Articles
  

Epidemiological Study of Periocular Dermatitis in a Specialised Hospital Department

Abstract

Contact dermatitis is frequent skin pathology and eyelids are one of the more frequent locations of this pathology. The objective of the present work was to study the population distribution of periocular dermatitis, determine the allergens which most frequently indicate positive in patch tests and in provocative use tests, and analyse the clinical relevance of the positive tests.
Patients with periocular dermatitis (N=93) underwent a thorough physical examination and a patch test with standard series. According to clinical suspicions, 76 patients underwent a patch test with specific series. Finally a provocative use test was done for 36 patients with suspected  products  that  the  patients  brought.  The  tests  were classified according their relevance.
The most  frequently observed allergen in the  patch tests (with standard and specific series) was nickel followed by mercury, and anti-glaucoma drops in the provocative use tests with patients products.
Patients’ sex, age, occupation, clinical status, presence of associated periocular symptoms, and presence of atopic or seborrheic dermatitis and/or rosacea did not relate with relevance.
We conclude that  a clinical diagnosis may not  always be made with patch tests with standard and specific series due to lack of relevance. It is important to do provocative use tests with the products suspected as allergens in those cases where patch tests with standard and specific series indicated positive for more than one allergen.

  1. Hanifin JM. Evolving concepts of pathogenesis in atopic dermatitis and other eczemas. J Invest Dermatol 2009;129(2):320-2.
  2. Giwercman C, Lerbaek A, Bisgaard H, Menné T.Classification of atopic hand eczema and the filaggrin mutations. Contact Dermatitis 2008; 59(5):257-60.
  3. Feser A, Plaza T, Vogelgsang L, Mahler V. Periorbital dermatitis- a recalcitrant disease: causes and differential diagnoses. Br J Dermatol 2008; 159(4):858-63.
  4. Wesley NO, Maibach HI. Decreasing allergic contact dermatitis frequency through dermatotoxicologic and epidemiologic based intervention? Decreasing allergic contact dermatitis frequency through dermatotoxicologic and epidemiologic based intervention? Food Chem Toxicol 2003; 41(6):857-60.
  5. Marks JG, De Leo VA, editors. Contact and Occupational Dermatology. St Louis: Mosby-Year Book, 1997.
  6. Castanedo-Tardan MP, Zug KA. Patterns of cosmetic contact allergy. Dermatol Clin 2009; 27(3):265-80.
  7. Temesvári E, Pónyai G, Németh I, Hidvégi B, Sas A,Kárpáti S. Periocular dermatitis: a report of 401 patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2009; 23(21):124-8.
  8. Zug KA, Kornik R, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, Fowler JF, Maibach HI, et al. Patch-testing North American lip dermatitis patients: data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2001 to 2004. Dermatitis 2008; 19(4):202-8.
  9. Zug KA, McGinley-Smith D, Warshaw EM, Taylor JS, Rietschel RL, Maibach HI, et al. Contact allergy in children referred for patch testing: North American.
  10. Contact Dermatitis Group data, 2001-2004. Arch Dermatol 2008; 144(10):1329-36.
  11. Zug KA, Rietschel RL, Warshaw EM, Belsito DV, Taylor JS, Maibach HI, et al The value of patch testing patients with a scattered generalized distribution of dermatitis: Retrospective cross-sectional analyses of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 2001 to 2004. J Am Acad Dermatol 2008; 59(3):426-31.
  12. Rodríguez-Blanco I, Fernández-Redondo V, Toribio J. Dermatitis en párpados. Actas Dermosifiliogr 2004;95:496-500.
  13. Rein DB, Zhang P, With KE, Lee PP, Hoerger TJ, McCall N, et al. The economic burden of major adult visual disorders in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol 2006; 124(12):1754-60.
  14. Brenninkmeijer EE, Schram ME, Leeflang MM, Bos JD, Spuls PI. Diagnostic criteria for atopic dermatitis: a systematic review. Br J Dermatol 2008; 158(4):754-65.
  15. Danielo CA, Reyna M, Consigli C. Incidencia y origen de la dermatitis de contacto en pacientes atendidos en el Servicio de dermatología del Hospital Córdoba (2000-2003). Derm Rev Mex 2007; 51:207-11.
  16. International Standard Classification of Occupations 2008 (ISCO 2008). Available in: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/index.h tm.
  17. Herbst RA, Uter W, Pirker C, Geier J, Frosch PJ. Allergic and non-allergic periorbital dermatitis: patch test results of the Information Network of the Departments of Dermatology during a 5-year period. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51(1):13-9.
  18. Nethercott JR, Nield G, Holness DL. A review of 79 cases of eyelid dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol 1989;21(2 Pt 1):223-30.
  19. Valsecchi R, Imberti G, Martino D, Cainelli T. Eyelid dermatitis: an evaluation of 150 patients. Contact Dermatitis 1992; 27(3):143-7.
  20. Ockenfels HM, Seemann U, Goos M. Contact allergy in patients with periorbital eczema: an analysis of allergens. Data recorded by the Information Network of the Departments of Dermatology. Dermatology 1997;195(2):119-24.
  21. Cooper SM, Shaw S. Eyelid dermatitis: an evaluation of 232 patch test patients over 5 years. Contact Dermatitis 2000; 42(5):291-3.
  22. Delcourt C, Bron A, Baudouin C, Denis P, Nordmann JP, Renard JP, et al. Prevalence and description of treatment with intraocular pressure-lowering topical medications in continental France. J Fr phtalmol 2006; 29(10):1098-106.
  23. Geier J, Krautheim A, Lessmann H. Allergological diagnostics and current allergens in occupational dermatology. Hautarzt 2009; 60(9):708-17.
  24. Brandrup F. Nickel eyelid dermatitis from an eyelash curler. Contact Dermatitis 1991; 25(1):77.
  25. Romaguera C, Grimalt F. Dermatitis from nickel eyelash curler. Contact Dermatitis 1995; 12:174.
  26. Karlberg AT, Lidén C, Ehrin E. Colophony in mascara as a cause of eyelid dermatitis. Chemical analyses and patch testing. Acta Derm Venereol 1991; 71(5):445-7.
  27. Van Ketel WG, Liem DH. Eyelid dermatitis from nickel contaminated cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis 1981;7(4):217.
  28. Zemba C, Romaguera C, Vilaplana J. Allergic contact dermatitis from nickel in an eye pencil. Contact Dermatitis 1992; 27(2):116.
  29. Guin JD. Eyelid dermatitis: a report of 215 patients.Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50(2):87-90.
  30. Peters K, Gammelgaard B, Menné T. Nickel concentrations in fingernails as a measure of occupational exposure to nickel. Contact Dermatitis 1991; 25(4):237-41.
  31. Mancuso G, Berdondini RM. Eyelid dermatitis and conjunctivitis as sole manifestations of allergy to nickel in an orthodontic appliance. Contact Dermatitis 2002;46(4):245.
  32. Bruckner AL, Weston WL, Morelli JG. Does sensitization to contact allergens begin in infancy? Pediatrics 2000; 105(1):e3.
  33. Rietschel RL, Fowler JF, editors. Fisher’s contact dermatitis. Hamilton: BC Decker Inc, 2008.

Files
IssueVol 10, No 3 (2011) QRcode
SectionArticles
Keywords
Allergens Contact Dermatitis Periocular Dermatitis Population Distribution Patch Test Provocative Test
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Rojo-España R, Tomas-Mallebrera L, Gimeno-Clemente N, Marquina-Vila A, Morales-Suárez-Varela M. Epidemiological Study of Periocular Dermatitis in a Specialised Hospital Department. Iran J Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1;10(3):195-205.