Skip to main content

Prognosis and Therapy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Clinical Contact Dermatitis

Abstract

The course of contact dermatitis is variable: the condition may resolve, or recur in the same site, or else spread and become unpredictably chronic. Although rarely, it can be complicated by erythroderma, which is often irreversible, has a poor prognosis and can even be fatal. With the exception of the last complication, the prognosis of contact dermatitis in its various clinical expressions is favorable. The course of the disease can be stopped only if contact with the agent or agents responsible is avoided. Topical or systemic treatments are useful only to reduce the duration of the clinical episode. Topical treatment and in part, systemic treatment are largerly similar in the two different forms of irritant and allergic contact dermatitits. Local treatment relies on Galenic products (solutions or antiseptic tinctures, emulsions and soothing lotions, powders, pastes and creams), that must be used considering the clinical phase of the disease (acute, subacute, chronic) and the relative manifestations. Apart from these very useful products, topical corticosteroids can be used with some important criteria, such as time and modality of use. Systemic antihistamines can be used for short or long periods to calm the pruritus. Systemic corticosteroids are used only in forms that are highly refractory to other treatments, and in diffuse and erythrodermic forms. Various other physical (ultraviolet light, Grenz rays) and chemical (antimetabolites, such as methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil; IFN-γ antagonists, such as cyclosporin, apremilast; TNF-α antagonists, such as infliximab, etanercept; IL-4 receptor-α antagonists, such as dupilumab; calcineurin inhibitors, such as tacrolimus and pimecrolimus) substances can be used as attempts of immunotolerance. Many attempts have been also provided to induce specific oral tolerance to nickel in nickel-allergic subjects.

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

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  3. Goh CL. Prognosis of occupational contact dermatitis. In: Kanerva L, Elsner P, Wahlberg JE, et al., editors. Handbook of occupational dermatology. Berlin: Springer; 2000. p. 444.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Chia SE, Goh CL. Prognosis of occupational dermatitis in Singapore Worker. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 1991;2:105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rosen RH, Freeman S. Prognosis of occupational contact dermatitis in New South Wales, Australia. Contact Dermatitis. 1993;29:88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nethercott J, Holness L. Disease outcome in workers with occupational skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1994;30:569.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Burrows D. Prognosis in industrial dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 1972;87:145.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fregert S. Occupational contact dermatitis in a 10-year material. Contact Dermatitis. 1975;1:96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Avnstorp C. Follow-up of workers from the prefabricated concrete industry after the addition of ferrous sulphate to Danish cement. Contact Dermatitis. 1989;20:365.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pryce DW, Irvine D, English JSC, et al. Soluble oil dermatitis: a follow-up study. Contact Dermatitis. 1989;21:28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shah M, Lewis FM, Gawkrodger DJ. Prognosis of occupational hand dermatitis in metalworkers. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34:27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Christensen OB. Prognosis in nickel allergy and hand eczema. Contact Dermatitis. 1982;8:7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rystedt I. Hand eczema and long-term prognosis in atopic dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol. 1985;117(Suppl):1.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Matsunaga K, Hosokawa K, Suzuki M, et al. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis in beauticians. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;18:94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Halbert AR, Gebauer KA, Wall LM. Prognosis of occupational chromate dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1993;27:214.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Angelini G, Vena GA. Gestione e terapia della dermatite da contatto. In: Angelini G, Vena GA. editors. Dermatologia professionale e ambientale, vol III. Brescia: ISED;1999. p. 825.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sadhra S. Dermatitis: identifying the culpit. Occup Health. 1987;3:222.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Angelini G, Vena GA. Il dermatologo è il clinico meglio qualificato per l’esecuzione dei patch tests. Giorn Ital Dermatol Venereol. 1995;130:85.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rycroft RJG. Looking at work dermatologically. Dermatol Clin. 1988;6:1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Barry BW. Dermatological formulations. Percutaneous absorption. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Angelini G, Foti C, Vena GA. Terapia farmacologica delle dermatiti allergiche. In: Paoletti R, Nicosia S, Clementi F, et al., editors. Trattato di farmacologia e terapia. UTET, Torino: Dermofarmacologia; 1998. p. 157.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Vena GA, Foti C, Piazzolla E, et al. Can cyclosporin A help to distinguish allergic from irritant patch test reactions? Contact Dermatitis. 1994;31:256.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Toews GB, Bergstresser PR, Strellein JW. Epidermal Langerhans cell density determines whether contact sensitivity or unresponsiveness following skin painting with DNFB. J Immunol. 1980;124:445.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Elmets CA, Bergstresser PR, Tigelar RE, et al. Analysis of the mechanism of unresponsiveness produced by haptens painted on skin exposed to low dose of ultraviolet radiation. J Exp Med. 1983;158:781.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Baer H, Hooton ML, Dawson CR, et al. The induction of immune tolerance in delayed contact sensitivity by the use of chemically related substances of low immunogenicity. J Invest Dermatol. 1977;69:215.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sommer G, Parker D, Turk JL. Epicutaneos induction of hyporeactivity in contact sensitization: demonstration of suppressor cells induced by contact with 2,4-dinitrothyocyanatebenzene. Immunology. 1975;29:517.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Jijima M, Katz SI. Specific tolerance to dinitrofluorobenzene following topical application of dinitrocyanobenzene. J Invest Dermatol. 1983;81:325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bergstresser PR. Immune mechanism in contact allergic dermatitis. Dermatol Clin. 1990;8:3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Stingl LA, Sauber DN, Jijima M, et al. Mechanism of UVB-induced impairment of the antigen-presenting capacity of murine epidermal cells. J Immunol. 1983;130:1586.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rae V, Yoshikawa T, Streilein JW, et al. Unresponsiveness induced in man by DNCB painted on UVB-treated skin. Clin Res. 1989;37:685A.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Streilein JW, Bergstresser PR. Genetic factors in ultraviolet-B suppression of contact hypersensitivity in mice. Immunogenetics. 1988;27:252.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hamau D, Fabre M, Lepoittevin J-P, et al. ATPase and morphologic changes induced by UVB on Langerhans cells in guinea pig. J Invest Dermatol. 1985;85:135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rappersberger K, Gartner S, Schenk P. Langerhans cells are an actual site of HIV-1 replication. Intervirology. 1988;29:185.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Monti M, Zerboni S, Cusini. Evaluation of experimental induced DNCB hypersensitivity in human immune deficiency virus (HIV) infected patients. Boll Dermatol Allergol Profes. 1987;2:235.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Valsecchi R, Rossi A, Bigardi A, et al. The loss of contact sensitization in man. Contact Dermatitis. 1991;24:183.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  38. Bourke J, Coulson I, English J. Guidelines for the management of contact dermatitis: an update. Br J Dermatol. 2009;160:946.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhai H, Anigbogu A, Maibach HI. Treatment of irritant and allergic contact dermatitis. In: Kanerva L, Elsner P, Wahlberg JE, et al., editors. Handbook of occupational dermatitis. Berlin: Springer; 2000. p. 402.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Cohen DE, Heidary N. Treatment of irritant and allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther. 2004;17:334.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sung CT, Mc Gowan MA, Machler BC, et al. Systemic treatment for allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2019;30:46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Brasch J, Becker B, Aberer W, et al. Guideline contact dermatitis. Allergy J Int. 2014;23:126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Warshaw E, Lee G, Storrs FJ. Hand dermatitis: a review of clinical features, therapeutic options, and longterm outcomes. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 2003;14:119.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Mork NJ, Austad J. Short-wave ultraviolet light (UVB) treatment of allergic contact dermatitis of the hands. Acta Derm Venereol. 1983;63:87.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sjövall P, Christensen OB. Local and systemic effect of ultraviolet irradiation (UVA and UVB) on human allergic contact dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol. 1986;66:290.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Sjövall P, Christensen OB. Treatment of chronic hand eczema with UV-B Handylux in the clinic and at home. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;31:5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Stege H. Ultraviolet-therapic des chronischen Handekzems. Hautarzt. 2008;59:696.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Rosen K, Mobacken H, Swanbeck G. Chronic eczematous dermatitis of the hands: a comparison of PUVA and UVB treatment. Acta Derm Venereol. 1987;67:48.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Simons JR, Bohnen JJ, van der Walk PG. A left-right comparison of UVB phototherapy and topical photochemotherapy in bilateral chronic hand dermatitis after six weeks’ treatment. Clin Exp Dermatol. 1997;22:7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Bauer A, Kelterer D, Bartsch R, et al. Prevention of hand dermatitis in bakers’ apprentices: different efficacy of skin protection measures and UVB hardening. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2002;75:491.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Schmidt T, Abeck D, Boeck K, et al. UVA1 irradiation is effective in treatment of chronic vesicular dyshidrotic hand eczema. Acta Derm Venereol. 1998;78:318.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Petering H, Breuer C, Herbst R, et al. Comparison of localized high-dose UVA 1 irradiation versus topical cream psoralen. UVA for treatment of chronic vesicular dyshidrotic eczema. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004;50:68.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Sezer E, Etikan I. Local narrow-band UVB phototherapy vs local PUVA in the treatment of chronic hand eczema. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2007;23:10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Lindel L. The duration of Grenz ray-induced suppression of allergic contact dermatitis and its correlation with the density of Langerhans cells in human epidermis. Clin Exp Dermatol. 1989;14:206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. King CM, Chalmers RJG. A double-blind study of superficial radiotherapy in chronic palmar eczema. Br J Dermatol. 1984;111:445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Linderöf B, Wrangsjö K, Lidén S. A double-blind study of Grenz ray therapy in chronic eczema of the hands. Br J Dermatol. 1987;117:77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Schalok PC, Zug KA, Carter JC, et al. Efficacy and patient perception of Granz ray therapy in the treatment of dermatoses refractory to other medical therapy. Dermatitis. 2008;19:90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Warner JA, Cruz PD Jr. Grenz ray therapy in the new millennium: still a valid treatment option? Dermatitis. 2008;19:73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Sheary B. Steroid withdrawal effects following long-term topical corticosteroid use. Dermatitis. 2018;29:213.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Olupana T, Scheinman P. Successful patch testing despite concomitant low-dose prednisone use. Dermatitis. 2008;19:117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Anveden I, Lindberg M, Cudersen KE, et al. Oral prednisone suppresses allergic but not irritant patch test reactions in individuals hypersensitive to nickel. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;50:298.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Feuerman E, Levy A. A study of the effect of prednisone and an antihistamine on patch test reactions. Br J Dermatol. 1972;86:68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Hachem JP, De Paepe K, Vanpée E, et al. Efficacy of topical corticosteroids in nickel-induced contact allergy. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2002;27:47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Queille-Roussel C, Duteil L, Padilla J-M, et al. Objective assessment of topical anti-inflammatory drug activity on experimentally induced nickel contact dermatitis: comparison between visual scoring, colorimetry, laser Doppler velocimetry, and transepidermal water loss. Skin Pharmacol. 1990;3:248.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Le TK, De Mon P, Schalkwijk J, et al. Effect of a topical corticosteroid, a retinoid and vitamin D3 derivative on sodium dodecyl sulphate-induced skin irritation. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;37:19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Levin C, Zhai H, Bashir S, et al. Efficacy of corticosteroids in acute experimental irritant contact dermatitis. Skin Res Technol. 2001;7:214.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Tian H, Croustein BN. Understandind the mechanisms of action of methotrexate: inplications for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Bull NYU Hosp J Dis. 2007;65:168.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Jeffes EW, McCullough JL, Pittelkow MR, et al. Methotrexate therapy of psoriasis: differential sensitivity of proliferating lymphoid and epithelial cells to the cytotoxic and growth-inhibitory effects of methotrexate. J Invest Dermatol. 1995;104:183.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Patel A, Burns E, Burkemper NM. Methotrexate use in allergic contact dermatitis: a retrospective study. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78:194.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Sharma VK, Chakrabarti A, Mahajan V. Azathioprine in the treatment of Parthenium dermatitis. Int J Dermatol. 1998;37:299.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Verma KK, Bansal A, Sethuraman G. Parthenium dermatitis treated with azathioprine weekly pulse doses. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2006;72:24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Agarwal US, Besarwal RK. Topical clobetasol propionate 0.05% cream alone and in combination with azathioprine in patients with chronic hand eczema: an observer blinded randomized comparative trial. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2013;79:101.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Verma KK, Mahesh R, Srivastava P, et al. Azathioprine versus betamethasone for the treatment of Parthenium dermatitis: a randomized controlled study. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2008;74:453.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Kaushal K, Manchanda Y. Long-term safety and toxicity of azathioprine in patients with airborne contact dermatitis. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2001;67:75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Oosterhaven JA, Politiek K, Schuttelaar MA. Azathioprine treatment and drug survival in patients with chronic hand eczema—results from daily practice. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;76:304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Amnuaikit T, Songkram C, Pinsuwan S. Enhancement of mycophenolate mofetil permeation for topical use by eucalyptol and N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone. Scientifica (Cairo). 2016;9672718.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Nguyen RH, Cruz PD Jr. Hepatitis due to mycophenolate mofetil used to treat atopic dermatitis and allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2014;25:284.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Fallahi P, Ruffilli I. Contact dermatitis and interferon-gamma dependent chemockines. Clin Ther. 2016;167:e 112.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Bordignon V, Palamara F, Cordiali-Fei P, et al. Nickel, palladium and rhodium induced IFN-gamma and IL-10 production as assessed by in vitro ELISpot- analysis in contact dermatitis patients. BMC Immunol. 2008;9:19.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Forsbeck M, Hovmark A, Skog E. Patch testing, tuberculin testing and sensitization with dinitrochlorobenzene and nitrosodimethylaniline of patients with atopic dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol. 1976;56:135.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Cooper KD, Voorhees JJ, Fisher GJ, et al. Effects of cyclosporin on immunologic mechanism in psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1990;23:1318.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Pubchem. Cyclosporine. 2018. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/.

  83. Dupuy P, Bagot M, Michel L, et al. Cyclosporin inhibits antigen-presenting functions of freshly isolated human Langerhans cells. J Invest Dermatol. 1991;96:408.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Higgins EM, McLelland J, Friedmann PS, et al. Oral cyclosporine inhibits the expression of contact hypersensitivity in man. J Dermatol Sci. 1991;2:79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Vena GA, Foti C, Grandolfo M, et al. Trattamento della dermatite da contatto con ciclosporina A. Boll Dermatol Allergol Profes. 1993;2:275.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Gronlund H, Erkko P, Eriksson E, et al. Comparison of cyclosporine and topical betamethasone-17,21-dipropionate in the treatment of severe chronic hand eczema. Acta Derm Venereol. 1996;76:371.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Prignano F, Bonciolini V, Bonciani D, et al. Exacerbation of allergic contact dermatitis during immunosuppression with cyclosporine A. Giorn Ital Dermatol Venereol. 2010;145:543.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Kundu RV, Scheman AJ, Gutmanovich A, et al. Contact dermatitis to white petrolatum. Skinmed. 2004;3:295.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Abrouk M, Farahnik B, Zhu TH, et al. Apremilast treatment of atopic dermatitis and other chronic eczematous dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77:177.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. West CE, Fowler JF. Clearance of erythroderma in a patient on apremilast and positive patch test reactions while on treatment. Dermatitis. 2016;27:392.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Volf EM, Au SC, Dumont N, et al. A phase 2, open-label, investigator-initiated study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of apremilast in subjects with recalcitrant allergic contact or atopic dermatitis. J Drugs Dermatol. 2012;11:341.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Dittmar D, Schuttelaar ML. Immunology and genetics of tumor necrosis factor in allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;76:257.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Cumberbatch M, Kimber I. Tumor necrosis factor-alpha is required for accumulation of dendritic cells in draining limph nodes and for optimal contact sensitization. Immunology. 1995;84:31.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Westphal GA, Schnuch A, Moessner R, et al. Cytokine gene polymorphisms in allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48:93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Kaplan DH, Igyarto BZ, Gaspari AA. Early immune events in the induction of allergic contact dermatitis. Nat Rev Immunol. 2012;12:114.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Wee JS, White JM, McFadden JP, et al. Patch tests in patients treated with systemic immunosuppression and cytokine inhibitors. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;62:165.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Kim N, Notik S, Gottlieb AB, et al. Patch test results in psoriasis patients on biologics. Dermatitis. 2014;25:182.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Cassano N, Loconsole F, Coviello C, et al. Infliximab in recalcitrant severe atopic eczema associated with contact allergy. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2006;19:237.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Rosmarin D, Bush M, Scheinman PL. Patch testing a patient with allergic contact hand dermatitis who is taking infliximab. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008;59:145.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Conner E, Bochner BS, Brummet M, et al. The effect of etanercept an the human cutaneous allergic response. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;121:258.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Horohov DW, Crim JA, Smith PL, et al. IL-4 (B-cell stimulatory factor 1) regulates multiple aspects of influenza virus-specific cell-mediated immunity. J Immunol. 1988;141:4217.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Koga T, Fujimura T, Imayama S, et al. The expression of Th1 and Th2 type cytokines in a lesion of allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;35:105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Niiyama S, Tamauchi H, Amoh Y, et al. Th2 immune response plays a critical role in the development of nickel-induced allergic contact dermatitis. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2010;153:303.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Joshi SR, Khan DA. Effective use of dupilumab in managing systemic allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2018;39:282.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Rowe A, Bunker CB. Interleukin-4 and the interleukin-4 receptor in allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;38:36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Salerno A, Dieli F, Sireci G, et al. Interleukin-4 is a critical cytokine in contact sensitivity. Immunology. 1999;84:404.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Yokozeki H, Watanabe K, Igawa K, et al. Gammadelta T cells assist alphabeta T cells in the adaptive transfer of contact hypersensitivity to paraphenylenediamine. Clin Exp Immunol. 2001;125:351.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Puza CJ, Atwater AR. Positive patch test reaction in a patient taking dupilumab. Dermatitis. 2018;29:89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Machler BC, Sung CT, Darwin E, et al. Dupilumab use in allergic contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;80:280.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Goldminz AM, Scheinman PL. A case series of dupilumab-treated allergic contact dermatitis patients. Dermatol Ther. 2018;24:e12701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Hoot JW, Douglas JD, Falo LD Jr. Patch testing in a patient on dupilumab. Dermatitis. 2018;29:164.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Chipalkatti N, Zancanaro P, Rosmarin D. Dupilumab as a treatment for allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2018;29:347.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Bornhövd E, Burgdorf WH, Wollenberg A. Macrolactam immunomodulators for topical treatment of inflammatory skin diseases. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2001;45:736.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Saripalli YV, Gadzia J, Belsito D. Tacrolimus ointment 0.1% in the treatment of nickel-induced allergic contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003;49:477.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Gupta AK, Chow M. Pimecrolimus: a review. JEADV. 2003;17:493.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Amrol D, Keitel D, Hagaman D, et al. Topical pimecrolimus in the treatment of human allergic contact dermatitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2003;91:563.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Alomar A, Puig L, Gallardo CM, et al. Topical tacrolimus 0.1% ointment (protopic) reverses nickel contact dermatitis elicited by allergen challenge to a similar degree to momethasone furoate 0.1% with greater suppression of late erythema. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;49:185.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Queille-Roussel C, Graeber M, Thurston M, et al. SDZ ASM 981 is the first non-steroid that suppresses established nickel contact dermatitis elicited by allergen challenge. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;42:349.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Krejci-Manwaring J, McCarthy MA, Camacho F, et al. Topical tacrolimus 0.1% improves symptoms of hand dermatitis in patients treated with a prednisone taper. J Drugs Dermatol. 2008;7:643.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Aschoff R, Schmitt J, Knuschke P, et al. Evaluation of the atrophogenic potential of hydrocortisone 1% cream and pimecrolimus 1% cream in uninvolved forehead skin of patients with atopic dermatitis using optical coherence tomography. Exp Dermatol. 2011;20:832.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Rietschel RL, Fowler JF Jr. Treatment of contact dermatitis. In: Rietschel RL, Fowler JF Jr, editors. Fisher’s contact dermatitis. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2001. p. 715.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Eberting CL, Blickenstaff N, Goldenberg A. Pathophysiologic treatment approach to irritant contact dermatitis. Curr Treat Options Allergy. 2014;1:317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Lachapelle JM, Gimenez-Arnau A, Metz M, et al. Best practices, new perspectives and the perfect emollient: optimizing the management of contact dermatitis. J Dermatolog Treat. 2018;29:241.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Lodén M. Barrier recovery and influence of irritant stimuli in skin treated with a moisturizing cream. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;36:256.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Zhai H, Maibach HI. Moisturizers in preventing irritant contact dermatitis: an overview. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;38:241.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Lynde CW. Moisturizers: what they are and how they work. Skin Therapy Lett. 2001;6:3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Lodén M. Role of topical emollients and moisturizers in the treatment of dray skin barrier disorders. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2003;4:771.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Cork MJ. The importance of skin barrier function. J Dermatol Treatm. 1997;8:57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Zhai H, Maibach HI. Barriers creams-skin protectants: can you protect skin? J Cosmetic Dermatol. 2002;1:20.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  130. Sympson EL, Chalmers JR, Hanifin JM, et al. Emollient enhancement of the skin barrier from birth offers effective atopic dermatitis prevention. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;134:818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Schwensen JF, Früs VF, Menné T, et al. One thousand cases of severe occupational contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68:259.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Hines J, Wilkinson SM, John SM, et al. The three moments of skin creams in the prevention of irritant contact dermatitis in the workplace. JEADV. 2017;31:53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Lachapelle JM. Airborne irritant dermatitis. In: Chew A-L, Maibach HI, editors. Irritant dermatitis. Berlin, New York: Springer; 2006. p. 71.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  134. Meding B, Jarvholm B. Hand eczema in Swedish adult changes in prevalence between 1983 and 1996. J Invest Dermatol. 2002;118:719.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Meding B, Jarvholm B. Incidence of hand eczema—a population-based retrospective study. J Invest Dermaol. 2004;122:873.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  136. Apfelbacher CJ, Radulescu M, Diepgen TL, et al. Occurrence and prognosis of hand eczema in the car industry: results from the PACO follow-up study (PACO II). Contact Dermatitis. 2008;58:322.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Diepgen TL, Coenraads PJ. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 1999;72:496.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Thyssen JPJJ, Linneberg A, Menné T. The epidemiology of hand eczema in general population—prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;62:75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Meding B, Lantto R, Lindahl G, et al. Occupational skin disease in Sweden—a 12-year follow-up. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;53:308.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Hald M, Berg ND, Elberling J, et al. Medical consultations in relation to severity of hand eczema in the general population. Br J Dermatol. 2008;158:773.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Londow K. Hand dermatitis. The perennial scourge. Postgrad Med. 1998;8:151.

    Google Scholar 

  142. Holden CA, Berth-Jones J. Eczema, lichenification, prurigo and erythroderma. In: Burns T, Breathnach SM, Cox N, et al., editors. Rook’s textbook of dermatology, 7th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications;2004. p 17.1.

    Google Scholar 

  143. Meding B, Wrangsjo K, Jarvholm B. Fifteen-year follow-up of hand eczema: persistence and consequences. Br J Dermatol. 2005;152:975.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Augustin M, Kussner D, Purwins, et al. Cost-of-illness of patients with chronic hand eczema in routine care: results from a multicentre study in Germany. Br J Dermatol. 2011;165:845.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. Cortesi PA, Scalone L, Belisari A, et al. Cost and quality of life in patients with severe chronic hand eczema refractory to standard therapy with topical potent corticosteroids. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:158.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Scalone L, Cortesi PA, Mantovani LG, et al. Clinical epidemiology of hand eczema in patients accessing dermatological reference centres: results from Italy. Br J Dermatol. 2014;172:187.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Carlsen BC, et al. Prevalence of nickel and contact allergy among female patients with dermatitis before and after Danish government regulation: a 23-year retrospective study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009;61:799.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Marks JG Jr, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 2003;14:59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  149. The European Surveillance System of Contact Allergies (ESSCA): results of patch testing the standard series, 2004. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 22:174.

    Google Scholar 

  150. Hostynek JJ. Nickel-induced hypersensitivity: etiology, immune reactions, prevention and therapy. Arch Dermatol Res. 2002;294:249.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Tsuji NM, Kosaka A. Oral tolerance: intestinal homeostasis and antigen-specific regulatory T cells. Trends Immunol. 2008;29:532.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Arnaboldi PM, Roth-Walter F, Mayer L. Suppression of Th1 and Th17, but not Th2, responses in a CD8 (+) T cell-mediated model of oral tolerance. Mucosal Immunol. 2009;2:427.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  153. Artik S, Haarhuis K, Wu X, et al. Tolerance to nickel: oral nickel administration induces a high frequency of anergic T cells with persistent suppressor activity. J Immunol. 2001;167:6794.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Desvignes C, Bour H, Nicolas JF, et al. Lack of oral tolerance but oral priming for contact sensitivity to dinitrochlorobenzene in major histocompatibility complex class II- deficient mice and in CD4+ T cell-depleted mice. Eur J Immunol. 1996;26:1756.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Burks AW, Laubach S, Jones SM. Oral tolerance, food allergy, and immunotherapy: implications for future treatment. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;121:1344.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. Dubois B, Chapat L, Goubier A, et al. Innate CD4+ CD25+ regulatory T cells are required for oral tolerance and inhibition of CD8+ T cells mediating skin inflammation. Blood. 2003;102:3295.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  157. Faria AM, Weiner HL. Oral tolerance. Immunol Rev. 2005;206:232.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Chen Y, Inobe J, Weiner HL. Induction of tolerance to myelin basic protein in CD8-depleted mice: both CD4+ and CD8+ cells mediate active suppression. J Immunol. 1995;155:910.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Chen Y, Inobe J, Marks R, et al. Peripheral deletion of antigen-reactive T cells in oral tolerance. Nature. 1995;376:177.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  160. Chung Y, Chang WS, Kim S, et al. NKT cell ligand alpha-galactosylceramide blocks the induction of oral tolerance by triggering dendritic cell maturation. Eur J Immunol. 2004;34:2471.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  161. Goubier A, Dubois B, Gheit H, et al. Plasmacytoid dendritic cells mediate oral tolerance. Immunity. 2008;29:464.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  162. Cavani A, Nasorri F, Prezzi C, et al. Human CD4+ T lymphocytes with remarkable regulatory functions on dendritic cells and nickel-specific Th1 immune responses. J Invest Dermatol. 2000;114:295.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  163. Cavani A, Nasorri F, Ottaviani C, et al. Human CD25+ regulatory cells maintain immunne tolerance to nickel in healthy, nonallergic individuals. J Immunol. 2003;171:5760.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  164. Van Hoogstraoten IM, Andersen KE, Von Blomberg BM, et al. Reduced frequency of nickel allergy upon oral nickel contact at an early age. Clin Exp Immunol. 1991;85:441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  165. Mortz CG, Lauritsen JM, Bindslev-Jensen C, et al. Nickel sensitization in adolescents and association with ear piercing, use of dental braces and hand eczema. The Odense Adolescence Cohort Study on Atopic Disease and Dermatitis (TOACS). Acta Derm Venereol. 2002;82:359.

    Google Scholar 

  166. Bagot M, Terki N, Bacha S, et al. Per os desensitization in nickel contact eczema: a double-blind placebo-controlled clinic-biological study. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 1999;126:502.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  167. Sjovall P, Christensen OB, Möller H. Oral hyposensitization in nickel allergy. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1987;17:774.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Morris DL. Intradermal tests and sublingual desensitization for nickel. Cutis. 1998;61:129.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  169. Bonamonte D, Cristaudo A, Nasorri F, et al. Efficacy of oral hyposensitization in allergic contact dermatitis caused by nickel. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;65:293.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  170. Bonamonte D, Guida S, Vestita M, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis to nickel: from clinical aspects to therapeutic measures. Clin Immunol Endocr Metabolic Drugs. 2014;1:75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  171. Veien NK, Hattel T, Laurberg G. Low nickel diet: an open, prospective trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1993;29:1002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  172. Antico A, Soana R. Chronic allergic-like dermatopathies in nickel-sensitive patients. Results of dietary restrictions and challenge with nickel salts. Allergy Asthma Proc. 1999;20:235.

    Google Scholar 

  173. Pizzutelli S. Systemic nickel hypersensitivity and diet: myth or reality? Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;43:5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. Menné T, Kaaber K. Treatment of pompholyx due to nickel allergy with chelating agents. Contact Dermatitis. 1978;4:289.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. Spruit D, Bongaarts PJM, De Jongh GJ. Dithiocarbamate therapy for nickel dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1978;4:350.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  176. Kaaber K, Menné T, Tjell JC, et al. Antabuse treatment of nickel dermatitis. Chelation- a new principle in the treatment of nickel dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1979;5:221.

    Google Scholar 

  177. Christensen OB, Kristensen M. Treatment with disulfiram in chronic nickel hand dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1982;8:59.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. Kaaber K, Menné T, Veien NK, et al. Treatment of nickel dermatitis with Antabuse®; a double blind study. Contact Dermatitis. 1983;9:297.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  179. Burrows D, Rogers S, Beck M, et al. Treatment of nickel dermatitis with trientine. Contact Dermatitis. 1986;15:55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  180. Kaaber K, Menné T, Veien NK, et al. Some adverse effects of disulfiram in the treatment of nickel-allergic patients. Dermatosen. 1987;35:209.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  181. Sharma SC, Kaur S. Airborne contact dermatitis from Compositae plants in northern India. Contact Dermatitis. 1989;21:1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  182. Hausen BM. Parthenium hysterophorus allergy. A weed problem in India. Derm Beruf Umwelt. 1978;26:115.

    Google Scholar 

  183. Handa S, Sahoo B, Sharma VK. Oral hyposensitization in patients with contact dermatitis from Parthenium hysterophorus. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;44:279.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  184. Bhutani LK, Rao DS. Photocontact dermatitis caused by Parthenium hysterophorus. Dermatologica. 1978;157:206.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  185. Epstein WL, Bear H, Dawson CR, et al. Poison oak hyposensitization: evaluation of purified urushiol. Arch Dermatol. 1974;109:356.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  186. Marks JG Jr, Trontlein JJ, Epstein WL, et al. Oral hyposensitization to poison ivy and poison oak. Arch Dermatol. 1987;123:476.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Domenico Bonamonte .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bonamonte, D., Foti, C., Gullo, G., Angelini, G. (2021). Prognosis and Therapy. In: Angelini, G., Bonamonte, D., Foti, C. (eds) Clinical Contact Dermatitis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49332-5_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49332-5_26

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-49331-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-49332-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics