Advertisement

Prognosis of Allergic Contact Dermatitis

  • John S. C. English
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Unfortunately, the prognosis for allergic occupational contact dermatitis can be poor, probably because the causes are often multifactorial and it is difficult to eliminate the causes from the environment. Certain allergens such as chromium and Compositae do cause chronic, persistent dermatitis. Repeating the patch tests over time can identify additional aggravating allergens.

Keywords

Poor prognosis Chromium Compositae 

References

  1. Adisesh A, Meyer JD, Cherry NM (2002) Prognosis and work absence due to occupational contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 46:273–279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Dhubaibi MS, Settin AA (2018) The effectiveness of alitretinoin for the treatment of chronic hand eczema: a meta-analysis. Int J Health Sci (Qassim) 12:70–79Google Scholar
  3. Avnstorp C (1989) Follow-up of workers from the prefabricated concrete industry after the addition of ferrous sulphate to Danish cement. Contact Dermatitis 20:365–371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer A, Geier J, Mahler V et al (2015) Contact allergies in the German workforce: data of the IVDK network from 2003–2013. Hautarzt 66:652–664CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhatia R, Sharma VK, Ramam M et al (2015) Clinical profile and quality of life of patients with occupational contact dermatitis from New Delhi. India Contact Dermatitis 73:172–181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cahill J, Keegel T, Dharmage S et al (2005) Prognosis of contact dermatitis in epoxy resin workers. Contact Dermatitis 52:147–153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cao LY, Taylor JS, Sood A et al (2010) Allergic contact dermatitis to synthetic rubber gloves: changing trends in patch test reactions to accelerators. Arch Dermatol 146:1001–1007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Clemmensen KK, Carøe TK, Thomsen SF et al (2014) Two-year follow-up survey of patients with allergic contact dermatitis from an occupational cohort: is the prognosis dependent on the omnipresence of the allergen? Br J Dermatol 170:1100–1105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. English J (2001) Current concepts in contact dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 145:527–529CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fregert S, Hjorth N, Magnusson B et al (1969) Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Trans St Johns Hosp Dermatol Soc 55:17–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Geier J, Lessmann H, Mahler V (2012) Occupational contact allergy caused by rubber gloves–nothing has changed. Contact Dermatitis 67:149–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hald M, Agner T, Blands J, Johansen JD, Danish Contact Dermatitis Group (2009a) Delay in medical attention to hand eczema: a follow-up study. Br J Dermatol 161:1294–1300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hald M, Agner T, Blands J et al (2009b) Allergens associated with severe symptoms of hand eczema and a poor prognosis. Contact Dermatitis 61:101–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Holness DL, Nethercott JR (1991) Is a worker's understanding of their diagnosis an important determinant of outcome in occupational contact dermatitis? Contact Dermatitis 25:296–301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Jamil WN, Erikssohn I, Lindberg M (2012) How well is the outcome of patch testing remembered by the patients? A 10-year follow-up of testing with the Swedish baseline series at the Department of Dermatology in Örebro. Sweden Contact Dermatitis 66:215–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kalimo K, Lammintausta K, Jalava J, Niskanen T (1997) Is it possible to improve the prognosis in nickel contact dermatitis? Contact Dermatitis 37:121–124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mälkönen T, Jolanki R, Alanko K et al (2009) A 6-month follow-up study of 1048 patients diagnosed with an occupational skin disease. Contact Dermatitis 61:261–268CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Mälkönen T, Alanko K, Jolanki R et al (2010) Long-term follow-up study of occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 163:999–1006CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Moss C, Friedmann PS, Shuster S et al (1985) Susceptibility and amplification of sensitivity in contact dermatitis. Clin Exp Immunol 61:232–241PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Nicholson PJ, Llewellyn D (2010) Occupational contact dermatitis & urticaria, vol 14. British Occupational Health Research Foundation, London. http://www.bohrf.org.uk/downloads/OccupationalContactDermatitisEvidenceReview-Mar2010.pdfGoogle Scholar
  21. Paulsen E, Christensen LP, Andersen KE (2007) Compositae dermatitis from airborne parthenolide. Br J Dermatol 156:510–515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Petersen AH, Johansen JD, Hald M (2014) Hand eczema-prognosis and consequences: a 7-year follow-up study. Br J Dermatol 171:1428–1433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Linneberg A, Menné T (2010) The epidemiology of hand eczema in the general population–prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis 62:75–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Thyssen JP, Linneberg A, Ross-Hansen K (2013) Filaggrin mutations are strongly associated with contact sensitization in individuals with dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 68:273–276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Wall LM, Gebauer KA (1991) A follow up study of occupational skin disease in Western Australia. Contact Dermatitis 24:241–243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Williams J, Cahill J, Nixon R (2007) Occupational autoeczematisation or atopic eczema precipitated by occupational contact dermatitis? Contact Dermatitis 56:21–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of DermatologyCircle Nottingham Treatment CentreNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations