “decision we don’t take lightly”). Vulvar treatments include nystatin ointment, clotrimazole cream, and miconazole cream. Often, optimal treatment involves addressing “both inside and out,” she said, noting the importance of also killing yeast in undergarment fabric.
“In my experience, Diflucan [oral fluconazole] doesn’t treat persistent vulvar cutaneous skin yeast well, so while I might try Diflucan, I typically use something topical as well,” she said. “And with vaginal yeast, we do use boric acid from time to time, especially for non-albicans species because it tends to be a little more effective.”
Noninfectious causes of vulvar itch include allergic, neuropathic, and muscular causes, as well as autoimmune dermatoses and mast cell activation syndrome. Well known in dermatology are acute contact dermatitis and lichen simplex chronicus — both characterized by induration, thickening, and a “puffy” erythematous appearance, and worsening of pruritus at night. What may be less appreciated is the long list of implicated allergens , including Always menstrual pads made of a plastic-containing “dry weave” material, Cigna said. There are at least several cotton-only, low-preservative feminine products available on the market, she noted.
Common Autoimmune Vulvar Dermatoses: LS and LP
Vulvar LS has traditionally been thought to affect mainly prepubertal and postmenopausal women, but the autoimmune condition is now known to affect more reproductive-age people with vulvas than previously appreciated, Cigna said.
And notably, in an observational web-based study of premenopausal women (aged 18-50 years) with biopsy-confirmed vulvar LS, the leading symptom was not itch but dyspareunia and tearing with intercourse. This means “we’re missing people,” said Cigna, an author of the study. “We think the reason we’re not seeing itch as commonly in this population is that itch is likely mediated by the low estrogen state of pre- and postmenopausal people.”
Vulvar LS also occurs in pregnancy, with symptoms that are either stable or decrease during pregnancy and increase in the postpartum period, as demonstrated in a recently published online survey.
Patients with vulvar LS can present with hypopigmentation, lichenification, and scarring and architectural changes, the latter of which can involve clitoral phimosis, labial resorption, and narrowing of the introitus. (The vaginal mucosa is unaffected.) The presentation can be subtle, especially in premenopausal women, and differentiation between LS, vitiligo, and yeast is sometimes necessary.
A timely biopsy-driven definitive diagnosis is important because vulvar LS increases the risk for cancer if it’s not adequately treated and because long-term steroid use can affect the accuracy of pathology reports. “We really care about keeping this disease in remission as much as possible,” Cigna said. Experts in the field recommend long-term maintenance therapy with a mid-ultra-potent steroid one to three times/week or an alternative. “I’ve just started using ruxolitinib cream, a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, and tacrolimus, a calcineurin inhibitor,” she said.
With vulvar LP, based on current evidence, the risk for malignant transformation is low, but “it crosses into the vagina and can cause vaginal adhesions, so if you’re diagnosing someone with lichen planus, you need to make sure you’re talking with them about dilators, and if you’re not comfortable, send them to [gyn],” she said.
The use of vulvoscopy is important for one’s ability to see the fine Wickham’s striae that often characterize vulvar LP, she noted. Medical treatments for vulvar LP include topical calcineurin inhibitors, high-potency steroids, and JAK inhibitors.
Surgical treatment of vulvar granuloma fissuratum caused by vulvar LS is possible (when the patient is in complete remission, to prevent koebnerization), with daily post-op application of clobetasol and retraction of tissues, noted Cigna, the author of a study on vulvar lysis of adhesions.
With both LS and LP, Cigna said, “don’t forget (consideration of) hormones” as an adjunctive treatment, especially in postmenopausal women. “Patients in a low hormone state will have more flares.”
Vulvar Crohn’s
“We all have to know how to look for this,” Cigna said. “Unilateral or asymmetric swelling is classic, but don’t rule out the diagnosis if you see symmetric swelling.” Patients also typically have linear “knife-like” fissures or ulcerations, the vulva “is very indurated,” and “swelling is so intense, the patients are miserable,” she said.
Vulvar Crohn’s disease may precede intestinal disease in 20%-30% of patients, so referral to a gastroenterologist — and ideally subsequent collaboration — is important, as vulvar manifestations are treated with systemic medications typical for Crohn’s.
A biopsy is required for diagnosis, and the pathologist should be advised to look for lichenified squamous mucosa with the Touton giant cell reaction. “Vulvar Crohn’s is a rare enough disorder that if you don’t have an experienced or informed pathologist looking at your specimen, they may miss it because they won’t be looking for it,” Cigna added in the interview. “You should be really clear about what you’re looking for.”
Neuropathic Itch, Pelvic Floor Muscle Spasm
Patients with pudendal neuralgia — caused by an injured, entrapped, or irritated pudendal nerve (originating from S2-S4) — typically present with chronic vulvar and pelvic pain that is often unprovoked and worsens with sitting. Itching upon touch is often another symptom, and some patients describe a foreign body sensation. The cause is often trauma (such as an accident or childbirth-related) as opposed to myofascial irritation, Cigna explained in her lecture.
“Your exam will be largely normal, with no skin findings, so patients will get sent away if you don’t know to look for pudendal neuralgia by pressing on the pudendal nerve or doing (or referring for) a diagnostic nerve block,” Cigna added in the interview.
Persistent genital arousal disorder (PGAD) is “more global” in that it can also originate not only from the pudendal nerve but also from nerve roots higher in the spine or even from the brain. “People feel a sense of arousal, but some describe it as an itch,” Cigna said in her lecture, referring to a 2021 consensus document on PGAD/genito-pelvic dysesthesia by the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health as a valuable resource for understanding and managing the condition.
Diagnosis and treatment usually start with a pudendal nerve block with a combination of steroid and anesthetic. If this does not relieve arousal/itching, the next step may be an MRI to look higher in the spine.
Pelvic Floor Muscle Spasm
Vulvar pain, skin itching, and irritation can be symptoms of pelvic floor muscle spasm. “Oftentimes people come to me and say, ‘I have a dermatologic problem,’” Cigna said. “The skin may look red and erythematous, but it’s probably more likely a muscle problem when you’re not finding anything, and no amount of steroid will help the itch go away when the problem lies underneath.”
Co-occurring symptoms can include vaginal dryness, clitoral pain, urethral discomfort, bladder pain/irritation, increased urgency, constipation, and anal fissures. The first-line treatment approach is pelvic floor therapy.
“Pelvic floor therapy is not just for incontinence. It’s also for pain and discomfort from muscles,” she said, noting that most patients with vulvar disorders are referred for pelvic floor therapy. “Almost all of them end up having pelvic floor dysfunction because the pelvic floor muscles spasm whenever there’s pain or inflammation.”
A Cautionary Word on Vulvodynia, and a Mast Cell Paradigm to Explore
Vulvodynia is defined as persistent pain of at least 3 months’ duration with no clear cause. “These are the patients with no skin findings,” Cigna said. But in most cases, she said, careful investigation identifies causes that are musculoskeletal, hormonal, or nerve-related.
“It’s a term that’s thrown around a lot — it’s kind of a catchall. Yet it should be a small minority of patients who truly have a diagnosis of vulvodynia,” she said.
In the early stages of investigation is the idea that mast cell proliferation and mast cell activation may play a role in some cases of vulvar and vestibular pain and itching. “We see that some patients with vulvodynia and vestibulodynia have mast cells that are increased in number in the epithelium and beneath the epithelium, and nerve staining shows an increased number of nerve endings traveling into the epithelium,” Cigna said.
“We do diagnose some people clinically” based on urticaria and other symptoms suggestive of mast cell proliferation/activation (such as flushing, abdominal cramping, diarrhea, hypotensive syncope or near syncope, and tachycardia), and “then we send them to the allergist for testing,” Cigna said.
Cigna and Murphy have no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
— and she believes collaboration with dermatologists is essential, especially for complex cases in what she calls a neglected, data-poor area of medicine.
She also recommends that dermatologists have a good understanding of the vestibule, “one of the most important structures in vulvar medicine,” and that they become equipped to recognize generalized and localized causes of vulvar pain and/or itch.
“The problem is, we don’t talk about [vulvovaginal pain and itch] ... it’s taboo and we’re not taught about it in medical school,” Cigna, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at The George Washington University (GWU), Washington, DC, said in a grand rounds lecture held recently at the GWU School of Medicine and Health Sciences Department of Dermatology.
“There are dermatologists who don’t have much training in vulvar dermatology, and a lot of gyns don’t get as much training” as they should, she said in an interview after the lecture. “So who’s looking at people’s vulvar skin and figuring out what’s going on and giving them effective treatments and evidence-based education?”
Cigna and dermatologist Emily Murphy, MD, will be co-directors of a joint ob.gyn-dermatology Vulvar Dermatology Clinic at GWU that will be launched in 2025, with monthly clinics for particularly challenging cases where the etiology is unclear or treatment is ineffective. “We want to collaborate in a more systematic way and put our heads together and think creatively about what will improve patient care,” Cigna said in the interview.
Dermatologists have valuable expertise in the immunology and genetic factors involved in skin disorders, Cigna said. Moreover, Murphy, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the Vulvar Health Program at GWU, said in an interview, dermatologists “are comfortable in going to off-label systemic medications that ob.gyns may not use that often” and bring to the table expertise in various types of procedures.
Murphy recently trained with Melissa Mauskar, MD, associate of dermatology and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and founder and director of the Gynecologic Dermatology Clinic there. “It’s so important for dermatologists to be involved. It just takes some extra training that residents aren’t getting right now,” said Murphy, a member of the newly formed Vulvar Dermatoses Research Consortium.
In her grand rounds lecture, Cigna offered pearls to dermatologists for approaching a history and exam and covered highlights of the diagnosis and treatment of various problems, from vulvar Candida infections and lichen simplex chronicus to vulvar lichen sclerosus (LS), vulvar lichen planus (LP), vulvar Crohn’s disease, pudendal neuralgia, and pelvic floor muscle spasm, as well as the role of mast cell proliferation in vulvar issues.
Approaching the History and Exam
A comprehensive history covers the start, duration, and location of pain and/or itching as well as a detailed timeline (such as timing of potential causes, including injuries or births) and symptoms (such as burning, cutting, aching, and stinging). The question of whether pain “is on the outside, at the entrance, or deeper inside” is “crucial, especially for those in dermatology,” Cigna emphasized.
“And if you’re seeing a patient for a vulvar condition, please ask them about sex. Ask, is this affecting your sexual or intimate life with your partner because this can also give you a clue about what’s going on and how you can help them,” she told the audience of dermatologists.
Queries about trauma history (physical and emotional/verbal), competitive sports (such as daily cycling, equestrian, and heavy weight lifting), endometriosis/gynecologic surgery, connective tissue disorders (such as Ehler-Danlos syndrome), and irritable bowel syndrome are all potentially important to consider. It is important to ask about anxiety, depression, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, which do not cause — but are highly associated with — vulvar dermatoses, she said.
A surprisingly large number of people with vulvovaginal issues are being diagnosed with Ehler-Danlos syndrome, so “I’m always asking, are you hypermobile because this might be affecting the musculoskeletal system, which might be affecting the pelvis,” Cigna said. “Anything that affects the pelvis can affect the vulva as well.”
The pelvic examination should be “offered” rather than assumed to be part of the exam, as part of a trauma-informed approach that is crucial for earning trust, she advised. “Just saying, ‘we’re going to talk, and then I can offer you an exam if you like’…patients like it. It helps them feel safer and more open.”
Many diagnoses are differentiated by eliciting pain on the anterior vs the posterior half of the vulvar vestibule — the part of the vulva that lies between the labia minora and is composed of nonkeratinized tissue with embryonic origins in the endoderm. “If you touch on the keratinized skin (of the vulva) and they don’t have pain, but on the vestibule they do have pain, and there is no pain inside the vagina, this suggests there is a vestibular problem,” said Cigna.
Pain/tenderness isolated to the posterior half of the vestibule suggests a muscular cause, and pain in both the posterior and anterior parts of the vestibule suggests a cause that is more systemic or diffuse, which could be a result of a hormonal issue such as one related to oral contraceptives or decreased testosterone, or a nerve-related process.
Cigna uses gentle swipes of a Q-tip moistened with water or gel to examine the vulva rather than a poke or touch, with the exception being the posterior vestibule, which overlies muscle insertion sites. “Make sure to get a baseline in remote areas such as the inner thigh, and always distinguish between ‘scratchy/sensitive’ sensations and pain,” she said, noting the value of having the patient hold a mirror on her inner thigh.
Causes of Vulvar Itch: Infectious and Noninfectious
With vulvar candidiasis, a common infectious cause of vulvar itch, “you have to ask if they’re also itching on the inside because if you treat them with a topical and you don’t treat the vaginal yeast infection that may be co-occurring, they’ll keep reseeding their vulvar skin,” Cigna said, “and it will never be fully treated.”
Candida albicans is the most common cause of vulvar or vulvovaginal candidiasis, and resistance to antifungals has been rising. Non-albicans Candida “tends to have even higher resistance rates,” she said. Ordering a sensitivity panel along with the culture is helpful, but “comprehensive vaginal biome” panels are generally not useful. “It’s hard to correlate the information clinically,” she said, “and there’s not always a lot of information about susceptibilities, which is what I really like to know.”
Cigna’s treatments for vaginal infections include miconazole, terconazole, and fluconazole (and occasionally, itraconazole or voriconazole — a “decision we don’t take lightly”). Vulvar treatments include nystatin ointment, clotrimazole cream, and miconazole cream. Often, optimal treatment involves addressing “both inside and out,” she said, noting the importance of also killing yeast in undergarment fabric.
“In my experience, Diflucan [oral fluconazole] doesn’t treat persistent vulvar cutaneous skin yeast well, so while I might try Diflucan, I typically use something topical as well,” she said. “And with vaginal yeast, we do use boric acid from time to time, especially for non-albicans species because it tends to be a little more effective.”
Noninfectious causes of vulvar itch include allergic, neuropathic, and muscular causes, as well as autoimmune dermatoses and mast cell activation syndrome. Well known in dermatology are acute contact dermatitis and lichen simplex chronicus — both characterized by induration, thickening, and a “puffy” erythematous appearance, and worsening of pruritus at night. What may be less appreciated is the long list of implicated allergens , including Always menstrual pads made of a plastic-containing “dry weave” material, Cigna said. There are at least several cotton-only, low-preservative feminine products available on the market, she noted.
Common Autoimmune Vulvar Dermatoses: LS and LP
Vulvar LS has traditionally been thought to affect mainly prepubertal and postmenopausal women, but the autoimmune condition is now known to affect more reproductive-age people with vulvas than previously appreciated, Cigna said.
And notably, in an observational web-based study of premenopausal women (aged 18-50 years) with biopsy-confirmed vulvar LS, the leading symptom was not itch but dyspareunia and tearing with intercourse. This means “we’re missing people,” said Cigna, an author of the study. “We think the reason we’re not seeing itch as commonly in this population is that itch is likely mediated by the low estrogen state of pre- and postmenopausal people.”
Vulvar LS also occurs in pregnancy, with symptoms that are either stable or decrease during pregnancy and increase in the postpartum period, as demonstrated in a recently published online survey.
Patients with vulvar LS can present with hypopigmentation, lichenification, and scarring and architectural changes, the latter of which can involve clitoral phimosis, labial resorption, and narrowing of the introitus. (The vaginal mucosa is unaffected.) The presentation can be subtle, especially in premenopausal women, and differentiation between LS, vitiligo, and yeast is sometimes necessary.
A timely biopsy-driven definitive diagnosis is important because vulvar LS increases the risk for cancer if it’s not adequately treated and because long-term steroid use can affect the accuracy of pathology reports. “We really care about keeping this disease in remission as much as possible,” Cigna said. Experts in the field recommend long-term maintenance therapy with a mid-ultra-potent steroid one to three times/week or an alternative. “I’ve just started using ruxolitinib cream, a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, and tacrolimus, a calcineurin inhibitor,” she said.
With vulvar LP, based on current evidence, the risk for malignant transformation is low, but “it crosses into the vagina and can cause vaginal adhesions, so if you’re diagnosing someone with lichen planus, you need to make sure you’re talking with them about dilators, and if you’re not comfortable, send them to [gyn],” she said.
The use of vulvoscopy is important for one’s ability to see the fine Wickham’s striae that often characterize vulvar LP, she noted. Medical treatments for vulvar LP include topical calcineurin inhibitors, high-potency steroids, and JAK inhibitors.
Surgical treatment of vulvar granuloma fissuratum caused by vulvar LS is possible (when the patient is in complete remission, to prevent koebnerization), with daily post-op application of clobetasol and retraction of tissues, noted Cigna, the author of a study on vulvar lysis of adhesions.
With both LS and LP, Cigna said, “don’t forget (consideration of) hormones” as an adjunctive treatment, especially in postmenopausal women. “Patients in a low hormone state will have more flares.”
Vulvar Crohn’s
“We all have to know how to look for this,” Cigna said. “Unilateral or asymmetric swelling is classic, but don’t rule out the diagnosis if you see symmetric swelling.” Patients also typically have linear “knife-like” fissures or ulcerations, the vulva “is very indurated,” and “swelling is so intense, the patients are miserable,” she said.
Vulvar Crohn’s disease may precede intestinal disease in 20%-30% of patients, so referral to a gastroenterologist — and ideally subsequent collaboration — is important, as vulvar manifestations are treated with systemic medications typical for Crohn’s.
A biopsy is required for diagnosis, and the pathologist should be advised to look for lichenified squamous mucosa with the Touton giant cell reaction. “Vulvar Crohn’s is a rare enough disorder that if you don’t have an experienced or informed pathologist looking at your specimen, they may miss it because they won’t be looking for it,” Cigna added in the interview. “You should be really clear about what you’re looking for.”
Neuropathic Itch, Pelvic Floor Muscle Spasm
Patients with pudendal neuralgia — caused by an injured, entrapped, or irritated pudendal nerve (originating from S2-S4) — typically present with chronic vulvar and pelvic pain that is often unprovoked and worsens with sitting. Itching upon touch is often another symptom, and some patients describe a foreign body sensation. The cause is often trauma (such as an accident or childbirth-related) as opposed to myofascial irritation, Cigna explained in her lecture.
“Your exam will be largely normal, with no skin findings, so patients will get sent away if you don’t know to look for pudendal neuralgia by pressing on the pudendal nerve or doing (or referring for) a diagnostic nerve block,” Cigna added in the interview.
Persistent genital arousal disorder (PGAD) is “more global” in that it can also originate not only from the pudendal nerve but also from nerve roots higher in the spine or even from the brain. “People feel a sense of arousal, but some describe it as an itch,” Cigna said in her lecture, referring to a 2021 consensus document on PGAD/genito-pelvic dysesthesia by the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health as a valuable resource for understanding and managing the condition.
Diagnosis and treatment usually start with a pudendal nerve block with a combination of steroid and anesthetic. If this does not relieve arousal/itching, the next step may be an MRI to look higher in the spine.
Pelvic Floor Muscle Spasm
Vulvar pain, skin itching, and irritation can be symptoms of pelvic floor muscle spasm. “Oftentimes people come to me and say, ‘I have a dermatologic problem,’” Cigna said. “The skin may look red and erythematous, but it’s probably more likely a muscle problem when you’re not finding anything, and no amount of steroid will help the itch go away when the problem lies underneath.”
Co-occurring symptoms can include vaginal dryness, clitoral pain, urethral discomfort, bladder pain/irritation, increased urgency, constipation, and anal fissures. The first-line treatment approach is pelvic floor therapy.
“Pelvic floor therapy is not just for incontinence. It’s also for pain and discomfort from muscles,” she said, noting that most patients with vulvar disorders are referred for pelvic floor therapy. “Almost all of them end up having pelvic floor dysfunction because the pelvic floor muscles spasm whenever there’s pain or inflammation.”
A Cautionary Word on Vulvodynia, and a Mast Cell Paradigm to Explore
Vulvodynia is defined as persistent pain of at least 3 months’ duration with no clear cause. “These are the patients with no skin findings,” Cigna said. But in most cases, she said, careful investigation identifies causes that are musculoskeletal, hormonal, or nerve-related.
“It’s a term that’s thrown around a lot — it’s kind of a catchall. Yet it should be a small minority of patients who truly have a diagnosis of vulvodynia,” she said.
In the early stages of investigation is the idea that mast cell proliferation and mast cell activation may play a role in some cases of vulvar and vestibular pain and itching. “We see that some patients with vulvodynia and vestibulodynia have mast cells that are increased in number in the epithelium and beneath the epithelium, and nerve staining shows an increased number of nerve endings traveling into the epithelium,” Cigna said.
“We do diagnose some people clinically” based on urticaria and other symptoms suggestive of mast cell proliferation/activation (such as flushing, abdominal cramping, diarrhea, hypotensive syncope or near syncope, and tachycardia), and “then we send them to the allergist for testing,” Cigna said.
Cigna and Murphy have no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Sulfites: The 2024 American Contact Dermatitis Society Allergen of the Year
The American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) selected sulfites as the 2024 Allergen of the Year.1 Due to their preservative and antioxidant properties, sulfites are prevalent in a variety of foods, beverages, medications, and personal care products; however, sulfites also have been implicated as a potential contact allergen. In this article, we review common sources of sulfite exposure, clinical manifestations of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to sulfites, and patch testing considerations for this emerging allergen.
What Are Sulfites?
Sulfiting agents are compounds that contain the sulfite ion SO32-, including sulfur dioxide, sodium disulfite (sodium metabisulfite), and potassium metabisulfite.2 Sulfites occur naturally in the environment and commonly are used as preservatives, antibrowning agents, and antioxidants in various foods, beverages, medications, cosmetics, and skin care products. As antibrowning agents and antioxidants, sulfites help maintain the natural appearance of foods and other products and prevent premature spoiling by inactivating oxidative enzymes.3 It should be noted that sulfites and sulfates are distinct and unrelated compounds that do not cross-react.1
Common Sources of Sulfite Exposure
From a morning glass of juice to an evening shower, in the pharmacy and at the hair salon, sulfite exposure is ubiquitous in most daily routines. Sulfites are present in many foods and beverages, either as a byproduct of natural fermentation or as an additive to prevent spoiling and color change. The Table provides examples of foods with high sulfite content.1,4-6 In particular, dried fruit, bottled lemon juice, wine, grape juice, sauerkraut juice, and pickled onions have high sulfite content.
Topical medications and personal care products represent other potential sources of sulfite exposure. A number of reports have shown that sulfites may be included in topical steroids,7 antibiotics,8 antifungals,9 hemorrhoidal preparations,10 local anesthetics,11 and urinary catheterization gel,12 highlighting their many potential applications. In addition, a comprehensive ingredient analysis of 264 ophthalmic medications found that 3.8% of the products contained sodium disulfite.13 Sulfites may be found in personal care products, including facial and hand cleansers, shampoos, moisturizers, and toothpastes. Hair dyes also commonly contain sulfites,7 which are listed in as many as 90% of hair dye kits in the ACDS Contact Allergen Management Program database.1
Occupational exposures also are widespread, as sulfites are extensively utilized across diverse industries such as pharmaceuticals, health care, leather manufacturing, mineral extraction, food preparation, chemical manufacturing, textiles, alcohol brewing, and wine production.1
Sulfites also are used in the rubber industry—particularly in gloves—due to their anticoagulant and preservative properties.4 This is relevant to health care providers, who may use dozens of disposable gloves in a single day. In an experimental pilot study, researchers detected sulfites in 83% (5/6) of natural rubber latex gloves, 96% (23/24) of synthetic (nitrile) gloves, and 0% (0/5) of polyvinyl chloride gloves.14 While this study was limited to a small sample size, it demonstrates the common use of sulfites in certain rubber gloves and encourages future studies to determine whether there is a quantitative threshold to elicit allergic reactions.
Sulfite Allergy
In 1968, an early case report of ACD to sulfites was published involving a pharmaceutical worker who developed hand eczema after working at a factory for 3 months and had a positive patch test to potassium metabisulfite.15 There have been other cases published in the literature since then, including localized ACD as well as less common cases of systemic contact dermatitis following oral, injectable, and rectal sulfite exposures.16
The North American Contact Dermatitis Group found that, among 132 (2.7%) of 4885 patients with positive patch tests to sodium disulfite from 2017 to 2018, the most commonly involved body sites were the face (28.8%) and hands (20.5%) followed by a scattered/generalized distribution (13.6%). Involvement of the face and hands may correlate with the most frequent sources of exposure that were identified, including personal care products (particularly hair dyes)(18.9%), medications (9.1%), and foods (7.6%).17 A multicenter analysis of patch test results from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland from 1999 to 2013 showed that 357 (2.9%) of 12,156 patients had positive reactions to sodium disulfite, with the most commonly identified exposure sources being topical pharmaceutical agents (59.3%); cosmetics, creams, and sunscreens (13.6%); and systemic drugs (6.8%).18 However, it is not always possible to determine the clinical relevance of a positive patch test to sulfites.1
Other than the face and hands, there have been other unexpected anatomic locations for sulfite ACD (eg, the lower back), and systemic contact dermatitis has manifested with widespread rashes due to oral, rectal, and parenteral exposure.4,16,19 There is no definitive link between sulfite contact allergy and patient sex, but there seems to be a higher prevalence in patients older than 40 years, perhaps related to overall lifetime exposure.1
Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to sulfites also have been reported, including urticaria, angioedema, and anaphylaxis.4 Due to multiple cases of severe dermatologic and respiratory reactions to food products containing sulfites,20 the US Food and Drug Administration prohibited their use in fresh fruit and vegetables as antibrowning agents in 1986 and required labels on packaged foods that contained sulfites at more than 10 parts per million.21 However, food and drinks produced in restaurants, bakeries, and cafes as well as those that are distributed directly to consumers from the preparation site are exempt from these rules.17
In addition, consuming high amounts of dietary sulfites has been linked to headaches through unclear (ie, not necessarily allergic) mechanisms.4,22 One study found that wine with a higher sulfite concentration was associated with increased risk for headaches in participants who had a history of headaches related to wine consumption.22
Patch Testing to Sulfites
The North American Contact Dermatitis Group has tested sodium disulfite since 2017 and found an increased frequency of positive patch tests from 2.7% (N=4885) in 2017 and 201817 to 3.3% (N=4115) in 2019 and 202023 among patients referred for testing. Similarly, patch testing to sodium disulfite in nearly 40,000 patients in 9 European countries showed a pooled prevalence of reactions of 3.1%.17 However, this contact allergy may go unrecognized, as sulfites are not included in common patch test series, including the thin-layer rapid use epicutaneous test and the ACDS Core Allergen Series.24,25 The relatively high patch test positivity to sulfites along with the prevalence of daily exposures supports the addition of sulfites to more patch test screening series.
The recommended patch test concentration for sodium disulfite is 1% in petrolatum.5 Testing in aqueous solutions is not recommended because they can cause sulfites to break down, potentially producing false-positive or irritant patch test reactions.7,26,27
Recommendations for Patients With Sulfite Allergies
Individuals with contact allergies to sulfites should be counseled on exposure sources and should be given resources providing a list of safe products, such as the ACDS Contact Allergen Management Program (https://www.acdscamp.org/login) or SkinSAFE (https://www.skinsafeproducts.com/). Prescribers should be cognizant of sulfites that are present in prescription medications. Just because a patient has a positive patch test to sulfites does not automatically imply that they will need to modify their diet to avoid sulfite-containing foods; in the absence of cheilitis or a distribution suggestive of systemic contact dermatitis (eg, vesicular hand/foot dermatitis, intertriginous eruptions), this step may be unnecessary. On the other hand, individuals who have experienced immediate hypersensitivity reactions to sulfites should avoid sulfite-containing foods and carry an epinephrine autoinjector.
Final Interpretation
Sulfites are ubiquitous compounds found in various foods, beverages, medications, and personal care products in addition to a range of occupational exposures. The face and hands are the most common sites of sulfite ACD. Despite patch test positivity in as many as 3% of tested patients,17,23 sulfite allergy may be missed due to lack of routine testing on standard screening series.
- Ekstein SF, Warshaw EM. Sulfites: allergen of the year 2024. Dermatitis. 2024;35:6-12. doi:10.1089/derm.2023.0154
- Gunnison AF, Jacobsen DW. Sulfite hypersensitivity. a critical review. CRC Crit Rev Toxicol. 1987;17:185-214. doi:10.3109/10408448709071208
- Clough SR. Sodium sulfite. In: Wexler P, ed. Encyclopedia of Toxicology. 3rd ed. Academic Press; 2014: 341-343.
- Vally H, Misso NL, Madan V. Clinical effects of sulphite additives. Clin Exp Allergy. 2009;39:1643-1651. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2009.03362.x
- Ralph N, Verma S, Merry S, et al. What is the relevance of contact allergy to sodium metabisulfite and which concentration of the allergen should we use? Dermatitis. 2015;26:162-165. doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000120
- Madan V, Walker SL, Beck MH. Sodium metabisulfite allergy is common but is it relevant? Contact Dermatitis. 2007;57:173-176. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01188.x
- García-Gavín J, Parente J, Goossens A. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by sodium metabisulfite: a challenging allergen. a case series and literature review. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67:260-269. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2012.02135.x
- Milpied B, van Wassenhove L, Larousse C, et al. Contact dermatitis from rifamycin. Contact Dermatitis. 1986;14:252-253. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1986.tb01240.x
- Lodi A, Chiarelli G, Mancini LL, et al. Contact allergy to sodium sulfite contained in an antifungal preparation. Contact Dermatitis. 1993;29:97. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1993.tb03493.x
- Sánchez-Pérez J, Abajo P, Córdoba S, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from sodium metabisulfite in an antihemorrhoidal cream. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;42:176-177.
- Boyd AH, Warshaw EM. Sulfites: no longer a zebra? Dermatitis. 2017;28:364-366. doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000312
- Grosch E, Mahler V. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by a catheter system containing sodium metabisulfite. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;76:186-187. doi:10.1111/cod.12675
- Shaver RL, Warshaw EM. Contact allergens in prescription topical ophthalmic medications. Dermatitis. 2022;33:135-143. doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000751
- Dendooven E, Darrigade AS, Foubert K, et al. The presence of sulfites in ‘natural rubber latex’ and ‘synthetic’ rubber gloves: an experimental pilot study. Br J Dermatol. 2020;182:1054-1055. doi:10.1111/bjd.18608
- Nater JP. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by potassium metabisulfite. Dermatologica. 1968;136:477-478. doi:10.1159/000254143
- Borges AS, Valejo Coelho MM, Fernandes C, et al. Systemic allergic dermatitis caused by sodium metabisulfite in rectal enemas. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78:429-430. doi:10.1111/cod.12971
- Warshaw EM, Buonomo M, DeKoven JG, et al. Patch testing with sodium disulfite: North American Contact Dermatitis Group experience, 2017 to 2018. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;85:285-296. doi:10.1111/cod.13860
- Häberle M, Geier J, Mahler V. Contact allergy to sulfites: clinical and occupational relevance—new data from the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group and the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK). J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2016;14:938-941. doi:10.1111/ddg.13009
- Tan MG, Li HO, Pratt MD. Systemic allergic dermatitis to sodium metabisulfite in local anesthetic solution. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;86:120-121. doi:10.1111/cod.13978
- D’Amore T, Di Taranto A, Berardi G, et al. Sulfites in meat: occurrence, activity, toxicity, regulation, and detection. a comprehensive review. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2020;19:2701-2720. doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12607
- Grotheer P, Marshall M, Simonne A. Sulfites: separating fact from fiction. May 11, 2022. UF IFAS Extension. University of Florida. Accessed October 4, 2024. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/FY731
- Silva M, Gama J, Pinto N, et al. Sulfite concentration and the occurrence of headache in young adults: a prospective study. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2019;73:1316-1322. doi:10.1038/s41430-019-0420-2
- DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Reeder MJ, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2019-2020. Dermatitis. 2023;34:90-104. doi:10.1089/derm.2022.29017.jdk
- T.R.U.E. Test. Thin-layer rapid use epicutaneous patch test. SmartPractice Dermatology Allergy. Accessed October 4, 2024. https://www.smartpractice.com/shop/category?id=581719&m=SPA
- Schalock PC, Dunnick CA, Nedorost, et al; American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series Committee. American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series: 2020 update. Dermatitis. 2020;31:279-282.
- Kaaman AC, Boman A, Wrangsjö K, et al. Contact allergy to sodium metabisulfite: an occupational problem. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;63:110-112. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2010.01756.x
- Vena GA, Foti C, Angelini G. Sulfite contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;31:172-175. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1994.tb01959.x
The American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) selected sulfites as the 2024 Allergen of the Year.1 Due to their preservative and antioxidant properties, sulfites are prevalent in a variety of foods, beverages, medications, and personal care products; however, sulfites also have been implicated as a potential contact allergen. In this article, we review common sources of sulfite exposure, clinical manifestations of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to sulfites, and patch testing considerations for this emerging allergen.
What Are Sulfites?
Sulfiting agents are compounds that contain the sulfite ion SO32-, including sulfur dioxide, sodium disulfite (sodium metabisulfite), and potassium metabisulfite.2 Sulfites occur naturally in the environment and commonly are used as preservatives, antibrowning agents, and antioxidants in various foods, beverages, medications, cosmetics, and skin care products. As antibrowning agents and antioxidants, sulfites help maintain the natural appearance of foods and other products and prevent premature spoiling by inactivating oxidative enzymes.3 It should be noted that sulfites and sulfates are distinct and unrelated compounds that do not cross-react.1
Common Sources of Sulfite Exposure
From a morning glass of juice to an evening shower, in the pharmacy and at the hair salon, sulfite exposure is ubiquitous in most daily routines. Sulfites are present in many foods and beverages, either as a byproduct of natural fermentation or as an additive to prevent spoiling and color change. The Table provides examples of foods with high sulfite content.1,4-6 In particular, dried fruit, bottled lemon juice, wine, grape juice, sauerkraut juice, and pickled onions have high sulfite content.
Topical medications and personal care products represent other potential sources of sulfite exposure. A number of reports have shown that sulfites may be included in topical steroids,7 antibiotics,8 antifungals,9 hemorrhoidal preparations,10 local anesthetics,11 and urinary catheterization gel,12 highlighting their many potential applications. In addition, a comprehensive ingredient analysis of 264 ophthalmic medications found that 3.8% of the products contained sodium disulfite.13 Sulfites may be found in personal care products, including facial and hand cleansers, shampoos, moisturizers, and toothpastes. Hair dyes also commonly contain sulfites,7 which are listed in as many as 90% of hair dye kits in the ACDS Contact Allergen Management Program database.1
Occupational exposures also are widespread, as sulfites are extensively utilized across diverse industries such as pharmaceuticals, health care, leather manufacturing, mineral extraction, food preparation, chemical manufacturing, textiles, alcohol brewing, and wine production.1
Sulfites also are used in the rubber industry—particularly in gloves—due to their anticoagulant and preservative properties.4 This is relevant to health care providers, who may use dozens of disposable gloves in a single day. In an experimental pilot study, researchers detected sulfites in 83% (5/6) of natural rubber latex gloves, 96% (23/24) of synthetic (nitrile) gloves, and 0% (0/5) of polyvinyl chloride gloves.14 While this study was limited to a small sample size, it demonstrates the common use of sulfites in certain rubber gloves and encourages future studies to determine whether there is a quantitative threshold to elicit allergic reactions.
Sulfite Allergy
In 1968, an early case report of ACD to sulfites was published involving a pharmaceutical worker who developed hand eczema after working at a factory for 3 months and had a positive patch test to potassium metabisulfite.15 There have been other cases published in the literature since then, including localized ACD as well as less common cases of systemic contact dermatitis following oral, injectable, and rectal sulfite exposures.16
The North American Contact Dermatitis Group found that, among 132 (2.7%) of 4885 patients with positive patch tests to sodium disulfite from 2017 to 2018, the most commonly involved body sites were the face (28.8%) and hands (20.5%) followed by a scattered/generalized distribution (13.6%). Involvement of the face and hands may correlate with the most frequent sources of exposure that were identified, including personal care products (particularly hair dyes)(18.9%), medications (9.1%), and foods (7.6%).17 A multicenter analysis of patch test results from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland from 1999 to 2013 showed that 357 (2.9%) of 12,156 patients had positive reactions to sodium disulfite, with the most commonly identified exposure sources being topical pharmaceutical agents (59.3%); cosmetics, creams, and sunscreens (13.6%); and systemic drugs (6.8%).18 However, it is not always possible to determine the clinical relevance of a positive patch test to sulfites.1
Other than the face and hands, there have been other unexpected anatomic locations for sulfite ACD (eg, the lower back), and systemic contact dermatitis has manifested with widespread rashes due to oral, rectal, and parenteral exposure.4,16,19 There is no definitive link between sulfite contact allergy and patient sex, but there seems to be a higher prevalence in patients older than 40 years, perhaps related to overall lifetime exposure.1
Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to sulfites also have been reported, including urticaria, angioedema, and anaphylaxis.4 Due to multiple cases of severe dermatologic and respiratory reactions to food products containing sulfites,20 the US Food and Drug Administration prohibited their use in fresh fruit and vegetables as antibrowning agents in 1986 and required labels on packaged foods that contained sulfites at more than 10 parts per million.21 However, food and drinks produced in restaurants, bakeries, and cafes as well as those that are distributed directly to consumers from the preparation site are exempt from these rules.17
In addition, consuming high amounts of dietary sulfites has been linked to headaches through unclear (ie, not necessarily allergic) mechanisms.4,22 One study found that wine with a higher sulfite concentration was associated with increased risk for headaches in participants who had a history of headaches related to wine consumption.22
Patch Testing to Sulfites
The North American Contact Dermatitis Group has tested sodium disulfite since 2017 and found an increased frequency of positive patch tests from 2.7% (N=4885) in 2017 and 201817 to 3.3% (N=4115) in 2019 and 202023 among patients referred for testing. Similarly, patch testing to sodium disulfite in nearly 40,000 patients in 9 European countries showed a pooled prevalence of reactions of 3.1%.17 However, this contact allergy may go unrecognized, as sulfites are not included in common patch test series, including the thin-layer rapid use epicutaneous test and the ACDS Core Allergen Series.24,25 The relatively high patch test positivity to sulfites along with the prevalence of daily exposures supports the addition of sulfites to more patch test screening series.
The recommended patch test concentration for sodium disulfite is 1% in petrolatum.5 Testing in aqueous solutions is not recommended because they can cause sulfites to break down, potentially producing false-positive or irritant patch test reactions.7,26,27
Recommendations for Patients With Sulfite Allergies
Individuals with contact allergies to sulfites should be counseled on exposure sources and should be given resources providing a list of safe products, such as the ACDS Contact Allergen Management Program (https://www.acdscamp.org/login) or SkinSAFE (https://www.skinsafeproducts.com/). Prescribers should be cognizant of sulfites that are present in prescription medications. Just because a patient has a positive patch test to sulfites does not automatically imply that they will need to modify their diet to avoid sulfite-containing foods; in the absence of cheilitis or a distribution suggestive of systemic contact dermatitis (eg, vesicular hand/foot dermatitis, intertriginous eruptions), this step may be unnecessary. On the other hand, individuals who have experienced immediate hypersensitivity reactions to sulfites should avoid sulfite-containing foods and carry an epinephrine autoinjector.
Final Interpretation
Sulfites are ubiquitous compounds found in various foods, beverages, medications, and personal care products in addition to a range of occupational exposures. The face and hands are the most common sites of sulfite ACD. Despite patch test positivity in as many as 3% of tested patients,17,23 sulfite allergy may be missed due to lack of routine testing on standard screening series.
The American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) selected sulfites as the 2024 Allergen of the Year.1 Due to their preservative and antioxidant properties, sulfites are prevalent in a variety of foods, beverages, medications, and personal care products; however, sulfites also have been implicated as a potential contact allergen. In this article, we review common sources of sulfite exposure, clinical manifestations of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to sulfites, and patch testing considerations for this emerging allergen.
What Are Sulfites?
Sulfiting agents are compounds that contain the sulfite ion SO32-, including sulfur dioxide, sodium disulfite (sodium metabisulfite), and potassium metabisulfite.2 Sulfites occur naturally in the environment and commonly are used as preservatives, antibrowning agents, and antioxidants in various foods, beverages, medications, cosmetics, and skin care products. As antibrowning agents and antioxidants, sulfites help maintain the natural appearance of foods and other products and prevent premature spoiling by inactivating oxidative enzymes.3 It should be noted that sulfites and sulfates are distinct and unrelated compounds that do not cross-react.1
Common Sources of Sulfite Exposure
From a morning glass of juice to an evening shower, in the pharmacy and at the hair salon, sulfite exposure is ubiquitous in most daily routines. Sulfites are present in many foods and beverages, either as a byproduct of natural fermentation or as an additive to prevent spoiling and color change. The Table provides examples of foods with high sulfite content.1,4-6 In particular, dried fruit, bottled lemon juice, wine, grape juice, sauerkraut juice, and pickled onions have high sulfite content.
Topical medications and personal care products represent other potential sources of sulfite exposure. A number of reports have shown that sulfites may be included in topical steroids,7 antibiotics,8 antifungals,9 hemorrhoidal preparations,10 local anesthetics,11 and urinary catheterization gel,12 highlighting their many potential applications. In addition, a comprehensive ingredient analysis of 264 ophthalmic medications found that 3.8% of the products contained sodium disulfite.13 Sulfites may be found in personal care products, including facial and hand cleansers, shampoos, moisturizers, and toothpastes. Hair dyes also commonly contain sulfites,7 which are listed in as many as 90% of hair dye kits in the ACDS Contact Allergen Management Program database.1
Occupational exposures also are widespread, as sulfites are extensively utilized across diverse industries such as pharmaceuticals, health care, leather manufacturing, mineral extraction, food preparation, chemical manufacturing, textiles, alcohol brewing, and wine production.1
Sulfites also are used in the rubber industry—particularly in gloves—due to their anticoagulant and preservative properties.4 This is relevant to health care providers, who may use dozens of disposable gloves in a single day. In an experimental pilot study, researchers detected sulfites in 83% (5/6) of natural rubber latex gloves, 96% (23/24) of synthetic (nitrile) gloves, and 0% (0/5) of polyvinyl chloride gloves.14 While this study was limited to a small sample size, it demonstrates the common use of sulfites in certain rubber gloves and encourages future studies to determine whether there is a quantitative threshold to elicit allergic reactions.
Sulfite Allergy
In 1968, an early case report of ACD to sulfites was published involving a pharmaceutical worker who developed hand eczema after working at a factory for 3 months and had a positive patch test to potassium metabisulfite.15 There have been other cases published in the literature since then, including localized ACD as well as less common cases of systemic contact dermatitis following oral, injectable, and rectal sulfite exposures.16
The North American Contact Dermatitis Group found that, among 132 (2.7%) of 4885 patients with positive patch tests to sodium disulfite from 2017 to 2018, the most commonly involved body sites were the face (28.8%) and hands (20.5%) followed by a scattered/generalized distribution (13.6%). Involvement of the face and hands may correlate with the most frequent sources of exposure that were identified, including personal care products (particularly hair dyes)(18.9%), medications (9.1%), and foods (7.6%).17 A multicenter analysis of patch test results from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland from 1999 to 2013 showed that 357 (2.9%) of 12,156 patients had positive reactions to sodium disulfite, with the most commonly identified exposure sources being topical pharmaceutical agents (59.3%); cosmetics, creams, and sunscreens (13.6%); and systemic drugs (6.8%).18 However, it is not always possible to determine the clinical relevance of a positive patch test to sulfites.1
Other than the face and hands, there have been other unexpected anatomic locations for sulfite ACD (eg, the lower back), and systemic contact dermatitis has manifested with widespread rashes due to oral, rectal, and parenteral exposure.4,16,19 There is no definitive link between sulfite contact allergy and patient sex, but there seems to be a higher prevalence in patients older than 40 years, perhaps related to overall lifetime exposure.1
Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to sulfites also have been reported, including urticaria, angioedema, and anaphylaxis.4 Due to multiple cases of severe dermatologic and respiratory reactions to food products containing sulfites,20 the US Food and Drug Administration prohibited their use in fresh fruit and vegetables as antibrowning agents in 1986 and required labels on packaged foods that contained sulfites at more than 10 parts per million.21 However, food and drinks produced in restaurants, bakeries, and cafes as well as those that are distributed directly to consumers from the preparation site are exempt from these rules.17
In addition, consuming high amounts of dietary sulfites has been linked to headaches through unclear (ie, not necessarily allergic) mechanisms.4,22 One study found that wine with a higher sulfite concentration was associated with increased risk for headaches in participants who had a history of headaches related to wine consumption.22
Patch Testing to Sulfites
The North American Contact Dermatitis Group has tested sodium disulfite since 2017 and found an increased frequency of positive patch tests from 2.7% (N=4885) in 2017 and 201817 to 3.3% (N=4115) in 2019 and 202023 among patients referred for testing. Similarly, patch testing to sodium disulfite in nearly 40,000 patients in 9 European countries showed a pooled prevalence of reactions of 3.1%.17 However, this contact allergy may go unrecognized, as sulfites are not included in common patch test series, including the thin-layer rapid use epicutaneous test and the ACDS Core Allergen Series.24,25 The relatively high patch test positivity to sulfites along with the prevalence of daily exposures supports the addition of sulfites to more patch test screening series.
The recommended patch test concentration for sodium disulfite is 1% in petrolatum.5 Testing in aqueous solutions is not recommended because they can cause sulfites to break down, potentially producing false-positive or irritant patch test reactions.7,26,27
Recommendations for Patients With Sulfite Allergies
Individuals with contact allergies to sulfites should be counseled on exposure sources and should be given resources providing a list of safe products, such as the ACDS Contact Allergen Management Program (https://www.acdscamp.org/login) or SkinSAFE (https://www.skinsafeproducts.com/). Prescribers should be cognizant of sulfites that are present in prescription medications. Just because a patient has a positive patch test to sulfites does not automatically imply that they will need to modify their diet to avoid sulfite-containing foods; in the absence of cheilitis or a distribution suggestive of systemic contact dermatitis (eg, vesicular hand/foot dermatitis, intertriginous eruptions), this step may be unnecessary. On the other hand, individuals who have experienced immediate hypersensitivity reactions to sulfites should avoid sulfite-containing foods and carry an epinephrine autoinjector.
Final Interpretation
Sulfites are ubiquitous compounds found in various foods, beverages, medications, and personal care products in addition to a range of occupational exposures. The face and hands are the most common sites of sulfite ACD. Despite patch test positivity in as many as 3% of tested patients,17,23 sulfite allergy may be missed due to lack of routine testing on standard screening series.
- Ekstein SF, Warshaw EM. Sulfites: allergen of the year 2024. Dermatitis. 2024;35:6-12. doi:10.1089/derm.2023.0154
- Gunnison AF, Jacobsen DW. Sulfite hypersensitivity. a critical review. CRC Crit Rev Toxicol. 1987;17:185-214. doi:10.3109/10408448709071208
- Clough SR. Sodium sulfite. In: Wexler P, ed. Encyclopedia of Toxicology. 3rd ed. Academic Press; 2014: 341-343.
- Vally H, Misso NL, Madan V. Clinical effects of sulphite additives. Clin Exp Allergy. 2009;39:1643-1651. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2009.03362.x
- Ralph N, Verma S, Merry S, et al. What is the relevance of contact allergy to sodium metabisulfite and which concentration of the allergen should we use? Dermatitis. 2015;26:162-165. doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000120
- Madan V, Walker SL, Beck MH. Sodium metabisulfite allergy is common but is it relevant? Contact Dermatitis. 2007;57:173-176. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01188.x
- García-Gavín J, Parente J, Goossens A. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by sodium metabisulfite: a challenging allergen. a case series and literature review. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67:260-269. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2012.02135.x
- Milpied B, van Wassenhove L, Larousse C, et al. Contact dermatitis from rifamycin. Contact Dermatitis. 1986;14:252-253. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1986.tb01240.x
- Lodi A, Chiarelli G, Mancini LL, et al. Contact allergy to sodium sulfite contained in an antifungal preparation. Contact Dermatitis. 1993;29:97. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1993.tb03493.x
- Sánchez-Pérez J, Abajo P, Córdoba S, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from sodium metabisulfite in an antihemorrhoidal cream. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;42:176-177.
- Boyd AH, Warshaw EM. Sulfites: no longer a zebra? Dermatitis. 2017;28:364-366. doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000312
- Grosch E, Mahler V. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by a catheter system containing sodium metabisulfite. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;76:186-187. doi:10.1111/cod.12675
- Shaver RL, Warshaw EM. Contact allergens in prescription topical ophthalmic medications. Dermatitis. 2022;33:135-143. doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000751
- Dendooven E, Darrigade AS, Foubert K, et al. The presence of sulfites in ‘natural rubber latex’ and ‘synthetic’ rubber gloves: an experimental pilot study. Br J Dermatol. 2020;182:1054-1055. doi:10.1111/bjd.18608
- Nater JP. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by potassium metabisulfite. Dermatologica. 1968;136:477-478. doi:10.1159/000254143
- Borges AS, Valejo Coelho MM, Fernandes C, et al. Systemic allergic dermatitis caused by sodium metabisulfite in rectal enemas. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78:429-430. doi:10.1111/cod.12971
- Warshaw EM, Buonomo M, DeKoven JG, et al. Patch testing with sodium disulfite: North American Contact Dermatitis Group experience, 2017 to 2018. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;85:285-296. doi:10.1111/cod.13860
- Häberle M, Geier J, Mahler V. Contact allergy to sulfites: clinical and occupational relevance—new data from the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group and the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK). J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2016;14:938-941. doi:10.1111/ddg.13009
- Tan MG, Li HO, Pratt MD. Systemic allergic dermatitis to sodium metabisulfite in local anesthetic solution. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;86:120-121. doi:10.1111/cod.13978
- D’Amore T, Di Taranto A, Berardi G, et al. Sulfites in meat: occurrence, activity, toxicity, regulation, and detection. a comprehensive review. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2020;19:2701-2720. doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12607
- Grotheer P, Marshall M, Simonne A. Sulfites: separating fact from fiction. May 11, 2022. UF IFAS Extension. University of Florida. Accessed October 4, 2024. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/FY731
- Silva M, Gama J, Pinto N, et al. Sulfite concentration and the occurrence of headache in young adults: a prospective study. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2019;73:1316-1322. doi:10.1038/s41430-019-0420-2
- DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Reeder MJ, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2019-2020. Dermatitis. 2023;34:90-104. doi:10.1089/derm.2022.29017.jdk
- T.R.U.E. Test. Thin-layer rapid use epicutaneous patch test. SmartPractice Dermatology Allergy. Accessed October 4, 2024. https://www.smartpractice.com/shop/category?id=581719&m=SPA
- Schalock PC, Dunnick CA, Nedorost, et al; American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series Committee. American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series: 2020 update. Dermatitis. 2020;31:279-282.
- Kaaman AC, Boman A, Wrangsjö K, et al. Contact allergy to sodium metabisulfite: an occupational problem. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;63:110-112. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2010.01756.x
- Vena GA, Foti C, Angelini G. Sulfite contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;31:172-175. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1994.tb01959.x
- Ekstein SF, Warshaw EM. Sulfites: allergen of the year 2024. Dermatitis. 2024;35:6-12. doi:10.1089/derm.2023.0154
- Gunnison AF, Jacobsen DW. Sulfite hypersensitivity. a critical review. CRC Crit Rev Toxicol. 1987;17:185-214. doi:10.3109/10408448709071208
- Clough SR. Sodium sulfite. In: Wexler P, ed. Encyclopedia of Toxicology. 3rd ed. Academic Press; 2014: 341-343.
- Vally H, Misso NL, Madan V. Clinical effects of sulphite additives. Clin Exp Allergy. 2009;39:1643-1651. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2009.03362.x
- Ralph N, Verma S, Merry S, et al. What is the relevance of contact allergy to sodium metabisulfite and which concentration of the allergen should we use? Dermatitis. 2015;26:162-165. doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000120
- Madan V, Walker SL, Beck MH. Sodium metabisulfite allergy is common but is it relevant? Contact Dermatitis. 2007;57:173-176. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01188.x
- García-Gavín J, Parente J, Goossens A. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by sodium metabisulfite: a challenging allergen. a case series and literature review. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67:260-269. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2012.02135.x
- Milpied B, van Wassenhove L, Larousse C, et al. Contact dermatitis from rifamycin. Contact Dermatitis. 1986;14:252-253. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1986.tb01240.x
- Lodi A, Chiarelli G, Mancini LL, et al. Contact allergy to sodium sulfite contained in an antifungal preparation. Contact Dermatitis. 1993;29:97. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1993.tb03493.x
- Sánchez-Pérez J, Abajo P, Córdoba S, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from sodium metabisulfite in an antihemorrhoidal cream. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;42:176-177.
- Boyd AH, Warshaw EM. Sulfites: no longer a zebra? Dermatitis. 2017;28:364-366. doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000312
- Grosch E, Mahler V. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by a catheter system containing sodium metabisulfite. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;76:186-187. doi:10.1111/cod.12675
- Shaver RL, Warshaw EM. Contact allergens in prescription topical ophthalmic medications. Dermatitis. 2022;33:135-143. doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000751
- Dendooven E, Darrigade AS, Foubert K, et al. The presence of sulfites in ‘natural rubber latex’ and ‘synthetic’ rubber gloves: an experimental pilot study. Br J Dermatol. 2020;182:1054-1055. doi:10.1111/bjd.18608
- Nater JP. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by potassium metabisulfite. Dermatologica. 1968;136:477-478. doi:10.1159/000254143
- Borges AS, Valejo Coelho MM, Fernandes C, et al. Systemic allergic dermatitis caused by sodium metabisulfite in rectal enemas. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78:429-430. doi:10.1111/cod.12971
- Warshaw EM, Buonomo M, DeKoven JG, et al. Patch testing with sodium disulfite: North American Contact Dermatitis Group experience, 2017 to 2018. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;85:285-296. doi:10.1111/cod.13860
- Häberle M, Geier J, Mahler V. Contact allergy to sulfites: clinical and occupational relevance—new data from the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group and the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK). J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2016;14:938-941. doi:10.1111/ddg.13009
- Tan MG, Li HO, Pratt MD. Systemic allergic dermatitis to sodium metabisulfite in local anesthetic solution. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;86:120-121. doi:10.1111/cod.13978
- D’Amore T, Di Taranto A, Berardi G, et al. Sulfites in meat: occurrence, activity, toxicity, regulation, and detection. a comprehensive review. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2020;19:2701-2720. doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12607
- Grotheer P, Marshall M, Simonne A. Sulfites: separating fact from fiction. May 11, 2022. UF IFAS Extension. University of Florida. Accessed October 4, 2024. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/FY731
- Silva M, Gama J, Pinto N, et al. Sulfite concentration and the occurrence of headache in young adults: a prospective study. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2019;73:1316-1322. doi:10.1038/s41430-019-0420-2
- DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Reeder MJ, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2019-2020. Dermatitis. 2023;34:90-104. doi:10.1089/derm.2022.29017.jdk
- T.R.U.E. Test. Thin-layer rapid use epicutaneous patch test. SmartPractice Dermatology Allergy. Accessed October 4, 2024. https://www.smartpractice.com/shop/category?id=581719&m=SPA
- Schalock PC, Dunnick CA, Nedorost, et al; American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series Committee. American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series: 2020 update. Dermatitis. 2020;31:279-282.
- Kaaman AC, Boman A, Wrangsjö K, et al. Contact allergy to sodium metabisulfite: an occupational problem. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;63:110-112. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2010.01756.x
- Vena GA, Foti C, Angelini G. Sulfite contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;31:172-175. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1994.tb01959.x
Practice Points
- Sulfites are ubiquitous compounds that serve as preservatives and antioxidants in various foods, beverages, medications, and personal care products.
- Allergic contact dermatitis to sulfites most commonly affects the face and hands.
- Because sulfites are not included in most patch test screening series, contact allergy to sulfites may be missed unless expanded testing is performed.
Cosmetic Dermatology Product Recalls Still Common, Analysis Finds
TOPLINE:
Between 2011 and 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported recalls of 334 cosmetic dermatology products in the United States, affecting over 77 million units, predominantly due to bacterial contamination.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the FDA Enforcement Report database for cosmetic dermatology products from 2011 to 2023.
- Cosmetic products are any article “intended for body cleaning or beauty enhancement,” as defined by the FDA.
- Recalls were categorized by product type, reason for the recall, microbial contaminant, inorganic contaminant, distribution, and risk classification.
TAKEAWAY:
- During the study period, 334 voluntary and manufacturer-initiated recalls of cosmetic products were reported, affecting 77,135,700 units.
- A total of 297 recalls (88.9%) were categorized as Class II, indicating that they caused “medically reversible health consequences.” The median recall duration was 307 days.
- Hygiene and cleaning products accounted for most of the recalls (51.5%). Makeup gels, soaps, shampoos, tattoo ink, wipes, and lotions were the most recalled product categories. Nearly 51% of the products were distributed internationally.
- Microbial and inorganic contamination accounted for 76.8% and 10.2% of the recalls (the two most common reasons for the recall), respectively, with bacteria (80%) the most common contaminating pathogen (primarily Pseudomonas and Burkholderia species).
IN PRACTICE:
With 77 million units recalled by the FDA over 12 years, cosmetic recalls have remained common, the authors concluded, adding that “dermatologists should be key voices in pharmacovigilance given scientific expertise and frontline experience managing products and associated concerns.” Dermatologists, they added, “should also be aware of FDA enforcement reports for recall updates given that average recall termination took approximately 1 year.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Kaushik P. Venkatesh, MBA, MPH, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and was published online on October 29 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s limitations include the potential underreporting of Class III recalls (products that are unlikely to cause any adverse health reaction but violate FDA labeling or manufacturing laws) and lack of complete information on contaminants.
DISCLOSURES:
No information on funding was provided in the study. No conflicts of interest were reported.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Between 2011 and 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported recalls of 334 cosmetic dermatology products in the United States, affecting over 77 million units, predominantly due to bacterial contamination.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the FDA Enforcement Report database for cosmetic dermatology products from 2011 to 2023.
- Cosmetic products are any article “intended for body cleaning or beauty enhancement,” as defined by the FDA.
- Recalls were categorized by product type, reason for the recall, microbial contaminant, inorganic contaminant, distribution, and risk classification.
TAKEAWAY:
- During the study period, 334 voluntary and manufacturer-initiated recalls of cosmetic products were reported, affecting 77,135,700 units.
- A total of 297 recalls (88.9%) were categorized as Class II, indicating that they caused “medically reversible health consequences.” The median recall duration was 307 days.
- Hygiene and cleaning products accounted for most of the recalls (51.5%). Makeup gels, soaps, shampoos, tattoo ink, wipes, and lotions were the most recalled product categories. Nearly 51% of the products were distributed internationally.
- Microbial and inorganic contamination accounted for 76.8% and 10.2% of the recalls (the two most common reasons for the recall), respectively, with bacteria (80%) the most common contaminating pathogen (primarily Pseudomonas and Burkholderia species).
IN PRACTICE:
With 77 million units recalled by the FDA over 12 years, cosmetic recalls have remained common, the authors concluded, adding that “dermatologists should be key voices in pharmacovigilance given scientific expertise and frontline experience managing products and associated concerns.” Dermatologists, they added, “should also be aware of FDA enforcement reports for recall updates given that average recall termination took approximately 1 year.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Kaushik P. Venkatesh, MBA, MPH, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and was published online on October 29 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s limitations include the potential underreporting of Class III recalls (products that are unlikely to cause any adverse health reaction but violate FDA labeling or manufacturing laws) and lack of complete information on contaminants.
DISCLOSURES:
No information on funding was provided in the study. No conflicts of interest were reported.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Between 2011 and 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported recalls of 334 cosmetic dermatology products in the United States, affecting over 77 million units, predominantly due to bacterial contamination.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the FDA Enforcement Report database for cosmetic dermatology products from 2011 to 2023.
- Cosmetic products are any article “intended for body cleaning or beauty enhancement,” as defined by the FDA.
- Recalls were categorized by product type, reason for the recall, microbial contaminant, inorganic contaminant, distribution, and risk classification.
TAKEAWAY:
- During the study period, 334 voluntary and manufacturer-initiated recalls of cosmetic products were reported, affecting 77,135,700 units.
- A total of 297 recalls (88.9%) were categorized as Class II, indicating that they caused “medically reversible health consequences.” The median recall duration was 307 days.
- Hygiene and cleaning products accounted for most of the recalls (51.5%). Makeup gels, soaps, shampoos, tattoo ink, wipes, and lotions were the most recalled product categories. Nearly 51% of the products were distributed internationally.
- Microbial and inorganic contamination accounted for 76.8% and 10.2% of the recalls (the two most common reasons for the recall), respectively, with bacteria (80%) the most common contaminating pathogen (primarily Pseudomonas and Burkholderia species).
IN PRACTICE:
With 77 million units recalled by the FDA over 12 years, cosmetic recalls have remained common, the authors concluded, adding that “dermatologists should be key voices in pharmacovigilance given scientific expertise and frontline experience managing products and associated concerns.” Dermatologists, they added, “should also be aware of FDA enforcement reports for recall updates given that average recall termination took approximately 1 year.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Kaushik P. Venkatesh, MBA, MPH, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and was published online on October 29 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s limitations include the potential underreporting of Class III recalls (products that are unlikely to cause any adverse health reaction but violate FDA labeling or manufacturing laws) and lack of complete information on contaminants.
DISCLOSURES:
No information on funding was provided in the study. No conflicts of interest were reported.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Asteraceae Dermatitis: Everyday Plants With Allergenic Potential
The Asteraceae (formerly Compositae) family of plants is derived from the ancient Greek word aster, meaning “star,” referring to the starlike arrangement of flower petals around a central disc known as a capitulum. What initially appears as a single flower is actually a composite of several smaller flowers, hence the former name Compositae.1 Well-known members of the Asteraceae family include ornamental annuals (eg, sunflowers, marigolds, cosmos), herbaceous perennials (eg, chrysanthemums, dandelions), vegetables (eg, lettuce, chicory, artichokes), herbs (eg, chamomile, tarragon), and weeds (eg, ragweed, horseweed, capeweed)(Figure 1).2
There are more than 25,000 species of Asteraceae plants that thrive in a wide range of climates worldwide. Cases of Asteraceae-induced skin reactions have been reported in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.3 Members of the Asteraceae family are ubiquitous in gardens, along roadsides, and in the wilderness. Occupational exposure commonly affects gardeners, florists, farmers, and forestry workers through either direct contact with plants or via airborne pollen. Furthermore, plants of the Asteraceae family are used in various products, including pediculicides (eg, insect repellents), cosmetics (eg, eye creams, body washes), and food products (eg, cooking oils, sweetening agents, coffee substitutes, herbal teas).4-6 These plants have substantial allergic potential, resulting in numerous cutaneous reactions.
Allergic Potential
Asteraceae plants can elicit both immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs); for instance, exposure to ragweed pollen may cause an IgE-mediated type 1 HSR manifesting as allergic rhinitis or a type IV HSR manifesting as airborne allergic contact dermatitis.7,8 The main contact allergens present in Asteraceae plants are sesquiterpene lactones, which are found in the leaves, stems, flowers, and pollen.9-11 Sesquiterpene lactones consist of an α-methyl group attached to a lactone ring combined with a sesquiterpene.12 Patch testing can be used to diagnose Asteraceae allergy; however, the results are not consistently reliable because there is no perfect screening allergen. Patch test preparations commonly used to detect Asteraceae allergy include Compositae mix (consisting of Anthemis nobilis extract, Chamomilla recutita extract, Achillea millefolium extract, Tanacetum vulgare extract, Arnica montana extract, and parthenolide) and sesquiterpene lactone mix (consisting of alantolactone, dehydrocostus lactone, and costunolide). In North America, the prevalence of positive patch tests to Compositae mix and sesquiterpene lactone mix is approximately 2% and 0.5%, respectively.13 When patch testing is performed, both Compositae mix and sesquiterpene lactone mix should be utilized to minimize the risk of missing Asteraceae allergy, as sesquiterpene lactone mix alone does not detect all Compositae-sensitized patients. Additionally, it may be necessary to test supplemental Asteraceae allergens, including preparations from specific plants to which the patient has been exposed. Exposure to Asteraceae-containing cosmetic products may lead to dermatitis, though this is highly dependent on the particular plant species involved. For instance, the prevalence of sensitization is high in arnica (tincture) and elecampane but low with more commonly used species such as German chamomile.14
Cutaneous Manifestations
Asteraceae dermatitis, which also is known as Australian bush dermatitis, weed dermatitis, and chrysanthemum dermatitis,2 can manifest on any area of the body that directly contacts the plant or is exposed to the pollen. Asteraceae dermatitis historically was reported in older adults with a recent history of plant exposure.6,15 However, recent data have shown a female preponderance and a younger mean age of onset (46–49 years).16
There are multiple distinct clinical manifestations of Asteraceae dermatitis. The most common cutaneous finding is localized vesicular or eczematous patches on the hands or wrists. Other variations include eczematous rashes on the exposed skin of the hands, arms, face, and neck; generalized eczema; and isolated facial eczema.16,17 These variations can be attributed to contact dermatitis caused by airborne pollen, which may mimic photodermatitis. However, airborne Asteraceae dermatitis can be distinguished clinically from photodermatitis by the involvement of sun-protected areas such as the skinfolds of the eyelids, retroauricular sulci, and nasolabial folds (Figure 2).2,9 In rare cases, systemic allergic contact dermatitis can occur if the Asteraceae allergen is ingested.2,18
Other diagnostic clues include dermatitis that flares during the summer, at the peak of the growing season, with remission in the cooler months. Potential risk factors include a childhood history of atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis.16 With prolonged exposure, patients may develop chronic actinic dermatitis, an immunologically mediated photodermatosis characterized by lichenified and pruritic eczematous plaques located predominantly on sun-exposed areas with notable sparing of the skin folds.19 The association between Asteraceae dermatitis and chronic actinic dermatitis is highly variable, with some studies reporting a 25% correlation and others finding a stronger association of up to 80%.2,15,20 Asteraceae allergy appears to be a relatively uncommon cause of photoallergy in North America. In one recent study, 16% (3/19) of patients with chronic actinic dermatitis had positive patch or photopatch tests to sesquiterpene lactone mix, but in another large study of photopatch testing it was reported to be a rare photoallergen.21,22
Parthenium dermatitis is an allergic contact dermatitis caused by exposure to Parthenium hysterophorus, a weed of the Asteraceae family that is responsible for 30% of cases of contact dermatitis in India.23,24 Unlike the more classic manifestation of Asteraceae dermatitis, which primarily affects the upper extremities in cases from North America and Europe, Parthenium dermatitis typically occurs in an airborne pattern distribution.24
Management
While complete avoidance of Asteraceae plants is ideal, it often is unrealistic due to their abundance in nature. Therefore, minimizing exposure to the causative plants is recommended. Primary preventive measures such as wearing protective gloves and clothing and applying bentonite clay prior to exposure should be taken when working outdoors. Promptly showering after contact with plants also can reduce the risk for Asteraceae dermatitis.
Symptomatic treatment is appropriate for mild cases and includes topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors. For severe cases, systemic corticosteroids may be needed for acute flares, with azathioprine, mycophenolate, cyclosporine, or methotrexate available for recalcitrant disease. Verma et al25 found that treatment with azathioprine for 6 months resulted in greater than 60% clearance in all 12 patients, with a majority achieving 80% to 100% clearance. Methotrexate has been used at doses of 15 mg once weekly.26 Narrowband UVB and psoralen plus UVA have been effective in extensive cases; however, care should be exercised in patients with photosensitive dermatitis, who instead should practice strict photoprotection.27-29 Lakshmi et al30 reported the use of cyclosporine during the acute phase of Asteraceae dermatitis at a dose of 2.5 mg/kg daily for 4 to 8 weeks. There have been several case reports of dupilumab treating allergic contact dermatitis; however, there have been 3 cases of patients with atopic dermatitis developing Asteraceae dermatitis while taking dupilumab.31,32 Recently, oral Janus kinase inhibitors have shown success in treating refractory cases of airborne Asteraceae dermatitis.33,34 Further research is needed to determine the safety and efficacy of dupilumab and Janus kinase inhibitors for treatment of Asteraceae dermatitis.
Final Thoughts
The Asteraceae plant family is vast and diverse, with more than 200 species reported to cause allergic contact dermatitis.12 Common modes of contact include gardening, occupational exposure, airborne pollen, and use of pediculicides and cosmetics that contain components of Asteraceae plants. Educating patients on how to minimize contact with Asteraceae plants is the most effective management strategy; topical agents and oral immunosuppressives can be used for symptomatic treatment.
- Morhardt S, Morhardt E. California Desert Flowers: An Introduction to Families, Genera, and Species. University of California Press; 2004.
- Gordon LA. Compositae dermatitis. Australas J Dermatol. 1999;40:123-130. doi:10.1046/j.1440-0960.1999.00341.x
- Denisow-Pietrzyk M, Pietrzyk Ł, Denisow B. Asteraceae species as potential environmental factors of allergy. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2019;26:6290-6300. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-04146-w
- Paulsen E, Chistensen LP, Andersen KE. Cosmetics and herbal remedies with Compositae plant extracts—are they tolerated by Compositae-allergic patients? Contact Dermatitis. 2008;58:15-23. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01250.x
- Burry JN, Reid JG, Kirk J. Australian bush dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1975;1:263-264. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1975.tb05422.x
- Punchihewa N, Palmer A, Nixon R. Allergic contact dermatitis to Compositae: an Australian case series. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;87:356-362. doi:10.1111/cod.14162
- Chen KW, Marusciac L, Tamas PT, et al. Ragweed pollen allergy: burden, characteristics, and management of an imported allergen source in Europe. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2018;176:163-180. doi:10.1159/000487997
- Schloemer JA, Zirwas MJ, Burkhart CG. Airborne contact dermatitis: common causes in the USA. Int J Dermatol. 2015;54:271-274. doi:10.1111/ijd.12692
- Arlette J, Mitchell JC. Compositae dermatitis. current aspects. Contact Dermatitis. 1981;7:129-136. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1981.tb04584.x
- Mitchell JC, Dupuis G. Allergic contact dermatitis from sesquiterpenoids of the Compositae family of plants. Br J Dermatol. 1971;84:139-150. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.1971.tb06857.x
- Salapovic H, Geier J, Reznicek G. Quantification of Sesquiterpene lactones in Asteraceae plant extracts: evaluation of their allergenic potential. Sci Pharm. 2013;81:807-818. doi:10.3797/scipharm.1306-17
- Paulsen E. Compositae dermatitis: a survey. Contact Dermatitis. 1992;26:76-86. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1992.tb00888.x. Published correction appears in Contact Dermatitis. 1992;27:208.
- DeKoven JG, Silverberg JI, Warshaw EM, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2017-2018. Dermatitis. 2021;32:111-123. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000729
- Paulsen E. Contact sensitization from Compositae-containing herbal remedies and cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;47:189-198. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0536.2002.470401.x
- Frain-Bell W, Johnson BE. Contact allergic sensitivity to plants and the photosensitivity dermatitis and actinic reticuloid syndrome. Br J Dermatol. 1979;101:503-512.
- Paulsen E, Andersen KE. Clinical patterns of Compositae dermatitis in Danish monosensitized patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78:185-193. doi:10.1111/cod.12916
- Jovanovic´ M, Poljacki M. Compositae dermatitis. Med Pregl. 2003;56:43-49. doi:10.2298/mpns0302043j
- Krook G. Occupational dermatitis from Lactuca sativa (lettuce) and Cichorium (endive). simultaneous occurrence of immediate and delayed allergy as a cause of contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1977;3:27-36. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1977.tb03583.x
- Paek SY, Lim HW. Chronic actinic dermatitis. Dermatol Clin. 2014;32:355-361, viii-ix. doi:10.1016/j.det.2014.03.007
- du P Menagé H, Hawk JL, White IR. Sesquiterpene lactone mix contact sensitivity and its relationship to chronic actinic dermatitis: a follow-up study. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;39:119-122. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1998.tb05859.x
- Wang CX, Belsito DV. Chronic actinic dermatitis revisited. Dermatitis. 2020;31:68-74. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000531
- DeLeo VA, Adler BL, Warshaw EM, et al. Photopatch test results of the North American contact dermatitis group, 1999-2009. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2022;38:288-291. doi:10.1111/phpp.12742
- McGovern TW, LaWarre S. Botanical briefs: the scourge of India—Parthenium hysterophorus L. Cutis. 2001;67:27-34. Published correction appears in Cutis. 2001;67:154.
- Sharma VK, Verma P, Maharaja K. Parthenium dermatitis. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2013;12:85-94. doi:10.1039/c2pp25186h
- Verma KK, Bansal A, Sethuraman G. Parthenium dermatitis treated with azathioprine weekly pulse doses. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2006;72:24-27. doi:10.4103/0378-6323.19713
- Sharma VK, Bhat R, Sethuraman G, et al. Treatment of Parthenium dermatitis with methotrexate. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;57:118-119. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.00950.x
- Burke DA, Corey G, Storrs FJ. Psoralen plus UVA protocol for Compositae photosensitivity. Am J Contact Dermat. 1996;7:171-176.
- Lovell CR. Allergic contact dermatitis due to plants. In: Plants and the Skin. Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1993:96-254.
- Dogra S, Parsad D, Handa S. Narrowband ultraviolet B in airborne contact dermatitis: a ray of hope! Br J Dermatol. 2004;150:373-374. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2004.05724.x
- Lakshmi C, Srinivas CR, Jayaraman A. Ciclosporin in Parthenium dermatitis—a report of 2 cases. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;59:245-248. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01208.x
- Hendricks AJ, Yosipovitch G, Shi VY. Dupilumab use in dermatologic conditions beyond atopic dermatitis—a systematic review. J Dermatolog Treat. 2021;32:19-28. doi:10.1080/09546634.2019.1689227
- Napolitano M, Fabbrocini G, Patruno C. Allergic contact dermatitis to Compositae: a possible cause of dupilumab-associated facial and neck dermatitis in atopic dermatitis patients? Contact Dermatitis. 2021;85:473-474. doi:10.1111/cod.13898
- Muddebihal A, Sardana K, Sinha S, et al. Tofacitinib in refractory Parthenium-induced airborne allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2023;88:150-152. doi:10.1111/cod.14234
- Baltazar D, Shinamoto SR, Hamann CP, et al. Occupational airborne allergic contact dermatitis to invasive Compositae species treated with abrocitinib: a case report. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;87:542-544. doi:10.1111/cod.14204
The Asteraceae (formerly Compositae) family of plants is derived from the ancient Greek word aster, meaning “star,” referring to the starlike arrangement of flower petals around a central disc known as a capitulum. What initially appears as a single flower is actually a composite of several smaller flowers, hence the former name Compositae.1 Well-known members of the Asteraceae family include ornamental annuals (eg, sunflowers, marigolds, cosmos), herbaceous perennials (eg, chrysanthemums, dandelions), vegetables (eg, lettuce, chicory, artichokes), herbs (eg, chamomile, tarragon), and weeds (eg, ragweed, horseweed, capeweed)(Figure 1).2
There are more than 25,000 species of Asteraceae plants that thrive in a wide range of climates worldwide. Cases of Asteraceae-induced skin reactions have been reported in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.3 Members of the Asteraceae family are ubiquitous in gardens, along roadsides, and in the wilderness. Occupational exposure commonly affects gardeners, florists, farmers, and forestry workers through either direct contact with plants or via airborne pollen. Furthermore, plants of the Asteraceae family are used in various products, including pediculicides (eg, insect repellents), cosmetics (eg, eye creams, body washes), and food products (eg, cooking oils, sweetening agents, coffee substitutes, herbal teas).4-6 These plants have substantial allergic potential, resulting in numerous cutaneous reactions.
Allergic Potential
Asteraceae plants can elicit both immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs); for instance, exposure to ragweed pollen may cause an IgE-mediated type 1 HSR manifesting as allergic rhinitis or a type IV HSR manifesting as airborne allergic contact dermatitis.7,8 The main contact allergens present in Asteraceae plants are sesquiterpene lactones, which are found in the leaves, stems, flowers, and pollen.9-11 Sesquiterpene lactones consist of an α-methyl group attached to a lactone ring combined with a sesquiterpene.12 Patch testing can be used to diagnose Asteraceae allergy; however, the results are not consistently reliable because there is no perfect screening allergen. Patch test preparations commonly used to detect Asteraceae allergy include Compositae mix (consisting of Anthemis nobilis extract, Chamomilla recutita extract, Achillea millefolium extract, Tanacetum vulgare extract, Arnica montana extract, and parthenolide) and sesquiterpene lactone mix (consisting of alantolactone, dehydrocostus lactone, and costunolide). In North America, the prevalence of positive patch tests to Compositae mix and sesquiterpene lactone mix is approximately 2% and 0.5%, respectively.13 When patch testing is performed, both Compositae mix and sesquiterpene lactone mix should be utilized to minimize the risk of missing Asteraceae allergy, as sesquiterpene lactone mix alone does not detect all Compositae-sensitized patients. Additionally, it may be necessary to test supplemental Asteraceae allergens, including preparations from specific plants to which the patient has been exposed. Exposure to Asteraceae-containing cosmetic products may lead to dermatitis, though this is highly dependent on the particular plant species involved. For instance, the prevalence of sensitization is high in arnica (tincture) and elecampane but low with more commonly used species such as German chamomile.14
Cutaneous Manifestations
Asteraceae dermatitis, which also is known as Australian bush dermatitis, weed dermatitis, and chrysanthemum dermatitis,2 can manifest on any area of the body that directly contacts the plant or is exposed to the pollen. Asteraceae dermatitis historically was reported in older adults with a recent history of plant exposure.6,15 However, recent data have shown a female preponderance and a younger mean age of onset (46–49 years).16
There are multiple distinct clinical manifestations of Asteraceae dermatitis. The most common cutaneous finding is localized vesicular or eczematous patches on the hands or wrists. Other variations include eczematous rashes on the exposed skin of the hands, arms, face, and neck; generalized eczema; and isolated facial eczema.16,17 These variations can be attributed to contact dermatitis caused by airborne pollen, which may mimic photodermatitis. However, airborne Asteraceae dermatitis can be distinguished clinically from photodermatitis by the involvement of sun-protected areas such as the skinfolds of the eyelids, retroauricular sulci, and nasolabial folds (Figure 2).2,9 In rare cases, systemic allergic contact dermatitis can occur if the Asteraceae allergen is ingested.2,18
Other diagnostic clues include dermatitis that flares during the summer, at the peak of the growing season, with remission in the cooler months. Potential risk factors include a childhood history of atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis.16 With prolonged exposure, patients may develop chronic actinic dermatitis, an immunologically mediated photodermatosis characterized by lichenified and pruritic eczematous plaques located predominantly on sun-exposed areas with notable sparing of the skin folds.19 The association between Asteraceae dermatitis and chronic actinic dermatitis is highly variable, with some studies reporting a 25% correlation and others finding a stronger association of up to 80%.2,15,20 Asteraceae allergy appears to be a relatively uncommon cause of photoallergy in North America. In one recent study, 16% (3/19) of patients with chronic actinic dermatitis had positive patch or photopatch tests to sesquiterpene lactone mix, but in another large study of photopatch testing it was reported to be a rare photoallergen.21,22
Parthenium dermatitis is an allergic contact dermatitis caused by exposure to Parthenium hysterophorus, a weed of the Asteraceae family that is responsible for 30% of cases of contact dermatitis in India.23,24 Unlike the more classic manifestation of Asteraceae dermatitis, which primarily affects the upper extremities in cases from North America and Europe, Parthenium dermatitis typically occurs in an airborne pattern distribution.24
Management
While complete avoidance of Asteraceae plants is ideal, it often is unrealistic due to their abundance in nature. Therefore, minimizing exposure to the causative plants is recommended. Primary preventive measures such as wearing protective gloves and clothing and applying bentonite clay prior to exposure should be taken when working outdoors. Promptly showering after contact with plants also can reduce the risk for Asteraceae dermatitis.
Symptomatic treatment is appropriate for mild cases and includes topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors. For severe cases, systemic corticosteroids may be needed for acute flares, with azathioprine, mycophenolate, cyclosporine, or methotrexate available for recalcitrant disease. Verma et al25 found that treatment with azathioprine for 6 months resulted in greater than 60% clearance in all 12 patients, with a majority achieving 80% to 100% clearance. Methotrexate has been used at doses of 15 mg once weekly.26 Narrowband UVB and psoralen plus UVA have been effective in extensive cases; however, care should be exercised in patients with photosensitive dermatitis, who instead should practice strict photoprotection.27-29 Lakshmi et al30 reported the use of cyclosporine during the acute phase of Asteraceae dermatitis at a dose of 2.5 mg/kg daily for 4 to 8 weeks. There have been several case reports of dupilumab treating allergic contact dermatitis; however, there have been 3 cases of patients with atopic dermatitis developing Asteraceae dermatitis while taking dupilumab.31,32 Recently, oral Janus kinase inhibitors have shown success in treating refractory cases of airborne Asteraceae dermatitis.33,34 Further research is needed to determine the safety and efficacy of dupilumab and Janus kinase inhibitors for treatment of Asteraceae dermatitis.
Final Thoughts
The Asteraceae plant family is vast and diverse, with more than 200 species reported to cause allergic contact dermatitis.12 Common modes of contact include gardening, occupational exposure, airborne pollen, and use of pediculicides and cosmetics that contain components of Asteraceae plants. Educating patients on how to minimize contact with Asteraceae plants is the most effective management strategy; topical agents and oral immunosuppressives can be used for symptomatic treatment.
The Asteraceae (formerly Compositae) family of plants is derived from the ancient Greek word aster, meaning “star,” referring to the starlike arrangement of flower petals around a central disc known as a capitulum. What initially appears as a single flower is actually a composite of several smaller flowers, hence the former name Compositae.1 Well-known members of the Asteraceae family include ornamental annuals (eg, sunflowers, marigolds, cosmos), herbaceous perennials (eg, chrysanthemums, dandelions), vegetables (eg, lettuce, chicory, artichokes), herbs (eg, chamomile, tarragon), and weeds (eg, ragweed, horseweed, capeweed)(Figure 1).2
There are more than 25,000 species of Asteraceae plants that thrive in a wide range of climates worldwide. Cases of Asteraceae-induced skin reactions have been reported in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.3 Members of the Asteraceae family are ubiquitous in gardens, along roadsides, and in the wilderness. Occupational exposure commonly affects gardeners, florists, farmers, and forestry workers through either direct contact with plants or via airborne pollen. Furthermore, plants of the Asteraceae family are used in various products, including pediculicides (eg, insect repellents), cosmetics (eg, eye creams, body washes), and food products (eg, cooking oils, sweetening agents, coffee substitutes, herbal teas).4-6 These plants have substantial allergic potential, resulting in numerous cutaneous reactions.
Allergic Potential
Asteraceae plants can elicit both immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs); for instance, exposure to ragweed pollen may cause an IgE-mediated type 1 HSR manifesting as allergic rhinitis or a type IV HSR manifesting as airborne allergic contact dermatitis.7,8 The main contact allergens present in Asteraceae plants are sesquiterpene lactones, which are found in the leaves, stems, flowers, and pollen.9-11 Sesquiterpene lactones consist of an α-methyl group attached to a lactone ring combined with a sesquiterpene.12 Patch testing can be used to diagnose Asteraceae allergy; however, the results are not consistently reliable because there is no perfect screening allergen. Patch test preparations commonly used to detect Asteraceae allergy include Compositae mix (consisting of Anthemis nobilis extract, Chamomilla recutita extract, Achillea millefolium extract, Tanacetum vulgare extract, Arnica montana extract, and parthenolide) and sesquiterpene lactone mix (consisting of alantolactone, dehydrocostus lactone, and costunolide). In North America, the prevalence of positive patch tests to Compositae mix and sesquiterpene lactone mix is approximately 2% and 0.5%, respectively.13 When patch testing is performed, both Compositae mix and sesquiterpene lactone mix should be utilized to minimize the risk of missing Asteraceae allergy, as sesquiterpene lactone mix alone does not detect all Compositae-sensitized patients. Additionally, it may be necessary to test supplemental Asteraceae allergens, including preparations from specific plants to which the patient has been exposed. Exposure to Asteraceae-containing cosmetic products may lead to dermatitis, though this is highly dependent on the particular plant species involved. For instance, the prevalence of sensitization is high in arnica (tincture) and elecampane but low with more commonly used species such as German chamomile.14
Cutaneous Manifestations
Asteraceae dermatitis, which also is known as Australian bush dermatitis, weed dermatitis, and chrysanthemum dermatitis,2 can manifest on any area of the body that directly contacts the plant or is exposed to the pollen. Asteraceae dermatitis historically was reported in older adults with a recent history of plant exposure.6,15 However, recent data have shown a female preponderance and a younger mean age of onset (46–49 years).16
There are multiple distinct clinical manifestations of Asteraceae dermatitis. The most common cutaneous finding is localized vesicular or eczematous patches on the hands or wrists. Other variations include eczematous rashes on the exposed skin of the hands, arms, face, and neck; generalized eczema; and isolated facial eczema.16,17 These variations can be attributed to contact dermatitis caused by airborne pollen, which may mimic photodermatitis. However, airborne Asteraceae dermatitis can be distinguished clinically from photodermatitis by the involvement of sun-protected areas such as the skinfolds of the eyelids, retroauricular sulci, and nasolabial folds (Figure 2).2,9 In rare cases, systemic allergic contact dermatitis can occur if the Asteraceae allergen is ingested.2,18
Other diagnostic clues include dermatitis that flares during the summer, at the peak of the growing season, with remission in the cooler months. Potential risk factors include a childhood history of atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis.16 With prolonged exposure, patients may develop chronic actinic dermatitis, an immunologically mediated photodermatosis characterized by lichenified and pruritic eczematous plaques located predominantly on sun-exposed areas with notable sparing of the skin folds.19 The association between Asteraceae dermatitis and chronic actinic dermatitis is highly variable, with some studies reporting a 25% correlation and others finding a stronger association of up to 80%.2,15,20 Asteraceae allergy appears to be a relatively uncommon cause of photoallergy in North America. In one recent study, 16% (3/19) of patients with chronic actinic dermatitis had positive patch or photopatch tests to sesquiterpene lactone mix, but in another large study of photopatch testing it was reported to be a rare photoallergen.21,22
Parthenium dermatitis is an allergic contact dermatitis caused by exposure to Parthenium hysterophorus, a weed of the Asteraceae family that is responsible for 30% of cases of contact dermatitis in India.23,24 Unlike the more classic manifestation of Asteraceae dermatitis, which primarily affects the upper extremities in cases from North America and Europe, Parthenium dermatitis typically occurs in an airborne pattern distribution.24
Management
While complete avoidance of Asteraceae plants is ideal, it often is unrealistic due to their abundance in nature. Therefore, minimizing exposure to the causative plants is recommended. Primary preventive measures such as wearing protective gloves and clothing and applying bentonite clay prior to exposure should be taken when working outdoors. Promptly showering after contact with plants also can reduce the risk for Asteraceae dermatitis.
Symptomatic treatment is appropriate for mild cases and includes topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors. For severe cases, systemic corticosteroids may be needed for acute flares, with azathioprine, mycophenolate, cyclosporine, or methotrexate available for recalcitrant disease. Verma et al25 found that treatment with azathioprine for 6 months resulted in greater than 60% clearance in all 12 patients, with a majority achieving 80% to 100% clearance. Methotrexate has been used at doses of 15 mg once weekly.26 Narrowband UVB and psoralen plus UVA have been effective in extensive cases; however, care should be exercised in patients with photosensitive dermatitis, who instead should practice strict photoprotection.27-29 Lakshmi et al30 reported the use of cyclosporine during the acute phase of Asteraceae dermatitis at a dose of 2.5 mg/kg daily for 4 to 8 weeks. There have been several case reports of dupilumab treating allergic contact dermatitis; however, there have been 3 cases of patients with atopic dermatitis developing Asteraceae dermatitis while taking dupilumab.31,32 Recently, oral Janus kinase inhibitors have shown success in treating refractory cases of airborne Asteraceae dermatitis.33,34 Further research is needed to determine the safety and efficacy of dupilumab and Janus kinase inhibitors for treatment of Asteraceae dermatitis.
Final Thoughts
The Asteraceae plant family is vast and diverse, with more than 200 species reported to cause allergic contact dermatitis.12 Common modes of contact include gardening, occupational exposure, airborne pollen, and use of pediculicides and cosmetics that contain components of Asteraceae plants. Educating patients on how to minimize contact with Asteraceae plants is the most effective management strategy; topical agents and oral immunosuppressives can be used for symptomatic treatment.
- Morhardt S, Morhardt E. California Desert Flowers: An Introduction to Families, Genera, and Species. University of California Press; 2004.
- Gordon LA. Compositae dermatitis. Australas J Dermatol. 1999;40:123-130. doi:10.1046/j.1440-0960.1999.00341.x
- Denisow-Pietrzyk M, Pietrzyk Ł, Denisow B. Asteraceae species as potential environmental factors of allergy. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2019;26:6290-6300. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-04146-w
- Paulsen E, Chistensen LP, Andersen KE. Cosmetics and herbal remedies with Compositae plant extracts—are they tolerated by Compositae-allergic patients? Contact Dermatitis. 2008;58:15-23. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01250.x
- Burry JN, Reid JG, Kirk J. Australian bush dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1975;1:263-264. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1975.tb05422.x
- Punchihewa N, Palmer A, Nixon R. Allergic contact dermatitis to Compositae: an Australian case series. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;87:356-362. doi:10.1111/cod.14162
- Chen KW, Marusciac L, Tamas PT, et al. Ragweed pollen allergy: burden, characteristics, and management of an imported allergen source in Europe. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2018;176:163-180. doi:10.1159/000487997
- Schloemer JA, Zirwas MJ, Burkhart CG. Airborne contact dermatitis: common causes in the USA. Int J Dermatol. 2015;54:271-274. doi:10.1111/ijd.12692
- Arlette J, Mitchell JC. Compositae dermatitis. current aspects. Contact Dermatitis. 1981;7:129-136. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1981.tb04584.x
- Mitchell JC, Dupuis G. Allergic contact dermatitis from sesquiterpenoids of the Compositae family of plants. Br J Dermatol. 1971;84:139-150. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.1971.tb06857.x
- Salapovic H, Geier J, Reznicek G. Quantification of Sesquiterpene lactones in Asteraceae plant extracts: evaluation of their allergenic potential. Sci Pharm. 2013;81:807-818. doi:10.3797/scipharm.1306-17
- Paulsen E. Compositae dermatitis: a survey. Contact Dermatitis. 1992;26:76-86. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1992.tb00888.x. Published correction appears in Contact Dermatitis. 1992;27:208.
- DeKoven JG, Silverberg JI, Warshaw EM, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2017-2018. Dermatitis. 2021;32:111-123. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000729
- Paulsen E. Contact sensitization from Compositae-containing herbal remedies and cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;47:189-198. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0536.2002.470401.x
- Frain-Bell W, Johnson BE. Contact allergic sensitivity to plants and the photosensitivity dermatitis and actinic reticuloid syndrome. Br J Dermatol. 1979;101:503-512.
- Paulsen E, Andersen KE. Clinical patterns of Compositae dermatitis in Danish monosensitized patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78:185-193. doi:10.1111/cod.12916
- Jovanovic´ M, Poljacki M. Compositae dermatitis. Med Pregl. 2003;56:43-49. doi:10.2298/mpns0302043j
- Krook G. Occupational dermatitis from Lactuca sativa (lettuce) and Cichorium (endive). simultaneous occurrence of immediate and delayed allergy as a cause of contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1977;3:27-36. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1977.tb03583.x
- Paek SY, Lim HW. Chronic actinic dermatitis. Dermatol Clin. 2014;32:355-361, viii-ix. doi:10.1016/j.det.2014.03.007
- du P Menagé H, Hawk JL, White IR. Sesquiterpene lactone mix contact sensitivity and its relationship to chronic actinic dermatitis: a follow-up study. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;39:119-122. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1998.tb05859.x
- Wang CX, Belsito DV. Chronic actinic dermatitis revisited. Dermatitis. 2020;31:68-74. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000531
- DeLeo VA, Adler BL, Warshaw EM, et al. Photopatch test results of the North American contact dermatitis group, 1999-2009. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2022;38:288-291. doi:10.1111/phpp.12742
- McGovern TW, LaWarre S. Botanical briefs: the scourge of India—Parthenium hysterophorus L. Cutis. 2001;67:27-34. Published correction appears in Cutis. 2001;67:154.
- Sharma VK, Verma P, Maharaja K. Parthenium dermatitis. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2013;12:85-94. doi:10.1039/c2pp25186h
- Verma KK, Bansal A, Sethuraman G. Parthenium dermatitis treated with azathioprine weekly pulse doses. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2006;72:24-27. doi:10.4103/0378-6323.19713
- Sharma VK, Bhat R, Sethuraman G, et al. Treatment of Parthenium dermatitis with methotrexate. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;57:118-119. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.00950.x
- Burke DA, Corey G, Storrs FJ. Psoralen plus UVA protocol for Compositae photosensitivity. Am J Contact Dermat. 1996;7:171-176.
- Lovell CR. Allergic contact dermatitis due to plants. In: Plants and the Skin. Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1993:96-254.
- Dogra S, Parsad D, Handa S. Narrowband ultraviolet B in airborne contact dermatitis: a ray of hope! Br J Dermatol. 2004;150:373-374. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2004.05724.x
- Lakshmi C, Srinivas CR, Jayaraman A. Ciclosporin in Parthenium dermatitis—a report of 2 cases. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;59:245-248. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01208.x
- Hendricks AJ, Yosipovitch G, Shi VY. Dupilumab use in dermatologic conditions beyond atopic dermatitis—a systematic review. J Dermatolog Treat. 2021;32:19-28. doi:10.1080/09546634.2019.1689227
- Napolitano M, Fabbrocini G, Patruno C. Allergic contact dermatitis to Compositae: a possible cause of dupilumab-associated facial and neck dermatitis in atopic dermatitis patients? Contact Dermatitis. 2021;85:473-474. doi:10.1111/cod.13898
- Muddebihal A, Sardana K, Sinha S, et al. Tofacitinib in refractory Parthenium-induced airborne allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2023;88:150-152. doi:10.1111/cod.14234
- Baltazar D, Shinamoto SR, Hamann CP, et al. Occupational airborne allergic contact dermatitis to invasive Compositae species treated with abrocitinib: a case report. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;87:542-544. doi:10.1111/cod.14204
- Morhardt S, Morhardt E. California Desert Flowers: An Introduction to Families, Genera, and Species. University of California Press; 2004.
- Gordon LA. Compositae dermatitis. Australas J Dermatol. 1999;40:123-130. doi:10.1046/j.1440-0960.1999.00341.x
- Denisow-Pietrzyk M, Pietrzyk Ł, Denisow B. Asteraceae species as potential environmental factors of allergy. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2019;26:6290-6300. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-04146-w
- Paulsen E, Chistensen LP, Andersen KE. Cosmetics and herbal remedies with Compositae plant extracts—are they tolerated by Compositae-allergic patients? Contact Dermatitis. 2008;58:15-23. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01250.x
- Burry JN, Reid JG, Kirk J. Australian bush dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1975;1:263-264. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1975.tb05422.x
- Punchihewa N, Palmer A, Nixon R. Allergic contact dermatitis to Compositae: an Australian case series. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;87:356-362. doi:10.1111/cod.14162
- Chen KW, Marusciac L, Tamas PT, et al. Ragweed pollen allergy: burden, characteristics, and management of an imported allergen source in Europe. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2018;176:163-180. doi:10.1159/000487997
- Schloemer JA, Zirwas MJ, Burkhart CG. Airborne contact dermatitis: common causes in the USA. Int J Dermatol. 2015;54:271-274. doi:10.1111/ijd.12692
- Arlette J, Mitchell JC. Compositae dermatitis. current aspects. Contact Dermatitis. 1981;7:129-136. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1981.tb04584.x
- Mitchell JC, Dupuis G. Allergic contact dermatitis from sesquiterpenoids of the Compositae family of plants. Br J Dermatol. 1971;84:139-150. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.1971.tb06857.x
- Salapovic H, Geier J, Reznicek G. Quantification of Sesquiterpene lactones in Asteraceae plant extracts: evaluation of their allergenic potential. Sci Pharm. 2013;81:807-818. doi:10.3797/scipharm.1306-17
- Paulsen E. Compositae dermatitis: a survey. Contact Dermatitis. 1992;26:76-86. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1992.tb00888.x. Published correction appears in Contact Dermatitis. 1992;27:208.
- DeKoven JG, Silverberg JI, Warshaw EM, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2017-2018. Dermatitis. 2021;32:111-123. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000729
- Paulsen E. Contact sensitization from Compositae-containing herbal remedies and cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;47:189-198. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0536.2002.470401.x
- Frain-Bell W, Johnson BE. Contact allergic sensitivity to plants and the photosensitivity dermatitis and actinic reticuloid syndrome. Br J Dermatol. 1979;101:503-512.
- Paulsen E, Andersen KE. Clinical patterns of Compositae dermatitis in Danish monosensitized patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78:185-193. doi:10.1111/cod.12916
- Jovanovic´ M, Poljacki M. Compositae dermatitis. Med Pregl. 2003;56:43-49. doi:10.2298/mpns0302043j
- Krook G. Occupational dermatitis from Lactuca sativa (lettuce) and Cichorium (endive). simultaneous occurrence of immediate and delayed allergy as a cause of contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1977;3:27-36. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1977.tb03583.x
- Paek SY, Lim HW. Chronic actinic dermatitis. Dermatol Clin. 2014;32:355-361, viii-ix. doi:10.1016/j.det.2014.03.007
- du P Menagé H, Hawk JL, White IR. Sesquiterpene lactone mix contact sensitivity and its relationship to chronic actinic dermatitis: a follow-up study. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;39:119-122. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1998.tb05859.x
- Wang CX, Belsito DV. Chronic actinic dermatitis revisited. Dermatitis. 2020;31:68-74. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000531
- DeLeo VA, Adler BL, Warshaw EM, et al. Photopatch test results of the North American contact dermatitis group, 1999-2009. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2022;38:288-291. doi:10.1111/phpp.12742
- McGovern TW, LaWarre S. Botanical briefs: the scourge of India—Parthenium hysterophorus L. Cutis. 2001;67:27-34. Published correction appears in Cutis. 2001;67:154.
- Sharma VK, Verma P, Maharaja K. Parthenium dermatitis. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2013;12:85-94. doi:10.1039/c2pp25186h
- Verma KK, Bansal A, Sethuraman G. Parthenium dermatitis treated with azathioprine weekly pulse doses. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2006;72:24-27. doi:10.4103/0378-6323.19713
- Sharma VK, Bhat R, Sethuraman G, et al. Treatment of Parthenium dermatitis with methotrexate. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;57:118-119. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.00950.x
- Burke DA, Corey G, Storrs FJ. Psoralen plus UVA protocol for Compositae photosensitivity. Am J Contact Dermat. 1996;7:171-176.
- Lovell CR. Allergic contact dermatitis due to plants. In: Plants and the Skin. Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1993:96-254.
- Dogra S, Parsad D, Handa S. Narrowband ultraviolet B in airborne contact dermatitis: a ray of hope! Br J Dermatol. 2004;150:373-374. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2004.05724.x
- Lakshmi C, Srinivas CR, Jayaraman A. Ciclosporin in Parthenium dermatitis—a report of 2 cases. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;59:245-248. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01208.x
- Hendricks AJ, Yosipovitch G, Shi VY. Dupilumab use in dermatologic conditions beyond atopic dermatitis—a systematic review. J Dermatolog Treat. 2021;32:19-28. doi:10.1080/09546634.2019.1689227
- Napolitano M, Fabbrocini G, Patruno C. Allergic contact dermatitis to Compositae: a possible cause of dupilumab-associated facial and neck dermatitis in atopic dermatitis patients? Contact Dermatitis. 2021;85:473-474. doi:10.1111/cod.13898
- Muddebihal A, Sardana K, Sinha S, et al. Tofacitinib in refractory Parthenium-induced airborne allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2023;88:150-152. doi:10.1111/cod.14234
- Baltazar D, Shinamoto SR, Hamann CP, et al. Occupational airborne allergic contact dermatitis to invasive Compositae species treated with abrocitinib: a case report. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;87:542-544. doi:10.1111/cod.14204
Practice Points
- Asteraceae dermatitis can occur from direct contact with plants of the Asteraceae family; through airborne pollen; or from exposure to topical medications, cooking products, and cosmetics.
- Patient education on primary prevention, especially protective clothing, is crucial, as these plants are ubiquitous outdoors and have diverse phenotypes.
- Management of mild Asteraceae dermatitis consists primarily of topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors, while systemic corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive agents are utilized for severe or recalcitrant cases.
Beware the Manchineel: A Case of Irritant Contact Dermatitis
What is the world’s most dangerous tree? According to Guinness World Records1 (and one unlucky contestant on the wilderness survival reality show Naked and Afraid,2 who got its sap in his eyes and needed to be evacuated for treatment), the manchineel tree (Hippomane mancinella) has earned this designation.1-3 Manchineel trees are part of the strand vegetation of islands in the West Indies and along the Caribbean coasts of South and Central America, where their copious root systems help reduce coastal erosion. In the United States, this poisonous tree grows along the southern edge of Florida’s Everglades National Park; the Florida Keys; and the US Virgin Islands, especially Virgin Islands National Park. Although the manchineel tree appears on several endangered species lists,4-6 there are places within its distribution where it is locally abundant and thus poses a risk to residents and visitors.
The first European description of manchineel toxicity was by Peter Martyr d’Anghiera, a court historian and geographer of Christopher Columbus’s patroness, Isabella I, Queen of Castile and Léon. In the early 1500s, Peter Martyr wrote that on Columbus’s second New World voyage in 1493, the crew encountered a mysterious tree that burned the skin and eyes of anyone who had contact with it.7 Columbus called the tree’s fruit manzanilla de la muerte (“little apple of death”) after several sailors became severely ill from eating the fruit.8,9 Manchineel lore is rife with tales of agonizing death after eating the applelike fruit, and several contemporaneous accounts describe indigenous Caribbean islanders using manchineel’s toxic sap as an arrow poison.10
Eating manchineel fruit is known to cause abdominal pain, burning sensations in the oropharynx, and esophageal spasms.11 Several case reports mention that consuming the fruit can create an exaggerated
Case Report
A 64-year-old physician (S.A.N.) came across a stand of manchineel trees while camping in the Virgin Islands National Park on St. John in the US Virgin Islands (Figure 1). The patient—who was knowledgeable about tropical ecology and was familiar with the tree—was curious about its purported cutaneous toxicity and applied the viscous white sap of a broken branchlet (Figure 2) to a patch of skin measuring 4 cm in diameter on the medial left calf. He took serial photographs of the site on days 2, 4 (Figure 3), 6, and 10 (Figure 4), showing the onset of erythema and the subsequent development of follicular pustules. On day 6, a 4-mm punch biopsy specimen was taken of the most prominent pustule. Histopathology showed a subcorneal acantholytic blister and epidermal spongiosis overlying a mixed perivascular infiltrate and follicular necrosis, which was consistent with irritant contact dermatitis (Figure 5). On day 8, the region became indurated and tender to pressure; however, there was no warmth, edema, purulent drainage, lymphangitic streaks, or other signs of infection. The region was never itchy; it was uncomfortable only with firm direct pressure. The patient applied hot compresses to the site for 10 minutes 1 to 2 times daily for roughly 2 weeks, and the affected area healed fully (without any additional intervention) in approximately 6 weeks.
Comment
Manchineel is a member of the Euphorbiaceae (also known as the euphorb or spurge) family, a mainly tropical or subtropical plant family that includes many useful as well as many toxic species. Examples of useful plants include cassava (Manihot esculenta) and the rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis). Many euphorbs have well-described toxicities, and many (eg, castor bean, Ricinus communis) are useful in some circumstances and toxic in others.6,12-14 Many euphorbs are known to cause skin reactions, usually due to toxins in the milky sap that directly irritate the skin or to latex compounds that can induce IgE-mediated contact dermatitis.9,14
Manchineel contains a complex mix of toxins, though no specific one has been identified as the main cause of the associated irritant contact dermatitis. Manchineel sap (and sap of many other euphorbs) contains phorbol esters that may cause direct pH-induced cytotoxicity leading to keratinocyte necrosis. Diterpenes may augment this cytotoxic effect via induction of proinflammatory cytokines.12 Pitts et al5 pointed to a mixture of oxygenated diterpene esters as the primary cause of toxicity and suggested that their water solubility explained occurrences of keratoconjunctivitis after contact with rainwater or dew from the manchineel tree.
All parts of the manchineel tree—fruit, leaves, wood, and sap—are poisonous. In a retrospective series of 97 cases of manchineel fruit ingestion, the most common symptoms were oropharyngeal pain (68% [66/97]), abdominal pain (42% [41/97]), and diarrhea (37% [36/97]). The same series identified 1 (1%) case of bradycardia and hypotension.3 Contact with the wood, exposure to sawdust, and inhalation of smoke from burning the wood can irritate the skin, conjunctivae, or nasopharynx. Rainwater or dew dripping from the leaves onto the skin can cause dermatitis and ophthalmitis, even without direct contact with the tree.4,5
Management—There is no specific treatment for manchineel dermatitis. Because it is an irritant reaction and not a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, topical corticosteroids have minimal benefit. A regimen consisting of a thorough cleansing, wet compresses, and observation, as most symptoms resolve spontaneously within a few days, has been recommended.4 Our patient used hot compresses, which he believes helped heal the site, although his symptoms lasted for several weeks.
Given that there is no specific treatment for manchineel dermatitis, the wisest approach is strict avoidance. On many Caribbean islands, visitors are warned about the manchineel tree, advised to avoid direct contact, and reminded to avoid standing beneath it during a rainstorm (Figure 6).
Conclusion
This article begins with a question: “What is the world’s most dangerous tree?” Many sources from the indexed medical literature as well as the popular press and social media state that it is the manchineel. Although all parts of the manchineel tree are highly toxic, human exposures are uncommon, and deaths are more apocryphal than actual.
- Most dangerous tree. Guinness World Records. Accessed October 14, 2024. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-dangerous-tree
- Naked and Afraid: Garden of Evil (S4E9). Discovery Channel. June 21, 2015. Accessed October 14, 2024. https://go.discovery.com/video/naked-and-afraid-discovery/garden-of-evil
- Boucaud-Maitre D, Cachet X, Bouzidi C, et al. Severity of manchineel fruit (Hippomane mancinella) poisoning: a retrospective case series of 97 patients from French Poison Control Centers. Toxicon. 2019;161:28-32. doi:10.1016/j.toxicon.2019.02.014
- Blue LM, Sailing C, Denapoles C, et al. Manchineel dermatitis in North American students in the Caribbean. J Travel Medicine. 2011;18:422-424. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8305.2011.00568.x
- Pitts JF, Barker NH, Gibbons DC, et al. Manchineel keratoconjunctivitis. Br J Ophthalmol. 1993;77:284-288. doi:10.1136/bjo.77.5.284
- Lauter WM, Fox LE, Ariail WT. Investigation of the toxic principles of Hippomane mancinella, L. I. historical review. J Pharm Sci. 1952;41:199-201. https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.3030410412
- Martyr P. De Orbe Novo: the Eight Decades of Peter Martyr d’Anghera. Vol 1. FA MacNutt (translator). GP Putnam’s Sons; 1912. Accessed October 14, 2024. https://gutenberg.org/cache/epub/12425/pg12425.txt
- Fernandez de Ybarra AM. A forgotten medical worthy, Dr. Diego Alvarex Chanca, of Seville, Spain, and his letter describing the second voyage of Christopher Columbus to America. Med Library Hist J. 1906;4:246-263.
- Muscat MK. Manchineel apple of death. EJIFCC. 2019;30:346-348.
- Handler JS. Aspects of Amerindian ethnography in 17th century Barbados. Caribbean Studies. 1970;9:50-72.
- Howard RA. Three experiences with the manchineel (Hippomane spp., Euphorbiaceae). Biotropica. 1981;13:224-227. https://doi.org/10.2307/2388129
- Rao KV. Toxic principles of Hippomane mancinella. Planta Med. 1974;25:166-171. doi:10.1055/s-0028-1097927
- Lauter WM, Foote PA. Investigation of the toxic principles of Hippomane mancinella L. II. Preliminary isolation of a toxic principle of the fruit. J Am Pharm Assoc. 1955;44:361-363. doi:10.1002/jps.3030440616
- Carroll MN Jr, Fox LE, Ariail WT. Investigation of the toxic principles of Hippomane mancinella L. III. Toxic actions of extracts of Hippomane mancinella L. J Am Pharm Assoc. 1957;46:93-97. doi:10.1002/jps.3030460206
What is the world’s most dangerous tree? According to Guinness World Records1 (and one unlucky contestant on the wilderness survival reality show Naked and Afraid,2 who got its sap in his eyes and needed to be evacuated for treatment), the manchineel tree (Hippomane mancinella) has earned this designation.1-3 Manchineel trees are part of the strand vegetation of islands in the West Indies and along the Caribbean coasts of South and Central America, where their copious root systems help reduce coastal erosion. In the United States, this poisonous tree grows along the southern edge of Florida’s Everglades National Park; the Florida Keys; and the US Virgin Islands, especially Virgin Islands National Park. Although the manchineel tree appears on several endangered species lists,4-6 there are places within its distribution where it is locally abundant and thus poses a risk to residents and visitors.
The first European description of manchineel toxicity was by Peter Martyr d’Anghiera, a court historian and geographer of Christopher Columbus’s patroness, Isabella I, Queen of Castile and Léon. In the early 1500s, Peter Martyr wrote that on Columbus’s second New World voyage in 1493, the crew encountered a mysterious tree that burned the skin and eyes of anyone who had contact with it.7 Columbus called the tree’s fruit manzanilla de la muerte (“little apple of death”) after several sailors became severely ill from eating the fruit.8,9 Manchineel lore is rife with tales of agonizing death after eating the applelike fruit, and several contemporaneous accounts describe indigenous Caribbean islanders using manchineel’s toxic sap as an arrow poison.10
Eating manchineel fruit is known to cause abdominal pain, burning sensations in the oropharynx, and esophageal spasms.11 Several case reports mention that consuming the fruit can create an exaggerated
Case Report
A 64-year-old physician (S.A.N.) came across a stand of manchineel trees while camping in the Virgin Islands National Park on St. John in the US Virgin Islands (Figure 1). The patient—who was knowledgeable about tropical ecology and was familiar with the tree—was curious about its purported cutaneous toxicity and applied the viscous white sap of a broken branchlet (Figure 2) to a patch of skin measuring 4 cm in diameter on the medial left calf. He took serial photographs of the site on days 2, 4 (Figure 3), 6, and 10 (Figure 4), showing the onset of erythema and the subsequent development of follicular pustules. On day 6, a 4-mm punch biopsy specimen was taken of the most prominent pustule. Histopathology showed a subcorneal acantholytic blister and epidermal spongiosis overlying a mixed perivascular infiltrate and follicular necrosis, which was consistent with irritant contact dermatitis (Figure 5). On day 8, the region became indurated and tender to pressure; however, there was no warmth, edema, purulent drainage, lymphangitic streaks, or other signs of infection. The region was never itchy; it was uncomfortable only with firm direct pressure. The patient applied hot compresses to the site for 10 minutes 1 to 2 times daily for roughly 2 weeks, and the affected area healed fully (without any additional intervention) in approximately 6 weeks.
Comment
Manchineel is a member of the Euphorbiaceae (also known as the euphorb or spurge) family, a mainly tropical or subtropical plant family that includes many useful as well as many toxic species. Examples of useful plants include cassava (Manihot esculenta) and the rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis). Many euphorbs have well-described toxicities, and many (eg, castor bean, Ricinus communis) are useful in some circumstances and toxic in others.6,12-14 Many euphorbs are known to cause skin reactions, usually due to toxins in the milky sap that directly irritate the skin or to latex compounds that can induce IgE-mediated contact dermatitis.9,14
Manchineel contains a complex mix of toxins, though no specific one has been identified as the main cause of the associated irritant contact dermatitis. Manchineel sap (and sap of many other euphorbs) contains phorbol esters that may cause direct pH-induced cytotoxicity leading to keratinocyte necrosis. Diterpenes may augment this cytotoxic effect via induction of proinflammatory cytokines.12 Pitts et al5 pointed to a mixture of oxygenated diterpene esters as the primary cause of toxicity and suggested that their water solubility explained occurrences of keratoconjunctivitis after contact with rainwater or dew from the manchineel tree.
All parts of the manchineel tree—fruit, leaves, wood, and sap—are poisonous. In a retrospective series of 97 cases of manchineel fruit ingestion, the most common symptoms were oropharyngeal pain (68% [66/97]), abdominal pain (42% [41/97]), and diarrhea (37% [36/97]). The same series identified 1 (1%) case of bradycardia and hypotension.3 Contact with the wood, exposure to sawdust, and inhalation of smoke from burning the wood can irritate the skin, conjunctivae, or nasopharynx. Rainwater or dew dripping from the leaves onto the skin can cause dermatitis and ophthalmitis, even without direct contact with the tree.4,5
Management—There is no specific treatment for manchineel dermatitis. Because it is an irritant reaction and not a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, topical corticosteroids have minimal benefit. A regimen consisting of a thorough cleansing, wet compresses, and observation, as most symptoms resolve spontaneously within a few days, has been recommended.4 Our patient used hot compresses, which he believes helped heal the site, although his symptoms lasted for several weeks.
Given that there is no specific treatment for manchineel dermatitis, the wisest approach is strict avoidance. On many Caribbean islands, visitors are warned about the manchineel tree, advised to avoid direct contact, and reminded to avoid standing beneath it during a rainstorm (Figure 6).
Conclusion
This article begins with a question: “What is the world’s most dangerous tree?” Many sources from the indexed medical literature as well as the popular press and social media state that it is the manchineel. Although all parts of the manchineel tree are highly toxic, human exposures are uncommon, and deaths are more apocryphal than actual.
What is the world’s most dangerous tree? According to Guinness World Records1 (and one unlucky contestant on the wilderness survival reality show Naked and Afraid,2 who got its sap in his eyes and needed to be evacuated for treatment), the manchineel tree (Hippomane mancinella) has earned this designation.1-3 Manchineel trees are part of the strand vegetation of islands in the West Indies and along the Caribbean coasts of South and Central America, where their copious root systems help reduce coastal erosion. In the United States, this poisonous tree grows along the southern edge of Florida’s Everglades National Park; the Florida Keys; and the US Virgin Islands, especially Virgin Islands National Park. Although the manchineel tree appears on several endangered species lists,4-6 there are places within its distribution where it is locally abundant and thus poses a risk to residents and visitors.
The first European description of manchineel toxicity was by Peter Martyr d’Anghiera, a court historian and geographer of Christopher Columbus’s patroness, Isabella I, Queen of Castile and Léon. In the early 1500s, Peter Martyr wrote that on Columbus’s second New World voyage in 1493, the crew encountered a mysterious tree that burned the skin and eyes of anyone who had contact with it.7 Columbus called the tree’s fruit manzanilla de la muerte (“little apple of death”) after several sailors became severely ill from eating the fruit.8,9 Manchineel lore is rife with tales of agonizing death after eating the applelike fruit, and several contemporaneous accounts describe indigenous Caribbean islanders using manchineel’s toxic sap as an arrow poison.10
Eating manchineel fruit is known to cause abdominal pain, burning sensations in the oropharynx, and esophageal spasms.11 Several case reports mention that consuming the fruit can create an exaggerated
Case Report
A 64-year-old physician (S.A.N.) came across a stand of manchineel trees while camping in the Virgin Islands National Park on St. John in the US Virgin Islands (Figure 1). The patient—who was knowledgeable about tropical ecology and was familiar with the tree—was curious about its purported cutaneous toxicity and applied the viscous white sap of a broken branchlet (Figure 2) to a patch of skin measuring 4 cm in diameter on the medial left calf. He took serial photographs of the site on days 2, 4 (Figure 3), 6, and 10 (Figure 4), showing the onset of erythema and the subsequent development of follicular pustules. On day 6, a 4-mm punch biopsy specimen was taken of the most prominent pustule. Histopathology showed a subcorneal acantholytic blister and epidermal spongiosis overlying a mixed perivascular infiltrate and follicular necrosis, which was consistent with irritant contact dermatitis (Figure 5). On day 8, the region became indurated and tender to pressure; however, there was no warmth, edema, purulent drainage, lymphangitic streaks, or other signs of infection. The region was never itchy; it was uncomfortable only with firm direct pressure. The patient applied hot compresses to the site for 10 minutes 1 to 2 times daily for roughly 2 weeks, and the affected area healed fully (without any additional intervention) in approximately 6 weeks.
Comment
Manchineel is a member of the Euphorbiaceae (also known as the euphorb or spurge) family, a mainly tropical or subtropical plant family that includes many useful as well as many toxic species. Examples of useful plants include cassava (Manihot esculenta) and the rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis). Many euphorbs have well-described toxicities, and many (eg, castor bean, Ricinus communis) are useful in some circumstances and toxic in others.6,12-14 Many euphorbs are known to cause skin reactions, usually due to toxins in the milky sap that directly irritate the skin or to latex compounds that can induce IgE-mediated contact dermatitis.9,14
Manchineel contains a complex mix of toxins, though no specific one has been identified as the main cause of the associated irritant contact dermatitis. Manchineel sap (and sap of many other euphorbs) contains phorbol esters that may cause direct pH-induced cytotoxicity leading to keratinocyte necrosis. Diterpenes may augment this cytotoxic effect via induction of proinflammatory cytokines.12 Pitts et al5 pointed to a mixture of oxygenated diterpene esters as the primary cause of toxicity and suggested that their water solubility explained occurrences of keratoconjunctivitis after contact with rainwater or dew from the manchineel tree.
All parts of the manchineel tree—fruit, leaves, wood, and sap—are poisonous. In a retrospective series of 97 cases of manchineel fruit ingestion, the most common symptoms were oropharyngeal pain (68% [66/97]), abdominal pain (42% [41/97]), and diarrhea (37% [36/97]). The same series identified 1 (1%) case of bradycardia and hypotension.3 Contact with the wood, exposure to sawdust, and inhalation of smoke from burning the wood can irritate the skin, conjunctivae, or nasopharynx. Rainwater or dew dripping from the leaves onto the skin can cause dermatitis and ophthalmitis, even without direct contact with the tree.4,5
Management—There is no specific treatment for manchineel dermatitis. Because it is an irritant reaction and not a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, topical corticosteroids have minimal benefit. A regimen consisting of a thorough cleansing, wet compresses, and observation, as most symptoms resolve spontaneously within a few days, has been recommended.4 Our patient used hot compresses, which he believes helped heal the site, although his symptoms lasted for several weeks.
Given that there is no specific treatment for manchineel dermatitis, the wisest approach is strict avoidance. On many Caribbean islands, visitors are warned about the manchineel tree, advised to avoid direct contact, and reminded to avoid standing beneath it during a rainstorm (Figure 6).
Conclusion
This article begins with a question: “What is the world’s most dangerous tree?” Many sources from the indexed medical literature as well as the popular press and social media state that it is the manchineel. Although all parts of the manchineel tree are highly toxic, human exposures are uncommon, and deaths are more apocryphal than actual.
- Most dangerous tree. Guinness World Records. Accessed October 14, 2024. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-dangerous-tree
- Naked and Afraid: Garden of Evil (S4E9). Discovery Channel. June 21, 2015. Accessed October 14, 2024. https://go.discovery.com/video/naked-and-afraid-discovery/garden-of-evil
- Boucaud-Maitre D, Cachet X, Bouzidi C, et al. Severity of manchineel fruit (Hippomane mancinella) poisoning: a retrospective case series of 97 patients from French Poison Control Centers. Toxicon. 2019;161:28-32. doi:10.1016/j.toxicon.2019.02.014
- Blue LM, Sailing C, Denapoles C, et al. Manchineel dermatitis in North American students in the Caribbean. J Travel Medicine. 2011;18:422-424. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8305.2011.00568.x
- Pitts JF, Barker NH, Gibbons DC, et al. Manchineel keratoconjunctivitis. Br J Ophthalmol. 1993;77:284-288. doi:10.1136/bjo.77.5.284
- Lauter WM, Fox LE, Ariail WT. Investigation of the toxic principles of Hippomane mancinella, L. I. historical review. J Pharm Sci. 1952;41:199-201. https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.3030410412
- Martyr P. De Orbe Novo: the Eight Decades of Peter Martyr d’Anghera. Vol 1. FA MacNutt (translator). GP Putnam’s Sons; 1912. Accessed October 14, 2024. https://gutenberg.org/cache/epub/12425/pg12425.txt
- Fernandez de Ybarra AM. A forgotten medical worthy, Dr. Diego Alvarex Chanca, of Seville, Spain, and his letter describing the second voyage of Christopher Columbus to America. Med Library Hist J. 1906;4:246-263.
- Muscat MK. Manchineel apple of death. EJIFCC. 2019;30:346-348.
- Handler JS. Aspects of Amerindian ethnography in 17th century Barbados. Caribbean Studies. 1970;9:50-72.
- Howard RA. Three experiences with the manchineel (Hippomane spp., Euphorbiaceae). Biotropica. 1981;13:224-227. https://doi.org/10.2307/2388129
- Rao KV. Toxic principles of Hippomane mancinella. Planta Med. 1974;25:166-171. doi:10.1055/s-0028-1097927
- Lauter WM, Foote PA. Investigation of the toxic principles of Hippomane mancinella L. II. Preliminary isolation of a toxic principle of the fruit. J Am Pharm Assoc. 1955;44:361-363. doi:10.1002/jps.3030440616
- Carroll MN Jr, Fox LE, Ariail WT. Investigation of the toxic principles of Hippomane mancinella L. III. Toxic actions of extracts of Hippomane mancinella L. J Am Pharm Assoc. 1957;46:93-97. doi:10.1002/jps.3030460206
- Most dangerous tree. Guinness World Records. Accessed October 14, 2024. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-dangerous-tree
- Naked and Afraid: Garden of Evil (S4E9). Discovery Channel. June 21, 2015. Accessed October 14, 2024. https://go.discovery.com/video/naked-and-afraid-discovery/garden-of-evil
- Boucaud-Maitre D, Cachet X, Bouzidi C, et al. Severity of manchineel fruit (Hippomane mancinella) poisoning: a retrospective case series of 97 patients from French Poison Control Centers. Toxicon. 2019;161:28-32. doi:10.1016/j.toxicon.2019.02.014
- Blue LM, Sailing C, Denapoles C, et al. Manchineel dermatitis in North American students in the Caribbean. J Travel Medicine. 2011;18:422-424. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8305.2011.00568.x
- Pitts JF, Barker NH, Gibbons DC, et al. Manchineel keratoconjunctivitis. Br J Ophthalmol. 1993;77:284-288. doi:10.1136/bjo.77.5.284
- Lauter WM, Fox LE, Ariail WT. Investigation of the toxic principles of Hippomane mancinella, L. I. historical review. J Pharm Sci. 1952;41:199-201. https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.3030410412
- Martyr P. De Orbe Novo: the Eight Decades of Peter Martyr d’Anghera. Vol 1. FA MacNutt (translator). GP Putnam’s Sons; 1912. Accessed October 14, 2024. https://gutenberg.org/cache/epub/12425/pg12425.txt
- Fernandez de Ybarra AM. A forgotten medical worthy, Dr. Diego Alvarex Chanca, of Seville, Spain, and his letter describing the second voyage of Christopher Columbus to America. Med Library Hist J. 1906;4:246-263.
- Muscat MK. Manchineel apple of death. EJIFCC. 2019;30:346-348.
- Handler JS. Aspects of Amerindian ethnography in 17th century Barbados. Caribbean Studies. 1970;9:50-72.
- Howard RA. Three experiences with the manchineel (Hippomane spp., Euphorbiaceae). Biotropica. 1981;13:224-227. https://doi.org/10.2307/2388129
- Rao KV. Toxic principles of Hippomane mancinella. Planta Med. 1974;25:166-171. doi:10.1055/s-0028-1097927
- Lauter WM, Foote PA. Investigation of the toxic principles of Hippomane mancinella L. II. Preliminary isolation of a toxic principle of the fruit. J Am Pharm Assoc. 1955;44:361-363. doi:10.1002/jps.3030440616
- Carroll MN Jr, Fox LE, Ariail WT. Investigation of the toxic principles of Hippomane mancinella L. III. Toxic actions of extracts of Hippomane mancinella L. J Am Pharm Assoc. 1957;46:93-97. doi:10.1002/jps.3030460206
PRACTICE POINTS
- Sap from the manchineel tree—found on the coasts of Caribbean islands, the Atlantic coastline of Central and northern South America, and parts of southernmost Florida—can cause severe dermatologic and ophthalmologic injuries. Eating its fruit can lead to oropharyngeal pain and diarrhea.
- Histopathology of manchineel dermatitis reveals a subcorneal acantholytic blister and epidermal spongiosis overlying a mixed perivascular infiltrate and follicular necrosis, which is consistent with irritant contact dermatitis.
- There is no specific treatment for manchineel dermatitis. Case reports advocate a thorough cleansing, application of wet compresses, and observation.
Eyelid Dermatitis: Common Patterns and Contact Allergens
Eyelid dermatitis is a common dermatologic concern representing a broad group of inflammatory dermatoses and typically presenting as eczematous lesions on the eyelids.1 One of the most common causes of eyelid dermatitis is thought to be allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), a type IV delayed hypersensitivity reaction caused by exposure to external allergens.2 Although ACD can occur anywhere on the body, dermatitis on the face and eyelids is quite common.1,2 This article aims to explore the clinical manifestation, evaluation, and management of eyelid ACD.
Pathophysiology of Eyelid ACD
Studies have shown that ACD is the most common cause of eyelid dermatitis, estimated to account for 46% to 72% of cases worldwide.3-6 Allergic contact dermatitis is a T cell–mediated type IV hypersensitivity reaction to external antigens that manifests as eczematous lesions at the site of contact with the allergen that may spread.7 Allergic contact dermatitis is a common condition, and it is estimated that at least 20% of the general worldwide population has a contact allergy.8,9 Histologically, ACD manifests as spongiotic dermatitis, though this is not unique and also may be seen in atopic dermatitis (AD) and irritant contact dermatitis.2 Allergic contact dermatitis is diagnosed via epicutaneous patch testing, and treatment involves allergen avoidance with or without adjuvant topical and/or systemic immunomodulatory treatments.7
The eyelids are uniquely prone to the development of ACD given their thinner epidermis and increased susceptibility to irritation. They frequently are exposed to allergens through the direct topical route as well as indirectly via airborne exposure, rinse-down products (eg, shampoos), and substances transferred from an individual’s own hands. The occluded skin folds of the eyelids facilitate increased exposure to trapped allergens.10,11 Additionally, the skin of the eyelids is thin, flexible, highly vascularized, and lacking in subcutaneous tissue, making this area more susceptible to antigen penetration than other locations on the body.1,2,10,12,13
Clinical Manifestations
Eyelid ACD is more common in females than males, which is thought to be related to increased use of cosmetics and fragrances.1,3,12,14-16 Clinical manifestations may resemble eczematous papules and plaques.1 Eyelid ACD commonly spreads beyond the eyelid margin, which helps to differentiate it from AD and irritant contact dermatitis. Symptoms of ACD on the eyelids typically include pruritus, redness, swelling, tearing, scaling, and pain.2 Persistent untreated eyelid dermatitis can lead to eyelash loss, damage to meibomian glands, and hyperpigmentation.2,17,18
Patterns of Eyelid ACD
Allergic contact dermatitis on the eyelids can occur due to direct application of allergens onto the skin of the eyelids, runoff of products from the hair/scalp (eg, shampoo), transfer of allergens from the hands, or contact with airborne allergens.1,2,11,12 Some reports have suggested that eyelid ACD more often is caused by products applied to the scalp or face rather than those applied directly to the eyelids.11 Because the scalp and face are less reactive to contact allergens, in some cases the eyelids may be the only affected site.10,12,13
The specific pattern of dermatitis on or around the eyelids can provide clues to the allergenic source. Dermatitis present around the eyelids and periorbital region with involvement of the bilateral upper and lower eyelids suggests direct exposure to a contact allergen, such as makeup or other cosmetic products.1 Unilateral involvement of only 1 eyelid can occur with ectopic transfer of allergens from the hands or nails.1,19 Involvement of the fingers or nails in addition to the eyelids may further suggest ectopic transfer, such as from allergens in nail polish.10 Unilateral eyelid dermatitis also could be caused by unique exposures such as a microscope or camera eyepiece.19 Distribution around the lower eyelids and upper cheeks is indicative of a drip or runoff pattern, which may result from an ophthalmic solution such as eye drops or contact lens solution.1,19 Finally, dermatitis affecting the upper eyelids along with the nasolabial folds and upper chest may suggest airborne contact dermatitis to fragrances or household cleaning products.1,11
Common Culprits of Eyelid ACD
Common causes of eyelid ACD include cosmetic products, ophthalmic medications, nail lacquers, and jewelry.10,13,20 Within the broader category of cosmetics, allergens may be found in makeup and makeup removers, cosmetic applicators and brushes, soaps and cleansers, creams and sunscreens, antiaging products, hair products, nail polish and files, and hair removal products, among many others.10,13,16,20 Additionally, ophthalmologic and topical medications are common sources of ACD, including eyedrops, contact lens solution, and topical antibiotics.10,13,21 Costume jewelry commonly contains allergenic metals, which also can be found in eyelash curlers, eyeglasses, toys, and other household items.22,23 Finally, contact allergens can be found in items such as goggles, gloves, textiles, and a variety of other occupational and household exposures.
Allergic contact dermatitis of the eyelids occurs predominantly—but not exclusively—in females.16,20,24 This finding has been attributed to the traditionally greater use of cosmetics and fragrances among women; however, the use of skin care products among men is increasing, and recent studies have shown the eyelids to be a common location of facial contact dermatitis among men.16,24 Although eyelid dermatitis has not been specifically analyzed by sex, a retrospective analysis of 1332 male patients with facial dermatitis found the most common sites to be the face (not otherwise specified)(48.9%), eyelids (23.5%), and lips (12.6%). In this cohort, the most common allergens were surfactants in shampoos and paraphenylenediamine in hair dyes.24
Common Allergens
Common contact allergens among patients with ACD of the eyelids include metals, fragrances, preservatives, acrylates, and topical medications.3,10,16,20,25-27 Sources of common contact allergens are reviewed in Table 1.
Metals—Metals are among the most common causes of ACD overall, and nickel frequently is reported as one of the top contact allergens in patients with eyelid dermatitis.16,27 A retrospective analysis of 2332 patients with eyelid dermatitis patch tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group from 1994 to 2016 found that 18.6% of patients with eyelid ACD had a clinically relevant nickel allergy. Sources of nickel exposure include jewelry, grooming devices, makeup and makeup applicators, and eyelash curlers, as well as direct transfer from the hands after contact with consumer products.16
Other metals that can cause ACD include cobalt (found in similar products to nickel) and gold. Gold often is associated with eyelid dermatitis, though its clinical relevance has been debated, as gold is a relatively inert metal that rarely is present in eye cosmetics and its ions are not displaced from objects and deposited on the skin via sweat in the same way as nickel.4,16,20,28-30 Despite this, studies have shown that gold is a common positive patch test reaction among patients with eyelid dermatitis, even in patients with no dermatitis at the site of contact with gold jewelry.20,29,31 Gold has been reported to be the most common allergen causing unilateral eyelid dermatitis via ectopic transfer.16,19,20,29 It has been proposed that titanium dioxide, present in many cosmetics and sunscreens, displaces gold allowing its release from jewelry, thereby liberating the fine gold ions and allowing them to desposit on the face and eyelids.30,31 Given the uncertain clinical relevance of positive patch test reactions to gold, Warshaw at al16 recommend a 2- to 3-month trial of gold jewelry avoidance to establish relevance, and Ehrlich and Gold29 noted that avoidance of gold leads to improvement.
Fragrances—Fragrances represent a broad category of naturally occurring and man-made components that often are combined to produce a desired scent in personal care products.32 Essential oils and botanicals are both examples of natural fragrances.33 Fragrances are found in numerous products including makeup, hair products, and household cleaning supplies and represent some of the most common contact allergens.32 Common fragrance allergens include fragrance mixes I and II, hydroperoxides of linalool, and balsam of Peru.12,32,34 Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances typically manifests on the eyelids, face, or hands.33 Several studies have found fragrances to be among the top contact allergens in patients with eyelid dermatitis.3,12,20,25,34 Patch testing for fragrance allergy may include baseline series, supplemental fragrance series, and personal care products.32,35
Preservatives—Preservatives, including formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers (eg, quaternium-15 and bronopol) and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, may be found in personal care products such as makeup, makeup removers, emollients, shampoos, hair care products, and ophthalmologic solutions and are among the most common cosmetic sources of ACD.13,36-39 Preservatives are among the top allergens causing eyelid dermatitis.20 In particular, patch test positivity rates to methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone have been increasing in North America.40 Sensitization to preservatives may occur through direct skin contact or transfer from the hands.41
Acrylates—Acrylates are compounds derived from acrylic acid that may be found in acrylic and gel nails, eyelash extensions, and other adhesives and are frequent causes of eyelid ACD.4,10,42 Acrylate exposure may be cosmetic among consumers or occupational (eg, aestheticians).42,43 Acrylates on the nails may cause eyelid dermatitis via ectopic transfer from the hands and also may cause periungual dermatitis manifesting as nail bed erythema.10 Hydroxyethyl methacrylate is one of the more common eyelid ACD allergens, and studies have shown increasing prevalence of positive reaction rates to hydroxyethylmethacrylate.10,44Topical Medications—Contact allergies to topical medications are quite common, estimated to occur in 10% to 17% of patients undergoing patch testing.45 Both active and inactive ingredients of topical medications may be culprits in eyelid ACD. The most common topical medication allergens include antibiotics, steroids, local anesthetics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.45 Topical antibiotics such as neomycin and bacitracin represent some of the most common causes of eyelid dermatitis4,10 and may be found in a variety of products, including antibacterial ointments and eye drops.1 Many ophthalmologic medications also contain corticosteroids, with the most common allergenic steroids being tixocortol pivalate (a marker for hydrocortisone allergy) and budesonide.10,20 Topical steroids pose a particular dilemma, as they can be either the source of or a treatment for ACD.10 Eye drops also may contain anesthetics, β-blockers, and antihistamines, as well as the preservative benzalkonium chloride, all of which may be contact allergens.21,39
Differential Diagnosis of Eyelid Dermatitis
Although ACD is reported to be the most common cause of eyelid dermatitis, the differential diagnosis is broad, including endogenous inflammatory dermatoses and exogenous exposures (Table 2). Symptoms of eyelid ACD can be nonspecific (eg, erythema, pruritus), making diagnosis challenging.46
Atopic dermatitis represents another common cause of eyelid dermatitis, accounting for 14% to 39.5% of cases.3-5,49Atopic dermatitis of the eyelids classically manifests with lichenification of the medial aspects of the eyelids.50 Atopic dermatitis and ACD may be difficult to distinguish, as the 2 conditions appear clinically similar and can develop concomitantly.51 Additionally, atopic patients are likely to have comorbid allergic rhinitis and sensitivity to environmental allergens, which may lead to chronic eye scratching and lichenification.1,51 Clinical features of eyelid dermatitis suggesting allergic rhinitis and likely comorbid AD include creases in the lower eyelids (Dennie-Morgan lines) and periorbital hyperpigmentation (known as the allergic shiner) due to venous congestion.1,52
Seborrheic dermatitis is an inflammatory reaction to Malassezia yeast that occurs in sebaceous areas such as the groin, scalp, eyebrows, eyelids, and nasolabial folds.1,53,54
Irritant contact dermatitis, a nonspecific inflammatory reaction caused by direct cell damage from external irritants, also may affect the eyelids and appear similar to ACD.1 It typically manifests with a burning or stinging sensation, as opposed to pruritus, and generally develops and resolves more rapidly than ACD.1 Personal care products are common causes of eyelid irritant contact dermatitis.16
Patch Testing for Eyelid ACD
The gold standard for diagnosis of ACD is patch testing, outlined by the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group.55-57 Patch testing generally is performed with standardized panels of allergens and can be customized either with supplemental panels based on unique exposures or with the patient’s own personal care products to increase the sensitivity of testing. Therefore, a thorough history is crucial to identifying potential allergens in a patient’s environment.
False negatives are possible, as the skin on the back may be thicker and less sensitive than the skin at the location of dermatitis.2,58 This is particularly relevant when using patch testing to diagnose ACD of the eyelids, where the skin is particularly thin and sensitive.2 Additionally, ingredients of ophthalmic medications are known to have an especially high false-negative rate with standard patch testing and may require repeated testing with higher drug concentrations or modified patch testing procedures (eg, open testing, scratch-patch testing).1,59
Treatment
Management of ACD involves allergen avoidance, typically dictated by patch test results.10 Allergen avoidance may be facilitated using online resources such as the Contact Allergen Management Program (https://www.acdscamp.org/) created by the American Contact Dermatitis Society.10,18 Patient counseling following patch testing is crucial to educating patients about sources of potential allergen exposures and strategies for avoidance. In the case of eyelid dermatitis, it is particularly important to consider exposure to airborne allergens such as fragrances.16 Fragrance avoidance is uniquely difficult, as labelling standards in the United States currently do not require disclosure of specific fragrance components.33 Additionally, products labelled as unscented may still contain fragrances. As such, some patients with fragrance allergy may need to carefully avoid all products containing fragrances.33
In addition to allergen avoidance, eyelid ACD may be treated with topical medications (eg, steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors); however, these same topical medications also can cause ACD due to some ingredients such as propylene glycol.10 Topical steroids should be used with caution on the eyelids given the risk for atrophy, cataracts, and glaucoma.1
Final Interpretation
Eyelid dermatitis is a common dermatologic condition most frequently caused by ACD due to exposure to allergens in cosmetic products, ophthalmic medications, nail lacquers, and jewelry, among many other potential sources. The most common allergens causing eyelid dermatitis include metals (particularly nickel), fragrances, preservatives, acrylates, and topical medications. Eyelid ACD is diagnosed via patch testing, and the mainstay of treatment is strict allergen avoidance. Patient counseling is vital for successful allergen avoidance and resolution of eyelid ACD.
- Hine AM, Waldman RA, Grzybowski A, et al. Allergic disorders of the eyelid. Clin Dermatol. 2023;41:476-480. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2023.08.002
- Turkiewicz M, Shah A, Yang YW, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis of the eyelids: an interdisciplinary review. Ocul Surf. 2023;28:124-130. doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2023.03.001
- Valsecchi R, Imberti G, Martino D, et al. Eyelid dermatitis: an evaluation of 150 patients. Contact Dermatitis. 1992;27:143-147. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1992.tb05242.x
- Guin JD. Eyelid dermatitis: experience in 203 cases. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;47:755-765. doi:10.1067/mjd.2002.122736
- Nethercott JR, Nield G, Holness DL. A review of 79 cases of eyelid dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989;21(2 pt 1):223-230. doi:10.1016/s0190-9622(89)70165-1
- Shah M, Lewis FM, Gawkrodger DJ. Facial dermatitis and eyelid dermatitis: a comparison of patch test results and final diagnoses. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34:140-141. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1996.tb02148.x
- Brites GS, Ferreira I, Sebastião AI, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis: from pathophysiology to development of new preventive strategies. Pharmacol Res. 2020;162:105282. doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2020.105282
- Alinaghi F, Bennike NH, Egeberg A, et al. Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:77-85. doi:10.1111/cod.13119
- Adler BL, DeLeo VA. Allergic contact dermatitis. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157:364. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.5639
- Huang CX, Yiannias JA, Killian JM, et al. Seven common allergen groups causing eyelid dermatitis: education and avoidance strategies. Clin Ophthalmol Auckl NZ. 2021;15:1477-1490. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S297754
- Rozas-Muñoz E, Gamé D, Serra-Baldrich E. Allergic contact dermatitis by anatomical regions: diagnostic clues. Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas Engl Ed. 2018;109:485-507. doi:10.1016/j.adengl.2018.05.016
- Amin KA, Belsito DV. The aetiology of eyelid dermatitis: a 10-year retrospective analysis. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;55:280-285. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.00927.x
- Wolf R, Orion E, Tüzün Y. Periorbital (eyelid) dermatides. Clin Dermatol. 2014;32:131-140. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2013.05.035
- Ockenfels HM, Seemann U, Goos M. Contact allergy in patients with periorbital eczema: an analysis of allergens. data recorded by the Information Network of the Departments of Dermatology. Dermatol Basel Switz. 1997;195:119-124. doi:10.1159/000245712
- Landeck L, John SM, Geier J. Periorbital dermatitis in 4779 patients—patch test results during a 10-year period. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:205-212. doi:10.1111/cod.12157
- Warshaw EM, Voller LM, Maibach HI, et al. Eyelid dermatitis in patients referred for patch testing: retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1994-2016. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84:953-964. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.07.020
- McMonnies CW. Management of chronic habits of abnormal eye rubbing. Contact Lens Anterior Eye. 2008;31:95-102. doi:10.1016/j.clae.2007.07.008
- Chisholm SAM, Couch SM, Custer PL. Etiology and management of allergic eyelid dermatitis. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;33:248-250. doi:10.1097/IOP.0000000000000723
- Lewallen R, Feldman S, eds. Regional atlas of contact dermatitis. The Dermatologist. Accessed April 22, 2024. https://s3.amazonaws.com/HMP/hmp_ln/imported/Regional%20Atlas%20of%20Contact%20Dermatitis%20Book_lr.pdf
- Rietschel RL, Warshaw EM, Sasseville D, et al. Common contact allergens associated with eyelid dermatitis: data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2003-2004 study period. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2007;18:78-81. doi:10.2310/6620.2007.06041
- Mughal AA, Kalavala M. Contact dermatitis to ophthalmic solutions. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2012;37:593-597; quiz 597-598. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2230.2012.04398.x
- Goossens A. Contact allergic reactions on the eyes and eyelids. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol. 2004;292:11-17.
- Silverberg NB, Pelletier JL, Jacob SE, et al. Nickel allergic contact dermatitis: identification, treatment, and prevention. Pediatrics. 2020;145:E20200628. doi:10.1542/peds.2020-0628
- Warshaw EM, Schlarbaum JP, Maibach HI, et al. Facial dermatitis in male patients referred for patch testing. JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156:79-84. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.3531
- Wenk KS, Ehrlich A. Fragrance series testing in eyelid dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2012;23:22-26. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e31823d180f
- Crouse L, Ziemer C, Ziemer C, et al. Trends in eyelid dermatitis. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2018;29:96-97. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000338
- Yazdanparast T, Nassiri Kashani M, Shamsipour M, et al. Contact allergens responsible for eyelid dermatitis in adults. J Dermatol. 2024;51:691-695. doi:10.1111/1346-8138.17140
- Fowler J, Taylor J, Storrs F, et al. Gold allergy in North America. Am J Contact Dermat. 2001;12:3-5.
- Ehrlich A, Belsito DV. Allergic contact dermatitis to gold. Cutis. 2000;65:323-326.
- Danesh M, Murase JE. Titanium dioxide induces eyelid dermatitis in patients allergic to gold. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;73:E21. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2015.03.046
- Katta R. Common misconceptions in contact dermatitis counseling. Dermatol Online J. 2008;14:2.
- De Groot AC. Fragrances: contact allergy and other adverse effects. Dermatitis. 2020;31:13-35. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000463
- Reeder MJ. Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances. Dermatol Clin. 2020;38:371-377. doi:10.1016/j.det.2020.02.009
- Warshaw EM, Zhang AJ, DeKoven JG, et al. Epidemiology of nickel sensitivity: retrospective cross-sectional analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data 1994-2014. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:701-713. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2018.09.058
- Schalock PC, Dunnick CA, Nedorost S, et al. American Contact Dermatitis Society core allergen series: 2020 update. Dermatitis. 2020;31:279-282. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000621
- Yim E, Baquerizo Nole KL, Tosti A. Contact dermatitis caused by preservatives. Dermatitis. 2014;25:215-231. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000061
- Alani JI, Davis MDP, Yiannias JA. Allergy to cosmetics. Dermatitis. 2013;24:283-290. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e3182a5d8bc
- Hamilton T, de Gannes GC. Allergic contact dermatitis to preservatives and fragrances in cosmetics. Skin Ther Lett. 2011;16:1-4.
- Ashton SJ, Mughal AA. Contact dermatitis to ophthalmic solutions: an update. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2023;34:480-483. doi:10.1089/derm.2023.0033
- Reeder MJ, Warshaw E, Aravamuthan S, et al. Trends in the prevalence of methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone contact allergy in North America and Europe. JAMA Dermatol. 2023;159:267-274. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.5991
- Herro EM, Elsaie ML, Nijhawan RI, et al. Recommendations for a screening series for allergic contact eyelid dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2012;23:17-21. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e31823d191f
- Kucharczyk M, Słowik-Rylska M, Cyran-Stemplewska S, et al. Acrylates as a significant cause of allergic contact dermatitis: new sources of exposure. Adv Dermatol Allergol Dermatol Alergol. 2021;38:555-560. doi:10.5114/ada.2020.95848
- Rodriguez I, George SE, Yu J, et al. Tackling acrylate allergy: the sticky truth. Cutis. 2023;112:282-286. doi:10.12788/cutis.0909
- DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Reeder MJ, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2019–2020. Dermatitis. 2023;34:90-104. doi:10.1089/derm.2022.29017.jdk
- de Groot A. Allergic contact dermatitis from topical drugs: an overview. Dermatitis. 2021;32:197-213. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000737
- Zug KA, Palay DA, Rock B. Dermatologic diagnosis and treatment of itchy red eyelids. Surv Ophthalmol. 1996;40:293-306. doi:10.1016/s0039-6257(96)82004-2
- Beltrani VS. Eyelid dermatitis. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2001;1:380-388. doi:10.1007/s11882-001-0052-0
- Hirji SH, Maeng MM, Tran AQ, et al. Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma of the eyelid masquerading as dermatitis. Orbit Amst Neth. 2021;40:75-78. doi:10.1080/01676830.2020.1739080
- Svensson A, Möller H. Eyelid dermatitis: the role of atopy and contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 1986;15:178-182. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1986.tb01321.x
- Papier A, Tuttle DJ, Mahar TJ. Differential diagnosis of the swollen red eyelid. Am Fam Physician. 2007;76:1815-1824.
- Johnson H, Novack DE, Adler BL, et al. Can atopic dermatitis and allergic contact dermatitis coexist? Cutis. 2022;110:139-142. doi:10.12788cutis.0599
- Berger WE. Allergic rhinitis in children: diagnosis and management strategies. Paediatr Drugs. 2004;6:233-250. doi:10.2165/00148581-200406040-00003
- Singh A, Kansal NK, Kumawat D, et al. Ophthalmic manifestations of seborrheic dermatitis. Skinmed. 2023;21:397-401.
- Clark GW, Pope SM, Jaboori KA. Diagnosis and treatment of seborrheic dermatitis. Am Fam Physician. 2015;91:185-190.
- Lachapelle JM, Maibach HI. Patch Testing and Prick Testing. Springer; 2012.
- Fregert S. Manual of Contact Dermatitis: On Behalf of the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Munksgaard; 1974.
- Reeder M, Reck Atwater A. Patch testing 101, part 1: performing the test. Cutis. 2020;106:165-167. doi:10.12788/cutis.0093
- Wolf R, Perluk H. Failure of routine patch test results to detect eyelid dermatitis. Cutis. 1992;49:133-134.
- Grey KR, Warshaw EM. Allergic contact dermatitis to ophthalmic medications: relevant allergens and alternative testing methods. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2016;27:333-347. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000224
Eyelid dermatitis is a common dermatologic concern representing a broad group of inflammatory dermatoses and typically presenting as eczematous lesions on the eyelids.1 One of the most common causes of eyelid dermatitis is thought to be allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), a type IV delayed hypersensitivity reaction caused by exposure to external allergens.2 Although ACD can occur anywhere on the body, dermatitis on the face and eyelids is quite common.1,2 This article aims to explore the clinical manifestation, evaluation, and management of eyelid ACD.
Pathophysiology of Eyelid ACD
Studies have shown that ACD is the most common cause of eyelid dermatitis, estimated to account for 46% to 72% of cases worldwide.3-6 Allergic contact dermatitis is a T cell–mediated type IV hypersensitivity reaction to external antigens that manifests as eczematous lesions at the site of contact with the allergen that may spread.7 Allergic contact dermatitis is a common condition, and it is estimated that at least 20% of the general worldwide population has a contact allergy.8,9 Histologically, ACD manifests as spongiotic dermatitis, though this is not unique and also may be seen in atopic dermatitis (AD) and irritant contact dermatitis.2 Allergic contact dermatitis is diagnosed via epicutaneous patch testing, and treatment involves allergen avoidance with or without adjuvant topical and/or systemic immunomodulatory treatments.7
The eyelids are uniquely prone to the development of ACD given their thinner epidermis and increased susceptibility to irritation. They frequently are exposed to allergens through the direct topical route as well as indirectly via airborne exposure, rinse-down products (eg, shampoos), and substances transferred from an individual’s own hands. The occluded skin folds of the eyelids facilitate increased exposure to trapped allergens.10,11 Additionally, the skin of the eyelids is thin, flexible, highly vascularized, and lacking in subcutaneous tissue, making this area more susceptible to antigen penetration than other locations on the body.1,2,10,12,13
Clinical Manifestations
Eyelid ACD is more common in females than males, which is thought to be related to increased use of cosmetics and fragrances.1,3,12,14-16 Clinical manifestations may resemble eczematous papules and plaques.1 Eyelid ACD commonly spreads beyond the eyelid margin, which helps to differentiate it from AD and irritant contact dermatitis. Symptoms of ACD on the eyelids typically include pruritus, redness, swelling, tearing, scaling, and pain.2 Persistent untreated eyelid dermatitis can lead to eyelash loss, damage to meibomian glands, and hyperpigmentation.2,17,18
Patterns of Eyelid ACD
Allergic contact dermatitis on the eyelids can occur due to direct application of allergens onto the skin of the eyelids, runoff of products from the hair/scalp (eg, shampoo), transfer of allergens from the hands, or contact with airborne allergens.1,2,11,12 Some reports have suggested that eyelid ACD more often is caused by products applied to the scalp or face rather than those applied directly to the eyelids.11 Because the scalp and face are less reactive to contact allergens, in some cases the eyelids may be the only affected site.10,12,13
The specific pattern of dermatitis on or around the eyelids can provide clues to the allergenic source. Dermatitis present around the eyelids and periorbital region with involvement of the bilateral upper and lower eyelids suggests direct exposure to a contact allergen, such as makeup or other cosmetic products.1 Unilateral involvement of only 1 eyelid can occur with ectopic transfer of allergens from the hands or nails.1,19 Involvement of the fingers or nails in addition to the eyelids may further suggest ectopic transfer, such as from allergens in nail polish.10 Unilateral eyelid dermatitis also could be caused by unique exposures such as a microscope or camera eyepiece.19 Distribution around the lower eyelids and upper cheeks is indicative of a drip or runoff pattern, which may result from an ophthalmic solution such as eye drops or contact lens solution.1,19 Finally, dermatitis affecting the upper eyelids along with the nasolabial folds and upper chest may suggest airborne contact dermatitis to fragrances or household cleaning products.1,11
Common Culprits of Eyelid ACD
Common causes of eyelid ACD include cosmetic products, ophthalmic medications, nail lacquers, and jewelry.10,13,20 Within the broader category of cosmetics, allergens may be found in makeup and makeup removers, cosmetic applicators and brushes, soaps and cleansers, creams and sunscreens, antiaging products, hair products, nail polish and files, and hair removal products, among many others.10,13,16,20 Additionally, ophthalmologic and topical medications are common sources of ACD, including eyedrops, contact lens solution, and topical antibiotics.10,13,21 Costume jewelry commonly contains allergenic metals, which also can be found in eyelash curlers, eyeglasses, toys, and other household items.22,23 Finally, contact allergens can be found in items such as goggles, gloves, textiles, and a variety of other occupational and household exposures.
Allergic contact dermatitis of the eyelids occurs predominantly—but not exclusively—in females.16,20,24 This finding has been attributed to the traditionally greater use of cosmetics and fragrances among women; however, the use of skin care products among men is increasing, and recent studies have shown the eyelids to be a common location of facial contact dermatitis among men.16,24 Although eyelid dermatitis has not been specifically analyzed by sex, a retrospective analysis of 1332 male patients with facial dermatitis found the most common sites to be the face (not otherwise specified)(48.9%), eyelids (23.5%), and lips (12.6%). In this cohort, the most common allergens were surfactants in shampoos and paraphenylenediamine in hair dyes.24
Common Allergens
Common contact allergens among patients with ACD of the eyelids include metals, fragrances, preservatives, acrylates, and topical medications.3,10,16,20,25-27 Sources of common contact allergens are reviewed in Table 1.
Metals—Metals are among the most common causes of ACD overall, and nickel frequently is reported as one of the top contact allergens in patients with eyelid dermatitis.16,27 A retrospective analysis of 2332 patients with eyelid dermatitis patch tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group from 1994 to 2016 found that 18.6% of patients with eyelid ACD had a clinically relevant nickel allergy. Sources of nickel exposure include jewelry, grooming devices, makeup and makeup applicators, and eyelash curlers, as well as direct transfer from the hands after contact with consumer products.16
Other metals that can cause ACD include cobalt (found in similar products to nickel) and gold. Gold often is associated with eyelid dermatitis, though its clinical relevance has been debated, as gold is a relatively inert metal that rarely is present in eye cosmetics and its ions are not displaced from objects and deposited on the skin via sweat in the same way as nickel.4,16,20,28-30 Despite this, studies have shown that gold is a common positive patch test reaction among patients with eyelid dermatitis, even in patients with no dermatitis at the site of contact with gold jewelry.20,29,31 Gold has been reported to be the most common allergen causing unilateral eyelid dermatitis via ectopic transfer.16,19,20,29 It has been proposed that titanium dioxide, present in many cosmetics and sunscreens, displaces gold allowing its release from jewelry, thereby liberating the fine gold ions and allowing them to desposit on the face and eyelids.30,31 Given the uncertain clinical relevance of positive patch test reactions to gold, Warshaw at al16 recommend a 2- to 3-month trial of gold jewelry avoidance to establish relevance, and Ehrlich and Gold29 noted that avoidance of gold leads to improvement.
Fragrances—Fragrances represent a broad category of naturally occurring and man-made components that often are combined to produce a desired scent in personal care products.32 Essential oils and botanicals are both examples of natural fragrances.33 Fragrances are found in numerous products including makeup, hair products, and household cleaning supplies and represent some of the most common contact allergens.32 Common fragrance allergens include fragrance mixes I and II, hydroperoxides of linalool, and balsam of Peru.12,32,34 Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances typically manifests on the eyelids, face, or hands.33 Several studies have found fragrances to be among the top contact allergens in patients with eyelid dermatitis.3,12,20,25,34 Patch testing for fragrance allergy may include baseline series, supplemental fragrance series, and personal care products.32,35
Preservatives—Preservatives, including formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers (eg, quaternium-15 and bronopol) and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, may be found in personal care products such as makeup, makeup removers, emollients, shampoos, hair care products, and ophthalmologic solutions and are among the most common cosmetic sources of ACD.13,36-39 Preservatives are among the top allergens causing eyelid dermatitis.20 In particular, patch test positivity rates to methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone have been increasing in North America.40 Sensitization to preservatives may occur through direct skin contact or transfer from the hands.41
Acrylates—Acrylates are compounds derived from acrylic acid that may be found in acrylic and gel nails, eyelash extensions, and other adhesives and are frequent causes of eyelid ACD.4,10,42 Acrylate exposure may be cosmetic among consumers or occupational (eg, aestheticians).42,43 Acrylates on the nails may cause eyelid dermatitis via ectopic transfer from the hands and also may cause periungual dermatitis manifesting as nail bed erythema.10 Hydroxyethyl methacrylate is one of the more common eyelid ACD allergens, and studies have shown increasing prevalence of positive reaction rates to hydroxyethylmethacrylate.10,44Topical Medications—Contact allergies to topical medications are quite common, estimated to occur in 10% to 17% of patients undergoing patch testing.45 Both active and inactive ingredients of topical medications may be culprits in eyelid ACD. The most common topical medication allergens include antibiotics, steroids, local anesthetics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.45 Topical antibiotics such as neomycin and bacitracin represent some of the most common causes of eyelid dermatitis4,10 and may be found in a variety of products, including antibacterial ointments and eye drops.1 Many ophthalmologic medications also contain corticosteroids, with the most common allergenic steroids being tixocortol pivalate (a marker for hydrocortisone allergy) and budesonide.10,20 Topical steroids pose a particular dilemma, as they can be either the source of or a treatment for ACD.10 Eye drops also may contain anesthetics, β-blockers, and antihistamines, as well as the preservative benzalkonium chloride, all of which may be contact allergens.21,39
Differential Diagnosis of Eyelid Dermatitis
Although ACD is reported to be the most common cause of eyelid dermatitis, the differential diagnosis is broad, including endogenous inflammatory dermatoses and exogenous exposures (Table 2). Symptoms of eyelid ACD can be nonspecific (eg, erythema, pruritus), making diagnosis challenging.46
Atopic dermatitis represents another common cause of eyelid dermatitis, accounting for 14% to 39.5% of cases.3-5,49Atopic dermatitis of the eyelids classically manifests with lichenification of the medial aspects of the eyelids.50 Atopic dermatitis and ACD may be difficult to distinguish, as the 2 conditions appear clinically similar and can develop concomitantly.51 Additionally, atopic patients are likely to have comorbid allergic rhinitis and sensitivity to environmental allergens, which may lead to chronic eye scratching and lichenification.1,51 Clinical features of eyelid dermatitis suggesting allergic rhinitis and likely comorbid AD include creases in the lower eyelids (Dennie-Morgan lines) and periorbital hyperpigmentation (known as the allergic shiner) due to venous congestion.1,52
Seborrheic dermatitis is an inflammatory reaction to Malassezia yeast that occurs in sebaceous areas such as the groin, scalp, eyebrows, eyelids, and nasolabial folds.1,53,54
Irritant contact dermatitis, a nonspecific inflammatory reaction caused by direct cell damage from external irritants, also may affect the eyelids and appear similar to ACD.1 It typically manifests with a burning or stinging sensation, as opposed to pruritus, and generally develops and resolves more rapidly than ACD.1 Personal care products are common causes of eyelid irritant contact dermatitis.16
Patch Testing for Eyelid ACD
The gold standard for diagnosis of ACD is patch testing, outlined by the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group.55-57 Patch testing generally is performed with standardized panels of allergens and can be customized either with supplemental panels based on unique exposures or with the patient’s own personal care products to increase the sensitivity of testing. Therefore, a thorough history is crucial to identifying potential allergens in a patient’s environment.
False negatives are possible, as the skin on the back may be thicker and less sensitive than the skin at the location of dermatitis.2,58 This is particularly relevant when using patch testing to diagnose ACD of the eyelids, where the skin is particularly thin and sensitive.2 Additionally, ingredients of ophthalmic medications are known to have an especially high false-negative rate with standard patch testing and may require repeated testing with higher drug concentrations or modified patch testing procedures (eg, open testing, scratch-patch testing).1,59
Treatment
Management of ACD involves allergen avoidance, typically dictated by patch test results.10 Allergen avoidance may be facilitated using online resources such as the Contact Allergen Management Program (https://www.acdscamp.org/) created by the American Contact Dermatitis Society.10,18 Patient counseling following patch testing is crucial to educating patients about sources of potential allergen exposures and strategies for avoidance. In the case of eyelid dermatitis, it is particularly important to consider exposure to airborne allergens such as fragrances.16 Fragrance avoidance is uniquely difficult, as labelling standards in the United States currently do not require disclosure of specific fragrance components.33 Additionally, products labelled as unscented may still contain fragrances. As such, some patients with fragrance allergy may need to carefully avoid all products containing fragrances.33
In addition to allergen avoidance, eyelid ACD may be treated with topical medications (eg, steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors); however, these same topical medications also can cause ACD due to some ingredients such as propylene glycol.10 Topical steroids should be used with caution on the eyelids given the risk for atrophy, cataracts, and glaucoma.1
Final Interpretation
Eyelid dermatitis is a common dermatologic condition most frequently caused by ACD due to exposure to allergens in cosmetic products, ophthalmic medications, nail lacquers, and jewelry, among many other potential sources. The most common allergens causing eyelid dermatitis include metals (particularly nickel), fragrances, preservatives, acrylates, and topical medications. Eyelid ACD is diagnosed via patch testing, and the mainstay of treatment is strict allergen avoidance. Patient counseling is vital for successful allergen avoidance and resolution of eyelid ACD.
Eyelid dermatitis is a common dermatologic concern representing a broad group of inflammatory dermatoses and typically presenting as eczematous lesions on the eyelids.1 One of the most common causes of eyelid dermatitis is thought to be allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), a type IV delayed hypersensitivity reaction caused by exposure to external allergens.2 Although ACD can occur anywhere on the body, dermatitis on the face and eyelids is quite common.1,2 This article aims to explore the clinical manifestation, evaluation, and management of eyelid ACD.
Pathophysiology of Eyelid ACD
Studies have shown that ACD is the most common cause of eyelid dermatitis, estimated to account for 46% to 72% of cases worldwide.3-6 Allergic contact dermatitis is a T cell–mediated type IV hypersensitivity reaction to external antigens that manifests as eczematous lesions at the site of contact with the allergen that may spread.7 Allergic contact dermatitis is a common condition, and it is estimated that at least 20% of the general worldwide population has a contact allergy.8,9 Histologically, ACD manifests as spongiotic dermatitis, though this is not unique and also may be seen in atopic dermatitis (AD) and irritant contact dermatitis.2 Allergic contact dermatitis is diagnosed via epicutaneous patch testing, and treatment involves allergen avoidance with or without adjuvant topical and/or systemic immunomodulatory treatments.7
The eyelids are uniquely prone to the development of ACD given their thinner epidermis and increased susceptibility to irritation. They frequently are exposed to allergens through the direct topical route as well as indirectly via airborne exposure, rinse-down products (eg, shampoos), and substances transferred from an individual’s own hands. The occluded skin folds of the eyelids facilitate increased exposure to trapped allergens.10,11 Additionally, the skin of the eyelids is thin, flexible, highly vascularized, and lacking in subcutaneous tissue, making this area more susceptible to antigen penetration than other locations on the body.1,2,10,12,13
Clinical Manifestations
Eyelid ACD is more common in females than males, which is thought to be related to increased use of cosmetics and fragrances.1,3,12,14-16 Clinical manifestations may resemble eczematous papules and plaques.1 Eyelid ACD commonly spreads beyond the eyelid margin, which helps to differentiate it from AD and irritant contact dermatitis. Symptoms of ACD on the eyelids typically include pruritus, redness, swelling, tearing, scaling, and pain.2 Persistent untreated eyelid dermatitis can lead to eyelash loss, damage to meibomian glands, and hyperpigmentation.2,17,18
Patterns of Eyelid ACD
Allergic contact dermatitis on the eyelids can occur due to direct application of allergens onto the skin of the eyelids, runoff of products from the hair/scalp (eg, shampoo), transfer of allergens from the hands, or contact with airborne allergens.1,2,11,12 Some reports have suggested that eyelid ACD more often is caused by products applied to the scalp or face rather than those applied directly to the eyelids.11 Because the scalp and face are less reactive to contact allergens, in some cases the eyelids may be the only affected site.10,12,13
The specific pattern of dermatitis on or around the eyelids can provide clues to the allergenic source. Dermatitis present around the eyelids and periorbital region with involvement of the bilateral upper and lower eyelids suggests direct exposure to a contact allergen, such as makeup or other cosmetic products.1 Unilateral involvement of only 1 eyelid can occur with ectopic transfer of allergens from the hands or nails.1,19 Involvement of the fingers or nails in addition to the eyelids may further suggest ectopic transfer, such as from allergens in nail polish.10 Unilateral eyelid dermatitis also could be caused by unique exposures such as a microscope or camera eyepiece.19 Distribution around the lower eyelids and upper cheeks is indicative of a drip or runoff pattern, which may result from an ophthalmic solution such as eye drops or contact lens solution.1,19 Finally, dermatitis affecting the upper eyelids along with the nasolabial folds and upper chest may suggest airborne contact dermatitis to fragrances or household cleaning products.1,11
Common Culprits of Eyelid ACD
Common causes of eyelid ACD include cosmetic products, ophthalmic medications, nail lacquers, and jewelry.10,13,20 Within the broader category of cosmetics, allergens may be found in makeup and makeup removers, cosmetic applicators and brushes, soaps and cleansers, creams and sunscreens, antiaging products, hair products, nail polish and files, and hair removal products, among many others.10,13,16,20 Additionally, ophthalmologic and topical medications are common sources of ACD, including eyedrops, contact lens solution, and topical antibiotics.10,13,21 Costume jewelry commonly contains allergenic metals, which also can be found in eyelash curlers, eyeglasses, toys, and other household items.22,23 Finally, contact allergens can be found in items such as goggles, gloves, textiles, and a variety of other occupational and household exposures.
Allergic contact dermatitis of the eyelids occurs predominantly—but not exclusively—in females.16,20,24 This finding has been attributed to the traditionally greater use of cosmetics and fragrances among women; however, the use of skin care products among men is increasing, and recent studies have shown the eyelids to be a common location of facial contact dermatitis among men.16,24 Although eyelid dermatitis has not been specifically analyzed by sex, a retrospective analysis of 1332 male patients with facial dermatitis found the most common sites to be the face (not otherwise specified)(48.9%), eyelids (23.5%), and lips (12.6%). In this cohort, the most common allergens were surfactants in shampoos and paraphenylenediamine in hair dyes.24
Common Allergens
Common contact allergens among patients with ACD of the eyelids include metals, fragrances, preservatives, acrylates, and topical medications.3,10,16,20,25-27 Sources of common contact allergens are reviewed in Table 1.
Metals—Metals are among the most common causes of ACD overall, and nickel frequently is reported as one of the top contact allergens in patients with eyelid dermatitis.16,27 A retrospective analysis of 2332 patients with eyelid dermatitis patch tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group from 1994 to 2016 found that 18.6% of patients with eyelid ACD had a clinically relevant nickel allergy. Sources of nickel exposure include jewelry, grooming devices, makeup and makeup applicators, and eyelash curlers, as well as direct transfer from the hands after contact with consumer products.16
Other metals that can cause ACD include cobalt (found in similar products to nickel) and gold. Gold often is associated with eyelid dermatitis, though its clinical relevance has been debated, as gold is a relatively inert metal that rarely is present in eye cosmetics and its ions are not displaced from objects and deposited on the skin via sweat in the same way as nickel.4,16,20,28-30 Despite this, studies have shown that gold is a common positive patch test reaction among patients with eyelid dermatitis, even in patients with no dermatitis at the site of contact with gold jewelry.20,29,31 Gold has been reported to be the most common allergen causing unilateral eyelid dermatitis via ectopic transfer.16,19,20,29 It has been proposed that titanium dioxide, present in many cosmetics and sunscreens, displaces gold allowing its release from jewelry, thereby liberating the fine gold ions and allowing them to desposit on the face and eyelids.30,31 Given the uncertain clinical relevance of positive patch test reactions to gold, Warshaw at al16 recommend a 2- to 3-month trial of gold jewelry avoidance to establish relevance, and Ehrlich and Gold29 noted that avoidance of gold leads to improvement.
Fragrances—Fragrances represent a broad category of naturally occurring and man-made components that often are combined to produce a desired scent in personal care products.32 Essential oils and botanicals are both examples of natural fragrances.33 Fragrances are found in numerous products including makeup, hair products, and household cleaning supplies and represent some of the most common contact allergens.32 Common fragrance allergens include fragrance mixes I and II, hydroperoxides of linalool, and balsam of Peru.12,32,34 Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances typically manifests on the eyelids, face, or hands.33 Several studies have found fragrances to be among the top contact allergens in patients with eyelid dermatitis.3,12,20,25,34 Patch testing for fragrance allergy may include baseline series, supplemental fragrance series, and personal care products.32,35
Preservatives—Preservatives, including formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers (eg, quaternium-15 and bronopol) and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, may be found in personal care products such as makeup, makeup removers, emollients, shampoos, hair care products, and ophthalmologic solutions and are among the most common cosmetic sources of ACD.13,36-39 Preservatives are among the top allergens causing eyelid dermatitis.20 In particular, patch test positivity rates to methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone have been increasing in North America.40 Sensitization to preservatives may occur through direct skin contact or transfer from the hands.41
Acrylates—Acrylates are compounds derived from acrylic acid that may be found in acrylic and gel nails, eyelash extensions, and other adhesives and are frequent causes of eyelid ACD.4,10,42 Acrylate exposure may be cosmetic among consumers or occupational (eg, aestheticians).42,43 Acrylates on the nails may cause eyelid dermatitis via ectopic transfer from the hands and also may cause periungual dermatitis manifesting as nail bed erythema.10 Hydroxyethyl methacrylate is one of the more common eyelid ACD allergens, and studies have shown increasing prevalence of positive reaction rates to hydroxyethylmethacrylate.10,44Topical Medications—Contact allergies to topical medications are quite common, estimated to occur in 10% to 17% of patients undergoing patch testing.45 Both active and inactive ingredients of topical medications may be culprits in eyelid ACD. The most common topical medication allergens include antibiotics, steroids, local anesthetics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.45 Topical antibiotics such as neomycin and bacitracin represent some of the most common causes of eyelid dermatitis4,10 and may be found in a variety of products, including antibacterial ointments and eye drops.1 Many ophthalmologic medications also contain corticosteroids, with the most common allergenic steroids being tixocortol pivalate (a marker for hydrocortisone allergy) and budesonide.10,20 Topical steroids pose a particular dilemma, as they can be either the source of or a treatment for ACD.10 Eye drops also may contain anesthetics, β-blockers, and antihistamines, as well as the preservative benzalkonium chloride, all of which may be contact allergens.21,39
Differential Diagnosis of Eyelid Dermatitis
Although ACD is reported to be the most common cause of eyelid dermatitis, the differential diagnosis is broad, including endogenous inflammatory dermatoses and exogenous exposures (Table 2). Symptoms of eyelid ACD can be nonspecific (eg, erythema, pruritus), making diagnosis challenging.46
Atopic dermatitis represents another common cause of eyelid dermatitis, accounting for 14% to 39.5% of cases.3-5,49Atopic dermatitis of the eyelids classically manifests with lichenification of the medial aspects of the eyelids.50 Atopic dermatitis and ACD may be difficult to distinguish, as the 2 conditions appear clinically similar and can develop concomitantly.51 Additionally, atopic patients are likely to have comorbid allergic rhinitis and sensitivity to environmental allergens, which may lead to chronic eye scratching and lichenification.1,51 Clinical features of eyelid dermatitis suggesting allergic rhinitis and likely comorbid AD include creases in the lower eyelids (Dennie-Morgan lines) and periorbital hyperpigmentation (known as the allergic shiner) due to venous congestion.1,52
Seborrheic dermatitis is an inflammatory reaction to Malassezia yeast that occurs in sebaceous areas such as the groin, scalp, eyebrows, eyelids, and nasolabial folds.1,53,54
Irritant contact dermatitis, a nonspecific inflammatory reaction caused by direct cell damage from external irritants, also may affect the eyelids and appear similar to ACD.1 It typically manifests with a burning or stinging sensation, as opposed to pruritus, and generally develops and resolves more rapidly than ACD.1 Personal care products are common causes of eyelid irritant contact dermatitis.16
Patch Testing for Eyelid ACD
The gold standard for diagnosis of ACD is patch testing, outlined by the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group.55-57 Patch testing generally is performed with standardized panels of allergens and can be customized either with supplemental panels based on unique exposures or with the patient’s own personal care products to increase the sensitivity of testing. Therefore, a thorough history is crucial to identifying potential allergens in a patient’s environment.
False negatives are possible, as the skin on the back may be thicker and less sensitive than the skin at the location of dermatitis.2,58 This is particularly relevant when using patch testing to diagnose ACD of the eyelids, where the skin is particularly thin and sensitive.2 Additionally, ingredients of ophthalmic medications are known to have an especially high false-negative rate with standard patch testing and may require repeated testing with higher drug concentrations or modified patch testing procedures (eg, open testing, scratch-patch testing).1,59
Treatment
Management of ACD involves allergen avoidance, typically dictated by patch test results.10 Allergen avoidance may be facilitated using online resources such as the Contact Allergen Management Program (https://www.acdscamp.org/) created by the American Contact Dermatitis Society.10,18 Patient counseling following patch testing is crucial to educating patients about sources of potential allergen exposures and strategies for avoidance. In the case of eyelid dermatitis, it is particularly important to consider exposure to airborne allergens such as fragrances.16 Fragrance avoidance is uniquely difficult, as labelling standards in the United States currently do not require disclosure of specific fragrance components.33 Additionally, products labelled as unscented may still contain fragrances. As such, some patients with fragrance allergy may need to carefully avoid all products containing fragrances.33
In addition to allergen avoidance, eyelid ACD may be treated with topical medications (eg, steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors); however, these same topical medications also can cause ACD due to some ingredients such as propylene glycol.10 Topical steroids should be used with caution on the eyelids given the risk for atrophy, cataracts, and glaucoma.1
Final Interpretation
Eyelid dermatitis is a common dermatologic condition most frequently caused by ACD due to exposure to allergens in cosmetic products, ophthalmic medications, nail lacquers, and jewelry, among many other potential sources. The most common allergens causing eyelid dermatitis include metals (particularly nickel), fragrances, preservatives, acrylates, and topical medications. Eyelid ACD is diagnosed via patch testing, and the mainstay of treatment is strict allergen avoidance. Patient counseling is vital for successful allergen avoidance and resolution of eyelid ACD.
- Hine AM, Waldman RA, Grzybowski A, et al. Allergic disorders of the eyelid. Clin Dermatol. 2023;41:476-480. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2023.08.002
- Turkiewicz M, Shah A, Yang YW, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis of the eyelids: an interdisciplinary review. Ocul Surf. 2023;28:124-130. doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2023.03.001
- Valsecchi R, Imberti G, Martino D, et al. Eyelid dermatitis: an evaluation of 150 patients. Contact Dermatitis. 1992;27:143-147. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1992.tb05242.x
- Guin JD. Eyelid dermatitis: experience in 203 cases. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;47:755-765. doi:10.1067/mjd.2002.122736
- Nethercott JR, Nield G, Holness DL. A review of 79 cases of eyelid dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989;21(2 pt 1):223-230. doi:10.1016/s0190-9622(89)70165-1
- Shah M, Lewis FM, Gawkrodger DJ. Facial dermatitis and eyelid dermatitis: a comparison of patch test results and final diagnoses. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34:140-141. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1996.tb02148.x
- Brites GS, Ferreira I, Sebastião AI, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis: from pathophysiology to development of new preventive strategies. Pharmacol Res. 2020;162:105282. doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2020.105282
- Alinaghi F, Bennike NH, Egeberg A, et al. Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:77-85. doi:10.1111/cod.13119
- Adler BL, DeLeo VA. Allergic contact dermatitis. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157:364. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.5639
- Huang CX, Yiannias JA, Killian JM, et al. Seven common allergen groups causing eyelid dermatitis: education and avoidance strategies. Clin Ophthalmol Auckl NZ. 2021;15:1477-1490. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S297754
- Rozas-Muñoz E, Gamé D, Serra-Baldrich E. Allergic contact dermatitis by anatomical regions: diagnostic clues. Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas Engl Ed. 2018;109:485-507. doi:10.1016/j.adengl.2018.05.016
- Amin KA, Belsito DV. The aetiology of eyelid dermatitis: a 10-year retrospective analysis. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;55:280-285. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.00927.x
- Wolf R, Orion E, Tüzün Y. Periorbital (eyelid) dermatides. Clin Dermatol. 2014;32:131-140. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2013.05.035
- Ockenfels HM, Seemann U, Goos M. Contact allergy in patients with periorbital eczema: an analysis of allergens. data recorded by the Information Network of the Departments of Dermatology. Dermatol Basel Switz. 1997;195:119-124. doi:10.1159/000245712
- Landeck L, John SM, Geier J. Periorbital dermatitis in 4779 patients—patch test results during a 10-year period. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:205-212. doi:10.1111/cod.12157
- Warshaw EM, Voller LM, Maibach HI, et al. Eyelid dermatitis in patients referred for patch testing: retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1994-2016. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84:953-964. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.07.020
- McMonnies CW. Management of chronic habits of abnormal eye rubbing. Contact Lens Anterior Eye. 2008;31:95-102. doi:10.1016/j.clae.2007.07.008
- Chisholm SAM, Couch SM, Custer PL. Etiology and management of allergic eyelid dermatitis. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;33:248-250. doi:10.1097/IOP.0000000000000723
- Lewallen R, Feldman S, eds. Regional atlas of contact dermatitis. The Dermatologist. Accessed April 22, 2024. https://s3.amazonaws.com/HMP/hmp_ln/imported/Regional%20Atlas%20of%20Contact%20Dermatitis%20Book_lr.pdf
- Rietschel RL, Warshaw EM, Sasseville D, et al. Common contact allergens associated with eyelid dermatitis: data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2003-2004 study period. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2007;18:78-81. doi:10.2310/6620.2007.06041
- Mughal AA, Kalavala M. Contact dermatitis to ophthalmic solutions. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2012;37:593-597; quiz 597-598. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2230.2012.04398.x
- Goossens A. Contact allergic reactions on the eyes and eyelids. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol. 2004;292:11-17.
- Silverberg NB, Pelletier JL, Jacob SE, et al. Nickel allergic contact dermatitis: identification, treatment, and prevention. Pediatrics. 2020;145:E20200628. doi:10.1542/peds.2020-0628
- Warshaw EM, Schlarbaum JP, Maibach HI, et al. Facial dermatitis in male patients referred for patch testing. JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156:79-84. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.3531
- Wenk KS, Ehrlich A. Fragrance series testing in eyelid dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2012;23:22-26. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e31823d180f
- Crouse L, Ziemer C, Ziemer C, et al. Trends in eyelid dermatitis. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2018;29:96-97. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000338
- Yazdanparast T, Nassiri Kashani M, Shamsipour M, et al. Contact allergens responsible for eyelid dermatitis in adults. J Dermatol. 2024;51:691-695. doi:10.1111/1346-8138.17140
- Fowler J, Taylor J, Storrs F, et al. Gold allergy in North America. Am J Contact Dermat. 2001;12:3-5.
- Ehrlich A, Belsito DV. Allergic contact dermatitis to gold. Cutis. 2000;65:323-326.
- Danesh M, Murase JE. Titanium dioxide induces eyelid dermatitis in patients allergic to gold. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;73:E21. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2015.03.046
- Katta R. Common misconceptions in contact dermatitis counseling. Dermatol Online J. 2008;14:2.
- De Groot AC. Fragrances: contact allergy and other adverse effects. Dermatitis. 2020;31:13-35. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000463
- Reeder MJ. Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances. Dermatol Clin. 2020;38:371-377. doi:10.1016/j.det.2020.02.009
- Warshaw EM, Zhang AJ, DeKoven JG, et al. Epidemiology of nickel sensitivity: retrospective cross-sectional analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data 1994-2014. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:701-713. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2018.09.058
- Schalock PC, Dunnick CA, Nedorost S, et al. American Contact Dermatitis Society core allergen series: 2020 update. Dermatitis. 2020;31:279-282. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000621
- Yim E, Baquerizo Nole KL, Tosti A. Contact dermatitis caused by preservatives. Dermatitis. 2014;25:215-231. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000061
- Alani JI, Davis MDP, Yiannias JA. Allergy to cosmetics. Dermatitis. 2013;24:283-290. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e3182a5d8bc
- Hamilton T, de Gannes GC. Allergic contact dermatitis to preservatives and fragrances in cosmetics. Skin Ther Lett. 2011;16:1-4.
- Ashton SJ, Mughal AA. Contact dermatitis to ophthalmic solutions: an update. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2023;34:480-483. doi:10.1089/derm.2023.0033
- Reeder MJ, Warshaw E, Aravamuthan S, et al. Trends in the prevalence of methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone contact allergy in North America and Europe. JAMA Dermatol. 2023;159:267-274. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.5991
- Herro EM, Elsaie ML, Nijhawan RI, et al. Recommendations for a screening series for allergic contact eyelid dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2012;23:17-21. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e31823d191f
- Kucharczyk M, Słowik-Rylska M, Cyran-Stemplewska S, et al. Acrylates as a significant cause of allergic contact dermatitis: new sources of exposure. Adv Dermatol Allergol Dermatol Alergol. 2021;38:555-560. doi:10.5114/ada.2020.95848
- Rodriguez I, George SE, Yu J, et al. Tackling acrylate allergy: the sticky truth. Cutis. 2023;112:282-286. doi:10.12788/cutis.0909
- DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Reeder MJ, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2019–2020. Dermatitis. 2023;34:90-104. doi:10.1089/derm.2022.29017.jdk
- de Groot A. Allergic contact dermatitis from topical drugs: an overview. Dermatitis. 2021;32:197-213. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000737
- Zug KA, Palay DA, Rock B. Dermatologic diagnosis and treatment of itchy red eyelids. Surv Ophthalmol. 1996;40:293-306. doi:10.1016/s0039-6257(96)82004-2
- Beltrani VS. Eyelid dermatitis. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2001;1:380-388. doi:10.1007/s11882-001-0052-0
- Hirji SH, Maeng MM, Tran AQ, et al. Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma of the eyelid masquerading as dermatitis. Orbit Amst Neth. 2021;40:75-78. doi:10.1080/01676830.2020.1739080
- Svensson A, Möller H. Eyelid dermatitis: the role of atopy and contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 1986;15:178-182. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1986.tb01321.x
- Papier A, Tuttle DJ, Mahar TJ. Differential diagnosis of the swollen red eyelid. Am Fam Physician. 2007;76:1815-1824.
- Johnson H, Novack DE, Adler BL, et al. Can atopic dermatitis and allergic contact dermatitis coexist? Cutis. 2022;110:139-142. doi:10.12788cutis.0599
- Berger WE. Allergic rhinitis in children: diagnosis and management strategies. Paediatr Drugs. 2004;6:233-250. doi:10.2165/00148581-200406040-00003
- Singh A, Kansal NK, Kumawat D, et al. Ophthalmic manifestations of seborrheic dermatitis. Skinmed. 2023;21:397-401.
- Clark GW, Pope SM, Jaboori KA. Diagnosis and treatment of seborrheic dermatitis. Am Fam Physician. 2015;91:185-190.
- Lachapelle JM, Maibach HI. Patch Testing and Prick Testing. Springer; 2012.
- Fregert S. Manual of Contact Dermatitis: On Behalf of the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Munksgaard; 1974.
- Reeder M, Reck Atwater A. Patch testing 101, part 1: performing the test. Cutis. 2020;106:165-167. doi:10.12788/cutis.0093
- Wolf R, Perluk H. Failure of routine patch test results to detect eyelid dermatitis. Cutis. 1992;49:133-134.
- Grey KR, Warshaw EM. Allergic contact dermatitis to ophthalmic medications: relevant allergens and alternative testing methods. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2016;27:333-347. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000224
- Hine AM, Waldman RA, Grzybowski A, et al. Allergic disorders of the eyelid. Clin Dermatol. 2023;41:476-480. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2023.08.002
- Turkiewicz M, Shah A, Yang YW, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis of the eyelids: an interdisciplinary review. Ocul Surf. 2023;28:124-130. doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2023.03.001
- Valsecchi R, Imberti G, Martino D, et al. Eyelid dermatitis: an evaluation of 150 patients. Contact Dermatitis. 1992;27:143-147. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1992.tb05242.x
- Guin JD. Eyelid dermatitis: experience in 203 cases. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;47:755-765. doi:10.1067/mjd.2002.122736
- Nethercott JR, Nield G, Holness DL. A review of 79 cases of eyelid dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989;21(2 pt 1):223-230. doi:10.1016/s0190-9622(89)70165-1
- Shah M, Lewis FM, Gawkrodger DJ. Facial dermatitis and eyelid dermatitis: a comparison of patch test results and final diagnoses. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34:140-141. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1996.tb02148.x
- Brites GS, Ferreira I, Sebastião AI, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis: from pathophysiology to development of new preventive strategies. Pharmacol Res. 2020;162:105282. doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2020.105282
- Alinaghi F, Bennike NH, Egeberg A, et al. Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:77-85. doi:10.1111/cod.13119
- Adler BL, DeLeo VA. Allergic contact dermatitis. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157:364. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.5639
- Huang CX, Yiannias JA, Killian JM, et al. Seven common allergen groups causing eyelid dermatitis: education and avoidance strategies. Clin Ophthalmol Auckl NZ. 2021;15:1477-1490. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S297754
- Rozas-Muñoz E, Gamé D, Serra-Baldrich E. Allergic contact dermatitis by anatomical regions: diagnostic clues. Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas Engl Ed. 2018;109:485-507. doi:10.1016/j.adengl.2018.05.016
- Amin KA, Belsito DV. The aetiology of eyelid dermatitis: a 10-year retrospective analysis. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;55:280-285. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.00927.x
- Wolf R, Orion E, Tüzün Y. Periorbital (eyelid) dermatides. Clin Dermatol. 2014;32:131-140. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2013.05.035
- Ockenfels HM, Seemann U, Goos M. Contact allergy in patients with periorbital eczema: an analysis of allergens. data recorded by the Information Network of the Departments of Dermatology. Dermatol Basel Switz. 1997;195:119-124. doi:10.1159/000245712
- Landeck L, John SM, Geier J. Periorbital dermatitis in 4779 patients—patch test results during a 10-year period. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:205-212. doi:10.1111/cod.12157
- Warshaw EM, Voller LM, Maibach HI, et al. Eyelid dermatitis in patients referred for patch testing: retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1994-2016. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84:953-964. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.07.020
- McMonnies CW. Management of chronic habits of abnormal eye rubbing. Contact Lens Anterior Eye. 2008;31:95-102. doi:10.1016/j.clae.2007.07.008
- Chisholm SAM, Couch SM, Custer PL. Etiology and management of allergic eyelid dermatitis. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;33:248-250. doi:10.1097/IOP.0000000000000723
- Lewallen R, Feldman S, eds. Regional atlas of contact dermatitis. The Dermatologist. Accessed April 22, 2024. https://s3.amazonaws.com/HMP/hmp_ln/imported/Regional%20Atlas%20of%20Contact%20Dermatitis%20Book_lr.pdf
- Rietschel RL, Warshaw EM, Sasseville D, et al. Common contact allergens associated with eyelid dermatitis: data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2003-2004 study period. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2007;18:78-81. doi:10.2310/6620.2007.06041
- Mughal AA, Kalavala M. Contact dermatitis to ophthalmic solutions. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2012;37:593-597; quiz 597-598. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2230.2012.04398.x
- Goossens A. Contact allergic reactions on the eyes and eyelids. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol. 2004;292:11-17.
- Silverberg NB, Pelletier JL, Jacob SE, et al. Nickel allergic contact dermatitis: identification, treatment, and prevention. Pediatrics. 2020;145:E20200628. doi:10.1542/peds.2020-0628
- Warshaw EM, Schlarbaum JP, Maibach HI, et al. Facial dermatitis in male patients referred for patch testing. JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156:79-84. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.3531
- Wenk KS, Ehrlich A. Fragrance series testing in eyelid dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2012;23:22-26. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e31823d180f
- Crouse L, Ziemer C, Ziemer C, et al. Trends in eyelid dermatitis. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2018;29:96-97. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000338
- Yazdanparast T, Nassiri Kashani M, Shamsipour M, et al. Contact allergens responsible for eyelid dermatitis in adults. J Dermatol. 2024;51:691-695. doi:10.1111/1346-8138.17140
- Fowler J, Taylor J, Storrs F, et al. Gold allergy in North America. Am J Contact Dermat. 2001;12:3-5.
- Ehrlich A, Belsito DV. Allergic contact dermatitis to gold. Cutis. 2000;65:323-326.
- Danesh M, Murase JE. Titanium dioxide induces eyelid dermatitis in patients allergic to gold. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;73:E21. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2015.03.046
- Katta R. Common misconceptions in contact dermatitis counseling. Dermatol Online J. 2008;14:2.
- De Groot AC. Fragrances: contact allergy and other adverse effects. Dermatitis. 2020;31:13-35. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000463
- Reeder MJ. Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances. Dermatol Clin. 2020;38:371-377. doi:10.1016/j.det.2020.02.009
- Warshaw EM, Zhang AJ, DeKoven JG, et al. Epidemiology of nickel sensitivity: retrospective cross-sectional analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data 1994-2014. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:701-713. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2018.09.058
- Schalock PC, Dunnick CA, Nedorost S, et al. American Contact Dermatitis Society core allergen series: 2020 update. Dermatitis. 2020;31:279-282. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000621
- Yim E, Baquerizo Nole KL, Tosti A. Contact dermatitis caused by preservatives. Dermatitis. 2014;25:215-231. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000061
- Alani JI, Davis MDP, Yiannias JA. Allergy to cosmetics. Dermatitis. 2013;24:283-290. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e3182a5d8bc
- Hamilton T, de Gannes GC. Allergic contact dermatitis to preservatives and fragrances in cosmetics. Skin Ther Lett. 2011;16:1-4.
- Ashton SJ, Mughal AA. Contact dermatitis to ophthalmic solutions: an update. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2023;34:480-483. doi:10.1089/derm.2023.0033
- Reeder MJ, Warshaw E, Aravamuthan S, et al. Trends in the prevalence of methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone contact allergy in North America and Europe. JAMA Dermatol. 2023;159:267-274. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.5991
- Herro EM, Elsaie ML, Nijhawan RI, et al. Recommendations for a screening series for allergic contact eyelid dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2012;23:17-21. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e31823d191f
- Kucharczyk M, Słowik-Rylska M, Cyran-Stemplewska S, et al. Acrylates as a significant cause of allergic contact dermatitis: new sources of exposure. Adv Dermatol Allergol Dermatol Alergol. 2021;38:555-560. doi:10.5114/ada.2020.95848
- Rodriguez I, George SE, Yu J, et al. Tackling acrylate allergy: the sticky truth. Cutis. 2023;112:282-286. doi:10.12788/cutis.0909
- DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Reeder MJ, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2019–2020. Dermatitis. 2023;34:90-104. doi:10.1089/derm.2022.29017.jdk
- de Groot A. Allergic contact dermatitis from topical drugs: an overview. Dermatitis. 2021;32:197-213. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000737
- Zug KA, Palay DA, Rock B. Dermatologic diagnosis and treatment of itchy red eyelids. Surv Ophthalmol. 1996;40:293-306. doi:10.1016/s0039-6257(96)82004-2
- Beltrani VS. Eyelid dermatitis. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2001;1:380-388. doi:10.1007/s11882-001-0052-0
- Hirji SH, Maeng MM, Tran AQ, et al. Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma of the eyelid masquerading as dermatitis. Orbit Amst Neth. 2021;40:75-78. doi:10.1080/01676830.2020.1739080
- Svensson A, Möller H. Eyelid dermatitis: the role of atopy and contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 1986;15:178-182. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1986.tb01321.x
- Papier A, Tuttle DJ, Mahar TJ. Differential diagnosis of the swollen red eyelid. Am Fam Physician. 2007;76:1815-1824.
- Johnson H, Novack DE, Adler BL, et al. Can atopic dermatitis and allergic contact dermatitis coexist? Cutis. 2022;110:139-142. doi:10.12788cutis.0599
- Berger WE. Allergic rhinitis in children: diagnosis and management strategies. Paediatr Drugs. 2004;6:233-250. doi:10.2165/00148581-200406040-00003
- Singh A, Kansal NK, Kumawat D, et al. Ophthalmic manifestations of seborrheic dermatitis. Skinmed. 2023;21:397-401.
- Clark GW, Pope SM, Jaboori KA. Diagnosis and treatment of seborrheic dermatitis. Am Fam Physician. 2015;91:185-190.
- Lachapelle JM, Maibach HI. Patch Testing and Prick Testing. Springer; 2012.
- Fregert S. Manual of Contact Dermatitis: On Behalf of the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Munksgaard; 1974.
- Reeder M, Reck Atwater A. Patch testing 101, part 1: performing the test. Cutis. 2020;106:165-167. doi:10.12788/cutis.0093
- Wolf R, Perluk H. Failure of routine patch test results to detect eyelid dermatitis. Cutis. 1992;49:133-134.
- Grey KR, Warshaw EM. Allergic contact dermatitis to ophthalmic medications: relevant allergens and alternative testing methods. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 2016;27:333-347. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000224
Practice Points
- Eyelid dermatitis is a common dermatologic concern representing a broad range of inflammatory dermatoses, most often caused by allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).
- The most common contact allergens associated with eyelid dermatitis are metals (particularly nickel), fragrances, preservatives, acrylates, and topical medications, which may be found in a variety of sources, including cosmetics, ophthalmic medications, nail lacquers, and jewelry.
- Eyelid ACD is diagnosed via patch testing, and management involves strict allergen avoidance.
Reflectance Confocal Microscopy as a Diagnostic Aid in Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Mango Sap
The mango tree (Mangifera indica) produces nutrient-dense fruit—known colloquially as the “king of fruits”—that is widely consumed across the world. Native to southern Asia, the mango tree is a member of the Anacardiaceae family, a large family of flowering, fruit-bearing plants.1 Many members of the Anacardiaceae family, which includes poison ivy and poison oak, are known to produce urushiol, a skin irritant associated with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).2 Interestingly, despite its widespread consumption and categorization in the Anacardiaceae family, allergic reactions to mango are comparatively rare; they occur as either immediate type I hypersensitivity reactions manifesting with rapid-onset symptoms such as urticaria, wheezing, and angioedema, or delayed type IV hypersensitivity reactions manifesting as ACD.3 Although exposure to components of the mango tree has been most characteristically linked to type IV hypersensitivity reactions, there remain fewer than 40 reported cases of mango-induced ACD since it was first described in 1939.4
Evaluation of ACD most commonly includes a thorough clinical assessment with diagnostic support from patch testing and histopathologic review following skin biopsy. In recent years, reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) has shown promising potential to join the repertoire of diagnostic tools for ACD by enabling dynamic and high-resolution imaging of contact dermatitis in vivo.5-10 Reflectance confocal microscopy is a noninvasive optical imaging technique that uses a low-energy diode laser to penetrate the layers of the skin. The resulting reflected light generates images that facilitate visualization of cutaneous structures to the depth of the papillary dermis.11 While it is most commonly used in skin cancer diagnostics, preliminary studies also have shown an emerging role for RCM in the evaluation of eczematous and inflammatory skin disease, including contact dermatitis.5-10 Herein, we present a unique case of mango sap–induced ACD imaged and diagnosed in real time via RCM.
Case Report
A 39-year-old woman presented to our clinic with a pruritic vesicular eruption on the right leg of 2 weeks’ duration that initially had developed within 7 days of exposure to mango tree sap (Figure 1). The patient reported having experienced similar pruritic eruptions in the past following contact with mango sap while eating mangos but denied any history of reactions from ingestion of the fruit. She also reported a history of robust reactions to poison ivy; however, a timeline specifying the order of first exposure to these irritants was unknown. She denied any personal or family history of atopic conditions.
The affected skin was imaged in real time during clinic using RCM, which showed an inflammatory infiltrate represented by dark spongiotic vesicles containing bright cells (Figure 2). Additional RCM imaging at the level of the stratum spinosum showed dark spongiotic areas with bright inflammatory cells infiltrating the vesicles, which were surrounded by normal skin showing a typical epidermal honeycomb pattern (Figure 3). These findings were diagnostic of ACD secondary to exposure to mango sap. The patient was advised to apply clobetasol cream 0.05% to the affected area. Notable improvement of the rash was noted within 10 days of treatment.
Comment
Exposure to the mango tree and its fruit is a rare cause of ACD, with few reported cases in the literature. The majority of known instances have occurred in non–mango-cultivating countries, largely the United States, although cases also have been reported in Canada, Australia, France, Japan, and Thailand.3,12 Mango-induced contact allergy follows a roughly equal distribution between males and females and most often occurs in young adults during the third and fourth decades of life.4,12-21 Importantly, delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions to mango can manifest as either localized or systemic ACD. Localized ACD can be induced via direct contact with the mango tree and its components or ingestion of the fruit.3,12,22 Conversely, systemic ACD is primarily stimulated by ingestion of the fruit. In our case, the patient had no history of allergy following mango ingestion, and her ACD was prompted by isolated contact with mango sap. The time from exposure to symptom onset of known instances of mango ACD varies widely, ranging from less than 24 hours to as long as 9 days.3,12 Diagnosis of mango-induced ACD largely is guided by clinical findings. Presenting symptoms often include an eczematous, vesicular, pruritic rash on affected areas of the skin, frequently the head, neck, and extremities. Patients also commonly present with linear papulovesicular lesions and periorbital or perioral edema.
The suspected allergens responsible for mango-induced ACD are derived from resorcinol—specifically heptadecadienyl resorcinol, heptadecenyl resorcinol, and pentadecyl resorcinol, which are collectively known as mango allergens.23 These allergens can be found within the pulp and skin of the mango fruit as well as in the bark and leaves of the mango tree, which may explain observed allergic reactions to components of both the mango fruit and tree.12 Similar to these resorcinol derivatives, the urushiol resin found in poison ivy and poison oak is a catechol derivative.2 Importantly, both resorcinols and catechols are isomers of the same aromatic phenol—dihydroxybenzene. Because of these similarities, it is thought that the allergens in mangos may cross-react with urushiol in poison ivy or poison oak.23 Alongside their shared categorization in the Anacardiaceae family, it is hypothesized that this cross-reactivity underlies the sensitization that has been noted between mango and poison ivy or poison oak exposure.12,23,24 Thus, ACD often can occur on initial contact with the mango tree or its components, as a prior exposure to poison ivy or poison oak may serve as the inciting factor for hypersensitization. The majority of reported cases in the literature also occurred in countries where exposure to poison ivy and poison oak are common, further supporting the notion that these compounds may provide a sensitizing trigger for a future mango contact allergy.12
A detailed clinical history combined with adjunctive diagnostic support from patch testing and histopathology of biopsied skin lesions classically are used in the diagnosis of mango-induced ACD. Due to its ability to provide quick and noninvasive in vivo imaging of cutaneous lesions, RCM's applications have expanded to include evaluation of inflammatory skin diseases such as contact dermatitis. Many features of contact dermatitis identified via RCM are common between ACD and irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) and include disruption of the stratum corneum, parakeratosis, vesiculation, spongiosis, and exocytosis.6,10,25 Studies also have described features shown via RCM that are unique to ACD, including vasodilation and intercellular edema, compared to more distinct targetoid keratinocytes and detached corneocytes seen in ICD.6,10,25 Studies by Astner et al5,6 demonstrated a wide range of sensitivity from 52% to 96% and a high specificity of RCM greater than 95% for many of the aforementioned features of contact dermatitis, including disruption of the stratum corneum, parakeratosis, spongiosis, and exocytosis. Additional studies have further strengthened these findings, demonstrating sensitivity and specificity values of 83% and 92% for contact dermatitis under RCM, respectively.26 Importantly, given the similarities and potentially large overlap of features between ACD and ICD identified via RCM as well as findings seen on physical examination and histopathology, an emphasis on clinical correlation is essential when differentiating between these 2 variants of contact dermatitis. Thus, taken in consideration with clinical contexts, RCM has shown potent diagnostic accuracy and great potential to support the evaluation of ACD alongside patch testing and histopathology.
Final Thoughts
Contact allergy to the mango tree and its components is uncommon. We report a unique case of mango sap–induced ACD evaluated and diagnosed via dynamic visualization under RCM. As a noninvasive and reproducible imaging technique with resolutions comparable to histopathologic analysis, RCM is a promising tool that can be used to support the diagnostic evaluation of ACD.
- Shah KA, Patel MB, Patel RJ, et al. Mangifera indica (mango). Pharmacogn Rev. 2010;4:42-48.
- Lofgran T, Mahabal GD. Toxicodendron toxicity. StatPearls [Internet]. Updated May 16, 2023. Accessed September 19, 2024. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557866
- Sareen R, Shah A. Hypersensitivity manifestations to the fruit mango. Asia Pac Allergy. 2011;1:43-49.
- Zakon SJ. Contact dermatitis due to mango. JAMA. 1939;113:1808.
- Astner S, Gonzalez E, Cheung A, et al. Pilot study on the sensitivity and specificity of in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy in the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;53:986-992.
- Astner S, Gonzalez S, Gonzalez E. Noninvasive evaluation of allergic and irritant contact dermatitis by in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy. Dermatitis. 2006;17:182-191.
- Csuka EA, Ward SC, Ekelem C, et al. Reflectance confocal microscopy, optical coherence tomography, and multiphoton microscopy in inflammatory skin disease diagnosis. Lasers Surg Med. 2021;53:776-797.
- Guichard A, Fanian F, Girardin P, et al. Allergic patch test and contact dermatitis by in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy [in French]. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2014;141:805-807.
- Sakanashi EN, Matsumura M, Kikuchi K, et al. A comparative study of allergic contact dermatitis by patch test versus reflectance confocal laser microscopy, with nickel and cobalt. Eur J Dermatol. 2010;20:705-711.
- Swindells K, Burnett N, Rius-Diaz F, et al. Reflectance confocal microscopy may differentiate acute allergic and irritant contact dermatitis in vivo. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004;50:220-228.
- Shahriari N, Grant-Kels JM, Rabinovitz H, et al. Reflectance confocal microscopy: principles, basic terminology, clinical indications, limitations, and practical considerations. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84:1-14.
- Berghea EC, Craiu M, Ali S, et al. Contact allergy induced by mango (Mangifera indica): a relevant topic? Medicina (Kaunas). 2021;57:1240.
- O’Hern K, Zhang F, Zug KA, et al. “Mango slice” dermatitis: pediatric allergic contact dermatitis to mango pulp and skin. Dermatitis. 2022;33:E46-E47.
- Raison-Peyron N, Aljaber F, Al Ali OA, et al. Mango dermatitis: an unusual cause of eyelid dermatitis in France. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;85:599-600.
- Alipour Tehrany Y, Coulombe J. Mango allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;85:241-242.
- Yoo MJ, Carius BM. Mango dermatitis after urushiol sensitization. Clin Pract Cases Emerg Med. 2019;3:361-363.
- Miyazawa H, Nishie W, Hata H, et al. A severe case of mango dermatitis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018;32:E160-E161.
- Trehan I, Meuli GJ. Mango contact allergy. J Travel Med. 2010;17:284.
- Wiwanitkit V. Mango dermatitis. Indian J Dermatol. 2008;53:158.
- Weinstein S, Bassiri-Tehrani S, Cohen DE. Allergic contact dermatitis to mango flesh. Int J Dermatol. 2004;43:195-196.
- Calvert ML, Robertson I, Samaratunga H. Mango dermatitis: allergic contact dermatitis to Mangifera indica. Australas J Dermatol. 1996;37:59-60.
- Thoo CH, Freeman S. Hypersensitivity reaction to the ingestion of mango flesh. Australas J Dermatol. 2008;49:116-119.
- Oka K, Saito F, Yasuhara T, et al. A study of cross-reactions between mango contact allergens and urushiol. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;51:292-296.
- Keil H, Wasserman D, Dawson CR. Mango dermatitis and its relationship to poison ivy hypersensitivity. Ann Allergy. 1946;4: 268-281.
- Maarouf M, Costello CM, Gonzalez S, et al. In vivo reflectance confocal microscopy: emerging role in noninvasive diagnosis and monitoring of eczematous dermatoses. Actas Dermosifiliogr (Engl Ed). 2019;110:626-636.
- Koller S, Gerger A, Ahlgrimm-Siess V, et al. In vivo reflectance confocal microscopy of erythematosquamous skin diseases. Exp Dermatol. 2009;18:536-540.
The mango tree (Mangifera indica) produces nutrient-dense fruit—known colloquially as the “king of fruits”—that is widely consumed across the world. Native to southern Asia, the mango tree is a member of the Anacardiaceae family, a large family of flowering, fruit-bearing plants.1 Many members of the Anacardiaceae family, which includes poison ivy and poison oak, are known to produce urushiol, a skin irritant associated with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).2 Interestingly, despite its widespread consumption and categorization in the Anacardiaceae family, allergic reactions to mango are comparatively rare; they occur as either immediate type I hypersensitivity reactions manifesting with rapid-onset symptoms such as urticaria, wheezing, and angioedema, or delayed type IV hypersensitivity reactions manifesting as ACD.3 Although exposure to components of the mango tree has been most characteristically linked to type IV hypersensitivity reactions, there remain fewer than 40 reported cases of mango-induced ACD since it was first described in 1939.4
Evaluation of ACD most commonly includes a thorough clinical assessment with diagnostic support from patch testing and histopathologic review following skin biopsy. In recent years, reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) has shown promising potential to join the repertoire of diagnostic tools for ACD by enabling dynamic and high-resolution imaging of contact dermatitis in vivo.5-10 Reflectance confocal microscopy is a noninvasive optical imaging technique that uses a low-energy diode laser to penetrate the layers of the skin. The resulting reflected light generates images that facilitate visualization of cutaneous structures to the depth of the papillary dermis.11 While it is most commonly used in skin cancer diagnostics, preliminary studies also have shown an emerging role for RCM in the evaluation of eczematous and inflammatory skin disease, including contact dermatitis.5-10 Herein, we present a unique case of mango sap–induced ACD imaged and diagnosed in real time via RCM.
Case Report
A 39-year-old woman presented to our clinic with a pruritic vesicular eruption on the right leg of 2 weeks’ duration that initially had developed within 7 days of exposure to mango tree sap (Figure 1). The patient reported having experienced similar pruritic eruptions in the past following contact with mango sap while eating mangos but denied any history of reactions from ingestion of the fruit. She also reported a history of robust reactions to poison ivy; however, a timeline specifying the order of first exposure to these irritants was unknown. She denied any personal or family history of atopic conditions.
The affected skin was imaged in real time during clinic using RCM, which showed an inflammatory infiltrate represented by dark spongiotic vesicles containing bright cells (Figure 2). Additional RCM imaging at the level of the stratum spinosum showed dark spongiotic areas with bright inflammatory cells infiltrating the vesicles, which were surrounded by normal skin showing a typical epidermal honeycomb pattern (Figure 3). These findings were diagnostic of ACD secondary to exposure to mango sap. The patient was advised to apply clobetasol cream 0.05% to the affected area. Notable improvement of the rash was noted within 10 days of treatment.
Comment
Exposure to the mango tree and its fruit is a rare cause of ACD, with few reported cases in the literature. The majority of known instances have occurred in non–mango-cultivating countries, largely the United States, although cases also have been reported in Canada, Australia, France, Japan, and Thailand.3,12 Mango-induced contact allergy follows a roughly equal distribution between males and females and most often occurs in young adults during the third and fourth decades of life.4,12-21 Importantly, delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions to mango can manifest as either localized or systemic ACD. Localized ACD can be induced via direct contact with the mango tree and its components or ingestion of the fruit.3,12,22 Conversely, systemic ACD is primarily stimulated by ingestion of the fruit. In our case, the patient had no history of allergy following mango ingestion, and her ACD was prompted by isolated contact with mango sap. The time from exposure to symptom onset of known instances of mango ACD varies widely, ranging from less than 24 hours to as long as 9 days.3,12 Diagnosis of mango-induced ACD largely is guided by clinical findings. Presenting symptoms often include an eczematous, vesicular, pruritic rash on affected areas of the skin, frequently the head, neck, and extremities. Patients also commonly present with linear papulovesicular lesions and periorbital or perioral edema.
The suspected allergens responsible for mango-induced ACD are derived from resorcinol—specifically heptadecadienyl resorcinol, heptadecenyl resorcinol, and pentadecyl resorcinol, which are collectively known as mango allergens.23 These allergens can be found within the pulp and skin of the mango fruit as well as in the bark and leaves of the mango tree, which may explain observed allergic reactions to components of both the mango fruit and tree.12 Similar to these resorcinol derivatives, the urushiol resin found in poison ivy and poison oak is a catechol derivative.2 Importantly, both resorcinols and catechols are isomers of the same aromatic phenol—dihydroxybenzene. Because of these similarities, it is thought that the allergens in mangos may cross-react with urushiol in poison ivy or poison oak.23 Alongside their shared categorization in the Anacardiaceae family, it is hypothesized that this cross-reactivity underlies the sensitization that has been noted between mango and poison ivy or poison oak exposure.12,23,24 Thus, ACD often can occur on initial contact with the mango tree or its components, as a prior exposure to poison ivy or poison oak may serve as the inciting factor for hypersensitization. The majority of reported cases in the literature also occurred in countries where exposure to poison ivy and poison oak are common, further supporting the notion that these compounds may provide a sensitizing trigger for a future mango contact allergy.12
A detailed clinical history combined with adjunctive diagnostic support from patch testing and histopathology of biopsied skin lesions classically are used in the diagnosis of mango-induced ACD. Due to its ability to provide quick and noninvasive in vivo imaging of cutaneous lesions, RCM's applications have expanded to include evaluation of inflammatory skin diseases such as contact dermatitis. Many features of contact dermatitis identified via RCM are common between ACD and irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) and include disruption of the stratum corneum, parakeratosis, vesiculation, spongiosis, and exocytosis.6,10,25 Studies also have described features shown via RCM that are unique to ACD, including vasodilation and intercellular edema, compared to more distinct targetoid keratinocytes and detached corneocytes seen in ICD.6,10,25 Studies by Astner et al5,6 demonstrated a wide range of sensitivity from 52% to 96% and a high specificity of RCM greater than 95% for many of the aforementioned features of contact dermatitis, including disruption of the stratum corneum, parakeratosis, spongiosis, and exocytosis. Additional studies have further strengthened these findings, demonstrating sensitivity and specificity values of 83% and 92% for contact dermatitis under RCM, respectively.26 Importantly, given the similarities and potentially large overlap of features between ACD and ICD identified via RCM as well as findings seen on physical examination and histopathology, an emphasis on clinical correlation is essential when differentiating between these 2 variants of contact dermatitis. Thus, taken in consideration with clinical contexts, RCM has shown potent diagnostic accuracy and great potential to support the evaluation of ACD alongside patch testing and histopathology.
Final Thoughts
Contact allergy to the mango tree and its components is uncommon. We report a unique case of mango sap–induced ACD evaluated and diagnosed via dynamic visualization under RCM. As a noninvasive and reproducible imaging technique with resolutions comparable to histopathologic analysis, RCM is a promising tool that can be used to support the diagnostic evaluation of ACD.
The mango tree (Mangifera indica) produces nutrient-dense fruit—known colloquially as the “king of fruits”—that is widely consumed across the world. Native to southern Asia, the mango tree is a member of the Anacardiaceae family, a large family of flowering, fruit-bearing plants.1 Many members of the Anacardiaceae family, which includes poison ivy and poison oak, are known to produce urushiol, a skin irritant associated with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).2 Interestingly, despite its widespread consumption and categorization in the Anacardiaceae family, allergic reactions to mango are comparatively rare; they occur as either immediate type I hypersensitivity reactions manifesting with rapid-onset symptoms such as urticaria, wheezing, and angioedema, or delayed type IV hypersensitivity reactions manifesting as ACD.3 Although exposure to components of the mango tree has been most characteristically linked to type IV hypersensitivity reactions, there remain fewer than 40 reported cases of mango-induced ACD since it was first described in 1939.4
Evaluation of ACD most commonly includes a thorough clinical assessment with diagnostic support from patch testing and histopathologic review following skin biopsy. In recent years, reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) has shown promising potential to join the repertoire of diagnostic tools for ACD by enabling dynamic and high-resolution imaging of contact dermatitis in vivo.5-10 Reflectance confocal microscopy is a noninvasive optical imaging technique that uses a low-energy diode laser to penetrate the layers of the skin. The resulting reflected light generates images that facilitate visualization of cutaneous structures to the depth of the papillary dermis.11 While it is most commonly used in skin cancer diagnostics, preliminary studies also have shown an emerging role for RCM in the evaluation of eczematous and inflammatory skin disease, including contact dermatitis.5-10 Herein, we present a unique case of mango sap–induced ACD imaged and diagnosed in real time via RCM.
Case Report
A 39-year-old woman presented to our clinic with a pruritic vesicular eruption on the right leg of 2 weeks’ duration that initially had developed within 7 days of exposure to mango tree sap (Figure 1). The patient reported having experienced similar pruritic eruptions in the past following contact with mango sap while eating mangos but denied any history of reactions from ingestion of the fruit. She also reported a history of robust reactions to poison ivy; however, a timeline specifying the order of first exposure to these irritants was unknown. She denied any personal or family history of atopic conditions.
The affected skin was imaged in real time during clinic using RCM, which showed an inflammatory infiltrate represented by dark spongiotic vesicles containing bright cells (Figure 2). Additional RCM imaging at the level of the stratum spinosum showed dark spongiotic areas with bright inflammatory cells infiltrating the vesicles, which were surrounded by normal skin showing a typical epidermal honeycomb pattern (Figure 3). These findings were diagnostic of ACD secondary to exposure to mango sap. The patient was advised to apply clobetasol cream 0.05% to the affected area. Notable improvement of the rash was noted within 10 days of treatment.
Comment
Exposure to the mango tree and its fruit is a rare cause of ACD, with few reported cases in the literature. The majority of known instances have occurred in non–mango-cultivating countries, largely the United States, although cases also have been reported in Canada, Australia, France, Japan, and Thailand.3,12 Mango-induced contact allergy follows a roughly equal distribution between males and females and most often occurs in young adults during the third and fourth decades of life.4,12-21 Importantly, delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions to mango can manifest as either localized or systemic ACD. Localized ACD can be induced via direct contact with the mango tree and its components or ingestion of the fruit.3,12,22 Conversely, systemic ACD is primarily stimulated by ingestion of the fruit. In our case, the patient had no history of allergy following mango ingestion, and her ACD was prompted by isolated contact with mango sap. The time from exposure to symptom onset of known instances of mango ACD varies widely, ranging from less than 24 hours to as long as 9 days.3,12 Diagnosis of mango-induced ACD largely is guided by clinical findings. Presenting symptoms often include an eczematous, vesicular, pruritic rash on affected areas of the skin, frequently the head, neck, and extremities. Patients also commonly present with linear papulovesicular lesions and periorbital or perioral edema.
The suspected allergens responsible for mango-induced ACD are derived from resorcinol—specifically heptadecadienyl resorcinol, heptadecenyl resorcinol, and pentadecyl resorcinol, which are collectively known as mango allergens.23 These allergens can be found within the pulp and skin of the mango fruit as well as in the bark and leaves of the mango tree, which may explain observed allergic reactions to components of both the mango fruit and tree.12 Similar to these resorcinol derivatives, the urushiol resin found in poison ivy and poison oak is a catechol derivative.2 Importantly, both resorcinols and catechols are isomers of the same aromatic phenol—dihydroxybenzene. Because of these similarities, it is thought that the allergens in mangos may cross-react with urushiol in poison ivy or poison oak.23 Alongside their shared categorization in the Anacardiaceae family, it is hypothesized that this cross-reactivity underlies the sensitization that has been noted between mango and poison ivy or poison oak exposure.12,23,24 Thus, ACD often can occur on initial contact with the mango tree or its components, as a prior exposure to poison ivy or poison oak may serve as the inciting factor for hypersensitization. The majority of reported cases in the literature also occurred in countries where exposure to poison ivy and poison oak are common, further supporting the notion that these compounds may provide a sensitizing trigger for a future mango contact allergy.12
A detailed clinical history combined with adjunctive diagnostic support from patch testing and histopathology of biopsied skin lesions classically are used in the diagnosis of mango-induced ACD. Due to its ability to provide quick and noninvasive in vivo imaging of cutaneous lesions, RCM's applications have expanded to include evaluation of inflammatory skin diseases such as contact dermatitis. Many features of contact dermatitis identified via RCM are common between ACD and irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) and include disruption of the stratum corneum, parakeratosis, vesiculation, spongiosis, and exocytosis.6,10,25 Studies also have described features shown via RCM that are unique to ACD, including vasodilation and intercellular edema, compared to more distinct targetoid keratinocytes and detached corneocytes seen in ICD.6,10,25 Studies by Astner et al5,6 demonstrated a wide range of sensitivity from 52% to 96% and a high specificity of RCM greater than 95% for many of the aforementioned features of contact dermatitis, including disruption of the stratum corneum, parakeratosis, spongiosis, and exocytosis. Additional studies have further strengthened these findings, demonstrating sensitivity and specificity values of 83% and 92% for contact dermatitis under RCM, respectively.26 Importantly, given the similarities and potentially large overlap of features between ACD and ICD identified via RCM as well as findings seen on physical examination and histopathology, an emphasis on clinical correlation is essential when differentiating between these 2 variants of contact dermatitis. Thus, taken in consideration with clinical contexts, RCM has shown potent diagnostic accuracy and great potential to support the evaluation of ACD alongside patch testing and histopathology.
Final Thoughts
Contact allergy to the mango tree and its components is uncommon. We report a unique case of mango sap–induced ACD evaluated and diagnosed via dynamic visualization under RCM. As a noninvasive and reproducible imaging technique with resolutions comparable to histopathologic analysis, RCM is a promising tool that can be used to support the diagnostic evaluation of ACD.
- Shah KA, Patel MB, Patel RJ, et al. Mangifera indica (mango). Pharmacogn Rev. 2010;4:42-48.
- Lofgran T, Mahabal GD. Toxicodendron toxicity. StatPearls [Internet]. Updated May 16, 2023. Accessed September 19, 2024. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557866
- Sareen R, Shah A. Hypersensitivity manifestations to the fruit mango. Asia Pac Allergy. 2011;1:43-49.
- Zakon SJ. Contact dermatitis due to mango. JAMA. 1939;113:1808.
- Astner S, Gonzalez E, Cheung A, et al. Pilot study on the sensitivity and specificity of in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy in the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;53:986-992.
- Astner S, Gonzalez S, Gonzalez E. Noninvasive evaluation of allergic and irritant contact dermatitis by in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy. Dermatitis. 2006;17:182-191.
- Csuka EA, Ward SC, Ekelem C, et al. Reflectance confocal microscopy, optical coherence tomography, and multiphoton microscopy in inflammatory skin disease diagnosis. Lasers Surg Med. 2021;53:776-797.
- Guichard A, Fanian F, Girardin P, et al. Allergic patch test and contact dermatitis by in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy [in French]. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2014;141:805-807.
- Sakanashi EN, Matsumura M, Kikuchi K, et al. A comparative study of allergic contact dermatitis by patch test versus reflectance confocal laser microscopy, with nickel and cobalt. Eur J Dermatol. 2010;20:705-711.
- Swindells K, Burnett N, Rius-Diaz F, et al. Reflectance confocal microscopy may differentiate acute allergic and irritant contact dermatitis in vivo. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004;50:220-228.
- Shahriari N, Grant-Kels JM, Rabinovitz H, et al. Reflectance confocal microscopy: principles, basic terminology, clinical indications, limitations, and practical considerations. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84:1-14.
- Berghea EC, Craiu M, Ali S, et al. Contact allergy induced by mango (Mangifera indica): a relevant topic? Medicina (Kaunas). 2021;57:1240.
- O’Hern K, Zhang F, Zug KA, et al. “Mango slice” dermatitis: pediatric allergic contact dermatitis to mango pulp and skin. Dermatitis. 2022;33:E46-E47.
- Raison-Peyron N, Aljaber F, Al Ali OA, et al. Mango dermatitis: an unusual cause of eyelid dermatitis in France. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;85:599-600.
- Alipour Tehrany Y, Coulombe J. Mango allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;85:241-242.
- Yoo MJ, Carius BM. Mango dermatitis after urushiol sensitization. Clin Pract Cases Emerg Med. 2019;3:361-363.
- Miyazawa H, Nishie W, Hata H, et al. A severe case of mango dermatitis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018;32:E160-E161.
- Trehan I, Meuli GJ. Mango contact allergy. J Travel Med. 2010;17:284.
- Wiwanitkit V. Mango dermatitis. Indian J Dermatol. 2008;53:158.
- Weinstein S, Bassiri-Tehrani S, Cohen DE. Allergic contact dermatitis to mango flesh. Int J Dermatol. 2004;43:195-196.
- Calvert ML, Robertson I, Samaratunga H. Mango dermatitis: allergic contact dermatitis to Mangifera indica. Australas J Dermatol. 1996;37:59-60.
- Thoo CH, Freeman S. Hypersensitivity reaction to the ingestion of mango flesh. Australas J Dermatol. 2008;49:116-119.
- Oka K, Saito F, Yasuhara T, et al. A study of cross-reactions between mango contact allergens and urushiol. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;51:292-296.
- Keil H, Wasserman D, Dawson CR. Mango dermatitis and its relationship to poison ivy hypersensitivity. Ann Allergy. 1946;4: 268-281.
- Maarouf M, Costello CM, Gonzalez S, et al. In vivo reflectance confocal microscopy: emerging role in noninvasive diagnosis and monitoring of eczematous dermatoses. Actas Dermosifiliogr (Engl Ed). 2019;110:626-636.
- Koller S, Gerger A, Ahlgrimm-Siess V, et al. In vivo reflectance confocal microscopy of erythematosquamous skin diseases. Exp Dermatol. 2009;18:536-540.
- Shah KA, Patel MB, Patel RJ, et al. Mangifera indica (mango). Pharmacogn Rev. 2010;4:42-48.
- Lofgran T, Mahabal GD. Toxicodendron toxicity. StatPearls [Internet]. Updated May 16, 2023. Accessed September 19, 2024. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557866
- Sareen R, Shah A. Hypersensitivity manifestations to the fruit mango. Asia Pac Allergy. 2011;1:43-49.
- Zakon SJ. Contact dermatitis due to mango. JAMA. 1939;113:1808.
- Astner S, Gonzalez E, Cheung A, et al. Pilot study on the sensitivity and specificity of in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy in the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;53:986-992.
- Astner S, Gonzalez S, Gonzalez E. Noninvasive evaluation of allergic and irritant contact dermatitis by in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy. Dermatitis. 2006;17:182-191.
- Csuka EA, Ward SC, Ekelem C, et al. Reflectance confocal microscopy, optical coherence tomography, and multiphoton microscopy in inflammatory skin disease diagnosis. Lasers Surg Med. 2021;53:776-797.
- Guichard A, Fanian F, Girardin P, et al. Allergic patch test and contact dermatitis by in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy [in French]. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2014;141:805-807.
- Sakanashi EN, Matsumura M, Kikuchi K, et al. A comparative study of allergic contact dermatitis by patch test versus reflectance confocal laser microscopy, with nickel and cobalt. Eur J Dermatol. 2010;20:705-711.
- Swindells K, Burnett N, Rius-Diaz F, et al. Reflectance confocal microscopy may differentiate acute allergic and irritant contact dermatitis in vivo. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004;50:220-228.
- Shahriari N, Grant-Kels JM, Rabinovitz H, et al. Reflectance confocal microscopy: principles, basic terminology, clinical indications, limitations, and practical considerations. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84:1-14.
- Berghea EC, Craiu M, Ali S, et al. Contact allergy induced by mango (Mangifera indica): a relevant topic? Medicina (Kaunas). 2021;57:1240.
- O’Hern K, Zhang F, Zug KA, et al. “Mango slice” dermatitis: pediatric allergic contact dermatitis to mango pulp and skin. Dermatitis. 2022;33:E46-E47.
- Raison-Peyron N, Aljaber F, Al Ali OA, et al. Mango dermatitis: an unusual cause of eyelid dermatitis in France. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;85:599-600.
- Alipour Tehrany Y, Coulombe J. Mango allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;85:241-242.
- Yoo MJ, Carius BM. Mango dermatitis after urushiol sensitization. Clin Pract Cases Emerg Med. 2019;3:361-363.
- Miyazawa H, Nishie W, Hata H, et al. A severe case of mango dermatitis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018;32:E160-E161.
- Trehan I, Meuli GJ. Mango contact allergy. J Travel Med. 2010;17:284.
- Wiwanitkit V. Mango dermatitis. Indian J Dermatol. 2008;53:158.
- Weinstein S, Bassiri-Tehrani S, Cohen DE. Allergic contact dermatitis to mango flesh. Int J Dermatol. 2004;43:195-196.
- Calvert ML, Robertson I, Samaratunga H. Mango dermatitis: allergic contact dermatitis to Mangifera indica. Australas J Dermatol. 1996;37:59-60.
- Thoo CH, Freeman S. Hypersensitivity reaction to the ingestion of mango flesh. Australas J Dermatol. 2008;49:116-119.
- Oka K, Saito F, Yasuhara T, et al. A study of cross-reactions between mango contact allergens and urushiol. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;51:292-296.
- Keil H, Wasserman D, Dawson CR. Mango dermatitis and its relationship to poison ivy hypersensitivity. Ann Allergy. 1946;4: 268-281.
- Maarouf M, Costello CM, Gonzalez S, et al. In vivo reflectance confocal microscopy: emerging role in noninvasive diagnosis and monitoring of eczematous dermatoses. Actas Dermosifiliogr (Engl Ed). 2019;110:626-636.
- Koller S, Gerger A, Ahlgrimm-Siess V, et al. In vivo reflectance confocal microscopy of erythematosquamous skin diseases. Exp Dermatol. 2009;18:536-540.
Practice Points
- Contact with mango tree sap can induce allergic contact dermatitis.
- Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) is a noninvasive imaging technique that can provide real-time in vivo visualization of affected skin in contact dermatitis.
- Predominant findings of contact dermatitis under RCM include disruption of the stratum corneum; parakeratosis; vesiculation; spongiosis; and exocytosis, vasodilation, and intercellular edema more specific to the allergic subtype.
A Whiff of Trouble: Navigating Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Fragrance
Fragrances are complex organic compounds that are sufficiently volatile to produce an odor—most often a pleasant one—or at times intended to neutralize unpleasant odors. They can be further divided into natural fragrances (eg, essential oils) and synthetic ones. Fragrances are found in abundance in our daily lives: in perfumes; colognes; lotions; shampoos; and an array of other personal, household, and even industrial products (Table). These exposures include products directly applied to the skin, rinsed off, or aerosolized. A single product often contains a multitude of different fragrances to create the scents we know and love. To many, fragrances can be an important part of everyday life or even a part of one’s identity. But that once-intoxicating aroma can transform into an itchy skin nightmare; fragrances are among the most common contact allergens.
Given the widespread prevalence of fragrances in so many products, understanding fragrance allergy and skillful avoidance is imperative. In this review, we explore important aspects of fragrance allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), including chemistry, epidemiology, patch test considerations, and management strategies for patients, with the goal of providing valuable clinical insights for treating physicians on how patients can embrace a fragrance-free lifestyle.
How Fragrances Act as Allergens
A plethora of chemicals emit odors, of which more than 2000 are used to create the fragranced products we see on our shelves today.1 For many of these fragrances, contact allergy develops because the fragrance acts as a hapten (ie, a small molecule that combines with a carrier protein to elicit an immune response).2 Some fragrance molecules require “activation” to be able to bind to proteins; these are known as prehaptens.3 For example, the natural fragrance linalool is generally considered nonallergenic in its initial form. However, once it is exposed to air, it may undergo oxidation to become linalool hydroperoxides, a well-established contact allergen. Some fragrances can become allergenic in the skin itself, often secondary to enzymatic reactions—these are known as prohaptens.3 However, most fragrances are directly reactive to skin proteins on the basis of chemical reactions such as Michael addition and Schiff base formation.4 In either case, the end result is that fragrance allergens, including essential oils, may cause skin sensitization and subsequent ACD.5,6
Epidemiology
Contact allergy to fragrances is not uncommon; in a multicenter cross-sectional study conducted in 5 European countries, the prevalence in the general population was estimated to be as high as 2.6% and 1.9% among 3119 patients patch tested to fragrance mix I (FMI) and fragrance mix II (FMII), respectively.7 Studies in patients referred for patch testing have shown a higher 5% to 25% prevalence of fragrance allergy, largely depending on what population was evaluated.1 Factors such as sociocultural differences in frequency and types of fragrances used could contribute to this variation.
During patch testing, the primary fragrance screening allergens are FMI, FMII, and balsam of Peru (BOP)(Myroxylon pereirae resin).7 In recent years, hydroperoxides of linalool and limonene also have emerged as potentially important fragrance allergens.8 The frequencies of patch-test positivity of these allergens can be quite high in referral-based populations. In a study performed by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) from 2019 to 2020, frequencies of fragrance allergen positivity were 12.8% for FMI, 5.2% for FMII, 7.4% for BOP, 11.1% for hydroperoxides of linalool, and 3.5% for hydroperoxides of limonene.8 Additionally, it was noted that FMI and hydroperoxides of linalool were among the top 10 most frequently positive allergens.9 It should be kept in mind that NACDG studies are drawn from a referral population and not representative of the general population.
Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances can manifest anywhere on the body, but certain patterns are characteristic. A study by the NACDG analyzed fragrance and botanical patch test results in 24,246 patients and found that fragrance/botanical-sensitive patients more commonly had dermatitis involving the face (odds ratio [OR], 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.21), legs (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.06-1.41), and anal/genital areas (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.52) and were less likely to have hand dermatitis (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.95) compared with non–fragrance/botanical-sensitive patients.10 However, other studies have found that hand dermatitis is common among fragrance-allergic individuals.11-13
Fragrance allergy tends to be more common in women than men, which likely is attributable to differences in product use and exposure.10 The prevalence of fragrance allergy increases with age in both men and women, peaking at approximately 50 years of age, likely due to repeat exposure or age-related changes to the skin barrier or immune system.14
Occupational fragrance exposures are important to consider, and fragrance ACD is associated with hairdressers, beauticians, office workers exposed to aromatherapy diffusers, and food handlers.15 Less-obvious professions that involve exposure to fragrances used to cover up unwanted odors—such as working with industrial and cleaning chemicals or even metalworking—also have been reported to be associated with ACD.16
Patch Test Considerations
Patch testing is essential to confirm fragrance allergy and guide treatment, but because there are so many potential fragrance allergens, there is no perfect patch test strategy. In a standard patch test series, the most important screening allergens are considered to be FMI, FMII, and BOP; tested together, they are thought to detect a large proportion of cases of fragrance allergy. Strikingly, in a large European study (N=1951), patch testing with the fragrance markers in the baseline panel failed to detect more than 40% of cases of allergy compared to testing with 26 individual fragrance allergens.17 Other studies have reported that a smaller proportion of fragrance allergies are missed by using baseline screening allergens alone.18,19 Limonene and linalool hydroperoxides also are potentially important fragrance allergens to consider adding to the patch test panel, as unoxidized limonene and linalool commonly are used in many products and could theoretically undergo auto-oxidation under use conditions.8 However, because of the high number of irritant, questionable, and potentially false-positive reactions, the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology has recommended against adding these hydroperoxides to a standard screening tray for patch testing.20 It must be remembered that a positive patch test to a fragrance does not necessarily represent ACD unless the patient has a clinically relevant exposure to the allergen.21
In patients who test negative to the baseline fragrance-screening allergens and in whom a high degree of suspicion remains, further testing with supplemental fragrance allergens (commercially available from patch test suppliers) is warranted.17 The thin-layer rapid use epicutaneous (T.R.U.E.) test (SmartPractice) includes FMI and BOP but not FMII or linalool or limonene hydroperoxides. More comprehensive patch test panels are available that include additional fragrances, such as the North American 80 Comprehensive Series and the American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series.22-24 It is important to remain vigilant and consider expanded patch testing if patients initially test negative but suspicion remains.
Furthermore, patch testing with the patient’s own products is an important consideration. Uter et al25 evaluated patch testing using patients’ perfumes, deodorants, and shaving lotions, and approximately 41% (53/129) of patients who tested positive to their own product tested negative for fragrance-screening allergens. Although it can be difficult to ascertain which exact component of a commercial product is the culprit, a positive patch test may still provide clinically relevant information for patients and treating physicians. In cases of questionable or weak-positive results, repeat testing or repeated open application tests can help re-evaluate suspected products.
Cross-reactivity should be considered when patch testing for fragrances. Atwater et al10 found that cross-reactivity between FMI, FMII, and BOP was common; for instance, approximately 40% of patients testing positive to FMII or BOP also had positive reactions to FMI (522/1182 and 768/1942, respectively). Understanding this concept is important because in some cases (as detailed below) patients will need to avoid all fragrances, not just the ones to which they have previously been exposed, given the limitations on fragrance labeling in the United States. However, this may change with the Modernization of Cosmetic Regulation Act of 2022.26
Avoiding Fragrances: Improving Patient Education and Outcomes
Once a relevant contact allergy to fragrance is established after patch testing, successful avoidance is critical but challenging, as there are numerous potential pitfalls. Missing just 1 hidden source of fragrance exposure will often be the difference between success or failure. Dermatologists play a crucial role in guiding patients through the intricate process of identifying and avoiding potential allergens.
Optimal Safety: Embracing a Fragrance-Free Lifestyle
For fragrance-allergic patients, it generally is safest to completely avoid fragrance.
First, if a patient only shows positive patch-test reactions to fragrance screening mixes (and not to the particular fragrances in these mixes), there is no way to be certain which fragrances the patient needs to avoid.
Second, even if specific fragrance allergens are identified, numerous chemically related fragrances to which the patient may be allergic are not commercially available for patch testing. One review provided evidence of 162 fragrance allergens that have been documented to cause contact allergy.1 Dermatologists generally patch test to screening mixtures and/or the 26 fragrance chemicals required on labels in European products (European Directive fragrance).27 Therefore, there are more than 100 known fragrance allergens that are not routinely tested to which patients could be allergic.
Third, certain fragrances, such as limonene and linalool, are found in many products with fragrance, and it is difficult to find products without these substances. Limonene and linalool themselves are not potent allergens; however, upon air exposure, they may auto-oxidize to hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool, which are increasingly common positive patch tests.19
Additionally, patients should be advised that many products labeled “fragrance free,” “unscented,” or “free and clear” are not truly fragrance free, and patients should not choose products based on these claims. There are no legal definitions for these claims in the United States, and industries are allowed to choose the definition they prefer. Numerous products labeled “unscented” use this term to indicate that the product had an odor, the company used a masking fragrance to hide the odor, and then the product can be considered unscented. In many holistic stores, most products labeled “fragrance free” are only free of artificial fragrances but contain essential oils. Of the 162 documented fragrance allergens, 80 are essential oils.6 Essential oils are perceived to be safe by the vast majority of the population because they are viewed as “natural” and “unprocessed” sources of fragrance.28 However, numerous allergenic terpenes have been discovered in essential oils, including functionalized variations of alcohols (eg, geraniol, bisabolol) and aldehydes (eg, citronellal).6 Essential oils also consist of nonterpenic compounds produced through the phenylpropanoids pathway, including eugenol and cinnamaldehyde. One review showed that most essential oils contain one or more European Directive fragrance.29 Therefore, many products labeled “unscented,” “fragrance free,” or “natural” are not free of fragrance and may be unsafe for fragrance-allergic patients.
Although not required, manufacturers sometimes voluntarily list one or more of the 162 currently identified fragrance allergens on product labels. Also, there are more than 50 potentially allergenic essential oils that can be listed on labels by their common names or by genus or species. In addition, there are synonyms for fragrance, such as aroma, parfum, perfume, and scent. Therefore, there are several hundred different ingredient names on labels that indicate the presence of fragrance, and patients are very unlikely to successfully identify fragrance-free products by trying to read product labels on their own.
Lastly, in the United States product labels only require products to state that they contain “fragrance” and do not mandate the listing of specific fragrances. If a patient is allergic to a specific fragrance, there is no way to determine if that fragrance is present in these products. This will change with the enactment of Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022, which empowers the US Food and Drug Administration to require manufacturers to disclose many, but not all, fragrance allergens on the labels of cosmetic and topical products.26
For all these reasons, patients should be advised to use a medical database to choose safe alternative products instead of trying to read labels themselves to avoid fragrance. The American Contact Dermatitis Society’s Contact Allergen Management Program (CAMP) database (https://www.contactderm.org/resources/acds-camp) is designed to identify safe alternative products for patients with contact allergies. When CAMP is programmed to avoid “fragrance,” it will list only “safe” products free of all fragrances found in a comprehensive fragrance cross-reactor group.30 This customizable database is available as an application that can be downloaded onto a patient’s mobile device. Fragrance-allergic patients should be encouraged to use the CAMP application or other similar applications (eg, SkinSAFE)(https://www.skinsafeproducts.com/) to find all the products they use.
Potential Pitfalls in Fragrance Avoidance
Most physicians, even dermatologists, will not know which products on the market are fragrance free from a contact allergy standpoint. Patients should instruct their physicians to use the allergen-avoidance application of choice whenever recommending new topical products, whether prescription or nonprescription. In 2009, Nardelli and colleagues31 found that 10% of topical pharmaceutical products contained a total of 66 different fragrance substances.
Individuals who are allergic to fragrance also can react to fragrances used by close contacts (ie, consort dermatitis).32 Therefore, fragrance-allergic individuals who do not improve after changing their personal products should consider urging their spouses or significant others to choose their personal care products using an allergen-avoidance application. Also, physical contact with pets can cause reactions, and the use of a fragrance-free pet shampoo is recommended. Additionally, allergic individuals who are providing care for small children should select fragrance-free products for them.
Some of the most heavily fragranced products on the market are found at hair salons. One exposure to an allergen often can keep patients broken out for up to 4 weeks and occasionally longer, a typical frequency for salon visits—even if the individual is taking great care to avoid fragrance at home. Patients should be instructed to bring their own shampoo, conditioner, and styling products to the salon. These patients also should bring safe moisturizer and nail polish remover for manicures. Additionally, aromatherapy used in most massages can cause flare-ups, and it is recommended that allergic patients purchase fragrance-free massage oil to bring to their sessions.
Fragranced soaps and cleansers can leave a residue on the palmar surface of the hands and fingers. This residue may not meet the threshold for causing a reaction on the thick skin of these surfaces, but it is sufficient to passively transfer fragrance to other more sensitive areas, such as the eyelids. Passive transfer of fragrance can be a major source of allergen exposure and should not be overlooked. Allergic patients should be instructed to bring safe hand cleansers to friends’ houses, restaurants, or work.
Airborne fragrances in a patient’s environment can reach sufficient concentration to cause airborne contact dermatitis. In one case report, an Uber driver developed facial airborne ACD from a fragrance diffuser in his vehicle and his condition improved upon removing the diffuser.33 Therefore, patients should be instructed to avoid fragranced diffusers, scented candles, room deodorizers, incense, and wax melts.
Fragrance in household products also can be an issue. Fragrance-allergic patients should be instructed to choose fragrance-free cleaning products and to avoid fragranced wipes on surfaces that may be touched. In addition, they should be instructed to use fragrance-free laundry products. It is not required for household products in the United States to list their ingredients, and the majority do not have complete ingredient lists. Therefore, it is imperative that the patient use an allergen-avoidance application that identifies products that have full ingredient disclosure and are free of fragrance.
For individuals who enjoy perfume and/or cologne, it may be possible for them to resume use of these products in some cases after their condition has fully cleared with complete fragrance avoidance. They should avoid spraying products into the air or applying them directly onto the skin and should instead dip a cotton swab into the perfume/cologne and dab a small amount onto their clothing. This technique can sometimes satisfy the patient and improve compliance.
If a patient who is allergic to fragrance does not clear after 6 weeks of complete fragrance avoidance, it is worth considering systemic contact dermatitis due to ingestion of fragrance-related substances in foods.34 A large number of fragrance materials also are food flavorings. For patients allergic to a specific fragrance(s), systemic avoidance needs to be specific to the allergen, and the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association’s flavor ingredient library is most helpful (https://www.femaflavor.org/flavor-library). If the patient is allergic to the complex mixture BOP, a balsam-free diet can be attempted.35,36
Final Thoughts
Dermatologists must equip themselves with the knowledge to educate fragrance-allergic patients on proper avoidance. The multifaceted nature of fragrance avoidance requires a personalized approach, combining label scrutiny, utilization of a safe-product application, and tailored recommendations for specific situations. By guiding patients through these complexities, dermatologists can empower patients to manage their fragrance allergy and enhance their quality of life.
- de Groot AC. Fragrances: contact allergy and other adverse effects. Dermatitis. 2020;31:13-35.
- Uter W. Contact allergy to fragrances: current clinical and regulatory trends. Allergol Select. 2017;1:190-199.
- Karlberg AT, Börje A, Duus Johansen J, et al. Activation of non-sensitizing or low-sensitizing fragrance substances into potent sensitizers - prehaptens and prohaptens. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69:323-334.
- Patlewicz GY, Wright ZM, Basketter DA, et al. Structure-activity relationships for selected fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;47:219-226. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0536.2002.470406
- Ward JM, Reeder M, Atwater AR. Essential oils debunked: separating fact from myth. Cutis. 2020;105:174-176.
- de Groot AC, Schmidt E. Essential oils, part IV: contact allergy. Dermatitis. 2016;27:170-175.
- Diepgen TL, Ofenloch R, Bruze M, et al. Prevalence of fragrance contact allergy in the general population of five European countries: a cross-sectional study. Br J Dermatol. 2015;173:1411-1419
- Ogueta IA, Brared Christensson J, Giménez-Arnau E, et al. Limonene and linalool hydroperoxides review: pros and cons for routine patch testing. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;87:1-12.
- DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Reeder MJ, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2019-2020. Dermatitis. 2023;34:90-104.
- Atwater AR, Ward JM, Liu B, et al. Fragrance- and botanical-related allergy and associated concomitant reactions: a retrospective analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data 2007-2016. Dermatitis. 2021;32:42-52.
- Tai V, Sharifah Rosniza SNC, Tang MM. Contact sensitization to fragrance allergen: a 5-year review in the Department of Dermatology, Hospital Kuala Lumpur. Med J Malaysia. 2023;78:583-588.
- Periyasamy MK, Sekar SC, Rai R. Analysis of hypersensitivity in fragrance series by patch testing. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2019;10:657-662.
- Heydorn S, Menné T, Johansen JD. Fragrance allergy and hand eczema - a review. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48:59-66.
- Buckley DA, Rycroft RJG, White IR, et al. The frequency of fragrance allergy in patch-tested patients increases with their age. Br J Dermatol. 2003;149:986-989.
- Montgomery RL, Agius R, Wilkinson SM, et al. UK trends of allergic occupational skin disease attributed to fragrances 1996-2015. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78:33-40.
- Reeder MJ. Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances. Dermatol Clin. 2020;38:371-377.
- Mann J, McFadden JP, White JML, et al. Baseline series fragrance markers fail to predict contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:276-281.
- Vejanurug P, Tresukosol P, Sajjachareonpong P, et al. Fragrance allergy could be missed without patch testing with 26 individual fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;74:230-235.
- Sukakul T, Bruze M, Mowitz M, et al. Simultaneous patch testing with fragrance markers in the baseline series and the ingredients of fragrance mixes: an update from southern Sweden. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;86:514-523.
- Schubert S, Geier J, Brans R, et al; IVDK. Patch testing hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool in consecutive patients-results of the IVDK 2018-2020. Contact Dermatitis. 2023;89:85-94. doi:10.1111/cod.14332
- Storrs FJ. Fragrance. Dermatitis. 2007;18:3-7.
- T.R.U.E. test. SmartPractice website. Accessed July 24, 2024. https://www.smartpractice.com/shop/category?id=581719&m=SPA ACDS
- Schalock PC, Dunnick CA, Nedorost S, et al. American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series: 2020 update. Dermatitis. 2020;31:279-282. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32947457/
- North American 80 Comprehensive Series NAC-80. Chemotechnique MB Diagnostics AB website. Accessed July 24, 2024. https://www.chemotechnique.se/products/national-series/north-american-80-comprehensive-series/
- Uter W, Geier J, Schnuch A, et al. Patch test results with patients’ own perfumes, deodorants and shaving lotions: results of the IVDK 1998-2002. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2007;21:374-379.
- Filley AR, Woodruff CM. The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022: what dermatologists need to know. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;89:629-631.
- European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 2003/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (text with EEA relevance). November 3, 2003. Accessed June 7, 2024. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:066:0026:0035:en:PDF
- Sharmeen JB, Mahomoodally FM, Zengin G, et al. Essential oils as natural sources of fragrance compounds for cosmetics and cosmeceuticals. Molecules. 2021;26:666.
- Scheman A, Scheman N, Rakowski EM. European Directive fragrances in natural products. Dermatitis. 2014;25:51-55.
- Scheman A, Hipolito R, Severson D, et al. Contact allergy cross-reactions: retrospective clinical data and review of the literature. Dermatitis. 2017;28:128-140.
- Nardelli A, D’Hooghe E, Drieghe J, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from fragrance components in specific topical pharmaceutical products in Belgium. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60:303-313.
- Lee J, Guo S, Dinalo J, et al. Consort allergic contact dermatitis: a systematic review. Dermatitis. 2022;33:181-186.
- Perper M, Cervantes J, Eber AE, et al. Airborne contact dermatitis caused by fragrance diffusers in Uber cars. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;77:116-117.
- Nijhawan RI, Molenda M, Zirwas MJ, et al. Systemic contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin. 2009;27:355-364.
- Salam TN, Fowler JF. Balsam-related systemic contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2001;45:377-381.
- Scheman A, Rakowski EM, Chou V, et al. Balsam of Peru: past and future. Dermatitis. 2013;24:153-160.
Fragrances are complex organic compounds that are sufficiently volatile to produce an odor—most often a pleasant one—or at times intended to neutralize unpleasant odors. They can be further divided into natural fragrances (eg, essential oils) and synthetic ones. Fragrances are found in abundance in our daily lives: in perfumes; colognes; lotions; shampoos; and an array of other personal, household, and even industrial products (Table). These exposures include products directly applied to the skin, rinsed off, or aerosolized. A single product often contains a multitude of different fragrances to create the scents we know and love. To many, fragrances can be an important part of everyday life or even a part of one’s identity. But that once-intoxicating aroma can transform into an itchy skin nightmare; fragrances are among the most common contact allergens.
Given the widespread prevalence of fragrances in so many products, understanding fragrance allergy and skillful avoidance is imperative. In this review, we explore important aspects of fragrance allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), including chemistry, epidemiology, patch test considerations, and management strategies for patients, with the goal of providing valuable clinical insights for treating physicians on how patients can embrace a fragrance-free lifestyle.
How Fragrances Act as Allergens
A plethora of chemicals emit odors, of which more than 2000 are used to create the fragranced products we see on our shelves today.1 For many of these fragrances, contact allergy develops because the fragrance acts as a hapten (ie, a small molecule that combines with a carrier protein to elicit an immune response).2 Some fragrance molecules require “activation” to be able to bind to proteins; these are known as prehaptens.3 For example, the natural fragrance linalool is generally considered nonallergenic in its initial form. However, once it is exposed to air, it may undergo oxidation to become linalool hydroperoxides, a well-established contact allergen. Some fragrances can become allergenic in the skin itself, often secondary to enzymatic reactions—these are known as prohaptens.3 However, most fragrances are directly reactive to skin proteins on the basis of chemical reactions such as Michael addition and Schiff base formation.4 In either case, the end result is that fragrance allergens, including essential oils, may cause skin sensitization and subsequent ACD.5,6
Epidemiology
Contact allergy to fragrances is not uncommon; in a multicenter cross-sectional study conducted in 5 European countries, the prevalence in the general population was estimated to be as high as 2.6% and 1.9% among 3119 patients patch tested to fragrance mix I (FMI) and fragrance mix II (FMII), respectively.7 Studies in patients referred for patch testing have shown a higher 5% to 25% prevalence of fragrance allergy, largely depending on what population was evaluated.1 Factors such as sociocultural differences in frequency and types of fragrances used could contribute to this variation.
During patch testing, the primary fragrance screening allergens are FMI, FMII, and balsam of Peru (BOP)(Myroxylon pereirae resin).7 In recent years, hydroperoxides of linalool and limonene also have emerged as potentially important fragrance allergens.8 The frequencies of patch-test positivity of these allergens can be quite high in referral-based populations. In a study performed by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) from 2019 to 2020, frequencies of fragrance allergen positivity were 12.8% for FMI, 5.2% for FMII, 7.4% for BOP, 11.1% for hydroperoxides of linalool, and 3.5% for hydroperoxides of limonene.8 Additionally, it was noted that FMI and hydroperoxides of linalool were among the top 10 most frequently positive allergens.9 It should be kept in mind that NACDG studies are drawn from a referral population and not representative of the general population.
Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances can manifest anywhere on the body, but certain patterns are characteristic. A study by the NACDG analyzed fragrance and botanical patch test results in 24,246 patients and found that fragrance/botanical-sensitive patients more commonly had dermatitis involving the face (odds ratio [OR], 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.21), legs (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.06-1.41), and anal/genital areas (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.52) and were less likely to have hand dermatitis (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.95) compared with non–fragrance/botanical-sensitive patients.10 However, other studies have found that hand dermatitis is common among fragrance-allergic individuals.11-13
Fragrance allergy tends to be more common in women than men, which likely is attributable to differences in product use and exposure.10 The prevalence of fragrance allergy increases with age in both men and women, peaking at approximately 50 years of age, likely due to repeat exposure or age-related changes to the skin barrier or immune system.14
Occupational fragrance exposures are important to consider, and fragrance ACD is associated with hairdressers, beauticians, office workers exposed to aromatherapy diffusers, and food handlers.15 Less-obvious professions that involve exposure to fragrances used to cover up unwanted odors—such as working with industrial and cleaning chemicals or even metalworking—also have been reported to be associated with ACD.16
Patch Test Considerations
Patch testing is essential to confirm fragrance allergy and guide treatment, but because there are so many potential fragrance allergens, there is no perfect patch test strategy. In a standard patch test series, the most important screening allergens are considered to be FMI, FMII, and BOP; tested together, they are thought to detect a large proportion of cases of fragrance allergy. Strikingly, in a large European study (N=1951), patch testing with the fragrance markers in the baseline panel failed to detect more than 40% of cases of allergy compared to testing with 26 individual fragrance allergens.17 Other studies have reported that a smaller proportion of fragrance allergies are missed by using baseline screening allergens alone.18,19 Limonene and linalool hydroperoxides also are potentially important fragrance allergens to consider adding to the patch test panel, as unoxidized limonene and linalool commonly are used in many products and could theoretically undergo auto-oxidation under use conditions.8 However, because of the high number of irritant, questionable, and potentially false-positive reactions, the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology has recommended against adding these hydroperoxides to a standard screening tray for patch testing.20 It must be remembered that a positive patch test to a fragrance does not necessarily represent ACD unless the patient has a clinically relevant exposure to the allergen.21
In patients who test negative to the baseline fragrance-screening allergens and in whom a high degree of suspicion remains, further testing with supplemental fragrance allergens (commercially available from patch test suppliers) is warranted.17 The thin-layer rapid use epicutaneous (T.R.U.E.) test (SmartPractice) includes FMI and BOP but not FMII or linalool or limonene hydroperoxides. More comprehensive patch test panels are available that include additional fragrances, such as the North American 80 Comprehensive Series and the American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series.22-24 It is important to remain vigilant and consider expanded patch testing if patients initially test negative but suspicion remains.
Furthermore, patch testing with the patient’s own products is an important consideration. Uter et al25 evaluated patch testing using patients’ perfumes, deodorants, and shaving lotions, and approximately 41% (53/129) of patients who tested positive to their own product tested negative for fragrance-screening allergens. Although it can be difficult to ascertain which exact component of a commercial product is the culprit, a positive patch test may still provide clinically relevant information for patients and treating physicians. In cases of questionable or weak-positive results, repeat testing or repeated open application tests can help re-evaluate suspected products.
Cross-reactivity should be considered when patch testing for fragrances. Atwater et al10 found that cross-reactivity between FMI, FMII, and BOP was common; for instance, approximately 40% of patients testing positive to FMII or BOP also had positive reactions to FMI (522/1182 and 768/1942, respectively). Understanding this concept is important because in some cases (as detailed below) patients will need to avoid all fragrances, not just the ones to which they have previously been exposed, given the limitations on fragrance labeling in the United States. However, this may change with the Modernization of Cosmetic Regulation Act of 2022.26
Avoiding Fragrances: Improving Patient Education and Outcomes
Once a relevant contact allergy to fragrance is established after patch testing, successful avoidance is critical but challenging, as there are numerous potential pitfalls. Missing just 1 hidden source of fragrance exposure will often be the difference between success or failure. Dermatologists play a crucial role in guiding patients through the intricate process of identifying and avoiding potential allergens.
Optimal Safety: Embracing a Fragrance-Free Lifestyle
For fragrance-allergic patients, it generally is safest to completely avoid fragrance.
First, if a patient only shows positive patch-test reactions to fragrance screening mixes (and not to the particular fragrances in these mixes), there is no way to be certain which fragrances the patient needs to avoid.
Second, even if specific fragrance allergens are identified, numerous chemically related fragrances to which the patient may be allergic are not commercially available for patch testing. One review provided evidence of 162 fragrance allergens that have been documented to cause contact allergy.1 Dermatologists generally patch test to screening mixtures and/or the 26 fragrance chemicals required on labels in European products (European Directive fragrance).27 Therefore, there are more than 100 known fragrance allergens that are not routinely tested to which patients could be allergic.
Third, certain fragrances, such as limonene and linalool, are found in many products with fragrance, and it is difficult to find products without these substances. Limonene and linalool themselves are not potent allergens; however, upon air exposure, they may auto-oxidize to hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool, which are increasingly common positive patch tests.19
Additionally, patients should be advised that many products labeled “fragrance free,” “unscented,” or “free and clear” are not truly fragrance free, and patients should not choose products based on these claims. There are no legal definitions for these claims in the United States, and industries are allowed to choose the definition they prefer. Numerous products labeled “unscented” use this term to indicate that the product had an odor, the company used a masking fragrance to hide the odor, and then the product can be considered unscented. In many holistic stores, most products labeled “fragrance free” are only free of artificial fragrances but contain essential oils. Of the 162 documented fragrance allergens, 80 are essential oils.6 Essential oils are perceived to be safe by the vast majority of the population because they are viewed as “natural” and “unprocessed” sources of fragrance.28 However, numerous allergenic terpenes have been discovered in essential oils, including functionalized variations of alcohols (eg, geraniol, bisabolol) and aldehydes (eg, citronellal).6 Essential oils also consist of nonterpenic compounds produced through the phenylpropanoids pathway, including eugenol and cinnamaldehyde. One review showed that most essential oils contain one or more European Directive fragrance.29 Therefore, many products labeled “unscented,” “fragrance free,” or “natural” are not free of fragrance and may be unsafe for fragrance-allergic patients.
Although not required, manufacturers sometimes voluntarily list one or more of the 162 currently identified fragrance allergens on product labels. Also, there are more than 50 potentially allergenic essential oils that can be listed on labels by their common names or by genus or species. In addition, there are synonyms for fragrance, such as aroma, parfum, perfume, and scent. Therefore, there are several hundred different ingredient names on labels that indicate the presence of fragrance, and patients are very unlikely to successfully identify fragrance-free products by trying to read product labels on their own.
Lastly, in the United States product labels only require products to state that they contain “fragrance” and do not mandate the listing of specific fragrances. If a patient is allergic to a specific fragrance, there is no way to determine if that fragrance is present in these products. This will change with the enactment of Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022, which empowers the US Food and Drug Administration to require manufacturers to disclose many, but not all, fragrance allergens on the labels of cosmetic and topical products.26
For all these reasons, patients should be advised to use a medical database to choose safe alternative products instead of trying to read labels themselves to avoid fragrance. The American Contact Dermatitis Society’s Contact Allergen Management Program (CAMP) database (https://www.contactderm.org/resources/acds-camp) is designed to identify safe alternative products for patients with contact allergies. When CAMP is programmed to avoid “fragrance,” it will list only “safe” products free of all fragrances found in a comprehensive fragrance cross-reactor group.30 This customizable database is available as an application that can be downloaded onto a patient’s mobile device. Fragrance-allergic patients should be encouraged to use the CAMP application or other similar applications (eg, SkinSAFE)(https://www.skinsafeproducts.com/) to find all the products they use.
Potential Pitfalls in Fragrance Avoidance
Most physicians, even dermatologists, will not know which products on the market are fragrance free from a contact allergy standpoint. Patients should instruct their physicians to use the allergen-avoidance application of choice whenever recommending new topical products, whether prescription or nonprescription. In 2009, Nardelli and colleagues31 found that 10% of topical pharmaceutical products contained a total of 66 different fragrance substances.
Individuals who are allergic to fragrance also can react to fragrances used by close contacts (ie, consort dermatitis).32 Therefore, fragrance-allergic individuals who do not improve after changing their personal products should consider urging their spouses or significant others to choose their personal care products using an allergen-avoidance application. Also, physical contact with pets can cause reactions, and the use of a fragrance-free pet shampoo is recommended. Additionally, allergic individuals who are providing care for small children should select fragrance-free products for them.
Some of the most heavily fragranced products on the market are found at hair salons. One exposure to an allergen often can keep patients broken out for up to 4 weeks and occasionally longer, a typical frequency for salon visits—even if the individual is taking great care to avoid fragrance at home. Patients should be instructed to bring their own shampoo, conditioner, and styling products to the salon. These patients also should bring safe moisturizer and nail polish remover for manicures. Additionally, aromatherapy used in most massages can cause flare-ups, and it is recommended that allergic patients purchase fragrance-free massage oil to bring to their sessions.
Fragranced soaps and cleansers can leave a residue on the palmar surface of the hands and fingers. This residue may not meet the threshold for causing a reaction on the thick skin of these surfaces, but it is sufficient to passively transfer fragrance to other more sensitive areas, such as the eyelids. Passive transfer of fragrance can be a major source of allergen exposure and should not be overlooked. Allergic patients should be instructed to bring safe hand cleansers to friends’ houses, restaurants, or work.
Airborne fragrances in a patient’s environment can reach sufficient concentration to cause airborne contact dermatitis. In one case report, an Uber driver developed facial airborne ACD from a fragrance diffuser in his vehicle and his condition improved upon removing the diffuser.33 Therefore, patients should be instructed to avoid fragranced diffusers, scented candles, room deodorizers, incense, and wax melts.
Fragrance in household products also can be an issue. Fragrance-allergic patients should be instructed to choose fragrance-free cleaning products and to avoid fragranced wipes on surfaces that may be touched. In addition, they should be instructed to use fragrance-free laundry products. It is not required for household products in the United States to list their ingredients, and the majority do not have complete ingredient lists. Therefore, it is imperative that the patient use an allergen-avoidance application that identifies products that have full ingredient disclosure and are free of fragrance.
For individuals who enjoy perfume and/or cologne, it may be possible for them to resume use of these products in some cases after their condition has fully cleared with complete fragrance avoidance. They should avoid spraying products into the air or applying them directly onto the skin and should instead dip a cotton swab into the perfume/cologne and dab a small amount onto their clothing. This technique can sometimes satisfy the patient and improve compliance.
If a patient who is allergic to fragrance does not clear after 6 weeks of complete fragrance avoidance, it is worth considering systemic contact dermatitis due to ingestion of fragrance-related substances in foods.34 A large number of fragrance materials also are food flavorings. For patients allergic to a specific fragrance(s), systemic avoidance needs to be specific to the allergen, and the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association’s flavor ingredient library is most helpful (https://www.femaflavor.org/flavor-library). If the patient is allergic to the complex mixture BOP, a balsam-free diet can be attempted.35,36
Final Thoughts
Dermatologists must equip themselves with the knowledge to educate fragrance-allergic patients on proper avoidance. The multifaceted nature of fragrance avoidance requires a personalized approach, combining label scrutiny, utilization of a safe-product application, and tailored recommendations for specific situations. By guiding patients through these complexities, dermatologists can empower patients to manage their fragrance allergy and enhance their quality of life.
Fragrances are complex organic compounds that are sufficiently volatile to produce an odor—most often a pleasant one—or at times intended to neutralize unpleasant odors. They can be further divided into natural fragrances (eg, essential oils) and synthetic ones. Fragrances are found in abundance in our daily lives: in perfumes; colognes; lotions; shampoos; and an array of other personal, household, and even industrial products (Table). These exposures include products directly applied to the skin, rinsed off, or aerosolized. A single product often contains a multitude of different fragrances to create the scents we know and love. To many, fragrances can be an important part of everyday life or even a part of one’s identity. But that once-intoxicating aroma can transform into an itchy skin nightmare; fragrances are among the most common contact allergens.
Given the widespread prevalence of fragrances in so many products, understanding fragrance allergy and skillful avoidance is imperative. In this review, we explore important aspects of fragrance allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), including chemistry, epidemiology, patch test considerations, and management strategies for patients, with the goal of providing valuable clinical insights for treating physicians on how patients can embrace a fragrance-free lifestyle.
How Fragrances Act as Allergens
A plethora of chemicals emit odors, of which more than 2000 are used to create the fragranced products we see on our shelves today.1 For many of these fragrances, contact allergy develops because the fragrance acts as a hapten (ie, a small molecule that combines with a carrier protein to elicit an immune response).2 Some fragrance molecules require “activation” to be able to bind to proteins; these are known as prehaptens.3 For example, the natural fragrance linalool is generally considered nonallergenic in its initial form. However, once it is exposed to air, it may undergo oxidation to become linalool hydroperoxides, a well-established contact allergen. Some fragrances can become allergenic in the skin itself, often secondary to enzymatic reactions—these are known as prohaptens.3 However, most fragrances are directly reactive to skin proteins on the basis of chemical reactions such as Michael addition and Schiff base formation.4 In either case, the end result is that fragrance allergens, including essential oils, may cause skin sensitization and subsequent ACD.5,6
Epidemiology
Contact allergy to fragrances is not uncommon; in a multicenter cross-sectional study conducted in 5 European countries, the prevalence in the general population was estimated to be as high as 2.6% and 1.9% among 3119 patients patch tested to fragrance mix I (FMI) and fragrance mix II (FMII), respectively.7 Studies in patients referred for patch testing have shown a higher 5% to 25% prevalence of fragrance allergy, largely depending on what population was evaluated.1 Factors such as sociocultural differences in frequency and types of fragrances used could contribute to this variation.
During patch testing, the primary fragrance screening allergens are FMI, FMII, and balsam of Peru (BOP)(Myroxylon pereirae resin).7 In recent years, hydroperoxides of linalool and limonene also have emerged as potentially important fragrance allergens.8 The frequencies of patch-test positivity of these allergens can be quite high in referral-based populations. In a study performed by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) from 2019 to 2020, frequencies of fragrance allergen positivity were 12.8% for FMI, 5.2% for FMII, 7.4% for BOP, 11.1% for hydroperoxides of linalool, and 3.5% for hydroperoxides of limonene.8 Additionally, it was noted that FMI and hydroperoxides of linalool were among the top 10 most frequently positive allergens.9 It should be kept in mind that NACDG studies are drawn from a referral population and not representative of the general population.
Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances can manifest anywhere on the body, but certain patterns are characteristic. A study by the NACDG analyzed fragrance and botanical patch test results in 24,246 patients and found that fragrance/botanical-sensitive patients more commonly had dermatitis involving the face (odds ratio [OR], 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.21), legs (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.06-1.41), and anal/genital areas (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.52) and were less likely to have hand dermatitis (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.95) compared with non–fragrance/botanical-sensitive patients.10 However, other studies have found that hand dermatitis is common among fragrance-allergic individuals.11-13
Fragrance allergy tends to be more common in women than men, which likely is attributable to differences in product use and exposure.10 The prevalence of fragrance allergy increases with age in both men and women, peaking at approximately 50 years of age, likely due to repeat exposure or age-related changes to the skin barrier or immune system.14
Occupational fragrance exposures are important to consider, and fragrance ACD is associated with hairdressers, beauticians, office workers exposed to aromatherapy diffusers, and food handlers.15 Less-obvious professions that involve exposure to fragrances used to cover up unwanted odors—such as working with industrial and cleaning chemicals or even metalworking—also have been reported to be associated with ACD.16
Patch Test Considerations
Patch testing is essential to confirm fragrance allergy and guide treatment, but because there are so many potential fragrance allergens, there is no perfect patch test strategy. In a standard patch test series, the most important screening allergens are considered to be FMI, FMII, and BOP; tested together, they are thought to detect a large proportion of cases of fragrance allergy. Strikingly, in a large European study (N=1951), patch testing with the fragrance markers in the baseline panel failed to detect more than 40% of cases of allergy compared to testing with 26 individual fragrance allergens.17 Other studies have reported that a smaller proportion of fragrance allergies are missed by using baseline screening allergens alone.18,19 Limonene and linalool hydroperoxides also are potentially important fragrance allergens to consider adding to the patch test panel, as unoxidized limonene and linalool commonly are used in many products and could theoretically undergo auto-oxidation under use conditions.8 However, because of the high number of irritant, questionable, and potentially false-positive reactions, the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology has recommended against adding these hydroperoxides to a standard screening tray for patch testing.20 It must be remembered that a positive patch test to a fragrance does not necessarily represent ACD unless the patient has a clinically relevant exposure to the allergen.21
In patients who test negative to the baseline fragrance-screening allergens and in whom a high degree of suspicion remains, further testing with supplemental fragrance allergens (commercially available from patch test suppliers) is warranted.17 The thin-layer rapid use epicutaneous (T.R.U.E.) test (SmartPractice) includes FMI and BOP but not FMII or linalool or limonene hydroperoxides. More comprehensive patch test panels are available that include additional fragrances, such as the North American 80 Comprehensive Series and the American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series.22-24 It is important to remain vigilant and consider expanded patch testing if patients initially test negative but suspicion remains.
Furthermore, patch testing with the patient’s own products is an important consideration. Uter et al25 evaluated patch testing using patients’ perfumes, deodorants, and shaving lotions, and approximately 41% (53/129) of patients who tested positive to their own product tested negative for fragrance-screening allergens. Although it can be difficult to ascertain which exact component of a commercial product is the culprit, a positive patch test may still provide clinically relevant information for patients and treating physicians. In cases of questionable or weak-positive results, repeat testing or repeated open application tests can help re-evaluate suspected products.
Cross-reactivity should be considered when patch testing for fragrances. Atwater et al10 found that cross-reactivity between FMI, FMII, and BOP was common; for instance, approximately 40% of patients testing positive to FMII or BOP also had positive reactions to FMI (522/1182 and 768/1942, respectively). Understanding this concept is important because in some cases (as detailed below) patients will need to avoid all fragrances, not just the ones to which they have previously been exposed, given the limitations on fragrance labeling in the United States. However, this may change with the Modernization of Cosmetic Regulation Act of 2022.26
Avoiding Fragrances: Improving Patient Education and Outcomes
Once a relevant contact allergy to fragrance is established after patch testing, successful avoidance is critical but challenging, as there are numerous potential pitfalls. Missing just 1 hidden source of fragrance exposure will often be the difference between success or failure. Dermatologists play a crucial role in guiding patients through the intricate process of identifying and avoiding potential allergens.
Optimal Safety: Embracing a Fragrance-Free Lifestyle
For fragrance-allergic patients, it generally is safest to completely avoid fragrance.
First, if a patient only shows positive patch-test reactions to fragrance screening mixes (and not to the particular fragrances in these mixes), there is no way to be certain which fragrances the patient needs to avoid.
Second, even if specific fragrance allergens are identified, numerous chemically related fragrances to which the patient may be allergic are not commercially available for patch testing. One review provided evidence of 162 fragrance allergens that have been documented to cause contact allergy.1 Dermatologists generally patch test to screening mixtures and/or the 26 fragrance chemicals required on labels in European products (European Directive fragrance).27 Therefore, there are more than 100 known fragrance allergens that are not routinely tested to which patients could be allergic.
Third, certain fragrances, such as limonene and linalool, are found in many products with fragrance, and it is difficult to find products without these substances. Limonene and linalool themselves are not potent allergens; however, upon air exposure, they may auto-oxidize to hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool, which are increasingly common positive patch tests.19
Additionally, patients should be advised that many products labeled “fragrance free,” “unscented,” or “free and clear” are not truly fragrance free, and patients should not choose products based on these claims. There are no legal definitions for these claims in the United States, and industries are allowed to choose the definition they prefer. Numerous products labeled “unscented” use this term to indicate that the product had an odor, the company used a masking fragrance to hide the odor, and then the product can be considered unscented. In many holistic stores, most products labeled “fragrance free” are only free of artificial fragrances but contain essential oils. Of the 162 documented fragrance allergens, 80 are essential oils.6 Essential oils are perceived to be safe by the vast majority of the population because they are viewed as “natural” and “unprocessed” sources of fragrance.28 However, numerous allergenic terpenes have been discovered in essential oils, including functionalized variations of alcohols (eg, geraniol, bisabolol) and aldehydes (eg, citronellal).6 Essential oils also consist of nonterpenic compounds produced through the phenylpropanoids pathway, including eugenol and cinnamaldehyde. One review showed that most essential oils contain one or more European Directive fragrance.29 Therefore, many products labeled “unscented,” “fragrance free,” or “natural” are not free of fragrance and may be unsafe for fragrance-allergic patients.
Although not required, manufacturers sometimes voluntarily list one or more of the 162 currently identified fragrance allergens on product labels. Also, there are more than 50 potentially allergenic essential oils that can be listed on labels by their common names or by genus or species. In addition, there are synonyms for fragrance, such as aroma, parfum, perfume, and scent. Therefore, there are several hundred different ingredient names on labels that indicate the presence of fragrance, and patients are very unlikely to successfully identify fragrance-free products by trying to read product labels on their own.
Lastly, in the United States product labels only require products to state that they contain “fragrance” and do not mandate the listing of specific fragrances. If a patient is allergic to a specific fragrance, there is no way to determine if that fragrance is present in these products. This will change with the enactment of Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022, which empowers the US Food and Drug Administration to require manufacturers to disclose many, but not all, fragrance allergens on the labels of cosmetic and topical products.26
For all these reasons, patients should be advised to use a medical database to choose safe alternative products instead of trying to read labels themselves to avoid fragrance. The American Contact Dermatitis Society’s Contact Allergen Management Program (CAMP) database (https://www.contactderm.org/resources/acds-camp) is designed to identify safe alternative products for patients with contact allergies. When CAMP is programmed to avoid “fragrance,” it will list only “safe” products free of all fragrances found in a comprehensive fragrance cross-reactor group.30 This customizable database is available as an application that can be downloaded onto a patient’s mobile device. Fragrance-allergic patients should be encouraged to use the CAMP application or other similar applications (eg, SkinSAFE)(https://www.skinsafeproducts.com/) to find all the products they use.
Potential Pitfalls in Fragrance Avoidance
Most physicians, even dermatologists, will not know which products on the market are fragrance free from a contact allergy standpoint. Patients should instruct their physicians to use the allergen-avoidance application of choice whenever recommending new topical products, whether prescription or nonprescription. In 2009, Nardelli and colleagues31 found that 10% of topical pharmaceutical products contained a total of 66 different fragrance substances.
Individuals who are allergic to fragrance also can react to fragrances used by close contacts (ie, consort dermatitis).32 Therefore, fragrance-allergic individuals who do not improve after changing their personal products should consider urging their spouses or significant others to choose their personal care products using an allergen-avoidance application. Also, physical contact with pets can cause reactions, and the use of a fragrance-free pet shampoo is recommended. Additionally, allergic individuals who are providing care for small children should select fragrance-free products for them.
Some of the most heavily fragranced products on the market are found at hair salons. One exposure to an allergen often can keep patients broken out for up to 4 weeks and occasionally longer, a typical frequency for salon visits—even if the individual is taking great care to avoid fragrance at home. Patients should be instructed to bring their own shampoo, conditioner, and styling products to the salon. These patients also should bring safe moisturizer and nail polish remover for manicures. Additionally, aromatherapy used in most massages can cause flare-ups, and it is recommended that allergic patients purchase fragrance-free massage oil to bring to their sessions.
Fragranced soaps and cleansers can leave a residue on the palmar surface of the hands and fingers. This residue may not meet the threshold for causing a reaction on the thick skin of these surfaces, but it is sufficient to passively transfer fragrance to other more sensitive areas, such as the eyelids. Passive transfer of fragrance can be a major source of allergen exposure and should not be overlooked. Allergic patients should be instructed to bring safe hand cleansers to friends’ houses, restaurants, or work.
Airborne fragrances in a patient’s environment can reach sufficient concentration to cause airborne contact dermatitis. In one case report, an Uber driver developed facial airborne ACD from a fragrance diffuser in his vehicle and his condition improved upon removing the diffuser.33 Therefore, patients should be instructed to avoid fragranced diffusers, scented candles, room deodorizers, incense, and wax melts.
Fragrance in household products also can be an issue. Fragrance-allergic patients should be instructed to choose fragrance-free cleaning products and to avoid fragranced wipes on surfaces that may be touched. In addition, they should be instructed to use fragrance-free laundry products. It is not required for household products in the United States to list their ingredients, and the majority do not have complete ingredient lists. Therefore, it is imperative that the patient use an allergen-avoidance application that identifies products that have full ingredient disclosure and are free of fragrance.
For individuals who enjoy perfume and/or cologne, it may be possible for them to resume use of these products in some cases after their condition has fully cleared with complete fragrance avoidance. They should avoid spraying products into the air or applying them directly onto the skin and should instead dip a cotton swab into the perfume/cologne and dab a small amount onto their clothing. This technique can sometimes satisfy the patient and improve compliance.
If a patient who is allergic to fragrance does not clear after 6 weeks of complete fragrance avoidance, it is worth considering systemic contact dermatitis due to ingestion of fragrance-related substances in foods.34 A large number of fragrance materials also are food flavorings. For patients allergic to a specific fragrance(s), systemic avoidance needs to be specific to the allergen, and the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association’s flavor ingredient library is most helpful (https://www.femaflavor.org/flavor-library). If the patient is allergic to the complex mixture BOP, a balsam-free diet can be attempted.35,36
Final Thoughts
Dermatologists must equip themselves with the knowledge to educate fragrance-allergic patients on proper avoidance. The multifaceted nature of fragrance avoidance requires a personalized approach, combining label scrutiny, utilization of a safe-product application, and tailored recommendations for specific situations. By guiding patients through these complexities, dermatologists can empower patients to manage their fragrance allergy and enhance their quality of life.
- de Groot AC. Fragrances: contact allergy and other adverse effects. Dermatitis. 2020;31:13-35.
- Uter W. Contact allergy to fragrances: current clinical and regulatory trends. Allergol Select. 2017;1:190-199.
- Karlberg AT, Börje A, Duus Johansen J, et al. Activation of non-sensitizing or low-sensitizing fragrance substances into potent sensitizers - prehaptens and prohaptens. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69:323-334.
- Patlewicz GY, Wright ZM, Basketter DA, et al. Structure-activity relationships for selected fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;47:219-226. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0536.2002.470406
- Ward JM, Reeder M, Atwater AR. Essential oils debunked: separating fact from myth. Cutis. 2020;105:174-176.
- de Groot AC, Schmidt E. Essential oils, part IV: contact allergy. Dermatitis. 2016;27:170-175.
- Diepgen TL, Ofenloch R, Bruze M, et al. Prevalence of fragrance contact allergy in the general population of five European countries: a cross-sectional study. Br J Dermatol. 2015;173:1411-1419
- Ogueta IA, Brared Christensson J, Giménez-Arnau E, et al. Limonene and linalool hydroperoxides review: pros and cons for routine patch testing. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;87:1-12.
- DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Reeder MJ, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2019-2020. Dermatitis. 2023;34:90-104.
- Atwater AR, Ward JM, Liu B, et al. Fragrance- and botanical-related allergy and associated concomitant reactions: a retrospective analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data 2007-2016. Dermatitis. 2021;32:42-52.
- Tai V, Sharifah Rosniza SNC, Tang MM. Contact sensitization to fragrance allergen: a 5-year review in the Department of Dermatology, Hospital Kuala Lumpur. Med J Malaysia. 2023;78:583-588.
- Periyasamy MK, Sekar SC, Rai R. Analysis of hypersensitivity in fragrance series by patch testing. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2019;10:657-662.
- Heydorn S, Menné T, Johansen JD. Fragrance allergy and hand eczema - a review. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48:59-66.
- Buckley DA, Rycroft RJG, White IR, et al. The frequency of fragrance allergy in patch-tested patients increases with their age. Br J Dermatol. 2003;149:986-989.
- Montgomery RL, Agius R, Wilkinson SM, et al. UK trends of allergic occupational skin disease attributed to fragrances 1996-2015. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78:33-40.
- Reeder MJ. Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances. Dermatol Clin. 2020;38:371-377.
- Mann J, McFadden JP, White JML, et al. Baseline series fragrance markers fail to predict contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:276-281.
- Vejanurug P, Tresukosol P, Sajjachareonpong P, et al. Fragrance allergy could be missed without patch testing with 26 individual fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;74:230-235.
- Sukakul T, Bruze M, Mowitz M, et al. Simultaneous patch testing with fragrance markers in the baseline series and the ingredients of fragrance mixes: an update from southern Sweden. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;86:514-523.
- Schubert S, Geier J, Brans R, et al; IVDK. Patch testing hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool in consecutive patients-results of the IVDK 2018-2020. Contact Dermatitis. 2023;89:85-94. doi:10.1111/cod.14332
- Storrs FJ. Fragrance. Dermatitis. 2007;18:3-7.
- T.R.U.E. test. SmartPractice website. Accessed July 24, 2024. https://www.smartpractice.com/shop/category?id=581719&m=SPA ACDS
- Schalock PC, Dunnick CA, Nedorost S, et al. American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series: 2020 update. Dermatitis. 2020;31:279-282. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32947457/
- North American 80 Comprehensive Series NAC-80. Chemotechnique MB Diagnostics AB website. Accessed July 24, 2024. https://www.chemotechnique.se/products/national-series/north-american-80-comprehensive-series/
- Uter W, Geier J, Schnuch A, et al. Patch test results with patients’ own perfumes, deodorants and shaving lotions: results of the IVDK 1998-2002. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2007;21:374-379.
- Filley AR, Woodruff CM. The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022: what dermatologists need to know. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;89:629-631.
- European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 2003/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (text with EEA relevance). November 3, 2003. Accessed June 7, 2024. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:066:0026:0035:en:PDF
- Sharmeen JB, Mahomoodally FM, Zengin G, et al. Essential oils as natural sources of fragrance compounds for cosmetics and cosmeceuticals. Molecules. 2021;26:666.
- Scheman A, Scheman N, Rakowski EM. European Directive fragrances in natural products. Dermatitis. 2014;25:51-55.
- Scheman A, Hipolito R, Severson D, et al. Contact allergy cross-reactions: retrospective clinical data and review of the literature. Dermatitis. 2017;28:128-140.
- Nardelli A, D’Hooghe E, Drieghe J, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from fragrance components in specific topical pharmaceutical products in Belgium. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60:303-313.
- Lee J, Guo S, Dinalo J, et al. Consort allergic contact dermatitis: a systematic review. Dermatitis. 2022;33:181-186.
- Perper M, Cervantes J, Eber AE, et al. Airborne contact dermatitis caused by fragrance diffusers in Uber cars. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;77:116-117.
- Nijhawan RI, Molenda M, Zirwas MJ, et al. Systemic contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin. 2009;27:355-364.
- Salam TN, Fowler JF. Balsam-related systemic contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2001;45:377-381.
- Scheman A, Rakowski EM, Chou V, et al. Balsam of Peru: past and future. Dermatitis. 2013;24:153-160.
- de Groot AC. Fragrances: contact allergy and other adverse effects. Dermatitis. 2020;31:13-35.
- Uter W. Contact allergy to fragrances: current clinical and regulatory trends. Allergol Select. 2017;1:190-199.
- Karlberg AT, Börje A, Duus Johansen J, et al. Activation of non-sensitizing or low-sensitizing fragrance substances into potent sensitizers - prehaptens and prohaptens. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69:323-334.
- Patlewicz GY, Wright ZM, Basketter DA, et al. Structure-activity relationships for selected fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;47:219-226. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0536.2002.470406
- Ward JM, Reeder M, Atwater AR. Essential oils debunked: separating fact from myth. Cutis. 2020;105:174-176.
- de Groot AC, Schmidt E. Essential oils, part IV: contact allergy. Dermatitis. 2016;27:170-175.
- Diepgen TL, Ofenloch R, Bruze M, et al. Prevalence of fragrance contact allergy in the general population of five European countries: a cross-sectional study. Br J Dermatol. 2015;173:1411-1419
- Ogueta IA, Brared Christensson J, Giménez-Arnau E, et al. Limonene and linalool hydroperoxides review: pros and cons for routine patch testing. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;87:1-12.
- DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Reeder MJ, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2019-2020. Dermatitis. 2023;34:90-104.
- Atwater AR, Ward JM, Liu B, et al. Fragrance- and botanical-related allergy and associated concomitant reactions: a retrospective analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data 2007-2016. Dermatitis. 2021;32:42-52.
- Tai V, Sharifah Rosniza SNC, Tang MM. Contact sensitization to fragrance allergen: a 5-year review in the Department of Dermatology, Hospital Kuala Lumpur. Med J Malaysia. 2023;78:583-588.
- Periyasamy MK, Sekar SC, Rai R. Analysis of hypersensitivity in fragrance series by patch testing. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2019;10:657-662.
- Heydorn S, Menné T, Johansen JD. Fragrance allergy and hand eczema - a review. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48:59-66.
- Buckley DA, Rycroft RJG, White IR, et al. The frequency of fragrance allergy in patch-tested patients increases with their age. Br J Dermatol. 2003;149:986-989.
- Montgomery RL, Agius R, Wilkinson SM, et al. UK trends of allergic occupational skin disease attributed to fragrances 1996-2015. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78:33-40.
- Reeder MJ. Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances. Dermatol Clin. 2020;38:371-377.
- Mann J, McFadden JP, White JML, et al. Baseline series fragrance markers fail to predict contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:276-281.
- Vejanurug P, Tresukosol P, Sajjachareonpong P, et al. Fragrance allergy could be missed without patch testing with 26 individual fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;74:230-235.
- Sukakul T, Bruze M, Mowitz M, et al. Simultaneous patch testing with fragrance markers in the baseline series and the ingredients of fragrance mixes: an update from southern Sweden. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;86:514-523.
- Schubert S, Geier J, Brans R, et al; IVDK. Patch testing hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool in consecutive patients-results of the IVDK 2018-2020. Contact Dermatitis. 2023;89:85-94. doi:10.1111/cod.14332
- Storrs FJ. Fragrance. Dermatitis. 2007;18:3-7.
- T.R.U.E. test. SmartPractice website. Accessed July 24, 2024. https://www.smartpractice.com/shop/category?id=581719&m=SPA ACDS
- Schalock PC, Dunnick CA, Nedorost S, et al. American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series: 2020 update. Dermatitis. 2020;31:279-282. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32947457/
- North American 80 Comprehensive Series NAC-80. Chemotechnique MB Diagnostics AB website. Accessed July 24, 2024. https://www.chemotechnique.se/products/national-series/north-american-80-comprehensive-series/
- Uter W, Geier J, Schnuch A, et al. Patch test results with patients’ own perfumes, deodorants and shaving lotions: results of the IVDK 1998-2002. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2007;21:374-379.
- Filley AR, Woodruff CM. The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022: what dermatologists need to know. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;89:629-631.
- European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 2003/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (text with EEA relevance). November 3, 2003. Accessed June 7, 2024. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:066:0026:0035:en:PDF
- Sharmeen JB, Mahomoodally FM, Zengin G, et al. Essential oils as natural sources of fragrance compounds for cosmetics and cosmeceuticals. Molecules. 2021;26:666.
- Scheman A, Scheman N, Rakowski EM. European Directive fragrances in natural products. Dermatitis. 2014;25:51-55.
- Scheman A, Hipolito R, Severson D, et al. Contact allergy cross-reactions: retrospective clinical data and review of the literature. Dermatitis. 2017;28:128-140.
- Nardelli A, D’Hooghe E, Drieghe J, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from fragrance components in specific topical pharmaceutical products in Belgium. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60:303-313.
- Lee J, Guo S, Dinalo J, et al. Consort allergic contact dermatitis: a systematic review. Dermatitis. 2022;33:181-186.
- Perper M, Cervantes J, Eber AE, et al. Airborne contact dermatitis caused by fragrance diffusers in Uber cars. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;77:116-117.
- Nijhawan RI, Molenda M, Zirwas MJ, et al. Systemic contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin. 2009;27:355-364.
- Salam TN, Fowler JF. Balsam-related systemic contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2001;45:377-381.
- Scheman A, Rakowski EM, Chou V, et al. Balsam of Peru: past and future. Dermatitis. 2013;24:153-160.
Practice Points
- Fragrance allergy is common due to daily exposure from many sources, ranging from personal care products and cosmetics to cleaning products, foods/spices, and workplace materials.
- More than 100 different fragrances can cause contact allergy, but patch testing in routine practice usually is limited to a few key screening allergens with important limitations.
- Fragrance avoidance is challenging, and comprehensive patient education is critical, including the provision of a list of safe products that are truly fragrance free.
Brazilian Peppertree: Watch Out for This Lesser-Known Relative of Poison Ivy
Brazilian peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolia), a member of the Anacardiaceae family, is an internationally invasive plant that causes allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in susceptible individuals. This noxious weed has settled into the landscape of the southern United States and continues to expand. Its key identifying features include its year-round white flowers as well as a peppery and turpentinelike aroma created by cracking its bright red berries. The ACD associated with contact—primarily with the plant’s sap—stems from known alkenyl phenols, cardol and cardanol. Treatment of Brazilian peppertree–associated ACD parallels that for poison ivy. As this pest increases its range, dermatologists living in endemic areas should familiarize themselves with Brazilian peppertree and its potential for harm.
Brazilian Peppertree Morphology and Geography
Plants in the Anacardiaceae family contribute to more ACD than any other family, and its 80 genera include most of the urushiol-containing plants, such as Toxicodendron (poison ivy, poison oak, poison sumac, Japanese lacquer tree), Anacardium (cashew tree), Mangifera (mango fruit), Semecarpus (India marking nut tree), and Schinus (Brazilian peppertree). Deciduous and evergreen tree members of the Anacardiaceae family grow primarily in tropical and subtropical locations and produce thick resins, 5-petalled flowers, and small fruit known as drupes. The genus name for Brazilian peppertree, Schinus, derives from Latin and Greek words meaning “mastic tree,” a relative of the pistachio tree that the Brazilian peppertree resembles.1 Brazilian peppertree leaves look and smell similar to Pistacia terebinthus (turpentine tree or terebinth), from which the species name terebinthifolia derives.2
Brazilian peppertree originated in South America, particularly Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina.3 Since the 1840s,4 it has been an invasive weed in the United States, notably in Florida, California, Hawaii, Alabama, Georgia,5 Arizona,6 Nevada,3 and Texas.5,7 The plant also grows throughout the world, including parts of Africa, Asia, Central America, Europe,6 New Zealand,8 Australia, and various islands.9 The plant expertly outcompetes neighboring plants and has prompted control and eradication efforts in many locations.3
Identifying Features and Allergenic Plant Parts
Brazilian peppertree can be either a shrub or tree up to 30 feet tall.4 As an evergreen, it retains its leaves year-round. During fruiting seasons (primarily December through March7), bright red or pink (depending on the variety3) berries appear (Figure 1A) and contribute to its nickname “Florida holly.” Although generally considered an unwelcome guest in Florida, it does display white flowers (Figure 1B) year-round, especially from September to November.9 It characteristically exhibits 3 to 13 leaflets per leaf.10 The leaflets’ ovoid and ridged edges, netlike vasculature, shiny hue, and aroma can help identify the plant (Figure 2A). For decades, the sap of the Brazilian peppertree has been associated with skin irritation (Figure 2B).6 Although the sap of the plant serves as the main culprit of Brazilian peppertree–associated ACD, it appears that other parts of the plant, including the fruit, can cause irritating effects to skin on contact.11,12 The leaves, trunk, and fruit can be harmful to both humans and animals.6 Chemicals from flowers and crushed fruit also can lead to irritating effects in the respiratory tract if aspirated.13
Urushiol, an oily resin present in most plants of the Anacardiaceae family,14 contains many chemicals, including allergenic phenols, catechols, and resorcinols.15 Urushiol-allergic individuals develop dermatitis upon exposure to Brazilian peppertree sap.6 Alkenyl phenols found in Brazilian peppertree lead to the cutaneous manifestations in sensitized patients.11,12 In 1983, Stahl et al11 identified a phenol, cardanol (chemical name 3-pentadecylphenol16) C15:1, in Brazilian peppertree fruit. The group further tested this compound’s effect on skin via patch testing, which showed an allergic response.11 Cashew nut shells (Anacardium occidentale) contain cardanol, anacardic acid (a phenolic acid), and cardol (a phenol with the chemical name 5-pentadecylresorcinol),15,16 though Stahl et al11 were unable to extract these 2 substances (if present) from Brazilian peppertree fruit. When exposed to cardol and anacardic acid, those allergic to poison ivy often develop ACD,15 and these 2 substances are more irritating than cardanol.11 A later study did identify cardol in addition to cardanol in Brazilian peppertree.12
Cutaneous Manifestations
Brazilian peppertree–induced ACD appears similar to other plant-induced ACD with linear streaks of erythema, juicy papules, vesicles, coalescing erythematous plaques, and/or occasional edema and bullae accompanied by intense pruritus.
Treatment
Avoiding contact with Brazilian peppertree is the first line of defense, and treatment for a reaction associated with exposure is similar to that of poison ivy.17 Application of cool compresses, calamine lotion, and topical astringents offer symptom alleviation, and topical steroids (eg, clobetasol propionate 0.05% twice daily) can improve mild localized ACD when given prior to formation of blisters. For more severe and diffuse ACD, oral steroids (eg, prednisone 1 mg/kg/d tapered over 2–3 weeks) likely are necessary, though intramuscular options greatly alleviate discomfort in more severe cases (eg, intramuscular triamcinolone acetonide 1 mg/kg combined with betamethasone 0.1 mg/kg). Physicians should monitor sites for any signs of superimposed bacterial infection and initiate antibiotics as necessary.17
- Zona S. The correct gender of Schinus (Anacardiaceae). Phytotaxa. 2015;222:075-077.
- Terebinth. Encyclopedia.com website. Updated May 17, 2018. Accessed July 9, 2024. https://www.encyclopedia.com/plants-and-animals/plants/plants/terebinth
- Brazilian pepper tree. iNaturalist website. Accessed July 1, 2024. https://www.inaturalist.org/guide_taxa/841531#:~:text=Throughout% 20South%20and%20Central%20America,and%20as%20a%20topical%20antiseptic
- Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Schinus terebinthifolia. Brazilian peppertree. Accessed July 1, 2024. https://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/plant-directory/schinus-terebinthifolia/#:~:text=Species%20Overview&text=People%20sensitive%20to%20poison%20ivy,associated%20with%20its%20bloom%20period
- Brazilian peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolia). Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System. Accessed July 4, 2024. https://www.eddmaps.org/distribution/usstate.cfm?sub=78819
- Morton F. Brazilian pepper: its impact on people, animals, and the environment. Econ Bot. 1978;32:353-359.
- Fire Effects Information System. Schinus terebinthifolius. US Department of Agriculture website. Accessed July 4, 2024. https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/shrub/schter/all.html
- New Zealand Plant Conservation Network. Schinus terebinthifolius. Accessed July 1, 2024. https://www.nzpcn.org.nz/flora/species/schinus-terebinthifolius
- Rojas-Sandoval J, Acevedo-Rodriguez P. Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian pepper tree). CABI Compendium. July 23, 2014. Accessed July 1, 2024. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/10.1079/cabicompendium.49031
- Patocka J, Diz de Almeida J. Brazilian peppertree: review of pharmacology. Mil Med Sci Lett. 2017;86:32-41.
- Stahl E, Keller K, Blinn C. Cardanol, a skin irritant in pink pepper. Plant Medica. 1983;48:5-9.
- Skopp G, Opferkuch H-J, Schqenker G. n-Alkylphenols from Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi (Anacardiaceae). In German. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C. 1987;42:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1515/znc-1987-1-203.
- Lloyd HA, Jaouni TM, Evans SL, et al. Terpenes of Schinus terebinthifolius. Phytochemistry. 1977;16:1301-1302.
- Goon ATJ, Goh CL. Plant dermatitis: Asian perspective. Indian J Dermatol. 2011;56:707-710.
- Rozas-Muñoz E, Lepoittevin JP, Pujol RM, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis to plants: understanding the chemistry will help our diagnostic approach. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2012;103:456-477.
- Caillol S. Cardanol: a promising building block for biobased polymers and additives. Curr Opin Green Sustain Chem. 2018;14: 26-32.
- Prok L, McGovern T. Poison ivy (Toxicodendron) dermatitis. UpToDate. Updated June 21, 2024. Accessed July 7, 2024. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/poison-ivy-toxicodendron-dermatitis#
Brazilian peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolia), a member of the Anacardiaceae family, is an internationally invasive plant that causes allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in susceptible individuals. This noxious weed has settled into the landscape of the southern United States and continues to expand. Its key identifying features include its year-round white flowers as well as a peppery and turpentinelike aroma created by cracking its bright red berries. The ACD associated with contact—primarily with the plant’s sap—stems from known alkenyl phenols, cardol and cardanol. Treatment of Brazilian peppertree–associated ACD parallels that for poison ivy. As this pest increases its range, dermatologists living in endemic areas should familiarize themselves with Brazilian peppertree and its potential for harm.
Brazilian Peppertree Morphology and Geography
Plants in the Anacardiaceae family contribute to more ACD than any other family, and its 80 genera include most of the urushiol-containing plants, such as Toxicodendron (poison ivy, poison oak, poison sumac, Japanese lacquer tree), Anacardium (cashew tree), Mangifera (mango fruit), Semecarpus (India marking nut tree), and Schinus (Brazilian peppertree). Deciduous and evergreen tree members of the Anacardiaceae family grow primarily in tropical and subtropical locations and produce thick resins, 5-petalled flowers, and small fruit known as drupes. The genus name for Brazilian peppertree, Schinus, derives from Latin and Greek words meaning “mastic tree,” a relative of the pistachio tree that the Brazilian peppertree resembles.1 Brazilian peppertree leaves look and smell similar to Pistacia terebinthus (turpentine tree or terebinth), from which the species name terebinthifolia derives.2
Brazilian peppertree originated in South America, particularly Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina.3 Since the 1840s,4 it has been an invasive weed in the United States, notably in Florida, California, Hawaii, Alabama, Georgia,5 Arizona,6 Nevada,3 and Texas.5,7 The plant also grows throughout the world, including parts of Africa, Asia, Central America, Europe,6 New Zealand,8 Australia, and various islands.9 The plant expertly outcompetes neighboring plants and has prompted control and eradication efforts in many locations.3
Identifying Features and Allergenic Plant Parts
Brazilian peppertree can be either a shrub or tree up to 30 feet tall.4 As an evergreen, it retains its leaves year-round. During fruiting seasons (primarily December through March7), bright red or pink (depending on the variety3) berries appear (Figure 1A) and contribute to its nickname “Florida holly.” Although generally considered an unwelcome guest in Florida, it does display white flowers (Figure 1B) year-round, especially from September to November.9 It characteristically exhibits 3 to 13 leaflets per leaf.10 The leaflets’ ovoid and ridged edges, netlike vasculature, shiny hue, and aroma can help identify the plant (Figure 2A). For decades, the sap of the Brazilian peppertree has been associated with skin irritation (Figure 2B).6 Although the sap of the plant serves as the main culprit of Brazilian peppertree–associated ACD, it appears that other parts of the plant, including the fruit, can cause irritating effects to skin on contact.11,12 The leaves, trunk, and fruit can be harmful to both humans and animals.6 Chemicals from flowers and crushed fruit also can lead to irritating effects in the respiratory tract if aspirated.13
Urushiol, an oily resin present in most plants of the Anacardiaceae family,14 contains many chemicals, including allergenic phenols, catechols, and resorcinols.15 Urushiol-allergic individuals develop dermatitis upon exposure to Brazilian peppertree sap.6 Alkenyl phenols found in Brazilian peppertree lead to the cutaneous manifestations in sensitized patients.11,12 In 1983, Stahl et al11 identified a phenol, cardanol (chemical name 3-pentadecylphenol16) C15:1, in Brazilian peppertree fruit. The group further tested this compound’s effect on skin via patch testing, which showed an allergic response.11 Cashew nut shells (Anacardium occidentale) contain cardanol, anacardic acid (a phenolic acid), and cardol (a phenol with the chemical name 5-pentadecylresorcinol),15,16 though Stahl et al11 were unable to extract these 2 substances (if present) from Brazilian peppertree fruit. When exposed to cardol and anacardic acid, those allergic to poison ivy often develop ACD,15 and these 2 substances are more irritating than cardanol.11 A later study did identify cardol in addition to cardanol in Brazilian peppertree.12
Cutaneous Manifestations
Brazilian peppertree–induced ACD appears similar to other plant-induced ACD with linear streaks of erythema, juicy papules, vesicles, coalescing erythematous plaques, and/or occasional edema and bullae accompanied by intense pruritus.
Treatment
Avoiding contact with Brazilian peppertree is the first line of defense, and treatment for a reaction associated with exposure is similar to that of poison ivy.17 Application of cool compresses, calamine lotion, and topical astringents offer symptom alleviation, and topical steroids (eg, clobetasol propionate 0.05% twice daily) can improve mild localized ACD when given prior to formation of blisters. For more severe and diffuse ACD, oral steroids (eg, prednisone 1 mg/kg/d tapered over 2–3 weeks) likely are necessary, though intramuscular options greatly alleviate discomfort in more severe cases (eg, intramuscular triamcinolone acetonide 1 mg/kg combined with betamethasone 0.1 mg/kg). Physicians should monitor sites for any signs of superimposed bacterial infection and initiate antibiotics as necessary.17
Brazilian peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolia), a member of the Anacardiaceae family, is an internationally invasive plant that causes allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in susceptible individuals. This noxious weed has settled into the landscape of the southern United States and continues to expand. Its key identifying features include its year-round white flowers as well as a peppery and turpentinelike aroma created by cracking its bright red berries. The ACD associated with contact—primarily with the plant’s sap—stems from known alkenyl phenols, cardol and cardanol. Treatment of Brazilian peppertree–associated ACD parallels that for poison ivy. As this pest increases its range, dermatologists living in endemic areas should familiarize themselves with Brazilian peppertree and its potential for harm.
Brazilian Peppertree Morphology and Geography
Plants in the Anacardiaceae family contribute to more ACD than any other family, and its 80 genera include most of the urushiol-containing plants, such as Toxicodendron (poison ivy, poison oak, poison sumac, Japanese lacquer tree), Anacardium (cashew tree), Mangifera (mango fruit), Semecarpus (India marking nut tree), and Schinus (Brazilian peppertree). Deciduous and evergreen tree members of the Anacardiaceae family grow primarily in tropical and subtropical locations and produce thick resins, 5-petalled flowers, and small fruit known as drupes. The genus name for Brazilian peppertree, Schinus, derives from Latin and Greek words meaning “mastic tree,” a relative of the pistachio tree that the Brazilian peppertree resembles.1 Brazilian peppertree leaves look and smell similar to Pistacia terebinthus (turpentine tree or terebinth), from which the species name terebinthifolia derives.2
Brazilian peppertree originated in South America, particularly Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina.3 Since the 1840s,4 it has been an invasive weed in the United States, notably in Florida, California, Hawaii, Alabama, Georgia,5 Arizona,6 Nevada,3 and Texas.5,7 The plant also grows throughout the world, including parts of Africa, Asia, Central America, Europe,6 New Zealand,8 Australia, and various islands.9 The plant expertly outcompetes neighboring plants and has prompted control and eradication efforts in many locations.3
Identifying Features and Allergenic Plant Parts
Brazilian peppertree can be either a shrub or tree up to 30 feet tall.4 As an evergreen, it retains its leaves year-round. During fruiting seasons (primarily December through March7), bright red or pink (depending on the variety3) berries appear (Figure 1A) and contribute to its nickname “Florida holly.” Although generally considered an unwelcome guest in Florida, it does display white flowers (Figure 1B) year-round, especially from September to November.9 It characteristically exhibits 3 to 13 leaflets per leaf.10 The leaflets’ ovoid and ridged edges, netlike vasculature, shiny hue, and aroma can help identify the plant (Figure 2A). For decades, the sap of the Brazilian peppertree has been associated with skin irritation (Figure 2B).6 Although the sap of the plant serves as the main culprit of Brazilian peppertree–associated ACD, it appears that other parts of the plant, including the fruit, can cause irritating effects to skin on contact.11,12 The leaves, trunk, and fruit can be harmful to both humans and animals.6 Chemicals from flowers and crushed fruit also can lead to irritating effects in the respiratory tract if aspirated.13
Urushiol, an oily resin present in most plants of the Anacardiaceae family,14 contains many chemicals, including allergenic phenols, catechols, and resorcinols.15 Urushiol-allergic individuals develop dermatitis upon exposure to Brazilian peppertree sap.6 Alkenyl phenols found in Brazilian peppertree lead to the cutaneous manifestations in sensitized patients.11,12 In 1983, Stahl et al11 identified a phenol, cardanol (chemical name 3-pentadecylphenol16) C15:1, in Brazilian peppertree fruit. The group further tested this compound’s effect on skin via patch testing, which showed an allergic response.11 Cashew nut shells (Anacardium occidentale) contain cardanol, anacardic acid (a phenolic acid), and cardol (a phenol with the chemical name 5-pentadecylresorcinol),15,16 though Stahl et al11 were unable to extract these 2 substances (if present) from Brazilian peppertree fruit. When exposed to cardol and anacardic acid, those allergic to poison ivy often develop ACD,15 and these 2 substances are more irritating than cardanol.11 A later study did identify cardol in addition to cardanol in Brazilian peppertree.12
Cutaneous Manifestations
Brazilian peppertree–induced ACD appears similar to other plant-induced ACD with linear streaks of erythema, juicy papules, vesicles, coalescing erythematous plaques, and/or occasional edema and bullae accompanied by intense pruritus.
Treatment
Avoiding contact with Brazilian peppertree is the first line of defense, and treatment for a reaction associated with exposure is similar to that of poison ivy.17 Application of cool compresses, calamine lotion, and topical astringents offer symptom alleviation, and topical steroids (eg, clobetasol propionate 0.05% twice daily) can improve mild localized ACD when given prior to formation of blisters. For more severe and diffuse ACD, oral steroids (eg, prednisone 1 mg/kg/d tapered over 2–3 weeks) likely are necessary, though intramuscular options greatly alleviate discomfort in more severe cases (eg, intramuscular triamcinolone acetonide 1 mg/kg combined with betamethasone 0.1 mg/kg). Physicians should monitor sites for any signs of superimposed bacterial infection and initiate antibiotics as necessary.17
- Zona S. The correct gender of Schinus (Anacardiaceae). Phytotaxa. 2015;222:075-077.
- Terebinth. Encyclopedia.com website. Updated May 17, 2018. Accessed July 9, 2024. https://www.encyclopedia.com/plants-and-animals/plants/plants/terebinth
- Brazilian pepper tree. iNaturalist website. Accessed July 1, 2024. https://www.inaturalist.org/guide_taxa/841531#:~:text=Throughout% 20South%20and%20Central%20America,and%20as%20a%20topical%20antiseptic
- Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Schinus terebinthifolia. Brazilian peppertree. Accessed July 1, 2024. https://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/plant-directory/schinus-terebinthifolia/#:~:text=Species%20Overview&text=People%20sensitive%20to%20poison%20ivy,associated%20with%20its%20bloom%20period
- Brazilian peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolia). Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System. Accessed July 4, 2024. https://www.eddmaps.org/distribution/usstate.cfm?sub=78819
- Morton F. Brazilian pepper: its impact on people, animals, and the environment. Econ Bot. 1978;32:353-359.
- Fire Effects Information System. Schinus terebinthifolius. US Department of Agriculture website. Accessed July 4, 2024. https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/shrub/schter/all.html
- New Zealand Plant Conservation Network. Schinus terebinthifolius. Accessed July 1, 2024. https://www.nzpcn.org.nz/flora/species/schinus-terebinthifolius
- Rojas-Sandoval J, Acevedo-Rodriguez P. Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian pepper tree). CABI Compendium. July 23, 2014. Accessed July 1, 2024. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/10.1079/cabicompendium.49031
- Patocka J, Diz de Almeida J. Brazilian peppertree: review of pharmacology. Mil Med Sci Lett. 2017;86:32-41.
- Stahl E, Keller K, Blinn C. Cardanol, a skin irritant in pink pepper. Plant Medica. 1983;48:5-9.
- Skopp G, Opferkuch H-J, Schqenker G. n-Alkylphenols from Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi (Anacardiaceae). In German. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C. 1987;42:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1515/znc-1987-1-203.
- Lloyd HA, Jaouni TM, Evans SL, et al. Terpenes of Schinus terebinthifolius. Phytochemistry. 1977;16:1301-1302.
- Goon ATJ, Goh CL. Plant dermatitis: Asian perspective. Indian J Dermatol. 2011;56:707-710.
- Rozas-Muñoz E, Lepoittevin JP, Pujol RM, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis to plants: understanding the chemistry will help our diagnostic approach. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2012;103:456-477.
- Caillol S. Cardanol: a promising building block for biobased polymers and additives. Curr Opin Green Sustain Chem. 2018;14: 26-32.
- Prok L, McGovern T. Poison ivy (Toxicodendron) dermatitis. UpToDate. Updated June 21, 2024. Accessed July 7, 2024. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/poison-ivy-toxicodendron-dermatitis#
- Zona S. The correct gender of Schinus (Anacardiaceae). Phytotaxa. 2015;222:075-077.
- Terebinth. Encyclopedia.com website. Updated May 17, 2018. Accessed July 9, 2024. https://www.encyclopedia.com/plants-and-animals/plants/plants/terebinth
- Brazilian pepper tree. iNaturalist website. Accessed July 1, 2024. https://www.inaturalist.org/guide_taxa/841531#:~:text=Throughout% 20South%20and%20Central%20America,and%20as%20a%20topical%20antiseptic
- Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Schinus terebinthifolia. Brazilian peppertree. Accessed July 1, 2024. https://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/plant-directory/schinus-terebinthifolia/#:~:text=Species%20Overview&text=People%20sensitive%20to%20poison%20ivy,associated%20with%20its%20bloom%20period
- Brazilian peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolia). Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System. Accessed July 4, 2024. https://www.eddmaps.org/distribution/usstate.cfm?sub=78819
- Morton F. Brazilian pepper: its impact on people, animals, and the environment. Econ Bot. 1978;32:353-359.
- Fire Effects Information System. Schinus terebinthifolius. US Department of Agriculture website. Accessed July 4, 2024. https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/shrub/schter/all.html
- New Zealand Plant Conservation Network. Schinus terebinthifolius. Accessed July 1, 2024. https://www.nzpcn.org.nz/flora/species/schinus-terebinthifolius
- Rojas-Sandoval J, Acevedo-Rodriguez P. Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian pepper tree). CABI Compendium. July 23, 2014. Accessed July 1, 2024. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/10.1079/cabicompendium.49031
- Patocka J, Diz de Almeida J. Brazilian peppertree: review of pharmacology. Mil Med Sci Lett. 2017;86:32-41.
- Stahl E, Keller K, Blinn C. Cardanol, a skin irritant in pink pepper. Plant Medica. 1983;48:5-9.
- Skopp G, Opferkuch H-J, Schqenker G. n-Alkylphenols from Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi (Anacardiaceae). In German. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C. 1987;42:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1515/znc-1987-1-203.
- Lloyd HA, Jaouni TM, Evans SL, et al. Terpenes of Schinus terebinthifolius. Phytochemistry. 1977;16:1301-1302.
- Goon ATJ, Goh CL. Plant dermatitis: Asian perspective. Indian J Dermatol. 2011;56:707-710.
- Rozas-Muñoz E, Lepoittevin JP, Pujol RM, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis to plants: understanding the chemistry will help our diagnostic approach. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2012;103:456-477.
- Caillol S. Cardanol: a promising building block for biobased polymers and additives. Curr Opin Green Sustain Chem. 2018;14: 26-32.
- Prok L, McGovern T. Poison ivy (Toxicodendron) dermatitis. UpToDate. Updated June 21, 2024. Accessed July 7, 2024. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/poison-ivy-toxicodendron-dermatitis#
Practice Points
- The Anacardiaceae family contains several plants, including Brazilian peppertree and poison ivy, that have the potential to cause allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).
- Hot spots for Brazilian peppertree include Florida and California, though it also has been reported in Texas, Hawaii, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Nevada, and Arizona.
- Alkenyl phenols (eg, cardol, cardanol) are the key sensitizers found in Brazilian peppertree.
- Treatment consists of supportive care and either topical, oral, or intramuscular steroids depending on the extent and severity of the ACD.
Cosmetic Tattoo Ingredients Associated With Contact Dermatitis
TOPLINE:
, but the ability to identify these allergies in patients is limited.
METHODOLOGY:
- While the allergenic potential of pigments in traditional tattoos has been documented, there is less clarity about pigments used in inks contained in cosmetic tattoos, also known as permanent makeup, and their association with ACD.
- Researchers conducted an Internet search and identified 974 individual permanent makeup ink products sold in the United States and also identified 79 unique pigments in those products.
- They evaluated the safety data sheets of these products and performed a PubMed search to identify documented ACD cases related to these pigments.
TAKEAWAY:
- Of the 79 pigments, 20 contained inorganic metals, which included iron, aluminum, silicone, chromium, copper, titanium, molybdenum, and manganese.
- Organic pigments were more common: 59 of the remaining pigments were organic compounds, mostly azo, quinacridone, or anthraquinone dyes, including 4 black pigments made from carbon only.
- A literature search identified 29 cases where patients had developed ACD thought to be caused by at least one of the 79 pigments identified by the authors of the current study and included 10 of the 79 pigments (12%).
- In 18 of the 29 cases in the literature, patch testing to the suspected pigment had been performed; in 3 cases, ACD was suspected without confirmatory testing.
IN PRACTICE:
Permanent makeup is becoming more popular, and there have been reports of ACD related to pigments contained in the inks, the authors wrote. “Traditional patch testing methods may not be useful in confirming the presence of a pigment allergy, even if one is suspect,” they added. “Consumers and patch testing physicians would benefit from better labeling of tattoo inks and the development of protocols designed to specifically test for tattoo pigment allergies.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Sarah Rigali, MS, of Rosalind Franklin University, Chicago Medical School, Chicago, and coauthors from the Department of Dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study is limited by incomplete safety data sheets. So, many brands of permanent makeup ink could not be investigated. In addition, some pigments may not be fully disclosed in ingredient lists and precise ink content measurements were not available.
DISCLOSURES:
The study reported receiving no funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, but the ability to identify these allergies in patients is limited.
METHODOLOGY:
- While the allergenic potential of pigments in traditional tattoos has been documented, there is less clarity about pigments used in inks contained in cosmetic tattoos, also known as permanent makeup, and their association with ACD.
- Researchers conducted an Internet search and identified 974 individual permanent makeup ink products sold in the United States and also identified 79 unique pigments in those products.
- They evaluated the safety data sheets of these products and performed a PubMed search to identify documented ACD cases related to these pigments.
TAKEAWAY:
- Of the 79 pigments, 20 contained inorganic metals, which included iron, aluminum, silicone, chromium, copper, titanium, molybdenum, and manganese.
- Organic pigments were more common: 59 of the remaining pigments were organic compounds, mostly azo, quinacridone, or anthraquinone dyes, including 4 black pigments made from carbon only.
- A literature search identified 29 cases where patients had developed ACD thought to be caused by at least one of the 79 pigments identified by the authors of the current study and included 10 of the 79 pigments (12%).
- In 18 of the 29 cases in the literature, patch testing to the suspected pigment had been performed; in 3 cases, ACD was suspected without confirmatory testing.
IN PRACTICE:
Permanent makeup is becoming more popular, and there have been reports of ACD related to pigments contained in the inks, the authors wrote. “Traditional patch testing methods may not be useful in confirming the presence of a pigment allergy, even if one is suspect,” they added. “Consumers and patch testing physicians would benefit from better labeling of tattoo inks and the development of protocols designed to specifically test for tattoo pigment allergies.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Sarah Rigali, MS, of Rosalind Franklin University, Chicago Medical School, Chicago, and coauthors from the Department of Dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study is limited by incomplete safety data sheets. So, many brands of permanent makeup ink could not be investigated. In addition, some pigments may not be fully disclosed in ingredient lists and precise ink content measurements were not available.
DISCLOSURES:
The study reported receiving no funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, but the ability to identify these allergies in patients is limited.
METHODOLOGY:
- While the allergenic potential of pigments in traditional tattoos has been documented, there is less clarity about pigments used in inks contained in cosmetic tattoos, also known as permanent makeup, and their association with ACD.
- Researchers conducted an Internet search and identified 974 individual permanent makeup ink products sold in the United States and also identified 79 unique pigments in those products.
- They evaluated the safety data sheets of these products and performed a PubMed search to identify documented ACD cases related to these pigments.
TAKEAWAY:
- Of the 79 pigments, 20 contained inorganic metals, which included iron, aluminum, silicone, chromium, copper, titanium, molybdenum, and manganese.
- Organic pigments were more common: 59 of the remaining pigments were organic compounds, mostly azo, quinacridone, or anthraquinone dyes, including 4 black pigments made from carbon only.
- A literature search identified 29 cases where patients had developed ACD thought to be caused by at least one of the 79 pigments identified by the authors of the current study and included 10 of the 79 pigments (12%).
- In 18 of the 29 cases in the literature, patch testing to the suspected pigment had been performed; in 3 cases, ACD was suspected without confirmatory testing.
IN PRACTICE:
Permanent makeup is becoming more popular, and there have been reports of ACD related to pigments contained in the inks, the authors wrote. “Traditional patch testing methods may not be useful in confirming the presence of a pigment allergy, even if one is suspect,” they added. “Consumers and patch testing physicians would benefit from better labeling of tattoo inks and the development of protocols designed to specifically test for tattoo pigment allergies.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Sarah Rigali, MS, of Rosalind Franklin University, Chicago Medical School, Chicago, and coauthors from the Department of Dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study is limited by incomplete safety data sheets. So, many brands of permanent makeup ink could not be investigated. In addition, some pigments may not be fully disclosed in ingredient lists and precise ink content measurements were not available.
DISCLOSURES:
The study reported receiving no funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.