Nickel Allergy of the Skin and Beyond

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (7) ◽  
pp. 1003-1009
Author(s):  
Malena Gergovska ◽  
Razvigor Darlenski ◽  
Jana Kazandjieva
Keyword(s):  
Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Allergic Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Contact Allergy ◽  
Correct Diagnosis ◽  
Large Population ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Nickel Allergy ◽  
Positive Skin ◽  
Diagnostic Potential ◽  
Allergic Contact

Background: Hypersensitization to nickel is one of the most common contact allergies in the modern world and it is considered to be a major cause of contact dermatitis, especially for hand eczema. Objective: The aim of this paper is to describe many faces of the nickel allergy and to find out different diagnostic, potential strategies for treatment and prevention in hypersensitized patients. A personal clinical experience with practical clinical cases of contact dermatitis to nickel has also been presented. Methods: Electronic databases on this topic was carried out using PubMed-Medline. Results: The literature review identified many articles reporting for nickel contact allergy and pointing the metal as number one allergen in the frequency of positive skin patch test reactions in a large population worldwide. Herein, a summary of the current understanding and evidence on nickel allergy with practical approach and proposed recommendations to the dermatologist, general practitioner, and the allergist were prepared. Conclusions: The prevalence of nickel allergy represents an important socio-economical and health issue. Metal is one of the most common sensitizing agents worldwide. The morbidity due to this metal represents the allergic contact dermatitis and it is constantly growing in many countries. There are also cases of systemic allergic contact dermatitis, where they could be easily misdiagnosed as adverse drug reactions, which lead to delay of the correct diagnosis and inappropriate treatment.

Nickel Allergy: Epidemiology, Pathomechanism, Clinical Patterns, Treatment and Prevention Programs

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (7) ◽  
pp. 992-1002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta Tramontana ◽  
Leonardo Bianchi ◽  
Katharina Hansel ◽  
Daniela Agostinelli ◽  
Luca Stingeni
Keyword(s):  
Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Contact Allergy ◽  
Systemic Exposure ◽  
Prevention Programs ◽  
Nickel Allergy ◽  
Type Iv ◽  
Treatment And Prevention ◽  
Typical Type ◽  
Clinical Patterns ◽  
Allergic Contact

Nickel is the most common cause of contact allergy in the general population and the most frequently detected allergen in patients patch tested for suspected allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). ACD from nickel is a typical type IV hypersensitivity. Nickel allergy is mostly caused by nonoccupational exposure, such as jewelry and clothing decorations, metal tools, medical devices (mainly orthopedic and orthodontic implants, cardiovascular prosthesis), eyeglasses, utensils, keys, pigment for paint, cosmetics, and food (mainly legumes, chocolate, salmon, peanuts). Occupational exposure can involve several workers (mechanics, metalworkers, platers, hairdressers, jewelers, workers in the constructions and electronic industries), classically involving hands and forearms. The classic clinical pattern of ACD caused by nickel is characterized by eczematous dermatitis involving the sites of direct contact with the metal. Non-eczematous-patterns are reported, including lichenoid dermatitis, granuloma annulare, vitiligo-like lesions, dyshidrosiform dermatitis, and vasculitis. In the case of systemic exposure to nickel, sensitized patients could develop systemic contact dermatitis. Patch testing represents the gold standard for the diagnosis of ACD from nickel. Treatment includes avoidance of contact with products containing nickel and the patient’s education about the possible use of alternative products. A recent EU nickel directive, regulating the content and release of nickel from products, has caused a decrease of nickel contact allergy in some European countries. Nickel allergy is a relevant issue of public health with significant personal, social, and economic impact. This review summarizes epidemiology, pathomechanism, clinical patterns, treatment, and prevention programs.

Filaggrin null mutations and association with contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis: results from a tertiary dermatology clinic

2010 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Berit Christina Carlsen ◽  
Jeanne Duus Johansen ◽  
Torkil Menné ◽  
Michael Meldgaard ◽  
Pal B. Szecsi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Allergic Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Contact Allergy ◽  
Dermatology Clinic ◽  
Allergic Contact

scholarly journals Contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis caused by lavender: A retrospective study from an Australian clinic

2019 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda J. Bingham ◽  
Mei M. Tam ◽  
Amanda M. Palmer ◽  
Jennifer L. Cahill ◽  
Rosemary L. Nixon
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Allergic Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Contact Allergy ◽  
Allergic Contact

Contact Dermatitis to Personal Sporting Equipment in Youth

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 323-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Marzario ◽  
Dianne Burrows ◽  
Sandy Skotnicki
Keyword(s):  
Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Allergic Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Patch Testing ◽  
Private Practice ◽  
Contact Allergy ◽  
Raw Material ◽  
Positive Patch Test ◽  
Test Reactions ◽  
Additional Value ◽  
Allergic Contact

Background: Contact dermatitis to personal sporting equipment in youth is poorly studied. Objective: To review the results of patch testing 6 youth to their sporting equipment in a dermatology general private practice from 2006 to 2011. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 6 youth aged 11 to 14 who were evaluated for chronic and persistent dermatitis occurring in relation to sports equipment was conducted. All patients were subjected to epicutaneous (patch) testing, which included some or all of the following: North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACGD) series, textile series, rubber series, corticosteroid series, and raw material from the patients’ own personal equipment. Results: All cases had 1 or more positive patch test reactions to an allergen within the aforementioned series, and 3 subjects tested positive to their personal equipment in raw form. Conclusions: Allergic contact dermatitis, not irritant, was deemed the relevant cause of chronic dermatitis in 4 of the 6 patients due to positive reactions to epicutaneous tests and/or personal equipment. The utility of testing to patients’ own sporting equipment was shown to be of additional value and should be considered when patch testing for contact allergy to sporting equipment.

scholarly journals A Hard-to-Heal Cutaneous Ulcer: An Exuberant Case of Allergic Contact Dermatitis to L-Mesitran® Tulle

2020 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-69
Author(s):  
Joana Calvão ◽  
Ricardo Batista ◽  
Margarida Gonçalo
Keyword(s):  
Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Allergic Contact Dermatitis ◽  
High Purity ◽  
Wound Dressing ◽  
Contact Allergy ◽  
Leg Ulcer ◽  
Cutaneous Ulcer ◽  
Allergic Contact ◽  
Medical Grade

L-Mesitran Tulle® is a popular non-adherent polyethylene dressing impregnated with the patented L-Mesitran Soft gel that contains Medilan™, which is said to be a “hypoallergenic lanolin”. Lanolin is a well know sensitizer and the prevalence of contact allergy to lanolin alcohols varies from 0.6% - 6.9%. We report the case of a patient who develop eczema around the leg ulcer while using L-Mesitran Tulle® as a wound dressing, highlighting that even this “high purity medical grade of lanolin” (Medilan™) contained in L-Mesitran Tulle® can cause an allergic contact dermatitis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document