Role of contact allergens in chronicity and relapses of nummular eczema

Authors

  • Renu Rattan Department of Dermatology, Deen Dayal Upadhaya Hospital, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India
  • Gita R. Tegta Department of Dermatology, Venereology & Leprosy, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India
  • Vinay Shanker Department of Dermatology, Venereology & Leprosy, MM Medical College and Hospital, Kumarhatti - Solan, Himachal Pradesh, India
  • Ghanshyam K. Verma Department of Dermatology, Venereology & Leprosy, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India
  • Anuj Sharma Department of Dermatology, Regional Hospital Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, India
  • Meena Chauhan Department of Dermatology, Civil Hospital Rohru, Himachal Pradesh, India
  • Abhishek Sharma Department of Dermatology, Venereology & Leprosy, SLBS Medical College, Ner Chowk, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2455-4529.IntJResDermatol20170972

Keywords:

Nummular eczema, Dermatitis, Allergic contact dermatitis

Abstract

Background: Endogenous eczemas are often complicated by exogenous factors like environment and contact allergens. Nummular eczema, a variant of endogenous eczema is no exception to this. Our study aimed at investigating the incidence of allergic contact dermatitis and finding offending agent responsible for chronicity or relapsing course of nummular eczema in patients from a hilly region with cold and dry environmental conditions.

Methods: Forty patients of nummular eczema with a mean age of 39.1±19 years were patch tested with the Indian Standard Patch Test Series. Positive reactions were graded as per recommendations of International contact dermatitis research group.

Results: Twenty one out of forty patch tested patients showed positive reactions. The most common allergens were found to be: fragrance mix in seven (17.5%) patients, nickel in five (12.5%) patients, PPD in three (7.5%) patients and gentamicin in two (5%) patients. Sensitivity to thiuram mix, black rubber mix, P. tert. butylphenol formaldehyde, neomycin, benzocaine and chinoform was observed in one patient each (2.5% each).

Conclusions: Patients of nummular eczema of a hilly region are at a significant risk of developing allergic contact dermatitis owing to xerosis due to dry environmental conditions. This results in chronic nature of their disease. Patch testing should be considered in such patients and avoidance of offending allergens can improve their quality of life.

References

Soter NA. Eczema and lichen simplex chronicus/ prurigo nodularis. In: Freedburg IM, Eisen AZ, Wolff K, Austen KF, Goldsmith LA, Katz SI, editors. Fitzpatrick’s Dermatology in general medicine. 6thed. New York: McGraw- Hill; 2003: 1194-6.

Aoyama H, Tanaka M, Hara M, Tabata N, Tagami H. Nummular eczema: An addition of senile xerosis and unique cutaneous reactivities to environmental aeroallergens. Dermatol. 1999;199(2):135-9.

Sirot G. Nummular eczema. Semin Dermatol. 1983;2:68-74.

Shenoi DS, Seth M. Environmental influence, atopy and contact sensitivity in nummular dermatitis. IJDVL. 1999;65:245.

Carr R, Berke M, Becker SW. Incidence of atopy in patients with various neurodermatoses. Arch Dermatol. 1964;89:20-6.

Fleming C, Parry E, Forsyth A, Kemmett D. Patch testing in discoid eczema. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;36(5):261-4.

Krupa Shankar DS, Shrestha S. Relevance of patch testing in nummular eczema. IJDVL. 2005;71(6):406-8.

Bendl BJ. Nummular eczema of stasis origin. The backbone of a morphological pattern of diverse etiology. Int J Dermatol. 1979;18(2):129-35.

Ozkaya E. Adult onset atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;52(4):579-82.

Jiamton S, Tangjaturonrusamee C, Kulthanan K. Clinical features and aggravating factors in nummular eczema in Thais. Asian Pac J Allergy Immunol. 2013;31(1);36-42.

Singhal V, Reddy BSN. Common contact sensitizers in Delhi. J Dermatol. 2000;27:440-5.

Sharma VK, Chakrabarti A. Common contact sensitizers in Chandigarh, India: A study of 200 patients with the European standard series. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;38:127-31.

Rajagopalan R, Kallal JE, Fowler JF Jr, Sherertz EF. A retrospective evaluation of patch testing in patients diagnosed with allergic contact dermatitis. Cutis. 1996;57:360-4.

Morrow DM, Rapaport MJ, Strick RA. Hypersensitivity to aloe. Arch Dermatol. 1988;116:1064-5.

Patrizi A, Rizzoli L,Vincenzi C, Trevisi P, Tosti A. Sensitization to thiomerosal in atopic children. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;40:94-7.

Le Coz CJ. Contact nummular eczema from depilating cream. Contact dermatitis. 2002;46(2):111-2.

Pigatto PD, Guzzi G, Persichini P. Nummular lichenoid dermatitis from mercury dental amalgam. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;46(6):355-6.

Nagrendra G, Srinivas CR. Patch testing with Indian standard series. IJDVL. 2002;68:281-2.

Khurana S, Jain VK, Aggarwal K, Gupta S. Patch testing in discoid eczema. J Dermatol. 2002;29:763-7.

Lee TY, Lam TH. Patch testing of 490 patients in Hong Kong. Contact dermatitis. 1996;35:23-6.

Pasricha SJ, Guru B. Contact hypersensitivity to local antibacterial agents. IJDVL. 1981;47(1):27-30.

Downloads

Published

2017-05-22

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 2 (2017): April-June 2017

Section

Original Research Articles