Hand dermatitis is a common condition with a lifetime prevalence of 20%. Glove allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a very important dermatitis affecting health care workers, hairdressers, cleaning personnel, kitchen workers, craftsmen, construction workers, laboratory workers, and homemakers. Occupationally related cases may be severe and can result in significant disability. Glove ACD is most commonly due to exposure to rubber accelerators, which are compounds that are added to rubber during production to increase strength and durability. Given the known allergic potential of these compounds, glove manufacturing companies have reformulated gloves leading to the introduction of new rubber allergens. In this review, we will discuss risk factors for glove ACD, both common and uncommon allergens in gloves, common contact allergens that permeate gloves, and patch testing to help uncover the inciting allergen(s).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
JohnstonGA, ExtonLS, Mohd MustapaMF, et al.British Association of Dermatologists' guidelines for the management of contact dermatitis 2017. Br J Dermatol, 2017; 176(2):317–329.
PesonenM, JolankiR, Larese FilonF, et al.Patch test results of the European baseline series among patients with occupational contact dermatitis across Europe—analyses of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergy network, 2002–2010. Contact Dermatitis, 2015; 72(3):154–163.
4.
CarøeTK, EbbehøjN, AgnerT. A survey of exposures related to recognized occupational contact dermatitis in Denmark in 2010. Contact Dermatitis, 2014; 70(1):56–62.
5.
NettisE, MarcandreaM, ColanardiMC, et al.Results of standard series patch testing in patients with occupational allergic contact dermatitis. Allergy, 2003; 58(12):1304–1307.
6.
Conde-SalazarL, del-RioE, GuimaraensD, et al.Type IV allergy to rubber additives: a 10-year study of 686 cases. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1993; 29(2 pt 1):176–180.
7.
de GrootH, de JongNW, DuijsterE, et al.Prevalence of natural rubber latex allergy (type I and type IV) in laboratory workers in The Netherlands. Contact Dermatitis, 1998; 38(3):159–163.
8.
ScaloneL, CortesiPA, MantovaniLG, et al.Clinical epidemiology of hand eczema in patients accessing dermatological reference centres: results from Italy. Br J Dermatol, 2015; 172(1):187–195.
9.
NettisE, AssennatoG, FerranniniA, et al.Type I allergy to natural rubber latex and type IV allergy to rubber chemicals in health care workers with glove-related skin symptoms. Clin Exp Allergy, 2002; 32(3):441–447.
10.
BauerA, GeierJ, ElsnerP. Type IV allergy in the food processing industry: sensitization profiles in bakers, cooks and butchers. Contact Dermatitis, 2002; 46(4):228–235.
11.
BauerA. Contact dermatitis in the cleaning industry. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol, 2013; 13(5):521–524.
12.
SiegelPD, FowlerJFJr, StorrsFJ, et al.Allergen content of patient problem and nonproblem gloves: relationship to allergen-specific patch-test findings. Dermatitis, 2010; 21(2):77–83.
13.
CvetkovskiRS, RothmanKJ, OlsenJ, et al.Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol, 2005; 152(1):93–98.
14.
CaoLY, TaylorJS, SoodA, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis to synthetic rubber gloves: changing trends in patch test reactions to accelerators. Arch Dermatol, 2010; 146(9):1001–1007.
15.
RamsingDW, AgnerT. Effect of glove occlusion on human skin (II). Long-term experimental exposure. Contact Dermatitis, 1996; 34(4):258–262.
16.
RamsingDW, AgnerT. Effect of glove occlusion on human skin. (I). short-term experimental exposure. Contact Dermatitis, 1996; 34(1):1–5.
WetzkyU, BockM, WulfhorstB, et al.Short- and long-term effects of single and repetitive glove occlusion on the epidermal barrier. Arch Dermatol Res, 2009; 301(8):595–602.
19.
FartaschM, TaegerD, BrodingHC, et al.Evidence of increased skin irritation after wet work: impact of water exposure and occlusion. Contact Dermatitis, 2012; 67(4):217–228.
20.
HamneriusN, SvedmanC, BergendorffO, et al.Wet work exposure and hand eczema among healthcare workers—a cross-sectional study. [published ahead of print July 19, 2017]. Br J Dermatol doi: 10.1111/bjd.15813.
21.
HolnessDL, MaceSR. Results of evaluating health care workers with prick and patch testing. Am J Contact Dermat, 2001; 12(2):88–92.
22.
LyonsG, RobertsH, PalmerA, et al.Hairdressers presenting to an occupational dermatology clinic in Melbourne, Australia. Contact Dermatitis, 2013; 68(5):300–306.
23.
BoyleDK, ForsythA, BaggJ, et al.An investigation of the effect of prolonged glove wearing on the hand skin health of dental healthcare workers. J Dent, 2002; 30(5–6):233–241.
24.
GravesCJ, EdwardsC, MarksR. The effects of protective occlusive gloves on stratum corneum barrier properties. Contact Dermatitis, 1995; 33(3):183–187.
25.
WarnerRR, BoissyYL, LillyNA, et al.Water disrupts stratum corneum lipid lamellae: damage is similar to surfactants. J Invest Dermatol, 1999; 113(6):960–966.
26.
FluhrJW, AkenginA, BornkesselA, et al.Additive impairment of the barrier function by mechanical irritation, occlusion and sodium lauryl sulphate in vivo. Br J Dermatol, 2005; 153(1):125–131.
27.
SorensenJA, FiskerMH, AgnerT, et al.Associations between lifestyle factors and hand eczema severity: are tobacco smoking, obesity and stress significantly linked to eczema severity?. Contact Dermatitis, 2017; 76(3):138–145.
28.
BendewaldMJ, FarmerSA, DavisMD. Patch testing with natural rubber latex: the Mayo Clinic experience. Dermatitis, 2010; 21(6):311–316.
29.
GuinJD. Clinical presentations of patients sensitive to natural rubber latex. Dermatitis, 2004; 15(4):192–196.
HanssonC, PontenA, SvedmanC, et al.Reaction profile in patch testing with allergens formed during vulcanization of rubber. Contact Dermatitis, 2014; 70(5):300–308.
32.
GeierJ, LessmannH, UterW, et al.Occupational rubber glove allergy: results of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 1995–2001. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 48(1):39–44.
33.
von HintzensternJ, HeeseA, KochHU, et al.Frequency, spectrum and occupational relevance of type IV allergies to rubber chemicals. Contact Dermatitis, 1991; 24(4):244–252.
34.
KnudsenBB, MenneT. Contact allergy and exposure patterns to thiurams and carbamates in consecutive patients. Contact Dermatitis, 1996; 35(2):97–99.
35.
GibbonKL, McFaddenJP, RycroftRJ, et al.Changing frequency of thiuram allergy in healthcare workers with hand dermatitis. Br J Dermatol, 2001; 144(2):347–350.
36.
WarburtonKL, UrwinR, CarderM, et al.UK rates of occupational skin disease attributed to rubber accelerators, 1996–2012. Contact Dermatitis, 2015; 72(5):305–311.
37.
KadivarS, BelsitoDV. Occupational dermatitis in health care workers evaluated for suspected allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatitis, 2015; 26(4):177–183.
38.
LoganRA, WhiteIR. Carbamix is redundant in the patch test series. Contact Dermatitis, 1988; 18(5):303–304.
39.
PiskinG, MeijsMM, van der HamR, et al.Glove allergy due to 1,3-diphenylguanidine. Contact Dermatitis, 2006; 54(1):61–62.
40.
WarshawEM, CookJW, BelsitoDV, et al.Positive patch-test reactions to mixed dialkyl thioureas: cross-sectional data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 1994 to 2004. Dermatitis, 2008; 19(4):190–201.
EmmettEA, RisbyTH, TaylorJ, et al.Skin elicitation threshold of ethylbutyl thiourea and mercaptobenzothiazole with relative leaching from sensitizing products. Contact Dermatitis, 1994; 30(2):85–90.
43.
RichP, BelozerML, NorrisP, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis to two antioxidants in latex gloves: 4,4'-thiobis(6-tert-butyl-meta-cresol) (Lowinox 44S36) and butylhydroxyanisole. Allergen alternatives for glove-allergic patients. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1991; 24(1):37–43.
44.
BaeckM, CawetB, TennstedtD, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis caused by latex (natural rubber)-free gloves in healthcare workers. Contact Dermatitis, 2013; 68(1):54–55.
45.
DahlinJ, BergendorffO, VindenesHK, et al.Triphenylguanidine, a new (old?) rubber accelerator detected in surgical gloves that may cause allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis, 2014; 71(4):242–246.
46.
KnudsenBB, HametnerC, SeycekO, et al.Allergologically relevant rubber accelerators in single-use medical gloves. Contact Dermatitis, 2000; 43(1):9–15.
47.
RecklingC, EngfeldtM, BruzeM. Occupational nitrile glove allergy caused by Pigment Blue 15. Contact Dermatitis, 2016; 75(3):189–190.
48.
KanervaL, EstlanderT, JolankiR, et al.Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by exposure to acrylates during work with dental prostheses. Contact Dermatitis, 1993; 28(5):268–275.
49.
HamannCP, DePaolaLG, RodgersPA. Occupation-related allergies in dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc, 2005; 136(4):500–510.
AnderssonT, BruzeM, GruvbergerB, et al.In vivo testing of the protection provided by non-latex gloves against a 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate-containing acetone-based dentin-bonding product. Acta Derm Venereol, 2000; 80(6):435–437.
52.
JordanSL, StowersMF, TrawickEG, et al.Glutaraldehyde permeation: choosing the proper glove. Am J Infect Control, 1996; 24(2):67–69.
53.
AntelmiA, YoungE, SvedmanC, et al.Are gloves sufficiently protective when hairdressers are exposed to permanent hair dyes? An in vivo study. Contact Dermatitis, 2015; 72(4):229–236.
54.
UterW, GeierJ. Contact allergy to acrylates and methacrylates in consumers and nail artists—data of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology, 2004–2013. Contact Dermatitis, 2015; 72(4):224–228.
55.
UterW, LessmannH, GeierJ, et al.Contact allergy to hairdressing allergens in female hairdressers and clients—current data from the IVDK, 2003–2006. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges, 2007; 5(11):993–1001.
56.
LeeHS, LinYW. Permeation of hair dye ingredients, p-phenylenediamine and aminophenol isomers, through protective gloves. Ann Occup Hyg, 2009; 53(3):289–296.
57.
CohenDE, RaoS, BrancaccioRR. Use of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group Standard 65-allergen series alone in the evaluation of allergic contact dermatitis: a series of 794 patients. Dermatitis, 2008; 19(3):137–141.
