Allergic contact dermatitis is an important diagnostic consideration in the evaluation of patients presenting with vulvar complaints. The high prevalence of contact sensitization in the vulvar region is likely multifactorial. We review the extant literature regarding key predisposing factors in the pathogenesis of vulvar allergic contact dermatitis, as well as the most commonly implicated allergens as identified by a number of retrospective studies and case series. On the basis of our findings, we provide diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations for practicing clinicians.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FischerGO. The commonest causes of symptomatic vulvar disease: a dermatologist's perspective. Australas J Dermatol, 1996; 37(1):12–18.
2.
KelekçiKH, ÖzyurtS, ÖzkanB, et al.The impact of inflammatory and infectious diseases of vulvar on quality of life. J Menopausal Med, 2016; 22(3):131–138.
3.
VermaatH, SmienkF, RustemeyerT, et al.Anogenital allergic contact dermatitis, the role of spices and flavour allergy. Contact Dermatitis, 2008; 59(4):233–237.
4.
CroneAM, StewartEJ, WojnarowskaF, et al.Aetiological factors in vulvar dermatitis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol, 2000; 14(3):181–186.
5.
LewisFM, HarringtonCI, GawkrodgerDJ. Contact sensitivity in pruritus vulvae: a common and manageable problem. Contact Dermatitis, 1994; 31(4):264–265.
BritzMB, MaibachHI. Human cutaneous vulvar reactivity to irritants. Contact Dermatitis, 1979; 5(6):375–377.
21.
SummersPR, HunnJ. Unique dermatologic aspects of the postmenopausal vulva. Clin Obstet Gynecol, 2007; 50(3):745–751.
22.
MillerCJ, McChesneyM, MoorePF. Langerhans cells, macrophages and lymphocyte subsets in the cervix and vagina of rhesus macaques. Lab Invest, 1992; 67(5):628–634.
23.
EdwardsJN, MorrisHB. Langerhans' cells and lymphocyte subsets in the female genital tract. Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 1985; 92(9):974–982.
24.
HarperWF, McNicolEM. A histological study of normal vulval skin from infancy to old age. Br J Dermatol, 1977; 96(3):249–253.
25.
MaZ, LüFX, TortenM, et al.The number and distribution of immune cells in the cervicovaginal mucosa remain constant throughout the menstrual cycle of rhesus macaques. Clin Immunol, 2001; 100(2):240–249.
26.
PattonDL, ThwinSS, MeierA, et al.Epithelial cell layer thickness and immune cell populations in the normal human vagina at different stages of the menstrual cycle. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2000; 183(4):967–973.
27.
MargessonLJ. Contact dermatitis of the vulva. Dermatol Ther, 2004; 17(1):20–27.
28.
FarageMA, MillerKW, LedgerWJ. Changes in vulvar physiology and skin disorders with age and benefits of feminine wipes in postmenopausal women. In: FarageMA, MillerKW, MaibachHI, eds. Textbook of Aging Skin [Internet]. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2010:1127–1135 [cited July 8, 2017]. Available at: http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-540-89656-2_103.
29.
EliasPM, GhadiallyR. The aged epidermal permeability barrier: basis for functional abnormalities. Clin Geriatr Med, 2002; 18(1):103–120, vii.
30.
FarageMA, MaibachHI. Morphology and physiological changes of genital skin and mucosa. Curr Probl Dermatol, 2011; 40:9–19.
31.
FarageMA, MillerKW, BerardescaE, et al.Cutaneous effects and sensitive skin with incontinence in the aged. In: FarageMA, MillerKW, MaibachHI, eds. Textbook of Aging Skin [Internet]. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2010:663–671 [cited July 8, 2017]. Available at: http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-540-89656-2_64.
32.
HachemJ-P, CrumrineD, FluhrJ, et al.pH directly regulates epidermal permeability barrier homeostasis, and stratum corneum integrity/cohesion. J Invest Dermatol, 2003; 121(2):345–353.
33.
FarageMA, MillerKW, BerardescaE, et al.Psychosocial and societal burden of incontinence in the aged population: a review. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2008; 277(4):285–290.
34.
BrotmanRM, ShardellMD, GajerP, et al.Association between the vaginal microbiota, menopause status, and signs of vulvovaginal atrophy. Menopause, 2014; 21(5):450–458.
35.
ShiraishiT, FukudaK, MorotomiN, et al.Influence of menstruation on the microbiota of healthy women's labia minora as analyzed using a 16S rRNA gene-based clone library method. Jpn J Infect Dis, 2011; 64(1):76–80.
36.
BurtonJP, ReidG. Evaluation of the bacterial vaginal flora of 20 postmenopausal women by direct (Nugent score) and molecular (polymerase chain reaction and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis) techniques. J Infect Dis, 2002; 186(12):1770–1780.
37.
HeinemannC, ReidG. Vaginal microbial diversity among postmenopausal women with and without hormone replacement therapy. Can J Microbiol, 2005; 51(9):777–781.
38.
OzkinayE, TerekMC, YayciM, et al.The effectiveness of live lactobacilli in combination with low dose oestriol (Gynoflor) to restore the vaginal flora after treatment of vaginal infections. BJOG, 2005; 112(2):234–240.
39.
CorazzaM, VirgiliA, ToniG, et al.Level of use and safety of botanical products for itching vulvar dermatoses. Are patch tests useful? Contact Dermatitis, 2016; 74(5):289–294.
40.
NardelliA, DegreefH, GoossensA. Contact allergic reactions of the vulva: a 14-year review. Dermatitis, 2004; 15(3):131–136.
41.
BrenanJA, DennersteinGJ, SfameniSF, et al.Evaluation of patch testing in patients with chronic vulvar symptoms. Australas J Dermatol, 1996; 37(1):40–43.
42.
O'GormanSM, TorgersonRR. Allergic contact dermatitis of the vulva. Dermatitis, 2013; 24(2):64–72.
43.
VirgiliA, CorazzaM, CalifanoA. Diaper dermatitis in an adult. A case of erythema papuloerosive of Sevestre and Jacquet. J Reprod Med, 1998; 43(11):949–951.
44.
WarshawEM, SchramSE, BelsitoDV, et al.Patch-test reactions to topical anesthetics: retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data, 2001 to 2004. Dermatitis, 2008; 19(2):81–85.
45.
WarshawEM, FurdaLM, MaibachHI, et al.Anogenital dermatitis in patients referred for patch testing: retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 1994–2004. Arch Dermatol, 2008; 144(6):749–755.
46.
Al-NiaimiF, FeltonS, WilliamsJ. Patch testing for vulval symptoms: our experience with 282 patients. Clin Exp Dermatol, 2014; 39(4):439–442.
47.
GardnerKH, DavisMD, RichardsonDM, et al.The hazards of moist toilet paper: allergy to the preservative methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone. Arch Dermatol, 2010; 146(8):886–890.
TimmermansA, De HertogS, GladysK, et al.“Dermatologically tested” baby toilet tissues: a cause of allergic contact dermatitis in adults. Contact Dermatitis, 2007; 57(2):97–99.
50.
FieldsKS, NelsonT, PowellD. Contact dermatitis caused by baby wipes. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2006; 54(Suppl 5):S230–S232.
51.
TostiA, VoudourisS, PazzagliaM. Contact sensitization to 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one and 2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one in children. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 49(4):215–216.
52.
de GrootAC. Vesicular dermatitis of the hands secondary to perianal allergic contact dermatitis caused by preservatives in moistened toilet tissues. Contact Dermatitis, 1997; 36(3):173–174.
53.
MinetA, EggersS, WillocxD, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis from Kathon CG in moist toilet paper. Contact Dermatitis, 1989; 21(2):107–108.
54.
FooteCA, BradySP, BradyKL, et al.Vulvar dermatitis from allergy to moist flushable wipes. J Low Genit Tract Dis, 2014; 18(1):E16–E18.
55.
MowadCM. Methylchloro-isothiazolinone revisited. Am J Contact Dermat, 2000; 11(2):115–118.
56.
LewisFM, ShahM, GawkrodgerDJ. Contact sensitivity in pruritus vulvae: patch test results and clinical outcome. Am J Contact Dermat, 1997; 8(3):137–140.
57.
DavisMD. Unusual patterns in contact dermatitis: medicaments. Dermatol Clin, 2009; 27(3):289–297, vi.
58.
BauerA, GeierJ, ElsnerP. Allergic contact dermatitis in patients with anogenital complaints. J Reprod Med, 2000;(45):649–654.
59.
WasilewskiC Jr. Allergic contact dermatitis from nystatin. Arch Dermatol, 1971; 104(4):437.
60.
FeldmannRJ, MaibachHI. Regional variation in percutaneous penetration of 14C cortisol in man. J Invest Dermatol, 1967; 48(2):181–183.
61.
GunsonTH, GreigDE. Allergic contact dermatitis to all three classes of local anaesthetic. Contact Dermatitis, 2008; 59(2):126–127.
62.
KüglerK, BrinkmeierT, FroschPJ, et al.Anogenital dermatoses—allergic and irritative causative factors. Analysis of IVDK data and review of the literature. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges, 2005; 3(12):979–986.
63.
AdachiA, FukunagaA, HayashiK, et al.Anaphylaxis to polyvinylpyrrolidone after vaginal application of povidone-iodine. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 48(3):133–136.
64.
LeeRA, DommaschE, TreatJ, et al.A prospective clinical trial of open-label etanercept for the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2009; 60(4):565–573.
LuckeTW, FlemingCJ, McHenryP, et al.Patch testing in vulval dermatoses: how relevant is nickel?. Contact Dermatitis, 1998; 38(2):111–112.
67.
CorazzaM, BorghiA, GalloR, et al.Topical botanically derived products: use, skin reactions, and usefulness of patch tests. A multicentre Italian study. Contact Dermatitis, 2014; 70(2):90–97.
68.
KikenDA, CohenDE. Contact dermatitis to botanical extracts. Am J Contact Dermat, 2002; 13(3):148–152.
69.
MortimerS, ReederM. Botanicals in dermatology: essential oils, botanical allergens, and current regulatory practices. Dermatitis, 2016; 27(6):317–324.
70.
SimpsonEL, LawSV, StorrsFJ. Prevalence of botanical extract allergy in patients with contact dermatitis. Dermatitis, 2004; 15(2):67–72.
71.
de GrootAC, SchmidtE. Essential oils, part IV: contact allergy. Dermatitis, 2016; 27(4):170–175.
72.
WarshawEM, BottoNC, MaibachHI, et al.Positive patch-test reactions to propylene glycol: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 1996 to 2006. Dermatitis, 2009; 20(1):14–20.
73.
SulzbergerMB, LazarMP. A study of the allergenic constituents of lanolin (wool fat). J Invest Dermatol, 1950; 15(6):453–458.
74.
BircherAJ, HirsbrunnerP, LangauerS. Allergic contact dermatitis of the genitals from rubber additives in condoms. Contact Dermatitis, 1993; 28(2):125–126.
75.
FisherAA. Condom dermatitis in either partner. Cutis, 1987; 39(4):281, 284–5.
76.
KintB, DegreefH, Dooms-GoossensA. Combined allergy to human seminal plasma and latex: case report and review of the literature. Contact Dermatitis, 1994; 30(1):7–11.
77.
FisherAA. Allergic contact dermatitis to nonoxynol-9 in a condom. Cutis, 1994; 53(3):110–111.
78.
van UlsenJ, StolzE, van JoostT, et al.Allergy to spermicidal lubricant in a contraceptive. Contact Dermatitis, 1987; 17(2):115–116.
79.
WilliamsJD, FrowenKE, NixonRL. Allergic contact dermatitis from methyldibromo glutaronitrile in a sanitary pad and review of Australian clinic data. Contact Dermatitis, 2007; 56(3):164–167.
80.
GirouxL, PrattMD. Contact dermatitis to incontinency pads in a (meth)acrylate allergic patient. Am J Contact Dermat, 2002; 13(3):143–145.
