CLINICAL REVIEW

A systematic review of contact dermatitis

treatment and prevention
Joan Saary, MD, MSc, FRCPC,a,b Roohi Qureshi, MD, MEng, FRCPC,a,b Valerie Palda, MD, MSc, FRCPC,c
Joel DeKoven, MD, MHSc, FRCPC,a,b Melanie Pratt, MD, FRCPC,d,e
Sandy Skotnicki-Grant, MD, FRCPC,a,b and Linn Holness, MD, MHSc, FRCPCa,b
Toronto and Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Background: Contact dermatitis (CD) is a common occupational disease. There have been no systematic
reviews of CD treatment or prevention.

Methods: Multiple databases were systematically searched. Using independent double review and
published quality review criteria, articles were rated as good, fair, or poor. Treatment benefit data were
tabulated and conclusions were based on the rated strength of published evidence.

Results: In all, 49 studies met inclusion criteria. Barrier creams containing dimethicone or
perfluoropolyethers, cotton liners, and softened fabrics prevent irritant CD. Lipid-rich moisturizers both
prevent and treat irritant CD. Topical skin protectant and quaternium 18 bentonite (organoclay) prevent
rhus dermatitis. Diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (chelator) cream prevents nickel, chrome, and copper
dermatitis. Potent or moderately potent steroids effectively treat allergic CD. There were no macrolide
immunomodulator trials that met inclusion criteria. This review did not include studies of children, animals,
or non-English language publications.

Conclusions: A limited number of interventions effectively prevent or treat irritant and allergic CD, but
well-controlled, outcome-blinded studies, particularly in the area of allergic CD prevention are needed.
( J Am Acad Dermatol 2005;53:845-55.)

A significant proportion of occupational disease

is accounted for by occupational contact
dermatitis (OCD)1,2 with incidence rates rang-
ing from 24/100,000 to 170/100,000.3-6 The extent of
morbidity is underestimated,7,8 and ameliorating the
From the Gage Occupational and Environmental Health Unit,
Department of Occupational and Environmental Health,
St Michael’s Hospital,a and Departments of Medicine and Public
Health Sciences, University of Torontob; Departments of Med-
icine and Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University
of Torontoc; and Department of Medicine, Ottawa Hospital,d
and Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa.e
Funding source: The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of
Ontario.
Conflicts of interest: None identified.
This work has been provided to the Workplace Safety and
Insurance Board as a technical report and has been orally
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Contact
Dermatitis Society in Washington, DC, on February 5, 2004.
Reprint requests: Joan Saary, MD, MSc, FRCPC, Department of
Occupational and Environmental Health, St Michael’s Hospital,
4th Floor Shuter Wing, 30 Bond St, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8,
Canada. E-mail: joan.saary@utoronto.ca.
0190-9622/$30.00
ª 2005 by the American Academy of Dermatology, Inc.
doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2005.04.075
Abbreviations used:
ACD:
CD:
ICD:
allergic contact dermatitis
contact dermatitis
irritant contact dermatitis
OCD: occupational contact dermatitis
TEWL: transepidermal water loss
WSIB: Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
effects of OCD is an ongoing challenge. The National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health has
identified OCD as a priority research area,9 noting
that ‘‘there has been relatively little occupational
research to . . . assist workers who have developed
skin diseases that commonly afflict them for the rest
of their lives.’’10
Medical management has had little impact on
clinical outcome in OCD for more than 4 decades
with descriptive and nonexperimental studies (eg,
retrospective cohorts) reporting persistent disease in
33% to 81% of the individuals.11-23 Work outcomes
have also been poor with between 29% and 72% of
OCD-affected individuals reporting skin-related job
changes.1,14,16,18,20,24-26

845
846 Saary et al
The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
(WSIB) of Ontario, Canada, has developed a pro-
gram of care for OCD. This required that treatment
decisions be evidence-based. Given the significance
of OCD and the historic lack of ability to modify the
clinical outcome, WSIB solicited an independent
review of the literature to aid in the provision of
evidence-based recommendations.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted using the
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from
January 1966 to June 2003 to identify relevant
English-language publications. Key search terms
included: contact dermatitis (CD), contact allergy,
eczema, controlled study, clinical trial, and treat-
ment. Complete search strategies are listed in
Appendix A. In addition, references of relevant
articles and reviews were manually searched for
additional sources. Bibliographies of retrieved pub-
lications were reviewed to identify sources not
obtained in our search. Two authors (R. Q., J. S.)
independently reviewed the abstracts to find those
that met eligibility (inclusion and exclusion) criteria.
Any disagreement was resolved by arbitration by a
third author (V. P.).
A study was included if it dealt with prevention or
treatment of CD, either naturally occurring or exper-
imentally induced, even if not explicitly stated (ie,
includes those articles that show correlation be-
tween modifiable factor and CD), or if the study did
not deal exclusively with treatment for CD, but data
of patients with CD were presented separately, so
that they could be abstracted independently of other
data.
A study was excluded if its subjects were not
human or not adult, the language of publication was
not English, it was not a controlled trial, or there were
less than 10 subjects. Also excluded were studies
dealing with only one contact allergen and its spe-
cific treatment, immediate hypersensitivity (type I)
reactions, contact urticaria, or atopy.
The rationale for the decision to exclude the latter
was that atopy represents a distinct clinical entity
from CD, despite the fact that they may occur
together. The incidence of allergic CD (ACD) super-
imposed on atopy remains controversial, with some
studies reporting no greater incidence of ACD
among those with atopy than healthy participants.
Conversely, the atopic response to irritants is in-
creased compared with control subjects.27-29
Studies meeting eligibility criteria were then in-
dependently abstracted by two authors (R. Q. and
J. S.) using predetermined quality criteria, and
were rated as good, fair, or poor (Appendix B). In
J AM ACAD DERMATOL
NOVEMBER 2005
addition, studies achieving good or fair ratings were
abstracted independently by two authors (R. Q. and
J. S.) for statistically significant differences in clinical,
biophysical, and subjective outcomes (see Appendix
C for description of bioengineering outcomes).
A summary of the evidence and proposed recom-
mendations were then generated.
RESULTS
In 413 initial articles, we found studies examining
63 different treatments, and 37 different preventive
measures for irritant CD (ICD) and ACD (Table I).
Generally, treatments and preventive measures could
be classified as corticosteroids, nonsteroidal medica-
tions such as macrolide immunomodulators, barrier
creams, emollients, natural or herbal products, glove-
related interventions, modifications to work process
or environment, and psychosocial or educational
interventions. Although other treatments have been
proposed (eg, psychiatric intervention, introduction
of nurse practitioner) no controlled studies that
would meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria
were found.
After the application of inclusion and exclusion
criteria, only 49 articles that addressed the preven-
tion and treatment of CD met eligibility criteria. In all,
12 met the criteria for good quality,33-44 16 were rated
as fair,45-60 and 21 were rated as poor and were not
further abstracted for results (Table II).61-81 Studies
are randomized controlled trial unless otherwise
stated. The details of quality evaluations and results
for individual studies are outlined in online supple-
mental tables available at www.eblue.org.
Prevention of ICD
There is evidence from good-quality studies that
certain barrier creams, moisturizing creams, and use
of softened fabrics are effective in preventing the
development of ICD. Fair-quality studies indicated
that short-term use of certain moisturizers and barrier
creams and use of cotton glove liners were effective.
Educational interventions were less promising.
Barrier creams. Two good-quality43,44 and two
fair-quality47-52 studies found barrier creams to be
effective in preventing ICD, and one good-quality
study did not.40 Schliemann-Willers et al43 investi-
gated the ability of pretreatment with different
concentrations of perfluoropolyether phosphate
(Fomblin HC/P2) in different gel bases to prevent
experimentally induced ICD to 4 different irritants.
Results indicated that 5% HC/P2 was significantly
better than untreated control in preventing irritation
(as measured by visual erythema scores, transepi-
dermal water loss [TEWL], and chromametry) from
J AM ACAD DERMATOL Saary et al 847
VOLUME 53, NUMBER 5

Table I. Available treatment and prevention methods for contact dermatitis evaluated in controlled trials
ACD ICD
Treatment method or substance
Steroids Bufexamac (Parfenac) 5% cream
Desonide 0.05% cream
Doxepin 5% cream
Short-term parenteral betamethasone sodium
phosphate 4.0 mg/mL
Short-term parenteral dexamethasone sodium
phosphate 4.0 mg/mL
Clobetasone butyrate 0.05% (Eumovate)
Clobetasol propionate 0.05%
Hydorcortisone 1%
Flumethasone pivalate
Mometasone furoate 0.1%
Betamethasone valerate 0.1% (od, bid)
Cutivate with 0.05% micronized fluticasone
propionate (alone of in combination with
Dermalex barrier cream)
Comparisons of different potencies of steroids
Nonsteroidal Cyclosporin (oral and topical) Cyclosporin (oral)
medication Doxepin cream 5% Doxepin cream 5%
Tacrolimus/FK506
Fomblin HC/P2 (perfluoropolyether phosphate)
SDZ ASM 981 (selective cytokine inhibitor)
Azathioprine
Indomethacin 2.5% in skin-base cream
Topical pentoxifylline
Barrier creams Hollister moisture barrier Hydrogel
Mentor shield skin Dimethicone
Hydropel Excipial protect (active ingredient
Uniderm aluminum chlorohydrate 5%)
Dermofilm
Emollients/ Locobase Locobase
lipids Lipid mixtures Locobase repair
Lipid mix and steroid Doublebase
Oil-in-water emulsion with 4% evening Ultrabase
primrose oil Diprobase
Ceridal lipogel
Petrolatum
Decubal
Essex
Oil-in-water emulsion with 4% evening
primrose oil
Cream containing urea 5% and
hydrogenated canola oil 5%
Other Subcutaneous hyposensitization and UVB Lipid mix and steroid
combined
UVB (total body and partial body) Sea water (Pacific Ocean)
Oral hyposensitization NaCl solution
Dietary restriction KCl solution
Organoclay MgCl2 solution
Extract of jewelweed CaCl2 solution
Dermapor semipermeable glove Dermapor semipermeable glove
Cotton glove liners Cotton glove liners
848 Saary et al
Table I. Cont’d
ACD
Prevention method or substance
Barrier cream Dermashield
Hollister moisture barrier
Mentor shield skin
Hydropel
Uniderm
Dermofilm
Emollient/lipid
Other Low molecular-weight heparin
Topical pentoxifylline
Nonlatex gloves
Ginkgo biloba pretreatment
Quaternuim-18 bentonite
Topical skin protectanteemulsion of
Teflon polymer in perfluoroalkylpolyether
ACD, Allergic contact dermatitis; bid, twice a day; CaCl2, calcium chloride; ICD, irritant contact dermatitis; KCL, potassium chloride;
mg, milligram; MgCl2, magnesium chloride; mL, millilitre; NaCl, sodium chloride; od, once daily; UVB, ultraviolet B.
water-soluble irritants. The lack of efficacy of 2%
HC/P2 against such irritants suggests a dose-re-
sponse effect although no interproduct comparisons
were made, only product versus untreated control.
Zhai et al44 tested the ability of dimethicone skin
protectant lotion to prevent experimentally induced
ICD as measured by visual scoring, TEWL, chroma-
metry, and laser Doppler flow. The dimethicone
lotion was significantly better than either vehicle-
treated or untreated control on 2 of 4 (visual, TEWL)
parameters measured. Both of these studies were
conducted using healthy Caucasian volunteers,
which may limit generalizability (ie, external valid-
ity). Conversely, Perrenoud et al40 demonstrated that
a barrier cream containing aluminum chlorohydrate
as the active ingredient was ineffective in preventing
ICD, and in fact was worse than a vehicle control on
capacitance measures.
Moisturizers. Two good-quality studies exam-
ined the role of moisturizers in the prevention of
ICD. Held and Agner35 examined the ability of both
high- and low-lipid content moisturizers to prevent
ICD and found that the high-lipid content moistur-
izer significantly prevented experimentally induced
ICD as measured by TEWL, capacitance, chromame-
try, and clinical scores, compared with a lower-lipid
content moisturizer that only showed a preventive
effect with capacitance measures. In 1997, Loden37
investigated the application of moisturizing cream
J AM ACAD DERMATOL
NOVEMBER 2005
ICD
Arretil
Aluminum chlorohydrate-containing cream
Hand sense
Stoko emulsion
Combinations of barrier and emollient creams
Keri lotion, coconut, soy, sunflower, rape
seed, palm, palm kernel, palm and
rapeseed combination, fish oil, borage
oil, canola, shea butter, fractions of
unsaponifiable lipids from canola oil
and shea butter
Fabrics treated with fabric softener
Substituting simple washing for brush washing
Substituting emulsion cleansing for washing with soap
Pro-Q aerosol skin protectant
Temperature of irritant or water
Educational interventions
Alpha hydroxyacids (glycolic, lactic,
tartaric acids and gluconolactone)
containing 5% urea and 5% hydrogenated canola oil
in preventing experimentally induced ICD and
found this cream to be significantly better than the
untreated control by both clinical and TEWL mea-
sures. Four fair-quality studies also generally found
moisturizers to be beneficial.48,55,56,60
Fabric softener. The good-quality study of
Pierard et al41 evaluated whether fabrics treated
with fabric softener were less irritating than un-
treated fabrics to experimentally irritated and normal
but sensitive skin. In this study, the intervention
involved two repetitions of rubbing a wet towel
(treated with fabric softener or untreated) on the
forearm, then patting dry 3 times a day for 5 days.
Results indicated better clinical ratings and improve-
ment in stratum corneum structure and barrier func-
tion and hydration in skin exposed to fabrics treated
with fabric softener (compared with untreated fabrics).
Although the study method may simulate towel use,
it may not be an adequate model of clothing wear.
Educational strategies. No studies examining
educational criteria met good-quality criteria. Two
fair-quality cohort studies49,50 examined the effec-
tiveness of educational interventions in preventing
ICD. Among nursing home workers, participants in
the intervention group scored higher on a quiz, and
showed greater change than the control group on 3
of 6 targeted areas for behavioural change. Self-
reported symptoms were no different between
J AM ACAD DERMATOL
VOLUME 53, NUMBER 5
Table II. Characteristics of studies abstracted
No. of
No. of articles No. of
titles and selected articles
abstracts for further meeting
Key question screened review criteria
Total treatment 413 131 49
search
ICD prevention
ICD treatment
ACD prevention
ACD treatment
ACD, Allergic contact dermatitis; F, fair; G, good; ICD, irritant contact dermatitis; P, poor; RCT, randomized controlled trial.
*Column sum does not add to total because of some studies addressing either both ACD and ICD or both treatment and prevention.
groups, but clinical examination was significantly
different, although the examination was not blinded
and was, thus, potentially biased particularly given
the differing results between the assessors and a
blinded dermatologist.50 In a different study also
investigating an educational intervention in auxiliary
nurses49 no significant difference between interven-
tion and control groups were found on either clinical
or bioengineering (TEWL) measures).
Gloves. A fair-quality study by Ramsing and
Agner54 found that occlusive glove use worsened
bioengineering measures of ICD, and that use of a
cotton liner led to better results than a glove alone.
Treatment of ICD
There is evidence from good-36-38 and fair-rated55
studies that lipid-rich moisturizers are effective in the
short-term treatment of experimentally induced ICD.
Loden37 investigated the impact of applying a mois-
turizing cream containing 5% urea and 5% hydroge-
nated canola oil to an experimentally induced ICD
site twice daily for 14 days. Barrier function (TEWL),
skin hydration, and clinical evaluations were all
significantly improved compared with an untreated
control site. The generalizability of these results is
limited to acute situations given the end point at 14
days. Loden and Andersson38 evaluated 9 different
lipids and concluded that canola oil, its sterol-
enriched fraction, and hydrocortisone were the
only substances affecting the degree of irritation.
Held et al36 also examined a variety of (6 different)
moisturizers and found moisturizers generally effec-
tive for both clinical and bioengineering measures,
with lipid-rich moisturizers such as petrolatum
showing greater improvement than less lipid-rich
moisturizers.
One other fair-quality study60 tested a moisturizer
applied to dry hands before gloving, and found less
Saary et al 849
Study design/ Data abstraction Total No. of
quality rating from G- or patients studied
of articles F-quality articles* in G- or F-quality articles
RCT: 39 RCT: 23
G/F/P:10/13/16 Cohort: 5
Cohort: 10
G/F/P:2/3/5
16 632
5 97
5 291
5 84
dryness by visual examination but no difference
from control in either TEWL or erythema.
None of the studies used quality of life or return to
work as indicators of outcome.
Prevention of ACD
There were no studies with a good-quality rating
that examined the prevention of ACD. Among the
fair-rated studies there was a wide variety of inter-
ventions tested.45,46,51,58,59 Two studies demon-
strated that rhus dermatitis can be reduced in
severity or prevented with quaternium-18-bentonite
(organoclay) lotion,51 and topical skin protectant
(an emulsion with perfluroalkylpolyether, similar to
Teflon [DuPont, Wilmington, Del]).58 The chelator
diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid was effective in
preventing and reducing the severity of patch tests to
nickel, and preventing reactions to cobalt and cop-
per, but was ineffective against palladium and
potassium.59 Brehler et al45 found pretreatment
with pentoxifylline clinically ineffective in prevent-
ing nickel allergy reactions.
Treatment of ACD
There were 4 good-quality studies that evaluated
treatments for ACD.33,34,39,42 All studies evaluated
the effectiveness of various steroids including: fluti-
casone propionate .05% with or without barrier
cream, clobetasone butyrate .05%, and clobetasol
propionate .05% (Dermoval). In studies by Hachem
et al,33,34 fluticasone propionate .05% was found to
improve clinical and nonclinical outcomes com-
pared with control, and when combined with barrier
cream, fluticasone improved nonclinical outcomes.
Clinical outcome was improved by barrier cream
alone. Parneix-Spake et al39 found nonclinical out-
comes to be significantly better with clobetasone
butyrate than either 1% hydrocortisone or untreated
850 Saary et al J AM ACAD DERMATOL
NOVEMBER 2005

Table III. Recommendations

Level of evidence Level of evidence
Maneuver Effectiveness for prevention* for treatment* Recommendation*
ICD prevention Barrier creams I-Good40,43,44 There is good-quality
and therapy 5% Perfluoropolyethers evidence to recommend
(Fomblin HC/P2) certain barrier creams for
Dimethicone skin the prevention of ICD,
protectant lotion recognizing some
Hand sense barrier limitations of
cream generalizability.
Excipal protect with I-Fair47,52 There is good evidence to
aluminum chlorohydrate recommend against the
use of aluminum
chlorohydrate-containing
barrier creams
High-lipid content There is good-quality
moisturizers evidence to recommend
Locobase I-Good35,37 the use of moisturizers
5% urea 1 5% hydrogenated I-Good36-38 with high lipid content
canola oil for both prevention and
Petrolatum I-Fair48,55,56,60 treatment of ICD,
Eucerin recognizing some
Palm fats I-Fair55,60 limitations of
Rapeseed in 3/4 measures generalizability
Canola
Stoko emulsion
prevent latex glove-
induced ICD in 3 of 5
measured (P \ .05)]
Fabric softening There is good-quality
Fabrics treated with I-Good41 evidence to recommend
fabric softener less softened fabrics to
irritating untreated prevent ICD, recognizing
fabrics significant limitations of
generalizability
Cotton liners There is fair-quality
Occlusive I-Fair54 evidence to recommend
glove use leads to the use of cotton glove
worse bioengineering liners to prevent ICD,
measures of ICD, recognizing some
and liners under an limitations of
occlusive glove generalizability
mitigate
ACD prevention Quaternium- I-Fair51 There is good-quality
and therapy 18-bentonite prevents evidence to recommend
rhus dermatitis certain allergen-specific
measures for the
prevention of ACD,
recognizing some
limitations of
generalizability
TSP prevents rhus dermatitis I-Fair58
DTPA prevents nickel, I-Fair59
copper, cobalt dermatitis
J AM ACAD DERMATOL
VOLUME 53, NUMBER 5
Table III. Cont’d
Maneuver Effectiveness
Moderate to potent steroids
- Fluticasone propionate
- Clobetasol butyrate
- Clobetasol propionate
QOL and return
to work
ACD, Allergic contact dermatitis; DTPA, diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid; ICD, irritant contact dermatitis; QOL, quality of life; TSP, topical
skin protectant.
*See Appendix B for definitions of quality ratings.
control. Clobetasol propionate proved clinically
better than 1% hydrocortisone, and 2.5% indometh-
acin and 5.0% bufexamac (Parfenac).42 However,
these good-quality studies have limited generaliz-
ability because the majority of study participants
were Caucasian female volunteers.
Clobetasol propionate .05% was also evaluated in
one fair-rated study by Vernon and Olsen57 who
found it to be clinically effective in treating rhus
dermatitis compared with white petrolatum.
None of the studies used quality of life or return to
work as indicators of outcome.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ICD
Prevention. As shown in Table III, there is good-
and fair-quality evidence that barrier creams con-
taining dimethicone or a high concentration of active
ingredients such as perfluoropolyethers, short-term
use of high-lipid content moisturizers, use of cotton
liners if occlusive gloves are worn, and use of
softened fabrics can prevent the development of
ICD. There is good-quality evidence that barrier
cream containing aluminum chlorohydrate is not
effective in preventing ICD. More research is re-
quired to evaluate educational interventions as pre-
ventive strategies.
Treatment of induced ICD. There is good- and
fair-quality evidence that lipid-rich moisturizers can
effectively treat ICD.
ACD
Prevention. There is fair-quality evidence that
the topical skin protectant and quaternium-18-
Saary et al 851
Level of evidence Level of evidence
for prevention* for treatment* Recommendation*
Good33,34,39,42 There is good-quality
I-Fair57 evidence to
recommend the use of
moderate- to
high-potency steroids to
treat ACD, recognizing
some limitations of
generalizability
No studies found The authors conclude there
is insufficient evidence to
recommend any
treatment to improve the
outcomes of return to
work and QOL
bentonite can prevent rhus dermatitis and diethyl-
enetriamine pentaacetic acid can prevent nickel,
chrome, and copper dermatitis. There is fair evi-
dence that pentoxifylline is not effective in prevent-
ing nickel allergy.
Treatment of induced ACD. There is good-
and fair-quality evidence that potent or moderately
potent steroids can treat ACD.
Return to Work and Quality of Life
No published studies were found examining these
outcomes, and as such there is insufficient evidence
to recommend that any treatment improves the
outcomes of return to work and quality of life in CD.
FUTURE RESEARCH
Based on the results of this study, and the pro-
cess undertaken to complete it, we recommend the
following as research priorities in the area of CD
generally and OCD specifically: (1) studies that
assess the effectiveness of preventive measures for
ACD, particularly generally applicable methods,
rather than allergen-specific ways to prevent ACD;
(2) studies evaluating treatments for chronic ACD
and ICD; (3) studies designed to evaluate treatments
and preventive strategies in the real-world setting;
(4) studies with a focus on return to work as an
outcome measure; (5) the use of nonsteroid medi-
cations to treat ACD needs closer examination; and
(6) studies of educational interventions.
REFERENCES
1. Holness DL, Nethercott JR. Work outcome in workers with
occupational skin disease. Am J Ind Med 1995;27:807-15.
852 Saary et al
2. Nethercott JR, Gallant C. Disability due to occupational con-
tact dermatitis. Occup Med 1986;1:199-203.
3. Behrens V, Seligman P, Cameron L, Mathias CGT, Fine L.
The prevalence of back pain, hand discomfort, and dermatitis
in the US working population. Am J Public Health 1998;84:
1780-5.
4. Coenraads P-J, Smit J. Epidemiology. In: Rycroft RJG, Menne T,
Frosch PJ, Benezra C, editors. Textbook of contact dermatitis.
Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1992.
5. Kanerva L, Jolanki R, Estlander T. Statistics: occupational
dermatoses in Finland. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol
1995;5(Suppl):S179.
6. Mathias CGT, Sinks TH, Seligman PJ, Halperin WE. Surveillance
of occupational skin diseases: a method utilizing workers’
compensation claims. Am J Ind Med 1990;17:363-70.
7. Kraut A. Estimates of the extent of morbidity and mortality
due to occupational diseases in Canada. Am J Ind Med
1994;25:267-78.
8. Leigh JP, Markowitz SB, Fahs M, Shin C, Landrigan PJ.
Occupational injury and illness in the United States. Arch
Intern Med 1997;157:1557-68.
9. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. National
Occupational Research Agenda. Cincinnati: US Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centres for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occu-
pational Safety and Health; 1996.
10. National Occupational Research Agenda. Allergic and irritant
dermatitis: research opportunities. Available at: http://www.
cdc.gov/niosh/oep/research.html#NORA. Accessed: December
16, 1998.
11. Burrows D. Prognosis in industrial dermatitis. Br J Dermatol
1972;87:145-8.
12. Christensen OB. Prognosis in nickel allergy and hand eczema.
Contact Dermatitis 1982;8:7-15.
13. Dooms-Goossens A, Ceuterick A, Vanmaele N, Degreef H.
Follow-up study of patients with contact dermatitis caused
by chromates, nickel and cobalt. Dermatologica 1980;160:
249-60.
14. Fregert S. Occupational dermatitis in a 10-year material.
Contact Dermatitis 1975;1:96-107.
15. Harrison PV. A postal survey of patients with nickel and
chromate dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1979;5:229-32.
16. Hellier FF. The prognosis in industrial dermatitis. Br Med J
1958;29:196-8.
17. Johnson ML, Wilson HTH. Oil dermatitis: an enquiry into its
prognosis. Br J Ind Med 1971;28:122-5.
18. Keczkes K, Bhate SM, Wyatt EH. The outcome of primary
irritant contact dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 1983;109:665-8.
19. Lammintausta K, Kalimo K, Aantaa S. Course of hand derma-
titis in hospital workers. Contact Dermatitis 1982;8:327-32.
20. Nethercott JR, Holness DL. Disease outcome in workers with
occupational contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol
1994;30:569-74.
21. Peter VK. Uber das schicksal der patienten mit gewerbeekzem
[The fate of patients with tissue eczema]. Dermatologica
1968;136:236-56.
22. Rhodes EL, Warner J. Contact eczemaea follow-up study. Br
J Dermatol 1966;78:640-4.
23. Skog E, Tottie M. Occupational eczema causing disablement.
Acta Derm Venereol 1961;41:205-12.
24. Holness DL. Results of a quality of life questionnaire in a patch
test clinic population. Contact Dermatitis 2001;44:80-4.
25. Rosen RH, Freeman S. Prognosis of occupational contact
dermatitis in New South Wales, Australia. Contact Dermatitis
1993;29:88-93.
J AM ACAD DERMATOL
NOVEMBER 2005
26. Wall LM, Gebauer KA. A follow-up study of occupational skin
disease in Western Australia. Contact Dermatitis 1991;24:241-3.
27. Rees J, Friedmann PS, Matthews JN. Contact sensitivity to
dinitrochlorobenzene is impaired in atopic subjects. Arch
Dermatol 1990;126:1173.
28. de Groot AC. The frequency of contact allergy in atopic
patients with dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1990;22:273.
29. Rietschel RL, Fowler JF Jr, editors. Fisher’s contact dermatitis.
4th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1995.
30. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, Teutsch
SM, et al, for the Methods Work Group, Third US Preventive
Services Task Force. Current methods of the US Preventive
Services Task Force. Am J Prev Med 2001;20:21-35.
31. De Paepe K, Janssens K, Hachem JP, Roseeuw D, Rogiers V.
Squamometry as a screening method for the evaluation of
hydrating products. Skin Res Technol 2001;7:184-92.
32. Lee CM, Maibach HI. Bioengineering analysis of water hydra-
tion: an overview. Exogenous Dermatol 2002;1:269-75.
33. Hachem JP, De Paepe K, Vanpee E, Bogaerts M, Kaufman L,
Rogiers V, Roseeuw D. Efficacy of topical corticosteroids
in nickel-induced contact allergy. Clin Exp Dermatol 2002;
27:47-50.
34. Hachem JP, De Paepe K, Vanpee E, Kaufman L, Rogiers V,
Roseeuw D. Combination therapy improves the recovery of
the skin barrier function: an experimental model using a
contact allergy patch test combined with TEWL measure-
ments. Dermatology 2001;202:314-9.
35. Held E, Agner T. Effect of moisturizers on skin susceptibility to
irritants. Acta Derm Venereol 2001;81:104-7.
36. Held E, Lund H, Agner T. Effect of different moisturizers on
SLS-irritated human skin. Contact Dermatitis 2001;44:229-34.
37. Loden M. Barrier recovery and influence of irritant stimuli in
skin treated with a moisturizing cream. Contact Dermatitis
1997;36:256-60.
38. Loden M, Andersson AC. Effect of topically applied lipids on
surfactant-irritated skin. Br J Dermatol 1996;134:215-20.
39. Parneix-Spake A, Goustas P, Green R. Eumovate (clobetasone
butyrate) 0.05% cream with its moisturizing emollient base
has better healing properties than hydrocortisone 1% cream: a
study in nickel-induced contact dermatitis. J Dermatol Treat
2001;12:191-7.
40. Perrenoud D, Gallezot D, van Melle G. The efficacy of a
protective cream in a real-world apprentice hairdresser envi-
ronment. Contact Dermatitis 2001;45:134-8.
41. Pierard GE, Arrese JE, Rodriguez C, Daskaleros PA. Effects of
softened and unsoftened fabrics on sensitive skin. Contact
Dermatitis 1994;30:286-91.
42. Quielle-Roussel C, Duteil L, Padilla JM, Poncet M, Czernielewski
J. Objective assessment of topical anti-inflammatory drug
activity on experimentally induced nickel contact dermatitis:
comparison between visual scoring, colorimetry, laser Doppler
velocimetry and transepidermal water loss. Skin Pharmacol
1990;3:248-55.
43. Schliemann-Willers S, Wigger-Alberti W, Elsner P. Efficacy of a
new class of perfluoropolyethers in the prevention of irritant
contact dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol 2001;81:392-4.
44. Zhai H, Brachman F, Pelosi A, Anigbogu A, Ramos MB, Torralba
MC, Maibach HI. A bioengineering study on the efficacy of a
skin protectant lotion in prevention SLS-induced dermatitis.
Skin Res Technol 2000;6:77-80.
45. Brehler R, Maurer O, Grabbe S, Schwarz T. Topically applied
pentoxifylline has no effect on allergic patch responses. J Am
Acad Dermatol 1998;39:1017-21.
46. Di Nardo A, Giusti G, Mantovani L, Bianchi B, Seidenari S.
Inhibition of elicitation of contact dermatitis in humans by
J AM ACAD DERMATOL
VOLUME 53, NUMBER 5
mometasone furoate: evaluation by means of 20-MHz B
scanning associated with image analysis. Dermatology 1997;
195:137-41.
47. Elsner P, Wigger-Alberti, Pantini G. Perfluoropolyethers in the
prevention of irritant contact dermatitis. Dermatology
1998;197:141-5.
48. Held E, Sveinsdottir S, Agner T. Effect of long-term use of
moisturizer on skin hydration, barrier function and suscepti-
bility to irritants. Acta Derm Venereol 1999;79:49-51.
49. Held E, Wolff C, Gyntelberg F, Agner T. Prevention of work-
related skin problems in student auxilliary nurses: an inter-
vention study. Contact Dermatitis 2001;44:297-303.
50. Held E, Mygind K, Wolff C, Gyntelberg F, Agner T. Prevention
of work related skin problems: an intervention study in wet
work employees. Occup Environ Med 2002;59:556-61.
51. Marks JG, Fowler JF, Sherertz E, Rietschel R. Prevention of
poison ivy and poison oak allergic contact dermatitis by
quaternium-18 bentonite. J Am Acad Dermatol 1995;33:212-6.
52. McCormick R, Buchman TL, Maki DG. Double-blind, random-
ized trial of schedules use of a novel barrier cream and an oil-
containing lotion for protecting the hands of health care
workers. Am J Infect Control 2000;28:302-10.
53. Ohlenschlaeger J, Friberg J, Ramsing D, Agner T. Temperature
dependency of skin susceptibility to water and detergents.
Acta Derm Venereol 1996;76:274-6.
54. Ramsing D, Agner T. Effect of glove occlusion on human skin
(II). Contact Dermatitis 1996;34:258-62.
55. Ramsing D, Anger T. Preventive and therapeutic effects of
a moisturizer. Acta Derm Venereol 1997;77:335-7.
56. Schleimann-Willers S, Grieshaber R, Elsner P. Natural vegetable
fats in the prevention of irritant contact dermatitis. Contact
Dermatitis 2002;46:6-12.
57. Vernon HJ, Olsen EA. A controlled trial of clobetasol propio-
nate ointment 0.05% in the treatment of experimentally
induced rhus dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol 1990;23:829-32.
58. Vidmar DA, Iwane MK. Assessment of the ability of the topical
skin protectant (TSP) to protect against contact dermatitis to
urushiol (Rhus) antigen. Am J Contact Dermatitis 1999;10:190-7.
59. Wohrl S, Kriechbaumer N, Hemmer W, Focke M, Brannath W,
Gotz M, Jarisch R. A cream containing the chelator DTPA
(diethylenetriaminepenta-acetic acid) can prevent contact
allergic reactions to metals. Contact Dermatitis 2001;44:224-8.
60. Zhai H, Schmidt R, Levin C, et al. Prevention and therapeutic
effects of a model emulsion on glove-induced irritation and
dry skin in man. Occup Environ Med 2002;50:134-8.
61. Barsky S. Clinical comparison of desonide cream with fluocin-
onide cream in steroid-responsive dermatologic disorders.
Cutis 1976;18:826-30.
62. Bauer A, Kelterer D, Bartsch R, Schlegel A, Pearson J, Stadeler
M, et al. Prevention of hand dermatitis in bakers’ apprentices:
different efficacy of skin protection measures and UVB hard-
ening. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2002;75:491-9.
63. Berardesca E, Distante F, Vignoli GP, Oresajo C, Green B. Alpha
hydroxyacids modulates stratum corneum barrier function. Br
J Dermatol 1997;137:934-8.
64. Berardesca E, Barbareschi M, Veraldi S, Pimpinelli N. Evaluation
of efficacy of a skin lipid mixture in patients with irritant contact
dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis or atopic dermatitis: a
multicenter study. Contact Dermatitis 2001;45:280-5.
65. Berndt U, Wigger-Alberti W, Gabard B, Elsner P. Efficacy of a
barrier cream and its vehicle as protective measures against
occupational irritant contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis
2000;42:77-80.
66. Dickey R. Parenteral short-term corticosteroid therapy in
moderate to severe dermatoses. Cutis 1976;17:179-83.
Saary et al 853
67. Drake LA, Millikan LE. The antipruritic effect of 5% doxepin
cream in patients with eczematous dermatitis. Arch Dermatol
1995;131:1403-8.
68. Epstein WL, Byers VS, Frankart W. Induction of antigen specific
hyposensitization to poison oak in sensitized adults. Arch
Dermatol 1982;118:630-3.
69. Goh CL, Gan SL. Efficacies of a barrier cream and an afterwork
emollient cream against cutting fluid dermatitis in metal-
workers: a prospective study. Contact Dermatitis 1994;31:176-80.
70. Granlund H, Erkko P, Eriksson E, Reitamo S. Comparison of
cyclosporine and topical betamethasone-17, 21 dipropionate
in the treatment of severe chronic hand eczema. Acta Derm
Venereol 1996;76:371-6.
71. Grevelink SA, Murrell MA, Olsen EA. Effectiveness of various
barrier preparations in preventing and/or ameliorating exper-
imentally produced Toxicodendron dermatitis. J Am Acad
Dermatol 1992;27:182-8.
72. Halkier-Sorensen L, Thestrup-Pedersen K. The efficacy of a
moisturizer (Locobase) among cleaners and kitchen assistants
during everyday exposure to water and detergents. Contact
Dermatitis 1993;29:266-71.
73. Ingber A, Trattner A, Cohen I, Mekori Y. Low doses of low
molecular weight heparin in vivo inhibits the elicitation of
contact hypersensitivity. Acta Derm Venereol 1994;74:454-6.
74. Kikuchi-Numagami K, Saishu T, Fukaya M, Kanazawa E, Tagami
H. Irritancy of scrubbing up for surgery with or without a
brush. Acta Derm Venereol 1999;79:230-2.
75. Lauharanta J, Ojajarvi J, Sarna S, Makela P. Prevention of dryness
and eczema of the hands of hospital staff by emulsion cleansing
instead of washing with soap. J Hosp Infect 1991;17:207-15.
76. Medansky RS, Handler RM. Analysis of a new corticosteroid
aerosol in treatment of contact dermatitis. Cutis 1978;21:108-10.
77. Patterson SE, Williams JV, Marks JG. Prevention of sodium
lauryl sulfate irritant contact dermatitis by Pro-Q aerosol foam
skin protectant. J Am Acad Dermatol 1999;40:783-5.
78. Pigatto PD, Bigardi S, Legori A, Altomare GF, Finzi AF. Are
barrier creams of any use in contact dermatitis? Contact
Dermatitis 1992;26:197.
79. Troost RJJ, Kozel MMA, van Helden-Meeuwsen CG, van Joost
T, Mulder PG, Benner R, Prens EP. Hyposensitization in nickel
allergic contact dermatitis: clinical and immunologic monitor-
ing. J Am Acad Dermatol 1995;32:576-83.
80. Veien NK, Hattel T, Justesen O, Norholm N. Oral challenge with
balsam of Peru. Contact Dermatitis 1985;12:104-7.
81. Wolf-Jurgensen P. Efficacy of bufexamac cream versus beta-
methasone valerate cream in contact dermatitis: a double-
blind trial. Curr Med Res Opin 1979;5:779-84.
Appendix A. Search terms
Search 1: EMBASE \1980 to 2003[
1. Contact dermatitis/dt
2. Controlled study/
3. Clinical trial/
4. Contact allergy/dt
5. 1 or 4
6. 2 or 3
7. 5 and 6
8. Limit 7 to (human and English language)
Search 2: EMBASE \1980 to 2003[
1. exp Eczema/
2. Lichen simplex dermatitis.mp.
854 Saary et al J AM ACAD DERMATOL
NOVEMBER 2005

3. Shoe dermatitis.mp. 19. exp Engineering/

4. Latex contact dermatitis.mp. 20. exp Environment, controlled/ or environmental
5. Animal dermatitis.mp. control.mp.
6. Insect dermatitis.mp. 21. exp Protective clothing/ or exp protective de-
7. Chemical dermatitis.mp. vices/
8. Metal dermatitis.mp. 22. 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 21
9. Water dermatitis.mp. 23. 12 and 22
10. Plant dermatitis.mp. 24. Limit 23 to (human and English language and all
11. 3 or 4 or 5 or 7 or 8 or 10 adult \19 plus years[ and [controlled clinical
12. 1 or 11 trial or randomized controlled trial])
13. Treatment.mp. or therapeutics/
Search 5: EBM Reviews—Cochrane Central Register
14. Environmental scan.mp.
of Controlled Trials 2003
15. exp Questionnaires/
1. exp Dermatitis, allergic contact/ or exp dermati-
16. 13 or 14 or 15
tis, contact/
17. Prevention.mp. or exp primary prevention/
2. Limit 1 to randomized controlled trial
18. exp Education/
19. exp Engineering/
20. exp Environment, controlled/ or environmental
Appendix B. Criteria for rating individual studies*
control.mp.
21. exp Protective clothing/ or exp protective de-
GOOD—All the following are met:
vices/
Comparable groups assembled initially and main-
22. 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 21
tained throughout study OR body split-site design
23. 12 and 22
Interventions are clearly described
24. Limit 23 to (human and English language and
Important clinical and nonclinical outcomes are
article and adult \18-64 years[)
25. exp Controlled study/ or exp randomized con- considered
Outcome measurement is well described
trolled trial/
Outcome assessment is blinded
26. 24 and 25
Randomized control trial: intention-to-treat analysis
27. exp Randomized controlled trial/
Cohort: confounders/contaminants noted and cor-
28. 24 and 27
rected for
FAIR—One or more of the following occur, but none
Search 3: MEDLINE \1966 to 2003[
of the flaws listed in ‘‘poor’’ occur: Generally
1. exp Contact dermatitis/
2. Limit 1 to (human and English language and adult comparable groups
Only clinical or only nonclinical outcomes are con-
\19-44 years> and randomized controlled trial)
sidered
Measurement instrument acceptable, but not ideal
Search 4: MEDLINE \1966 to 2003[
(ie, scale not described); and generally applied
1. exp Eczema/
equally
2. Lichen simplex dermatitis.mp.
Randomized controlled trial: no intention-to-treat
3. Shoe dermatitis.mp.
analysis
4. Latex contact dermatitis.mp.
5. Animal dermatitis.mp. Cohort: some important confounders considered
and adjusted for in analysis (see above)
6. Insect dermatitis.mp.
Lack of blinding to outcome assessment or can not
7. Chemical dermatitis.mp.
tell
8. Metal dermatitis.mp.
POOR—One or more of the following fatal flaws
9. Water dermatitis.mp.
exist:
10. Plant dermatitis.mp.
Groups assembled are not comparable either initially
11. 3 or 4 or 5 or 7 or 8 or 10
or throughout the study, or can not tell
12. 1 or 11
13. Treatment.mp. or therapeutics/ Unreliable or invalid measurement methods, or
measures not applied equally, or can not tell
14. Environmental scan.mp.
Key confounders not addressed
15. exp Questionnaires/
Inadequate power to detect equivalency
16. 13 or 14 or 15
17. Prevention.mp. or exp primary prevention/
18. exp Education/ *As described by the US Preventive Services Task Force.30
J AM ACAD DERMATOL Saary et al 855
VOLUME 53, NUMBER 5

Appendix C. Bioengineering outcomes description

Electrical capacitance/corneometry Capacitance (measured on skin surface) is directly proportional to
water content of the horny layer of the skin. A plate capacitor,
which builds up an electrical field at its edges, is used to
measure capacitance.
Chromametry/colorimetry/spectrophotometry Measurement of skin redness/color, which indicates erythema
Echographic evaluation Skin thickness is measured or the difference in extent of area of
inflammation compared with a control
Laser Doppler flow This measures blood flow rate, which is an indicator of dermal
vascularity
Patch test Prevention of positivity or reduction in severity of allergic reaction
Squamometry Corneocytes are sampled using adhesive coated disks. The cells are
stained and then color measurements are made using image
analysis or chromametry (measuring reflected light).31
TEWL TEWL is a good indicator of skin barrier function. An evaporimeter,
consisting of a sensor placed 3 or 6 mm above the surface of the
skin, measures the amount of water loss by evaporation.
Damage to the skin will result in increased water loss.
Water sorption-desorption test This method involves hydrating the skin with water and then
observing the subsequent dehydration activity by means of
serial recording with electrical instruments. It is a useful tool to
measure the dynamic hydration of the skin and the stratum
corneum water-holding properties. Damage to the stratum
corneum reduces its ability to hold water.32
J AM ACAD DERMATOL 845.e1
VOLUME 53, NUMBER 5

Supplemental Table I. Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials in contact dermatitis

Comparable groups assembled initially
Outcome and maintained throughout study or body Important clinical and
assessment split-site design Outcome measurement Interventions are clearly nonclinical outcomes are
Study author(s), year published Quality rating blinded? Initial Maintenance is well described described considered ACD or ICD
Hachem et al, 200233 Good Y SS Y Y Y ACD
Held and Agner, 200135 Good Y SS Y Y Y ICD
Held, Lund, and Agner, 200136 Good Y SS Y Y Y ICD
Perrenoud et al, 200140 Good Y Y Y Y Y Y ICD
Schleimann-Willers, Wigger-Alberti, and Elsner, 200143 Good Y SS Y Y Y ICD
Zhai et al, 200044 Good Y SS Y Y Y ICD
Loden, 199737 Good Y SS Y Y Y ICD
Loden and Andersson, 199638 Good Y SS Y Y Y ICD
Pierard et al, 199441 Good Y SS Y Y Y ICD
Queille-Roussel et al, 199042 Good Y SS Y Y Y ICD
Zhai et al, 200260 Fair N SS Y Y Y ICD
Schliemann-Willers et al, 200256 Fair N SS Y Y Y ICD
Wohrl et al, 200159 Fair Y SS Y Y N ACD
McCormick et al, 200052 Fair Y Y Y Y Y N ICD
Held et al,199948 Fair N SS Y Y N ICD
Brehler et al, 1998445 Fair N SS Y Y N ACD
Elsner et al, 199847 Fair N SS Y Y Y ICD
Di Nardo et al, 199746 Fair N SS Y Y N ACD
Ramsing and Agner, 199755 Fair Y SS Y Y N ICD
Ohlenschlaeger et al, 199653 Fair N SS Y Y Y ICD
Ramsing and Agner, 199654 Fair N SS Y Y N ICD
Marks et al, 199551 Fair Y SS Y Y N ACD
Vernon and Olsen, 199057 Fair Y SS Y Y N ACD
Berardesca et al, 200164 Poor N Y Y Y N N ACD, ICD
Berndt et al, 200065 Poor Y N N Y N Y ICD
Kikuchi-Numagami et al, 199974 Poor N N N Y N ICD
Patterson et al, 199977 Poor N SS N Y N ICD
Berardesca et al, 199763 Poor Y SS Y Y Y ICD
Granlund et al, 199670 Poor Y N N Y Y N ACD
Drake and Millikan, 199567 Poor N N N Y Y Y ICD
Troost et al 199579 Poor N N N Y Y Y ACD
Halkier-Sorensen and Thestrup-Pedersen, 199372 Poor N N N Y Y Y ICD
Grevelink et al, 199271 Poor Y SS Y Y N ACD
Lauharanta et al, 199175 Poor Y Y N Y Y N ICD
Veien et al, 198580 Poor Y Y Y Y Y N ACD
Wolf-Jurgensen, 197981 Poor Y N N N Y N ACD, ICD
Medansky and Handler 197876 Poor Y N N N N N ACD, ICD
Barsky, 197661 Poor Y N N Y Y N ACD
Dickey, 197666 Poor Y Y Y N N N ACD
ACD, Allergic contact dermatitis; ICD, irritant contact dermatitis; N, no; SS, split site; Y, yes.
845.e2 J AM ACAD DERMATOL
NOVEMBER 2005

Supplemental Table II. Quality assessment of cohort studies in contact dermatitis

Comparable groups assembled initially

Outcome and maintained throughout study or Important clinical and
Confounders/Contaminants assessment: body split-site design Outcome measurement Interventions clearly nonclinical outcomes
Study authors, year published Quality rating considered? Blinded? Initial Maintenance well described described considered? ACD or ICD
Hachem et al, 200134 Good Y Y SS Y Y Y ACD
Parneix-Spake et al, 200139 Good Y Y SS Y Y Y ACD
Held et al, 200250 Fair Y N Y Y N Y N ICD
Held et al, 200149 Fair Y N Y Y Y Y Y ICD
Vidmar and Iwane, 199958 Fair Y N SS Y Y N ACD
Bauer et al, 200262 Poor Y N N N Y Y Y ICD
Goh and Gan, 199469 Poor N N N N Y Y Y ICD
Ingber et al, 199473 Poor N N N N Y Y N ACD
Pigatto et al, 199278 Poor Y N SS N Y N ACD
Epstein et al, 198268 Poor N Y N N Y Y N ACD

ACD, Allergic contact dermatitis; ICD, irritant contact dermatitis; N, no; SS, split site; Y, yes.
 J AM ACAD DERMATOL 845.e3
VOLUME 53, NUMBER 5

Supplemental Table III. Summary of results: Effect of preventive interventions on irritant contact dermatitis
Outcomes: All
Study author(s), Quality No. of outcomes
year published rating subjects Population Intervention considered Results* P value Comments: Strengths, weaknesses, EV
Perrenoud et al, Good 21 (5)† Apprentice Barrier cream (Excipal Protect) Clinical score NS Incl: At least 5 shampoos per day done without gloves
200140 hairdressers, applied to hands Tues-Sat × 4 (dryness, redness,
starting their 2nd wk, while subjects exposed to skin breaks): 0-9 Excl: Broken/oozing skin, open wounds, known allergies, use
year of studies; age irritants at work (eg, repeated Subjective NS of potent corticosteroids or any other tx that would interfere
16-30 y (20 female, shampooing, exposure to hair TEWL NS with the study
1 male) care products) Capacitance Higher in control vs treatment <.01
Chromametry NS
Control: Vehicle
Schleimann-Willers, Good 20 Healthy Caucasian Application of 0.05 mL of Clinical exam: Visual C: Lower vs control (LA) d.05 Excl: Skin disease
Wigger-Alberti, and volunteers; age various PFPE phosphate gels to (erythema)
Elsner, 200143 18-33 y (13 women, skin once daily (Mon-Fri week 1, Allowed to shower but prohibited from application of
E: Lower vs control (NaOH, week 1) d.05
7 men) Mon-Thurs week 2) detergents, moisturizers, or emollients, exposure to sun
beds/solar radiation during 12 d of investigation
Gels: F: Lower vs control (NaOH, week 1)
B: Gel base 1 (xanthan gum) as d.05 ICD: Induced by exposure to all of the following
placebo (at different sites):
SLS 5%
C: Gel base 1 + 2% HC/P2 1000 TEWL (g/m2/h) D: Lower vs control (SLS at day 5, 12) d.05 NaOH 0.5%
LA 20%
D: Gel base 1 + 5% HC/P2 1000 E: Lower vs control (SLS, day 5) d.05 TOL 100%

E: Gel base 2 (Carbomer) + 5% EV: Limited

HC/P2 1000 E: Lower vs control (NaOH week 1) d.05
F: Gel base 1 + 5% HC/P2 2000
E: Lower vs control (LA, week 1) d.05
Control:
Untreated
Gel base F: Lower vs control (SLS at day 5) d.05

F: Lower vs control (NaOH, week 1) d.05

Chromametry (a*) C: Lower vs control (LA) d.05

E: Lower vs control (SLS at day 5) d.05
E: Lower vs control (NaOH, week 1) d.05
F: Lower vs control (NaOH, week 1) d.05

Zhai et al, 200044 Good 12 Healthy Caucasian Application of dimethicone skin Clinical: Visual Less in treated vs untreated control <.01 Excl: None stated
volunteers age protectant lotion to test area
43.3 r 7.7 y before irritant exposure Less in treated vs. vehicle control <.05 ICD: Induced by SLS exposure
(7 women; 5 men)
Controls: Magnitude of test effect not stated
Untreated (ie, irritant only) TEWL (g/m2/h) Less in treated vs untreated controls at d.014
Vehicle day 5 EV: Limited
Less in treated vs vehicle control at day 5 <.05

Chromametry (a*) NS

Laser Doppler flow NS

(BFV)
Held and Agner, Good 19 (1)‡ Healthy Caucasian High lipid content moisturizer TEWL A higher vs control (day 8, 12) <.05 Excl: Hx/clinical signs of AD or CD
200135 volunteers; age (Locobase, A) vs moderate/low
24-58 y (15 women, lipid content moisturizer B vs control NS Prohibited: Use of other moisturizers on arms 7 d before or
4 men) (Decubal, B) applied tid × 5 d during study
before exposure to irritant Laser Doppler A vs control NS
ICD: Induced by SLS exposure
Control: Untreated B vs control NS
EV: Limited
Colorimetry (a*) A higher vs control (day 8, 12) <.05
Note: Results indicate that Locobase increases susceptibility
B vs control NS to irritants.
 845.e4 J AM ACAD DERMATOL
NOVEMBER 2005

Outcomes: All
Study author(s), Quality No. of outcomes
year published rating subjects Population Intervention considered Results* P value Comments: Strengths, weaknesses, EV
Clinical erythema A (1.3) vs control (0.8) <.001
(0-3)
B vs control NS

Loden, 199737 Good 13 Healthy subjects; Application of moisturizing TEWL (g/m2/h) Lower at cream-treated skin (12.4) vs <.01 Excl: Visible signs of skin disease; allowed to wash normally
age 24-58 y cream (5% urea and 5% control (19.7) but prohibited from using any other skin care products on
(10 women, hydrogenated canola oil) to arms
3 men) normal skin bid × 14 d; then
induction of irritation with 14% EV: Limited
SLS for 7 h Visual scoring: Sum Lower in cream-treated skin (11.1) than <.05
of 0-3 score for in untreated skin (26.4)
Control: Untreated erythema,
induration, and
vesiculation
expressed as % of
maximum
Pierard et al, 199441 Good 15 Healthy volunteers; Arm washed with wet softened Clinical Smoothness greater at ICD sites treated <.05 Incl: Sensitive skin (confirmed by exam and hx)
age 24-46 y towel for few seconds and then with softened towel (day 8)
patted dry with dry, softened Redness less at ICD sites treated with <.05 Excl: Acute skin disease (on exam), ACD to fabrics/materials
towel (repeated 3 ×/d, 2 ×/arm, softened towel (day 5) used in study
for 10 d) Dryness less at ICD sites treated with <.05
softened towel (day 5-8) ICD: Induced by SLS exposure
Control: Unsoftened towel
Dryness less at normal sites treated with Weakness: Poor model for simulation of wearing clothes
softened towel (day 8) <.05
EV: Limited
TEWL (g/m2/h) Lower at ICD sites treated with softened <.05
towel (day 5, 8)
Capacitance (AU) Higher at ICD sites treated with <.05
softened towel (day 5, 8)
Colorimetry (a*) Lower at ICD sites treated with softened <.05
towel (day 3-5)
Squamametry (c*) Lower at ICD sites treated with softened <.05
towel (day 3, 5, 8, 12)
Schliemann-Willers Fair 20 Healthy Topical application of natural fat Visual score (0-6) Soy B 2.55 d.05 Poorly defined incl/excl criteria: Acute induced ICD (to SLS)
et al, 200256 Caucasians; age bid (× 4 d) Rapeseed B 1.15 <.01
20-38 y Palm/rapeseed 1.10 d.01 Subjects permitted to shower but not bathe
(13 women, 7 men) Control: Untreated Use of detergents, moisturizers, emollients on back not
Palm A 1.30 d.01 permitted
Palm B 1.75 d.01 Exposure to sun beds, solar radiation discouraged
Palm D 1.90 d.01
Eucerin 0.05 d.01 EV: Limited
Petrolatum 0.10 d.01
vs Control 3.80
'TEWL Soy A 31.8 d.01
(g/m2/h)
Soy B 27.6 d.01
Rapeseed B 16.3 d.01
Palm/rapeseed 15.2 d.01
Palm A 14.9 d.01
Palm B 21.0 d.01
Palm C 30.0 d.05
Palm D 24.0 d.01
Eucerin 2.7 d.01
Petrolatum 2.8 d.01
vs Control 40.8

'Chromametry (a*) Rapeseed B 2.60 d.01

 J AM ACAD DERMATOL 845.e5
VOLUME 53, NUMBER 5

Outcomes: All
Study author(s), Quality No. of outcomes
year published rating subjects Population Intervention considered Results* P value Comments: Strengths, weaknesses, EV
Palm/rapeseed 2.34 d.01

Palm A 2.41 d.01

Palm B 3.09 d.01

Palm D 3.48 d.01

Eucerin 0.07 d.01

Petrolatum 0.07 d.01

vs Control 6.77

'Corneometry (AU) Palm A –3 d.05

Eucerin 3 d.01
Petrolatum 2 d.01
vs Control -11

Held et al, 200250 Fair 375|| Employees in elder Formalized educational Skin symptoms NS Excl: None stated
care homes; age program delivered to
19-62 y (342 “participatory team” of 10-20 Power analysis calculated to detect 20% improvement
women, 33 men) workers in each workplace. (clinical evaluation) in intervention group
They were then free to pass
information to other workers as Workplaces randomized to treatment or control
they wished.

Control: Workers at workplaces

where no educational
intervention was given

Clinical exam Greater reduction in symptoms in <.0002

(no, very mild, mild, treated group vs control (after 5 mo)
moderate, severe
symptoms)

Zhai et al, 200260 Fair 15 Healthy Caucasian Application of test emulsion to Dryness (visual) (0-4) NS Poorly defined incl/excl criteria
volunteers; age dorsum of hand before gloving,
|32-64 y (10 men, once daily, × 5 d Erythema (visual) NS EV: Limited
5 women) (0-4)
Control: Untreated Water sorption- Increased water holding capacity in <.05
desorption test treated subjects
TEWL (g/m2/h) Lower TEWL in treated subjects <.05
Capacitance (AU) Increased in treated subjects <.05

Held et al, 200149 Fair 107-13 Student auxiliary 2 × 2-h educational Clinical exam: Extent NS Excl: None stated
dropouts = nurses; age19-55 y interventions using video and of erythema or
94 (96 women, 11 booklets, covering topics of skin irritation (0-74) Good control for confounders
men) physiology, evidence-based Logistic regression
skin care program, plus
 845.e6 J AM ACAD DERMATOL
NOVEMBER 2005

Outcomes: All
Study author(s), Quality No. of outcomes
year published rating subjects Population Intervention considered Results* P value Comments: Strengths, weaknesses, EV
provision of free moisturizer TEWL NS Power analysis calculated on basis of TEWL values

Control: Student auxiliary

nurses who did not receive
educational intervention

Questionnaire: No. of NS
subjects reporting
skin problems
McCormick, Fair 54-2|| Hospital Liberal application of barrier Hand condition –2.1 points (6.5 o2.7) (treated) vs –3.8 .006 Excl: Hypersensitivity dermatitis, eczema, chronic skin
Buchman, and eliminated employees with cream (Hand Sense) to both (scaling, cracking, points (6.8 o 4.7) (control) diseases, work <20 h/wk (*)
Maki, 200052 = 52 long-standing, hands bid (4 wk) pain)
severe hand Confounders: Gloves, number of handwashings, antiseptic vs
irritation Control : Oil containing lotion regular handwash all noted. Lotion provided to all subjects
(Lubriderm) for use, ad libitum; however, amount used was noted. Also,
by end of study, control group washing hands more
Hand flora NS
frequently—any bias from this source should have favored
barrier cream.

Handwashing Control group washing frequency 50% .04 EV: Result generalizable to chronic dermatitis
frequency > treatment group at end of study
Held et al, 199948 Fair 20 Healthy volunteers; Locobase moisturizer to TEWL (g/m2/h) Higher in treated vs control (day 30) <.05 Excl: Hx/signs of dermatological disease, dry/scaly skin
age 21-57 y forearms tid × 27 d
(17 women, 3 men) Permitted to bathe/wash as usual
Control: Untreated
ICD: Induced by exposure to SLS

EV: Limited
Elsner et al, 199847 Fair 10 Healthy volunteers; Application of PFPE before Clinical examination: Lower for all PFPEs vs untreated control <.05 Irritants tested:
mean age 25.5 y exposure to irritant, once daily Erythema (0-5) (SLS, week 1) SLS
(7 male, 3 female) (Mon-Fri week 1, Mon-Thurs Lower for all PFPEs vs untreated control <.05 NaOH
week 2) (NaOH, week 1 and 2) LA
TOL
TEWL (g/m2/h) Lower for all PFPEs vs untreated control <.05
PFPEs tested: (SLS, week 1 and 2)
PFPE 0.5% EV: Limited
Lower for all PFPEs vs untreated control <.05
PFPE 1.0%
(NaOH, week 1 and 2)
PFPE 2.0%
PFPE 4.0%
Lower for PFPEs 4% vs untreated control <.05
(LA, day 12)
Controls:
Untreated Lower for PFPEs 4% vs untreated control <.05
Vehicle (TOL, day 5)
Chromametry (a*) Lower for all PFPEs vs untreated control
(SLS, week 1 and 2)

Lower for all PFPEs vs untreated control <.01

(NaOH, week 1 and 2)
Ramsing and Agner, Fair 12 Healthy volunteers; Application of moisturizer 15 TEWL (g/m2/h) Higher in control vs treated (day 3) .001 Excl: Skin disease
199755 age 25-56 y min before exposure to irritant
(11 women, 1 man) bid × 2d Laser Doppler Higher in control vs treated (day 3) .008 Subjects: Permitted to wash hands normally, ensuring that
flowmetry (BFV) both hands were equally exposed
Control: Some had immersion EC (AU) Lower in control vs treated (day 3) .002
regimen in sterile water at 20°C No other moisturizer permitted 12 h before and during study
period

Amount of moisturizer used (g) noted

Ohlenschlaeger Fair 10 Healthy female Forearm immersion in sterile TEWL (g/m2/h) NS No significant results as no signs of irritation developed
et al, 199653 volunteers; age water at 40°C for 10 min
21-49 y bid × 2 d EC (AU) NS EV: Limited
J AM ACAD DERMATOL 845.e7
VOLUME 53, NUMBER 5

Outcomes: All
Study author(s), Quality No. of outcomes
year published rating subjects Population Intervention considered Results* P value Comments: Strengths, weaknesses, EV
Spectrometry: NS Note: Another part of this study found a significantly higher
Erythema (a*) TEWL with immersion in SLS solution at 40°C compared with
20°C. This study did not meet our inclusion criteria (minimum
10 subjects).

Clinical exam: NS
Erythema, scaling
Ramsing and Agner, Fair 19 (1)|| A: Healthy women; Occlusive glove 6 h/d × 14 d TEWL (g/m2/h) Increased in gloved hand .0007 Excl: Previous hand eczema, anamnesis of AD, sensitized to
199654 age 24-55 y ubiquitous allergens
Control: Bare hand EC (AU) Higher on gloved hand (day 3 and 8) <.0083
but no significant difference day 11-14 Groups comparable with regard to age and gender.
Inflammation/ NS No mention was made of moisturizer use during study
erythema index
(spectrometry) EV: Limited
18 B: Healthy women; Cotton glove worn under TEWL (g/m2/h) Increased in gloved hand (no cotton) d.0077
age 20-48 y occlusive glove 6 h/d × 14 d from day 3 to 14
EC Increased in cotton-gloved hand, but .0066
Control: Gloved hand (no cotton significant only on day 11
glove) Inflammation/erythe NS
ma index
(spectrometry)

a*, balance between red (+ values) and green (– values); AD, Atopic dermatitis; AU, arbitrary unit; b*, the balance between yellow (+ values) and blue (– values); BFV, blood flow volume; bid, twice a day; c*, [(a*)2 + (b*)2]1/2; CD, contact dermatitis; EC, electrical capacitance; EV, external validity,
Excl, exclusions from study being discussed; HC/P2, fomblin HC/P2 (perfluoropolyether phosphate); Hx/hx, history; L*, luminance; LA, lactic acid; NaOH, sodium hydroxide; NS, no statistical significance;
PFPE, perfluoropolyether; SLS, sodium lauryl sulphate; TEWL, transepidermal water loss; tid, 3 times a day; TOL, toluene.
*For example, reduction in relative risk/absolute risk, number of events (treatment vs control).
†Five subjects dropped out for reasons not associated with the study.
‡One subject excluded for noncompliance.
§There were 88 dropouts from the study.
||One subject excluded because of development of dermatitis, day 3.
845.e8 J AM ACAD DERMATOL
NOVEMBER 2005

Supplemental Table IV. Summary of results: Effect of treatments on irritant contact dermatitis
Comments: Induction
Study author(s), Quality No. of Outcomes: All agent/technique, strengths,
year published rating subjects Population Intervention outcomes considered Results P value weaknesses, EV
Held, Lund, and Good 36 Healthy volunteers; age 18-58 y Application of moisturizer tid × 5 d; moisturizers tested: TEWL (g/m2/h) Lower for all moisturizers vs control; rank order (lowest <.05 Excl: Hand eczema, atopic dermatitis
Agner, 200136 (29 women; 7 men) Ceridal Lipogel, petrolatum, Locobase Repair, Locobase, TEWL to highest): petrolatum, Ceridal Lipogel,
Decubal, Essex Locobase, Locobase Repair, Essex, Decubal ICD: Induced by exposure to SLS
EC (AU) Higher for Ceridal Lipogel, petrolatum, Locobase <.05
Repair, and Decubal vs control EV: Limited
Laser Doppler Lower for Ceridal Lipogel, petrolatum, Locobase <.05
flowmetry (BFV) Repair, Locobase, and Decubal, vs control
Erythema index Lower for petrolatum, and Locobase Repair <.05
(spectrometry) (AU)
Clinical: Erythema Lower for Ceridal Lipogel, petrolatum, and Locobase <.05
Repair vs control
Clinical: Scaling Lower for Ceridal Lipogel, petrolatum, Locobase <.05
Repair, Decubal, and Essex vs control
Loden, 199737 Good 13 Healthy subjects; age 24-58 y A: Application of moisturizing cream (5% urea and 5% TEWL (g/m2/h) Lower in treated vs control from graph <.05 Excl: Visible signs of skin disease
(10 women, 3 men) hydrogenated canola oil) to ICD site bid × 14 d
Allowed to wash normally but
Control: Untreated prohibited from using any other skin
care products on arms
Skin hydration Higher in treated vs control (day 4-14) <.05
(corneometry) (AU) ICD: Induced by exposure to SLS
solution

EV: Limited
Clinical: Visual Treated (0) vs control (0) NS
evaluation (0-3) Done in conjunction with a
prevention study

B: Application of moisturizing cream (5% urea and 5% TEWL (g/m2/h) Treated (5.5 r 0.8) vs control (6.37 r 1.4) (day 14 only) <.01
hydrogenated canola oil) to normal skin bid × 14 d

Control: Untreated
Skin hydration Higher in treated vs control (day 1-14) <.05
(corneometry) (AU)

Clinical: Visual Not described N/A

evaluation (0-3)

Loden and Good 21 Healthy subjects; age 22-57 y Irritant-exposed skin treated with various topically applied Visible signs of Hydrocortisone vs control NS Excl: Visible signs of skin disease
Andersson, (14 women, 7 men) lipids × 17 h irritation Petrolatum vs control NS
199638 Fish oil vs control NS ICD: Induced by exposure to SLS
Control: Water
Borage oil vs control NS
Lipids: Hydrocortisone; petrolatum; fish oil; borage oil; EV: Limited
sunflower seed oil; canola oil; shea butter; fractions of Sunflower seed oil vs control NS
unsaponified lipids from canola oil and shea butter Canola oil vs control NS
Canola USF lower vs control <.05
Shea butter vs control NS
Shea USF vs control NS
Laser Doppler (skin Hydrocortisone lower vs control .0031
blood flow) Petrolatum vs control NS
Fish oil vs control NS
Borage oil vs control NS
Sunflower seed oil vs control NS
Canola oil vs control NS
Canola USF lower vs control .0004
Shea butter vs control NS
Shea USF vs control NS
TEWL Hydrocortisone lower vs control .0003
Petrolatum vs control NS
J AM ACAD DERMATOL 845.e9
VOLUME 53, NUMBER 5

Comments: Induction
Study author(s), Quality No. of Outcomes: All agent/technique, strengths,
year published rating subjects Population Intervention outcomes considered Results P value weaknesses, EV
Fish oil vs control NS
Borage oil vs control NS
Sunflower seed oil vs control NS
Canola oil lower vs control .0054
Canola USF lower vs control .0003
Shea butter vs control NS
Shea USF vs control NS
Zhai et al, 200260 Fair 15 Healthy Caucasian volunteers; Application of test emulsion to dorsum of hand before Dryness (visual) (0-4) Less in treated subjects <.05 Poorly defined incl/excl criteria
age 32-64 y with moderately gloving, once daily × 5 d Erythema (visual) NS
dry skin of hands (0-4) EV: Limited
Water sorption- <.05
desorption test (AU)
TEWL (g/m2/h) NS
Capacitance (AU) Not noted
Ramsing and Fair 12 Healthy volunteers; age 21-55 y Application of moisturizer to ICD-affected skin tid × 5 d TEWL (g/m2/h) Higher in control vs treated (day 5 of treatment) .012 Excl: Skin disease
Agner, 199755 (11 women, 1 man)
Laser Doppler NS ICD: Induced by exposure to SLS
flowmetry (BFV)
EC (AU) Lower in control vs treated (day 5 of treatment) .001 Subjects permitted to wash hands
normally, ensuring that both hands
were equally exposed

No other moisturizer permitted 12 h

before and during study period

Amount of moisturizer used (g) noted

AU, arbitrary unit; BFV, blood flow volume; bid, twice a day; EC, electrical capacitance; EV, external validity, Excl, exclusions from study being discussed; ICD, irritant contact dermatitis; incl, inclusion; LA, lactic acid; N/A, not applicable; NS, no statistical significance; SLS, sodium lauryl sulfate; tid, 3 times a day;
TEWL, transepidermal water loss; USF, unsaturated fat.
845.e10 J AM ACAD DERMATOL
NOVEMBER 2005

Supplemental Table V. Summary of results: Effect of preventive interventions on allergic contact dermatitis
Outcomes: All
Study authors, year Quality No. of outcomes
published rating subjects Population Intervention considered Results* P value Comments: Strengths, weaknesses, EV
Wohrl et al, 200159 Fair 45 45 adults with Application of DTPA before Prevention of pos 2.5% NiSO4: 1/28 pos vs 24/28 control <.0001 Well controlled; however, it was not explicitly stated
posi patch tests exposure to allergens (metal) patch test as 5% NiSO4:17/32 pos vs. 30/32 control .0005 that all subjects had Ni allergy.
to Ni, Co, Cu, determined by 1% CoCl2: 6/20 pos vs 19/20 control .001
Pd, r Cr (41 Controls ICDRG criteria 5% CuSO4: 5/14 pos vs 13/14 control .02 Excl: None stated
women, 4 men) Vehicle at patch test site 1% PdCl2: 16/23 pos vs 17/23 control NS
(pos control) KCr: 7/13 pos vs 9/13 control NS EV: Difficult to assess
Vehicle r DTPA Patch test readings at 72 h
Reduction in 2.5% NiSO4 vs pos control <.001 Clinically relevant end point
severity of patch test
reactions (absolute
No. of 3+ reactions)
5.0% NiSO4 vs pos control <.001

Hand flora NS

Handwashing Control group washing frequency 50% .04

frequency > treatment group at end of study
Vidmar and Fair 48 Healthy service Application of TSP before patch Clinical: Patch test 0.37 (treated) vs 2.39 (control) (ie, mean <.001 Excl: Pregnant, HIV+, atopic, significant dermatologic
Iwane,199958 members with testing with urushiol (Rhus reaction severity difference between treated and control condition (determined by investigator), allergic to
self-admitted antigen) (9 point scale from sites = –2.02, 95% CI: 2.18, –1.87) glycols/skin care products, systemic corticosteroids or
hx of poison 0-4, using 0.5 antihistamines within 1 mo, topical steroids on
ivy/oak ACD, Controls increments) arms/forearms within 2 wk, exposed forearms to
92% Caucasian; Pos control (untreated) sunlight to point of erythema within 7 d, sunburn
age 18-44 y Neg control (vehicle) anywhere within 1 mo, NSAID use within 14 d
(34 men, 14
women) Thorough screening process included hx, physical
exam, HIV and pregnancy testing

Patch test evaluation at up to 96 h (powered to

detect t0.2 point difference in score)

EV: Limited
Brehler et al, 199845 Fair 35-2† Volunteers with Pentoxifylline cream applied to Clinical score NS EV: Limited
history of Ni normal skin bid × 8 d (occluded (Rietschel)
contact on day 8) before exposure to Ni
hypersensitivity; patch
age 20-45 y
Control: Cream base

Di Nardo et al, Fair 22 Ni-sensitized MF applied to patch test site 16 Echographic CB vs control 1.38 ± 0.35 vs Not stated Patch test evaluation at 64.5 h
199746 women; age h and 40 h after Ni patch test evaluation (skin 1.68
18-45 y application (occluded) thickness in mm) CP vs control 1.23 ± 0.26 vs Not stated Both outcomes revealed MF to be significantly
1.68 different from all products tested, except CP;
Control: Untreated Ni patch HC acetate vs control NS however, no P values are reported. These data should
be interpreted with caution.
MF vs control 1.35 ± 0.39 vs Not stated EV: Limited
1.68
Image analysis CB vs control 1245 ± 2985 ?
(echo): ' in extent of
area of inflammation
compared with CP vs control 4090 ± 3143 ?
control echo
amplitude on an
arbitrary numerical HC acetate vs control 5275 ± 3052 ?
scale (0-255)
J AM ACAD DERMATOL 845.e11
VOLUME 53, NUMBER 5

Outcomes: All
Study authors, year Quality No. of outcomes
published rating subjects Population Intervention considered Results* P value Comments: Strengths, weaknesses, EV
MF vs control 3617 ± 3154 ?

Marks et al, 199551 Fair 144 Healthy Application of 5% quaternium-18 Clinical: Mean score Lower scores in treated vs control <.0001 Excl: Immunosuppressive disease/meds, topical
volunteers with bentonite lotion before patch on 0-7 scale steroid/other med application to test sites, pregnant,
hx of naturally testing with urushiol (Rhus Clinical: max scores Lower max scores in treated <.0001 nursing, significant cutaneous disorder, absent or
occurring ACD antigen) Clinical: No. with no 98 (68%) treated vs 1 (0.69%) control <.0001 questionable reaction at control site
to poison reaction
oak/ivy with Clinical: Time to Longer time to appearance of reaction <.0001
one episode in appearance of in treated vs control EV: Limited
past 5 y reaction
Control:
Untreated

', Change; CB, clobetasol butyrate; CI, confidence interval; CP, clobetasol propionate; DTPA, diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid; EV, external validity; Excl, exclusions from study being discussed; HC, hydrocortisone; hx, history; ICDRG, International Contact Dermatitis
Research Group; max, maximum; MF, mometasone furoate; neg, negative; NS, no statistical significance; NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; pos, positive; TSP, topical skin protectant.
*For example, reduction in relative risk/absolute risk, number of events (treatment vs control).
†Two subjects excluded for missing appointments.
845.e12
Supplemental Table VI. Summary of results: Effect of treatments on ACD
Study authors, year published
Hachem et al, 200233
Hachem et al, 200134
Parmeix-Spake, Goustas,
and Green, 200139
Queille-Roussel et al, 199042
Quality No of
rating subjects Population Intervention
Good 20 White, female volunteers 0.05% Micronized fluticasone
with Ni contact allergy propionate bid × 4 d (started 48
(confirmed before study); h after Ni patch application)
age 22-42 y
Controls: Saline patch on
normal skin (neg control);
vehicle applied to Ni patch site
(pos control); untreated Ni
patch site (pos control)
Good 14 Healthy, white, female Combination therapy A + B:
volunteers with patch- A = 0.05% fluticasone
confirmed Ni contact propionate, B = Dermalex
allergy; age 24-36 y (barrier cream) applied bid
(day 4-7)
Controls:
Untreated
Only steroid (A)
Only barrier cream (B)
Good 18 Healthy female Immediately after patch test
volunteers with hx of Ni (48 h after application) 10 PL of
ACD (confirmed by patch Eumovate (CB) 0.05% cream
testing); age 18-45 y applied to test site, then bid for
7d
Controls:
Untreated
Emollient base
HC 1% cream
Good 12 Healthy volunteers with Application of anti-
Ni contact allergy (based inflammatory agents (CP 0.05%,
on hx of pos patch test); HC 1%, indomethacin 2.5%, or
age 21-38 y (11 women, bufexamac 5.0%) bid × 4.5 d
1 man)
Control: vehicle
J AM ACAD DERMATOL
NOVEMBER 2005
Outcomes: All outcomes Comments: Induction agent/technique,
considered Results P value strengths, weaknesses, EV
TEWL (g/m2/h) Less in treated (day 4, ie, 6 h after treatment <.001 Excl: Active dermatitis, irritant dermatitis,
application) compared with untreated control atopic dermatitis
SC hydration (capacitance Improved in vehicle control compared with .007
[AU]) untreated (day 8), but no significant effect of ACD: Induced using Ni patch
treatment compared with either vehicle or
untreated control EV: Limited
Clinical score (sum of Lower in treated (day 7, 8) compared with <.014
erythema [0-3], papulation untreated control
[0-3], itch [0-3])
TEWL (g/m2/h) Decreased in A + B vs untreated (day 5, 6, 8) <.009 A: Induced using Ni patch
Decreased in A + B vs A (day 8) .002
Excl: Active dermatitis, irritant dermatitis,
Decreased in A + B vs B (day 5) .022 atopic dermatitis
Decreased in A vs B (day 8) .022 EV: Limited
SC capacitance (AU) Increased in A + B vs untreated (day 6, 8) d.035
Increased in A + B vs A (day 7, 8) .035
Increased in B vs untreated (day 5-8) d.026
Increased in B vs A (day 6-8) d.019
Clinical score (sum of A + B (2.00) vs B (1.43) (day 7) .041
erythema [0-3], papulation
[0-3], itch [0-3])
B (1.43) vs A (1.86) (day 7) .038
B (1.43, 0.86) vs untreated (2.00, 1.07) (day 7, 8) d.031
Clinical Visual: No significant difference in rate of NS Excl: Skin that would not allow accurate
healing evaluation (too dark, too much hair, too
Patient rated pruritus NS many nevi, clinically significant
dermatosis), hx of hypersensitivity/allergy
to any drug incl study meds or their
TEWL (' from CB) HC 1% cream (–7.1; 95% CI: 11, –3.4) <.001 constituents, treatment with topical or
(g/m2/h) systemic corticosteroids within previous 4
Untreated (–8.5, 95% CI: 12, –4.9) <.001 wk, hx of alcoholism/drug abuse
CB base (–2.8, 95% CI: 6.5, –0.8) NS Prohibited:
Use of concomitant medication
Colorimetry (' from CB) HC 1% cream NS (systemic/topical) during study that may
(AU) have affected outcome
Untreated (-1.5, 95% CI: 2.3, –0.7) <.001 Phototherapy/UV exposure
CB cream base NS A: Induced using Ni patch
Questionable validity of Physician Global
Assessment as outcome measure,
incompatible with blinded assessment
EV: limited
Clinical: Visual (0-9) Dermoval showed improvement <.05 Excl: Local/systemic treatment
('day7-day3)
A: Induced using Ni patch
Note: Regression model demonstrated
Colorimetry (a*) Dermoval showed improvement <.05 that the following were predictive of 'VS:
('day7-day3) –6.41 r 0.93 'a*
'L*
'b*
J AM ACAD DERMATOL 845.e13
VOLUME 53, NUMBER 5

Quality No of Outcomes: All outcomes Comments: Induction agent/technique,

Study authors, year published rating subjects Population Intervention considered Results P value strengths, weaknesses, EV
Colorimetry (L*) Dermoval showed improvement <.05 Log (SBF) (day 7)
('day7-day3) 3.16 r 0.75 Log (TEWL) (day 7)
TEWL (g/m2/h) NS Poor/incomplete reporting of results
('day7-day3)
Laser Doppler velocimetry Dermoval showed improvement <.05 EV: Limited
(SBF) –1.17 r 0.20
('day7-day3)

Vernon and Ohlsen, 199057
Fair 20 Subjects with Rhus CP ointment to patch-tested Erythema Less at CP 12 (day 4) v. control <.03 Excl: Pregnant, nursing, dermatitis in study
contact allergy; area (Rhus antigen) bid started area, topical steroids within 2 wk,
age 20-40 y at 12 (CP 12), 24 (CP 24), or 48 h Less at all sites (day 7-10) vs control <.01 immunosuppressed/systemic
(CP 48) after application of corticosteroids within 1 mo, atopic
patch; continued bid for Less at CP12 and CP 24 (day 14) vs control Not dermatitis, asthma, allergic rhinitis,
14 d stated immune disorder, diabetes mellitus
Induration/edema Less at all sites at day 7 vs control <.01
Control: White petrolatum EV: Limited
Less at CP 12 and CP 24 (day 14) Not
stated
Pruritus Less at CP 12 vs/ control (day 2) .05

Vesiculation Less at CP12 (from day 2-14) vs control <.05

Less at CP 24 (from day 4-14) v. control <.05

Less at CP 48 (from day 7-14) vs control <.05

', Change; 'VS, change in visual score; AU, allergenic unit; bid, twice a day; CB, clobetasol butyrate; CI, confidence interval; CP, clobetasol propionate; EV, external validity, Excl, exclusions from study being discussed; HC, hydrocortisone; hx, history; neg, negative; NS, no statistical significance; pos, positive;
SBF, skin blood flow; SC, stratum corneum TEWL, transepidermal water loss.