Prevalence of Contact Sensitization in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis: A Retrospective Study from China

Authors

  • Ao Wang Department of Allergy, Shanghai Skin Disease Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
  • Chengbin Ye Department of Allergy, Shanghai Skin Disease Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
  • Chengwen Fei Department of Allergy, Shanghai Skin Disease Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
  • Yingfang Li Department of Allergy, Shanghai Skin Disease Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
  • Yuelong Ma Department of Allergy, Shanghai Skin Disease Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
  • Ting Cao Department of Allergy, Shanghai Skin Disease Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
  • Yue Wu Department of Allergy, Shanghai Skin Disease Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
  • Yanchun Cheng Department of Allergy, Shanghai Skin Disease Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
  • Fei Hao Department of Allergy, Shanghai Skin Disease Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China; Dermatology and Plastic Surgery Center, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
  • Ying Zou Department of Allergy, Shanghai Skin Disease Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2340/actadv.v106.adv-2026-0617

Keywords:

atopic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, patch testing

Abstract

The prevalence of contact sensitization in atopic dermatitis (AD) has been controversial and remains poorly studied in the Chinese population. This retrospective study aimed to assess the prevalence and differences ofin contact sensitization between AD and non-AD patients undergoing patch testing in China. We analyzedanalysed clinical records of 3,487 patients who underwent patch testing from 2018 to 2023,, including 146 AD patients and 33413,341 non-AD patients. Results demonstrated that contact sensitization prevalence was similar in AD and non-AD groups (82.88% vs 84.71%, p=0.55). Common allergens included nickel, methylisothiazolinone, dodecyl gallate, and cobalt chloride hexahydrate in both groups. AD patients showed higher positive reactions to hexahydro-1,3,5-tris-(2-hydroxyethyl) triazine (11.11% vs 5.85%, p<0.01), methyldibromo glutaronitrile (10.27% vs 4.97%, p<0.01), quaternium-15 (7.53% vs 3.68%, p=0.02), ethylenediamine dihydrochloride (3.42% vs 0.72%, p<0.01), propylene glycol (2.86% vs 0.60%, p=0.01), and 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (2.74% vs 0.78%, p=0.03), compared to non-AD, particularly females. Contact sensitization prevalence increased with age in both groups. This study showed that the prevalence of contact sensitization was comparable between the AD and non-AD groups in China. However, AD patients exhibited heightened sensitivity to formaldehyde releasers and propylene glycol, commonly found in moisturizers.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Langan SM, Irvine AD, Weidinger S. Atopic dermatitis. Lancet 2020; 396: 345–360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31286-1

Sheikh HM, Jha RK. Triggered skin sensitivity: understanding contact Dermatitis. Cureus 2024; 16: e59486. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.59486

Kan AKC, Tang WT, Li PH. Helper T cell subsets: Development, function and clinical role in hypersensitivity reactions in the modern perspective. Heliyon 2024; 10: e30553. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30553

Uehara M, Sawai T. A longitudinal study of contact sensitivity in patients with atopic dermatitis. Arch Dermatol 1989; 125: 366–368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.1989.01670150056006

Thyssen JP, McFadden JP, Kimber I. The multiple factors affecting the association between atopic dermatitis and contact sensitization. Allergy 2014; 69: 28–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/all.12358

Kim J, Ahn K. Atopic dermatitis endotypes: knowledge for personalized medicine. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2022; 22: 153–159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACI.0000000000000820

Malajian D, Belsito DV. Cutaneous delayed-type hypersensitivity in patients with atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2013; 69: 232–237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2013.03.012

Johnson H, Aquino MR, Snyder A, Collis RW, Franca K, Goldenberg A, et al. Prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis in children with and without atopic dermatitis: A multicenter retrospective case-control study. J Am Acad Dermatol 2023; 89: 1007–1014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2023.06.048

Choi YJ, Byun JY, Choi YW, Roh JY, Choi HY. Analysis of positive patch test allergens in allergic contact dermatitis patients with atopic dermatitis. Ann Dermatol 2023; 35: 303–312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5021/ad.23.001

Wee C, Tan CH, Zhao X, Yew YW, Goon A. Pattern of contact sensitization in patients with and without atopic dermatitis in an Asian dermatology center. Contact Derm 2022; 86: 398–403. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14068

Silverberg JI, Hou A, Warshaw EM, DeKoven JG, Maibach HI, Belsito DV, et al. Prevalence and trend of allergen sensitization in adults and children with atopic dermatitis referred for patch testing, North American contact dermatitis group data, 2001-2016. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2021; 9: 2853–2866. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2021.03.028

Williams HC, Burney PG, Pembroke AC, Hay RJ. The U.K. working party’s diagnostic criteria for atopic dermatitis. III. Independent hospital validation. Br J Dermatol 1994; 131: 406–416. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.1994.tb08532.x

Cao T, Ma Y, Wu X, Ye C, Fei C, Li Y, et al. Patch testing in chinese patients with facial dermatitis: a 4-year clinical experience. Dermatitis 2025; 36: e279–e282. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/derm.2023.0339

Zou Y, Li LF. The Chinese Baseline Series. In: Johansen JD, Mahler V, Lepoittevin JP, Frosch PJ, editors. Contact Dermatitis. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021: p. 717–743. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36335-2_67

Bruze M, Svedman C. Clarification and modification of the international contact dermatitis research group classification of patch test reactions on behalf of the international contact dermatitis research group. Dermatitis 2025; 36: 440–446. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/derm.2024.0365

Carlsen BC, Andersen KE, Menné T, Johansen JD. Patients with multiple contact allergies: a review. Contact Derm 2008; 58: 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01232.x

Pesqué D, Borrego L, Zaragoza-Ninet V, Sanz-Sánchez T, Miquel-Miquel FJ, González-Pérez R, et al. Polysensitization in the Spanish Contact Dermatitis Registry (REIDAC): A 2019-2022 prospective study with cluster and network analysis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2025; 39: 126–135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.19934

Hamann CR, Hamann D, Egeberg A, Johansen JD, Silverberg J, Thyssen JP. Association between atopic dermatitis and contact sensitization: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2017; 77: 70–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2017.02.001

Peng F, Schwartz RA, Chen Z, Zhang JZ. High prevalence of contact hypersensitivity to metals and preservatives in Chinese patients with atopic dermatitis. Chin Med J (Engl) 2019; 132: 2881–2882. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000000526

Dou X, Zhao Y, Ni C, Zhu X, Liu L. Prevalence of contact allergy at a dermatology clinic in China from 1990-2009. Dermatitis 2011; 22: 324–331. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2310/6620.2011.11051

Goossens A, Aerts O. Contact allergy to and allergic contact dermatitis from formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers: aA clinical review and update. Contact Derm 2022; 87: 20–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14089

Bordel-Gómez MT, Miranda-Romero A, Castrodeza-Sanz J. Epidemiology of contact dermatitis: prevalence of sensitization to different allergens and associated factors. Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas (English Edition) 2010; 101: 59–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1578-2190(10)70581-3

Gilchrest BA, Murphy GF, Soter NA. Effect of chronologic aging and ultraviolet irradiation on Langerhans cells in human epidermis. J Invest Dermatol 1982; 79: 85–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1523-1747.ep12500031

Xia T, Zhou Y, An J, Cui Z, Zhong X, Cui T, et al. Benefit delayed immunosenescence by regulating CD4+T cells: aA promising therapeutic target for aging-related diseases. Aging Cell 2024; 23: e14317. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/acel.14317

Sharma AD. Low nickel diet in dermatology. Indian J Dermatol 2013; 58: 240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5154.110846

Dhingra N, Shemer A, Correa da Rosa J, Rozenblit M, Fuentes-Duculan J, Gittler JK, et al. Molecular profiling of contact dermatitis skin identifies allergen-dependent differences in immune response. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2014; 134: 362–372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2014.03.009

Novak N, Baurecht H, Schäfer T, Rodriguez E, Wagenpfeil S, Klopp N, et al. Loss-of-function mutations in the filaggrin gene and allergic contact sensitization to nickel. J Invest Dermatol 2008; 128: 1430–1435. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jid.5701190

Jensen CS, Menné T, Duus Johansen J. Systemic contact dermatitis after oral exposure to nickel: a review with a modified meta‐analysis. Contact Derm 2006; 54: 79–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2006.00773.x

Wollenberg A, Christen-Zäch S, Taieb A, Paul C, Thyssen JP, de Bruin-Weller M, et al. ETFAD/EADV Eczema task force 2020 position paper on diagnosis and treatment of atopic dermatitis in adults and children. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2020; 34: 2717–2744. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.16892

Lalla SC, Nguyen H, Chaudhry H, Killian JM, Drage LA, Davis MDP, et al. Patch testing to propylene glycol: the mayo clinic experience. Dermatitis 2018; 29: 200–205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000393

Pemberton MA, Kimber I. Propylene glycol, skin sensitisation and allergic contact dermatitis: A scientific and regulatory conundrum. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2023; 138: 105341. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2023.105341

Shaughnessy CN, Malajian D, Belsito DV. Cutaneous delayed-type hypersensitivity in patients with atopic dermatitis: reactivity to topical preservatives. J Am Acad Dermatol 2014; 70: 102–107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2013.08.046

Lundov MD, Johansen JD, Carlsen BC, Engkilde K, Menné T, Thyssen JP. Formaldehyde exposure and patterns of concomitant contact allergy to formaldehyde and formaldehyde‐releasers. Contact Derm 2010; 63: 31–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2010.01745.x

Hauksson I, Pontén A, Gruvberger B, Isaksson M, Engfeldt M, Bruze M. Skincare products containing low concentrations of formaldehyde detected by the chromotropic acid method cannot be safely used in formaldehyde-allergic patients. Br J Dermatol 2016; 174: 371–379. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.14241

Kim YM, Kim J, Ha SC, Ahn K. Harmful effect of indoor formaldehyde on atopic dermatitis in children: a longitudinal study. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res 2021; 13: 468–478. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4168/aair.2021.13.3.468

Kim JY, Jeong MS, Park KY, Seo SJ. Aggravation of atopic dermatitis-like symptoms by consecutive low concentration of formaldehyde exposure in NC/Nga mice. Exp Dermatol 2013; 22: 219–221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/exd.12092

Teo Y, McFadden JP, White IR, Lynch M, Banerjee P. Allergic contact dermatitis in atopic individuals: Results of a 30‐year retrospective study. Contact Derm 2019; 81: 409–416. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.13363

Nicolai S, Wegrecki M, Cheng TY, Bourgeois EA, Cotton RN, Mayfield JA, et al. Human T cell response to CD1a and contact dermatitis allergens in botanical extracts and commercial skin care products. Sci Immunol 2020; 5: eaax5430. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciimmunol.aax5430

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2026-11-04

How to Cite

Wang, A., Ye, C., Fei, C., Li, Y., Ma, Y., Cao, T., … Zou, Y. (2026). Prevalence of Contact Sensitization in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis: A Retrospective Study from China. Acta Dermato-Venereologica, 106, adv–2026. https://doi.org/10.2340/actadv.v106.adv-2026-0617

Issue

Vol. 106 (2026)

Section

Articles

Categories

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

All digitalized ActaDV contents is available freely online. The Society for Publication of Acta Dermato-Venereologica owns the copyright for all material published until volume 88 (2008) and as from volume 89 (2009) the journal has been published fully Open Access, meaning the authors retain copyright to their work.

Unless otherwise specified, all Open Access articles are published under CC-BY-NC licences, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for non-commercial purposes, provided proper attribution to the original work.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC