Advertisement

Contact Dermatitis

  • Ama Alexis
  • Vincent A. DeLeo
Chapter

Abstract

Contact dermatitis is a common dermatologic disorder manifesting as an eczematous skin eruption following exposure to a noxious agent. It is the second most common occupational illness and therefore affects a wide range of patients. Its development may be influenced by a myriad of variables, including age, gender, preexisting skin conditions, skin sensitivity, occupation, as well as the ethnicity and race of the patient. Although contact dermatitis affects patients irrespective of skin color, the clinical presentation and irritant response as well as exposure patterns to allergens and irritants may differ significantly between racial groups. The gold standard in diagnosing contact dermatitis is patch testing, which can be performed safely in all skin types. Familiarity with ethnic/race-specific presentation and exposure patterns to allergens and irritants may be beneficial in elucidating the etiology of contact dermatitis.

Keywords

Contact Dermatitis Black Patient Allergic Contact Dermatitis Hispanic Patient Nickel Sulfate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Alexis AF, Sergay AB, Taylor SC. Common dermatologic disorders in skin of color: a comparative practice survey. Cutis. 2007;80:387–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Halder RM, Grimes PE, McLaurin CI, Kress MA, Kenney Jr JA. Incidence of common dermatoses in a predominantly black dermatologic practice. Cutis. 1983;32:388–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sanchez MR. Cutaneous diseases in Latinos. Dermatol Clin. 2003;21:689–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fisher AA. Contact dermatitis in black patients. Cutis 1977;20:303, 308–9, 316 passim.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deleo VA, Taylor SC, Belsito DV, et al. The effect of race and ethnicity on patch test results. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;46:S107–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dickel H, Taylor JS, Evey P, Merk HF. Comparison of patch test results with a standard series among white and black racial groups. Am J Contact Dermat. 2001;12:77–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fairhurst DA, Shah M. Comparison of patch test results among white Europeans and patients from the Indian subcontinent living within the same community. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2008;22:1227–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Modjtahedi SP, Maibach HI. Ethnicity as a possible endogenous factor in irritant contact dermatitis: comparing the irritant response among Caucasians, blacks, and Asians. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;47:272–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peters L, Marriott M, Mukerji B, et al. The effect of population diversity on skin irritation. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;55:357–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Collazo MH, Figueroa LD, Sanchez JL. Prevalence of contact allergens in a Hispanic population. P R Health Sci J. 2008;27:333–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lam WS, Chan LY, Ho SC, Chong LY, So WH, Wong TW. A retrospective study of 2585 patients patch tested with the European standard series in Hong Kong (1995–99). Int J Dermatol. 2008;47:128–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weigand DA, Haygood C, Gaylor JR. Cell layers and density of Negro and Caucasian stratum corneum. J Invest Dermatol. 1974;62:563–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    La Ruche G, Cesarini JP. Histology and physiology of black skin. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 1992;119:567–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sugino K, Imokawa G, Maibach H. Ethnic differences of stratum corneum lipid in relation to stratum corneum function. J Invest Dermatol. 1993;100:587 [abstract].Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sueki H, Whitaker-Menezes D, Kligman AM. Structural diversity of mast cell granules in black and white skin. Br J Dermatol. 2001;144:85–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilson D, Berardesca E, Maibach HI. In vitro transepidermal water loss: differences between black and white human skin. Br J Dermatol. 1988;119:647–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Berardesca E, Maibach HI. Racial differences in sodium lauryl sulphate induced cutaneous irritation: black and white. Contact Dermatitis. 1988;18:65–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kompaore F, Marty JP, Dupont C. In vivo evaluation of the stratum corneum barrier function in blacks, Caucasians and Asians with two noninvasive methods. Skin Pharmacol. 1993;6:200–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reed JT, Ghadially R, Elias PM. Effect of race, gender and skin type on epidermal permeability barrier function. J Invest Dermatol. 1994;102:537 [abstract].Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marshall EK Jr LV, Smith HW. On dichloroethylsulphide (mustard gas). II. Variations in susceptibility of the skin to dichloroethylsulphide. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1918;12:291–301.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hicks SP, Swindells KJ, Middelkamp-Hup MA, Sifakis MA, Gonzalez E, Gonzalez S. Confocal histopathology of irritant contact dermatitis in vivo and the impact of skin color (black vs. white). J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003;48:727–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gean CJ, Tur E, Maibach HI, Guy RH. Cutaneous responses to topical methyl nicotinate in black, oriental, and Caucasian subjects. Arch Dermatol Res. 1989;281:95–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lotte C, Wester RC, Rougier A, Maibach HI. Racial differences in the in vivo percutaneous absorption of some organic compounds: a comparison between black, Caucasian and Asian subjects. Arch Dermatol Res. 1993;284:456–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rostenberg Jr A, Kanof NM. Studies in Eczematous sensitization. J Invest Dermatol. 1941;4:505–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Epstein WL, Kligman AM. The interference phenomenon in allergic contact dermatitis. J Invest Dermatol. 1958;31:103–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Leyden JJ, Kligman AM. Allergic contact dermatitis: sex differences. Contact Dermatitis. 1977;3:333–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Aramaki J, Kawana S, Effendy I, Happle R, Loffler H. Differences of skin irritation between Japanese and European women. Br J Dermatol. 2002;146:1052–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Robinson MK. Population differences in acute skin irritation responses. Race, sex, age, sensitive skin and repeat subject comparisons. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;46:86–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rapaport MJ. Patch testing in Japanese subjects. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;11:93–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Foy V, Weinkauf R, Whittle E, Basketter DA. Ethnic variation in the skin irritation response. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;45:346–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jourdain R, de Lacharriere O, Bastien P, Maibach HI. Ethnic variations in self-perceived sensitive skin: epidemiological survey. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;46:162–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Berardesca E, Maibach HI. Sodium-lauryl-sulphate-induced cutaneous irritation. Comparison of white and Hispanic subjects. Contact Dermatitis. 1988;19:136–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sherertz EF, Schwartz S. Patch test interpretation of black skin. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 1993;4:247–8.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lee TY, Lam TH. Patch testing of 490 patients in Hong Kong. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;35:23–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sharma VK, Sethuraman G. Parthenium dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2007;18:183–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PediatricsNYU Langone Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of DermatologySt. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center and Columbia University College of Physicians and SurgeonsNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations