Consort allergic contact dermatitis (CACD) develops following exposure to an allergen originating from another individual. The diagnosis is often not straightforward. We conducted a systematic review to characterize patient demographics, clinical features, consort types, responsible products, and associated allergens in CACD. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL Complete from inception to July 2020. In total, 183 articles describing 261 patients with CACD were included. Mean age was 40.9 years with female predominance (62.8%). The most common body sites involved were the face (48.6%), hand (30.4%), arm (20.9%), neck (17.8%), and genitals (11.5%). The most common consorts were partners/spouses (50.0%, of which 29.9% were related to sexual activity), children (19.4%), and healthcare providers (7.8%). Allergens were mainly encountered via direct contact with consorts (80.5% of cases). A caregiver relationship was involved in 27.6% of cases, and the consort’s occupation in 14.6%. The most frequently implicated products were medications (35.6%), plants/botanicals (11.7%), and fragrances (8.7%). Patch testing identified 125 unique allergens in CACD. CACD can occur in relation to many individuals encountered throughout life. Caregivers may represent a high-risk group for developing CACD. Obtaining a holistic history encompassing social, sexual, and occupational factors can aid in the diagnosis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
McFaddenJ. Proxy contact dermatitis, or contact dermatitis “by proxy” (consort or connubial dermatitis). In: Lachapelle JM, Bruze M, Elsner PU, eds. Patch Testing Tips. Heidelberg: Springer;, 2014:115–122.
2.
ViganM. Dermatites de contact transmises par procuration. In: Le Coz CJ, Jelen G, Lepoittevin JP, eds. Progrès en Dermato-Allergologie: Strasbourg 2003. Paris: John Libbey Eurotext; 2003:43–57.
3.
LiberatiA, AltmanDG, TetzlaffJ, et al.The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol, 2009; 62(10):e1–e34.
MitchellJ. Allergic contact dermatitis from paraphenylenediamine presenting as nummular eczema. Contact Dermatitis Newsl, 1972; 12:270.
13.
JensenP, Garcia OrtizP, Hartmann-PetersenS, et al.Connubial allergic contact dermatitis caused by fragrance ingredients. Dermatitis, 2012; 23(1):e1–e2.
14.
SaadA, BogorodskayaM, HarwellC, et al. Contact dermatitis to formaldehyde from kissing a corpse?Dermatitis 2016;27(4):231–232.
15.
FisherAA. Condom dermatitis in either partner. Cutis, 1987; 39(4):281, 284–285.
16.
MakR, SeatonE. Contact allergic eczema from exposure to a sexual partner. Br J Dermatol, 2006; 155(Suppl. 1):77.
17.
GuilletG, DagregorioG. Seminal fluid as a missed allergen in vulvar allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis, 2004; 50(5):318–320.
18.
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.
19.
SchimkatHG, AndaryM, ClotJ, et al. Contact urticaria and allergic contact dermatitis to constituents of human seminal fluid. In: Frosch PJ, Dooms-Goossens A, Lachapelle J-M, et al., eds. Current Topics in Contact Dermatitis. New York: Springer; 1989:465–469.
20.
LaveryWJ, StevensonM, BernsteinJA. An overview of seminal plasma hypersensitivity and approach to treatment. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract, 2020; 8(9):2937–2942.
21.
CooperHL, LouafiF, FriedmannPS. A case of conjugal azathioprine-induced contact hypersensitivity. N Engl J Med, 2008; 359(14):1524–1526.
22.
NewboldPC. Contact reaction to penicillamine in vaginal secretions. Lancet, 1979; 1(8130):1344.
23.
PaladineWJ, CunninghamTJ, DonavanMA, et al.Letter: possible sensitivity to vinblastine in prostatic or seminal fluid. N Engl J Med, 1975; 292(1):52.
24.
ChoiJM, LeeJD, KimHO, et al.A case of connubial contact dermatitis due to rhus. Korean J Dermatol, 1998; 36(3):469.
25.
KunP, Hyun-MinN, Ue-GyungK, et al.Systemic contact dermatitis due to Rhus occuring in a whole family members: 90476. J Dermatol, 2010; 37.
26.
GochfeldM, BurgerJ. Sexual transmission of nickel and poison oak contact dermatitis. Lancet, 1983; 1(8324):589.
27.
ShoimerI, PrattM. Allergic contact dermatitis to medical equipment in a non-health care worker caring for a disabled spouse. J Cutan Med Surg, 2013; 17(3):207–211.
28.
DavidsMG, HodgsonGA, EvansE. Contact dermatitis from an ostomy deodorant. Contact Dermatitis, 1978; 4(1):11–13.
29.
BoyapatiA, TamM, TateB, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis to methylisothiazolinone: exposure from baby wipes causing hand dermatitis. Australas J Dermatol, 2013; 54(4):264–267.
30.
GuimaraensD, Condé-SalazarL, GonzalezMA. Allergic contact dermatitis on the hands from chloromethylisothiazolinone in moist toilet paper. Contact Dermatitis, 1996; 35(4):254.
31.
GuinJD, KincannonJ, ChurchFL. Baby-wipe dermatitis: preservative-induced hand eczema in parents and persons using moist towelettes. Am J Contact Dermat, 2001; 12(4):189–192.
Navarro-TriviñoFJ, Cassini Gómez de CádizVA, Ruiz-VillaverdeR. Allergic connubial contact dermatitis caused by molybdenum from fiberglass. Int J Dermatol, 2021; 60(3):e88–e90.
DesrocheT, BarbaudA, BauvinO, et al.Care of pets entails the risk of allergic contact dermatitis caused by plants. Contact Dermatitis, 2017; 77(4):264–266.
45.
ZhangAJ, WarshawEM. Pet consort dermatitis: the importance of asking about pets. Dermatitis, 2018; 29(1):45–46.
46.
ApplebaumJW, PeekCW, ZsembikBA. Examining US pet ownership using the General Social Survey. Soc Sci J, 2020; 1–10.
47.
SmithBP, HazeltonPC, ThompsonKR, et al.A multispecies approach to co-sleeping. Hum Nat, 2017; 28(3):255–273.
48.
ÖzkayaE. Neighborial allergy: a hidden cause of nonoccupational airborne contact dermatitis in a housewife from epoxy resin. Dermatitis, 2012; 23(3):124–125.
49.
TobinAM, KirbyB. Airborne contact dermatitis induced by a neighbour's beehives. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 49(4):214–215.
50.
Fernández de CorrésL, LeanizbarrutiaI, MuñozD, et al.Contact dermatitis from a neighbour's primula. Contact Dermatitis, 1987; 16(4):234–235.
51.
FoussereauJ. Les eczémas Allergiques Par Procuration. In: Les Eczémas Allergiques: Cosmétologiques, Thérapeutiques et Vestimentaires. Paris: Masson; 1987:18–23.
52.
CorazzaM, MantovaniL, BacilieriS, et al.A child with “occupational” allergic contact dermatitis due to MCI/MI. Contact Dermatitis, 2001; 44(1):53–54.
53.
AdachiA, HorikawaT. Pompholyx of the infant possibly induced by systemic metal allergy to chromium in mother's milk [in Japanese]. Arerugi, 2007; 56(7):703–708.
54.
ThérondC, DutauG. Le premier cas d'allergie par procuration induite par le baiser date de 1964. Rev Fr Allergol, 2007; 1(47):35–36.
55.
NealeH, Garza-MayersAC, TamI, et al.Pediatric allergic contact dermatitis. Part I: clinical features and common contact allergens in children. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2021; 84(2):235–244.
