Wound Dressing Allergic Contact Dermatitis: Epidemiology and Management

  • John Havens CaryEmail author
  • Becky S. Li
  • Rasika Reddy
  • Howard I. Maibach
Part of the Updates in Clinical Dermatology book series (UCD)


Chronic wound care represents a growing healthcare cost and is responsible for considerable morbidity. Contact dermatitis, classified as irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) or allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), represents an area for potential improvement among healthcare practitioners and wound care product manufacturers to optimize healing time and healthcare outcomes in chronic wound patients. ACD and ICD in the setting of wound care require special management by healthcare practitioners, while manufacturers should strive to remove all common allergens from wound care products.

The following discussion will analyze the most current complete studies on contact dermatitis in wound care, review proper management of contact dermatitis in wound care, and include a discussion of methods to extract an allergen from a product for the experimentally minded physician.


ACD ICD Wound care Wound dressings 


Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Tan C-H, Rasool S, Johnston GA. Contact dermatitis: allergic and irritant. Clin Dermatol. 2014;32(1):116–24. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marks JG, DeLeo VA. Contact & occupational dermatology. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers, Medical Publishers Pvt. Limited; 2016.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mowad CM, Anderson B, Scheinman P, Pootongkam S, Nedorost S, Brod B. Allergic contact dermatitis: patient management and education. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74(6):1043–54. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lachapelle JM, Maibach HI. Patch testing and prick testing: A practical guide official publication of the ICDRG. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Taylor JS, Amado A. 2010. Contact dermatitis and related conditions. Accessed 25 Oct 2017.
  6. 6.
    Valois A, Waton J, Avenel-Audran M, Truchetet F, Collet E, Raison-Peyron N, et al. Contact sensitization to modern dressings: a multicentre study on 354 patients with chronic leg ulcers. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;72(2):90–6. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alavi A, Sibbald RG, Ladizinski B, Saraiya A, Lee KC, Skotnicki-Grant S, et al. Wound-related allergic/irritant contact dermatitis. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2016;29(6):278–86. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smart V, Alavi A, Coutts P, Fierheller M, Coelho S, Holness DL, et al. Contact allergens in persons with leg ulcers: a Canadian study in contact sensitization. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2008;7(3):120–5. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lehnen M, Kohaus S, Körber A, Hillen U, Grabbe S, Dissemond J. Kontaktsensibilisierungen von Patienten mit chronischen Wunden. Hautarzt. 2006;57(4):303–8. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Erfurt-Berge C, Geier J, Mahler V. The current spectrum of contact sensitization in patients with chronic leg ulcers or stasis dermatitis – new data from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis. 2017;77(3):151–8. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barbaud A, Collet E, Le Coz CJ, Meaume S, Gillois P. Contact allergy in chronic leg ulcers: results of a multicentre study carried out in 423 patients and proposal for an updated series of patch tests. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60(5):279–87. Scholar
  12. 12.
    DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Belsito DV, Sasseville D, Maibach HI, Taylor JS, et al. North American contact dermatitis group patch test results 2013–2014. Dermatitis. 2017;28(1):33–46. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Uter W, Amario-Hita JC, Balato A, Ballmer-Weber B, Bauer A, Belloni Fortina A, et al. European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA): results with the European baseline series, 2013/14. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31(9):1516–25. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Saap L, Fahim S, Arsenault E, et al. Contact sensitivity in patients with leg ulcerations: a North American study. Arch Dermatol. 2004;140(10):1241–6. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fransen M, Overgaard LEK, Johansen JD, Thyssen JP. Contact allergy to lanolin: temporal changes in prevalence and association with atopic dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78(1):70–5. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Matthieu L, Dockx P. Discrepancy in patch test results with wool wax alcohols and Amerchol® L-101. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;36(3):150–1. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maibach H. Lanolin hypersensitivity: dermatologic considerations. Proceedings international symposium: Lanolin and Lanolin Derivatives. New York: Long Island University; 1980. p. 42–50.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kligman AM. The myth of lanolin allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;39(3):103–7. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vandebuerie L, Aerts C, Goossens A. Allergic contact dermatitis resulting from multiple colophonium-related allergen sources. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70(2):117–9. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Downs AMR, Sansom JE. Colophony allergy: a review. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;41(6):305–10. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gehrig KA, Warshaw EM. Allergic contact dermatitis to topical antibiotics: epidemiology, responsible allergens, and management. J Am Acad Dermatol. 58(1):1–21.
  22. 22.
    Björnberg A. Skin reactions to primary irritants in patients with hand eczema: an investigation with matched controls. Göteborg; 1968.
  23. 23.
    De Groot A. Patch testing, 3rd Edition: Update 2008–2015. 2015.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Trancik RJ, Maibach HI. Propylene glycol: irritation or sensitization? Contact Dermatitis. 1982;8(3):185–9. Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lessmann H, Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W. Skin-sensitizing and irritant properties of propylene glycol. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;53(5):247–59. Scholar
  26. 26.
    Basketter DA, Marriott M, Gilmour NJ, White IR. Strong irritants masquerading as skin allergens: the case of benzalkonium chloride. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;50(4):213–7. Scholar
  27. 27.
    Foussereau J, Benezra C, Maibach HI. Occupational contact dermatitis: clinical and chemical aspects. Copenhagen: Munksgaard; 1982.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ashcroft DM, Dimmock P, Garside R, Stein K, Williams HC. Efficacy and tolerability of topical pimecrolimus and tacrolimus in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2005;330(7490):516. Scholar
  29. 29.
    Levin C, Zhai H, Bashir S, Chew AL, Anigbogu A, Stern R, et al. Efficacy of corticosteroids in acute experimental irritant contact dermatitis? Skin Res Technol. 2001;7(4):214–8. Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van der Valk P, Maibach H. Do topical corticosteroids modulate skin irritation in human beings? Assessment by trans- epidermal water loss and visual scoring. J Am Acad Derm. 1989;21:519–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Le TKM, Mon P, Schalkwuk J, Valk PGM. Effect of a topical corticosteroid, a retinoid and a vitamin D3 derivative on sodium dodecyl sulphate induced skin irritation. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;37(1):19–26. Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ramsing DW, Agner T. Efficacy of topical corticosteroids on irritant skin reactions. Contact Dermatitis. 1995;32:293–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Berardesca E, Distante F, Vignoli G, et al. Acute irritant dermatitis: effect of short-term topical corticoid treatment. In: Surber C, Elsner P, Bircher A, editors. Exogenous dermatology. Basel: Karger; 1995. p. 86–90.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Havens Cary
    • 1
    Email author
  • Becky S. Li
    • 2
  • Rasika Reddy
    • 3
  • Howard I. Maibach
    • 4
  1. 1.Louisiana State University School of MedicineNew OrleansUSA
  2. 2.Howard University Hospital, Department of DermatologyWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Dermatology ServiceVeterans Affairs Medical CenterSan FranciscoUSA
  4. 4.Department of Dermatology, University of San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations