Advertisement

Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology

, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 41–59 | Cite as

Contact Dermatitis to Medications and Skin Products

  • Henry L. Nguyen
  • James A. YianniasEmail author
Article
  • 352 Downloads

Abstract

Consumer products and topical medications today contain many allergens that can cause a reaction on the skin known as allergic contact dermatitis. This review looks at various allergens in these products and reports current allergic contact dermatitis incidence and trends in North America, Europe, and Asia. First, medication contact allergy to corticosteroids will be discussed along with its five structural classes (A, B, C, D1, D2) and their steroid test compounds (tixocortol-21-pivalate, triamcinolone acetonide, budesonide, clobetasol-17-propionate, hydrocortisone-17-butyrate). Cross-reactivities between the steroid classes will also be examined. Next, estrogen and testosterone transdermal therapeutic systems, local anesthetic (benzocaine, lidocaine, pramoxine, dyclonine) antihistamines (piperazine, ethanolamine, propylamine, phenothiazine, piperidine, and pyrrolidine), topical antibiotics (neomycin, spectinomycin, bacitracin, mupirocin), and sunscreen are evaluated for their potential to cause contact dermatitis and cross-reactivities. Finally, we examine the ingredients in the excipients of these products, such as the formaldehyde releasers (quaternium-15, 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3 diol, diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, DMDM hydantoin), the non-formaldehyde releasers (isothiazolinones, parabens, methyldibromo glutaronitrile, iodopropynyl butylcarbamate, and thimerosal), fragrance mixes, and Myroxylon pereirae (Balsam of Peru) for contact allergy incidence and prevalence. Furthermore, strategies, recommendations, and two online tools (SkinSAFE and the Contact Allergen Management Program) on how to avoid these allergens in commercial skin care products will be discussed at the end.

Keywords

Allergic contact dermatitis Contact dermatitis Contact dermatitis to drugs (corticosteroids, local anesthetics, topical antibiotics, preservatives, excipients) 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of Interest

Attached below.

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

Literature review. No research performed.

Informed Consent

Literature review. No research performed.

References

  1. 1.
    Diepgen TL, Ofenloch RF, Bruze M, Bertuccio P, Cazzaniga S, Coenraads PJ, Elsner P, Goncalo M, Svensson Å, Naldi L (2016) Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population in different European regions. Br J Dermatol 174(2):319–329Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thyssen JP, Linneberg A, Menné T, Johansen JD (2007) The epidemiology of contact allergy in the general population—prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis 57(5):287–299Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nielsen NH, Menne T (1992) Allergic contact sensitization in an unselected Danish population. The Glostrup Allergy Study, Denmark. Acta Derm Venereol 72(6):456–460Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nielsen NH, Linneberg A, Menne T et al (2001) Allergic contact sensitization in an adult Danish population: two cross-sectional surveys eight years apart (the Copenhagen Allergy Study). Acta Derm Venereol 81(1):31–34Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thyssen JP, Linneberg A, Menne T, Nielsen NH, Johansen JD (2009) Contact allergy to allergens of the TRUE-test (panels 1 and 2) has decreased modestly in the general population. Br J Dermatol 161(5):1124–1129Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schafer T, Bohler E, Ruhdorfer S et al (2001) Epidemiology of contact allergy in adults. Allergy 56(12):1192–1196Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dotterud LK, Smith-Sivertsen T (2007) Allergic contact sensitization in the general adult population: a population-based study from Northern Norway. Contact Dermatitis 56(1):10–15Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mortz CG, Lauritsen JM, Bindslev-Jensen C, Andersen KE (2002) Contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis in adolescents: prevalence measures and associations. The Odense Adolescence Cohort Study on Atopic Diseases and Dermatitis (TOACS). Acta Derm Venereol 82(5):352–358Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nielsen NH, Linneberg A, Menne T et al (2002) Incidence of allergic contact sensitization in Danish adults between 1990 and 1998; the Copenhagen Allergy Study, Denmark. Br J Dermatol 147(3):487–492Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lim HW, Collins SAB, Resneck JS Jr, Bolognia JL, Hodge JA, Rohrer TA, van Beek MJ, Margolis DJ, Sober AJ, Weinstock MA, Nerenz DR, Smith Begolka W, Moyano JV (2017) The burden of skin disease in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol 76(5):958–972 e952Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clark SC, Zirwas MJ (2009) Management of occupational dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 27(3):365–383 vii–viiiGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwindt DA, Wilhelm KP, Miller DL, Maibach HI (1998) Cumulative irritation in older and younger skin: a comparison. Acta Derm Venereol 78(4):279–283Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Linneberg A, Menne T (2010) The epidemiology of hand eczema in the general population—prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis 62(2):75–87Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jakasa I, Verberk MM, Esposito M, Bos JD, Kezic S (2007) Altered penetration of polyethylene glycols into uninvolved skin of atopic dermatitis patients. J Invest Dermatol 127(1):129–134Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lerbaek A, Kyvik KO, Mortensen J, Bryld LE, Menne T, Agner T (2007) Heritability of hand eczema is not explained by comorbidity with atopic dermatitis. J Invest Dermatol 127(7):1632–1640Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gibson-Smith B, Fleming CJ, Forsyth A (1998) Contact sensitivity to tixocortol pivalate in sisters. Contact Dermatitis 38(6):351–352Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Warshaw EM, Hagen SL, DeKoven JG et al (2017) Occupational contact dermatitis in North American production workers referred for patch testing: retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 1998 to 2014. Dermatitis 28(3):183–194Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    King TC (2007) 2—inflammation, inflammatory mediators, and immune-mediated disease. In: Elsevier’s integrated pathology. Mosby, Philadelphia, pp 21–57Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Friedmann PS (2007) The relationships between exposure dose and response in induction and elicitation of contact hypersensitivity in humans. Br J Dermatol 157(6):1093–1102Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nguyen SH, Dang TP, MacPherson C, Maibach H, Maibach HI (2008) Prevalence of patch test results from 1970 to 2002 in a multi-centre population in North America (NACDG). Contact Dermatitis 58(2):101–106Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lunder T, Kansky A (2000) Increase in contact allergy to fragrances: patch-test results 1989–1998. Contact Dermatitis 43(2):107–109Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mortz CG, Bindslev-Jensen C, Andersen KE (2013) Prevalence, incidence rates and persistence of contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis in the Odense Adolescence Cohort Study: a 15-year follow-up. Br J Dermatol 168(2):318–325Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peiser M, Tralau T, Heidler J, Api AM, Arts JHE, Basketter DA, English J, Diepgen TL, Fuhlbrigge RC, Gaspari AA, Johansen JD, Karlberg AT, Kimber I, Lepoittevin JP, Liebsch M, Maibach HI, Martin SF, Merk HF, Platzek T, Rustemeyer T, Schnuch A, Vandebriel RJ, White IR, Luch A (2012) Allergic contact dermatitis: epidemiology, molecular mechanisms, in vitro methods and regulatory aspects. Current knowledge assembled at an international workshop at BfR, Germany. Cell Mol Life Sci 69(5):763–781Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pongpairoj K, Puangpet P, Thaiwat S, McFadden JP (2017) Diagnosing allergic contact dermatitis through elimination, Perception, Detection and Deduction. Am J Clin DermatolGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Burckhardt W (1959) Contact eczema caused by hydrocortisone. Hautarzt 10:42–43Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wilkinson SM, Jones MF (1996) Corticosteroid usage and binding to arginine: determinants of corticosteroid hypersensitivity. Br J Dermatol 135(2):225–230Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baeck M, Marot L, Nicolas JF, Pilette C, Tennstedt D, Goossens A (2009) Allergic hypersensitivity to topical and systemic corticosteroids: a review. Allergy 64(7):978–994Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Coopman S, Degreef H, Dooms-Goossens A (1989) Identification of cross-reaction patterns in allergic contact dermatitis from topical corticosteroids. Br J Dermatol 121(1):27–34Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Matura M, Goossens A (2000) Contact allergy to corticosteroids. Allergy 55(8):698–704Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lepoittevin JP, Drieghe J, Dooms-Goossens A (1995) Studies in patients with corticosteroid contact allergy. Understanding cross-reactivity among different steroids. Arch Dermatol 131(1):31–37Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wilkinson SM, English JS (1991) Hydrocortisone sensitivity: a prospective study of the value of tixocortol pivalate and hydrocortisone acetate as patch test markers. Contact Dermatitis 25(2):132–133Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lauerma AI, Tarvainen K, Forstrom L, Reitamo S (1993) Contact hypersensitivity to hydrocortisone-free-alcohol in patients with allergic patch test reactions to tixocortol pivalate. Contact Dermatitis 28(1):10–14Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jacob SE, Steele T Corticosteroid classes: a quick reference guide including patch test substances and cross-reactivity. J Am Acad Dermatol 54(4):723–727Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Davis MD, El-Azhary RA, Farmer SA (2007) Results of patch testing to a corticosteroid series: a retrospective review of 1188 patients during 6 years at Mayo Clinic. J Am Acad Dermatol 56(6):921–927Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gonul M, Gul U (2005) Detection of contact hypersensitivity to corticosteroids in allergic contact dermatitis patients who do not respond to topical corticosteroids. Contact Dermatitis 53(2):67–70Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Baeck M, Chemelle JA, Goossens A, Nicolas JF, Terreux R (2011) Corticosteroid cross-reactivity: clinical and molecular modelling tools. Allergy 66(10):1367–1374Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Baeck M, Goossens A (2012) New insights about delayed allergic hypersensitivity to corticosteroids. G Ital Dermatol Venereol 147(1):65–69Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Baeck M, Goossens A (2012) Immediate and delayed allergic hypersensitivity to corticosteroids: practical guidelines. Contact Dermatitis 66(1):38–45Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Belsito DV et al (2017) North American contact dermatitis group patch test results 2013–2014. Dermatitis 28(1):33–46Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Baeck M, Chemelle J-A, Terreux R, Drieghe J, Goossens A (2009) Delayed hypersensitivity to corticosteroids in a series of 315 patients: clinical data and patch test results. Contact Dermatitis 61(3):163–175Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kot M, Bogaczewicz J, Krecisz B, Wozniacka A (2016) Contact hypersensitivity to European baseline series and corticosteroid series Haptens in a population of adult patients with contact eczema. Acta Dermatovenerol Croat 24(1):29–36Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pecquet C, Pradalier A, Dry J (1992) Allergic contact dermatitis from ethanol in a transdermal estradiol patch. Contact Dermatitis 27(4):275–276Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Grebe SK, Adams JD, Feek CM (1993) Systemic sensitization to ethanol by transdermal estrogen patches. Arch Dermatol 129(3):379–380Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schwartz BK, Clendenning WE (1988) Allergic contact dermatitis from hydroxypropyl cellulose in a transdermal estradiol patch. Contact Dermatitis 18(2):106–107Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tennstedt D, Lachapelle J-M (1990) Allergic contact dermatitis from colophony in a nitroglycerin transdermal therapeutic system. Contact Dermatitis 23(4):254–255Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jordan WP Jr (1997) Allergy and topical irritation associated with transdermal testosterone administration: a comparison of scrotal and nonscrotal transdermal systems. Am J Contact Dermat 8(2):108–113Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ta V, Chin WK, White AA (2014) Allergic contact dermatitis to testosterone and estrogen in transdermal therapeutic systems. Dermatitis 25(5):279Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Padwick ML, Endacott J, Whitehead MI (1985) Efficacy, acceptability, and metabolic effects of transdermal estradiol in the management of postmenopausal women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 152(8):1085–1091Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Corazza M, Mantovani L, Montanari A, Virgili A (2002) Allergic contact dermatitis from transdermal estradiol and systemic contact dermatitis from oral estradiol. A case report. J Reprod Med 47(6):507–509Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    El Sayed F, Bayle-Lebey P, Marguery MC, Bazex J (1996) Systemic sensitization to 17-beta estradiol induced by transcutaneous administration. Ann Dermatol Venereol 123(1):26–28Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Koch P (2001) Allergic contact dermatitis from estradiol and norethisterone acetate in a transdermal hormonal patch. Contact Dermatitis 44(2):112–113Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    McBurney EI, Noel SB, Collins JH (1989) Contact dermatitis to transdermal estradiol system. J Am Acad Dermatol 20(3):508–510Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Boehncke WH, Gall H (1996) Type-IV hypersensitivity to topical estradiol in a patient tolerant to it orally. Contact Dermatitis 35(3):187–188Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Warshaw EM, Belsito DV, Taylor JS, Sasseville D, DeKoven JG, Zirwas MJ, Fransway AF, Mathias CGT, Zug KA, DeLeo VA, Fowler JF Jr, Marks JG, Pratt MD, Storrs FJ, Maibach HI (2013) North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2009 to 2010. Dermatitis 24(2):50–59Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Warshaw EM, Maibach HI, Taylor JS et al (2015) North American contact dermatitis group patch test results: 2011–2012. Dermatitis 26(1):49–59Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Fransway AF, Zug KA, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, Fowler JF Jr, Maibach HI, Marks JG, Mathias CGT, Pratt MD, Rietschel RL, Sasseville D, Storrs FJ, Taylor JS, Warshaw EM, Dekoven J, Zirwas M (2013) North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for 2007–2008. Dermatitis 24(1):10–21Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Pratt MD, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, Fowler JF Jr, Fransway AF, Maibach HI, Marks JG, Mathias CG, Rietschel RL, Sasseville D, Sherertz EF, Storrs FJ, Taylor JS, Zug K (2004) North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 2001–2002 study period. Dermatitis 15(4):176–183Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Warshaw EM, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, Fowler JF Jr, Maibach HI, Marks JG, Toby Mathias CG, Pratt MD, Rietschel RL, Sasseville D, Storrs FJ, Taylor JS, Zug KA (2008) North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 2003–2004 study period. Dermatitis 19(3):129–136Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zug KA, Warshaw EM, Fowler JF Jr et al (2009) Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005–2006. Dermatitis 20(3):149–160Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Thyssen JP, Engkilde K, Menne T, Johansen JD (2011) Prevalence of benzocaine and lidocaine patch test sensitivity in Denmark: temporal trends and relevance. Contact Dermatitis 65(2):76–80Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sidhu SK, Shaw S, Wilkinson JD (1999) A 10-year retrospective study on benzocaine allergy in the United Kingdom. Am J Contact Dermat. 10(2):57–61Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Beck MH, Holden A (1988) Benzocaine—an unsatisfactory indicator of topical local anaesthetic sensitization for the U.K. Br J Dermatol 118(1):91–94Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Gilissen L, Goossens A (2016) Frequency and trends of contact allergy to and iatrogenic contact dermatitis caused by topical drugs over a 25-year period. Contact Dermatitis 75(5):290–302Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Akyol A, Boyvat A, Peksari Y, Gurgey E (2005) Contact sensitivity to standard series allergens in 1038 patients with contact dermatitis in Turkey. Contact Dermatitis 52(6):333–337Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lazarov A (2006) European Standard Series patch test results from a contact dermatitis clinic in Israel during the 7-year period from 1998 to 2004. Contact Dermatitis 55(2):73–76Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cheng S, Cao M, Zhang Y, Peng S, Dong J, Zhang D, Jiang Z, He Y (2011) Time trends of contact allergy to a modified European baseline series in Beijing between 2001 and 2006. Contact Dermatitis 65(1):22–27Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Yin R, Huang XY, Zhou XF, Hao F (2011) A retrospective study of patch tests in Chongqing, China from 2004 to 2009. Contact Dermatitis 65(1):28–33Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lam WS, Chan LY, Ho SC, Chong LY, So WH, Wong TW (2008) A retrospective study of 2585 patients patch tested with the European standard series in Hong Kong (1995–99). Int J Dermatol 47(2):128–133Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Boonchai W, Iamtharachai P, Sunthonpalin P (2008) Prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis in Thailand. Dermatitis 19(3):142–145Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Brinca A, Cabral R, Goncalo M (2013) Contact allergy to local anaesthetics-value of patch testing with a caine mix in the baseline series. Contact Dermatitis 68(3):156–162Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Warshaw EM, Schram SE, Belsito DV, DeLeo V, Fowler JF Jr, Maibach HI, Marks JG Jr, Mathias CG, Pratt MD, Rietschel RL, Sasseville D, Storrs FJ, Taylor JS, Zug KA (2008) Patch-test reactions to topical anesthetics: retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data, 2001 to 2004. Dermatitis 19(2):81–85Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Erdmann SM, Sachs B, Merk HF (2001) Systemic contact dermatitis from cinchocaine. Contact Dermatitis 44(4):260–261Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Marques C, Faria E, Machado A, Goncalo M, Goncalo S (1995) Allergic contact dermatitis and systemic contact dermatitis from cinchocaine. Contact Dermatitis 33(6):443Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Yamadori Y, Oiso N, Hirao A, Kawara S, Kawada A (2009) Allergic contact dermatitis from dibucaine hydrochloride, chlorpheniramine maleate, and naphazoline hydrochloride in an over-the-counter topical antiseptic. Contact Dermatitis 61(1):52–53Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    LaBerge L, Pratt M, Fong B, Gavigan G (2011) A 10-year review of p-phenylenediamine allergy and related para-amino compounds at the Ottawa Patch Test Clinic. Dermatitis 22(6):332–334Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Vogel TA, Coenraads PJ, Bijkersma LM, Vermeulen KM, Schuttelaar ML, Group EFS (2015) p-Phenylenediamine exposure in real life—a case-control study on sensitization rate, mode and elicitation reactions in the northern Netherlands. Contact Dermatitis 72(6):355–361Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Speca SJ, Boynes SG, Cuddy MA (2010) Allergic reactions to local anesthetic formulations. Dent Clin N Am 54(4):655–664Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Gall H, Kaufmann R, Kalveram CM (1996) Adverse reactions to local anesthetics: analysis of 197 cases. J Allergy Clin Immunol 97(4):933–937Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Jenerowicz D, Polanska A, Glinska O, Czarnecka-Operacz M, Schwartz RA (2014) Allergy to lidocaine injections: comparison of patient history with skin testing in five patients. Postepy Dermatol Alergol 31(3):134–138Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Gonzalez-Delgado P, Anton R, Soriano V, Zapater P, Niveiro E (2006) Cross-reactivity among amide-type local anesthetics in a case of allergy to mepivacaine. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 16(5):311–313Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Fuzier R, Lapeyre-Mestre M, Mertes PM et al (2009) Immediate- and delayed-type allergic reactions to amide local anesthetics: clinical features and skin testing. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 18(7):595–601Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Ing Lorenzini K, Gay-Crosier Chabry F, Piguet C, Desmeules J (2016) Meta-xylene: identification of a new antigenic entity in hypersensitivity reactions to local anesthetics. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 4(1):162–164Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Corbo MD, Weber E, DeKoven J (2016) Lidocaine allergy: do positive patch results restrict future use? Dermatitis 27(2):68–71Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Purcell SM, Dixon SL (1985) Allergic contact dermatitis to dyclonine hydrochloride simulating extensive herpes simplex labialis. J Am Acad Dermatol 12(2 Pt 1):231–234Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Maibach HI (1986) Dyclonine hydrochloride, local anaesthetic allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 14(2):114Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Hylwa SA, Warshaw E (2014) Contact allergy to pramoxine (pramocaine): the importance of testing to personal products. Dermatitis 25(3):147–148Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Cusano F, Luciano S (1993) Contact dermatitis from pramoxine. Contact Dermatitis 28(1):39Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    García F (2007) Contact dermatitis from prilocaine with cross-sensitivity to pramocaine and bupivacaine. Contact Dermatitis 56(2):120–121Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    van Ketel WG (1981) Allergy to pramoxine (pramocaine). Contact Dermatitis 7(1):49Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    van Ketel WG (1979) Allergy to Nestosyl ointment®. Contact Dermatitis 5(3):193–193Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    van Ketel WG (1983) Contact allergy to different antihaemorrhoidal anaesthetics. Contact Dermatitis 9(6):512–513Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Church MK, Church DS (2013) Pharmacology of antihistamines. Indian J Dermatol 58(3):219–224Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Goossens A, Linsen G (1998) Contact allergy to antihistamines is not common. Contact Dermatitis 39(1):38–39Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Lew BL, Haw CR, Lee MH (2004) Cutaneous drug eruption from cetirizine and hydroxyzine. J Am Acad Dermatol 50(6):953–956Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Zuidema J (1985) Ethylenediamine, profile of a sensitizing excipient. Pharm Weekbl Sci 7(4):134–140Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Yoshizawa A, Araki Y, Kobayashi N, Kudo K (1999) A case of aminophylline hypersensitivity reaction due to ethylenediamine. Arerugi 48(11):1206–1211Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Terzian CG, Simon PA (1992) Aminophylline hypersensitivity apparently due to ethylenediamine. Ann Emerg Med 21(3):312–314Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    de la Hoz B, Perez C, Tejedor MA, Lazaro M, Salazar F, Cuevas M (1993) Immediate adverse reaction to aminophylline. Ann Allergy 71(5):452–454Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Fisher AA (1976) Highlights of the first international symposium on contact dermatitis. Cutis 18(5):645–662Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Van Hecke E (1975) Ethylenediamine sensitivity from exposure to epoxy resin hardeners and Mycolog cream. Contact Dermatitis 1(6):344–348Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Shakouri AA, Bahna SL (2013) Hypersensitivity to antihistamines. Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 34(6):488–496Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Tella R, Gaig P, Bartra J, Garcia-Ortega P (2002) Urticaria to cetirizine. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 12(2):136–137Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Kranke B, Mayr-Kanhauser S (2005) Urticarial reaction to the antihistamine levocetirizine dihydrochloride. Dermatology 210(3):246–247Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Sanchez Morillas L, Rojas Perez-Ezquerra P, Reano Martos M, Sanz ML, Laguna Martinez JJ (2011) Urticaria due to antihistamines. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 21(1):66–68Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Bonnel RA, La Grenade L, Karwoski CB, Beitz JG (2003) Allergic contact dermatitis from topical doxepin: Food and Drug Administration’s postmarketing surveillance experience. J Am Acad Dermatol 48(2):294–296Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Taylor JS, Praditsuwan P, Handel D, Kuffner G (1996) Allergic contact dermatitis from doxepin cream. One-year patch test clinic experience. Arch Dermatol 132(5):515–518Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Nethercott JR, Holness DL, Adams RM, Belsito DV, de Leo VA, Emmett EA, Fowler J, Fisher AA, Larsen W, Maibach H, Marks J, Mitchell J, Rietschel R, Rosenthal L, Schorr W, Storrs F, Taylor J (1991) Patch testing with a routine screening tray in North America, 1985 through 1989: II. Gender and response. Dermatitis 2(2):130–134Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Marks JG Jr, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA et al (2000) North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1996–1998. Arch Dermatol 136(2):272–273Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Marks JGJ, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA et al (2003) North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1998 to 2000. Dermatitis 14(2):59–62Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Forstrom L, Pirila V, Pirila L (1979) Cross-sensitivity within the neomycin group of antibiotics. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh) 59(85):67–69Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Schorr WF, Wenzel FJ, Hededus SI (1973) Cross-sensitivity and aminoglycoside antibiotics. Arch Dermatol 107(4):533–539Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Kimura M, Kawada A (1998) Contact sensitivity induced by neomycin with cross-sensitivity to other aminoglycoside antibiotics. Contact Dermatitis 39(3):148–150Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Shi K, Caldwell SJ, Fong DH, Berghuis AM (2013) Prospects for circumventing aminoglycoside kinase mediated antibiotic resistance. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 3:22Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Goh CL (1986) Anaphylaxis from topical neomycin and bacitracin. Australas J Dermatol 27(3):125–126Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Bommarito L, Mietta S, Cadario G (2015) Anaphylaxis after application of topical bacitracin-neomycin powder. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 115(1):74–75Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Lin FL, Woodmansee D, Patterson R Near-fatal anaphylaxis to topical bacitracin ointment. J Allergy Clin Immunol 101(1):136–137Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Freiler JF, Steel KE, Hagan LL, Rathkopf MM, Roman-Gonzalez J (2005) Intraoperative anaphylaxis to bacitracin during pacemaker change and laser lead extraction. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 95(4):389–393Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Saryan JA, Dammin TC, Bouras AE Anaphylaxis to topical bacitracin zinc ointment. Am J Emerg Med 16(5):512–513Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Damm S (2011) Intraoperative anaphylaxis associated with bacitracin irrigation. Am J Health Syst Pharm 68(4):323–327Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Blas M, Briesacher KS, Lobato EB (2000) Bacitracin irrigation: a cause of anaphylaxis in the operating room. Anesth Analg 91(4):1027–1028 table of contentsGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Parenti MA, Hatfield SM, Leyden JJ (1987) Mupirocin: a topical antibiotic with a unique structure and mechanism of action. Clin Pharm 6(10):761–770Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Daly BM (1987) Bactroban allergy due to polyethylene glycol. Contact Dermatitis 17(1):48–49Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Eedy DJ (1995) Mupirocin allergy in the setting of venous ulceration. Contact Dermatitis 32(4):240–241Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Zappi EG, Brancaccio RR (1997) Allergic contact dermatitis from mupirocin ointment. J Am Acad Dermatol 36(2 Pt 1):266Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Gette MT, Marks JG Jr, Maloney ME (1992) Frequency of postoperative allergic contact dermatitis to topical antibiotics. Arch Dermatol 128(3):365–367Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Bork K, Brauers J, Kresken M (1989) Efficacy and safety of 2% mupirocin ointment in the treatment of primary and secondary skin infections—an open multicentre trial. Br J Clin Pract 43(8):284–288Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Warshaw EM, Wang MZ, Maibach HI, Belsito DV, Zug KA, Taylor JS, Mathias CGT, Sasseville D, Zirwas MJ, Fowler JF Jr, DeKoven JG, Fransway AF, DeLeo VA, Marks JG Jr, Pratt MD, Storrs FJ (2013) Patch test reactions associated with sunscreen products and the importance of testing to an expanded series: retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 2001 to 2010. Dermatitis 24(4):176–182Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Beleznay K, de Gannes G, Kalia S (2014) Analysis of the prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis to sunscreen: a cohort study. J Cutan Med Surg 18(1):15–19Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Scheuer E, Warshaw E (2006) Sunscreen allergy: a review of epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and responsible allergens. Dermatitis 17(1):3–11Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    de Groot AC, Veenstra M (2010) Formaldehyde-releasers in cosmetics in the USA and in Europe. Contact Dermatitis 62(4):221–224Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Sasseville D (2004) Hypersensitivity to preservatives. Dermatol Ther 17(3):251–263Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Rocha VB, Scherrer MA (2014) Thimerosal: current sources of contact in Brazil. An Bras Dermatol 89(2):376–378Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Breithaupt A, Jacob SE (2008) Thimerosal and the relevance of patch-test reactions in children. Dermatitis 19(5):275–277Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Freiman A, Al-Layali A, Sasseville D (2003) Patch testing with thimerosal in a Canadian center: an 11-year experience. Am J Contact Dermat 14(3):138–143Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Belsito DV (2002) Thimerosal: contact (non) allergen of the year. Am J Contact Dermat 13(1):1–2Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Rodrigues DF, Neves DR, Pinto JM, Alves MF, Fulgencio AC (2012) Results of patch-tests from Santa Casa de Belo Horizonte Dermatology Clinic, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, from 2003 to 2010. An Bras Dermatol 87(5):800–803Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Scheman A, Rakowski EM, Chou V, Chhatriwala A, Ross J, Jacob SE (2013) Balsam of Peru: past and future. Dermatitis 24(4):153–160Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Larsen W, Nakayama H, Fischer T, Elsner P, Frosch P, Burrows D, Jordan W, Shaw S, Wilkinson J, Marks J Jr, Sugawara M, Nethercott M, Nethercottdagger J (1998) A study of new fragrance mixtures. Am J Contact Dermat 9(4):202–206Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Frosch PJ, Pirker C, Rastogi SC, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Svedman C, Goossens A, White IR, Uter W, Arnau EG, Lepoittevin JP, Menne T, Johansen JD (2005) Patch testing with a new fragrance mix detects additional patients sensitive to perfumes and missed by the current fragrance mix. Contact Dermatitis 52(4):207–215Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Bruze M, Andersen KE, Goossens A (2008) Escd, Eecdrg. Recommendation to include fragrance mix 2 and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral) in the European baseline patch test series. Contact Dermatitis 58(3):129–133Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Johansen JD (2003) Fragrance contact allergy: a clinical review. Am J Clin Dermatol 4(11):789–798Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Nardelli A, Carbonez A, Drieghe J, Goossens A (2013) Results of patch testing with fragrance mix 1, fragrance mix 2, and their ingredients, and Myroxylon pereirae and colophonium, over a 21-year period. Contact Dermatitis 68(5):307–313Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    Engfeldt M, Hagvall L, Isaksson M et al (2017) Patch testing with hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC)—a multicentre study of the Swedish Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Contact Dermatitis 76(1):34–39Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of DermatologyMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of DermatologyMayo ClinicPhoenixUSA

Personalised recommendations