Systemic contact dermatitis to a surgical implant presenting as red decorative tattoo reaction

Hypersensitivity to permanent tattoos: Literature summary and comprehensive review of patch tested tattoo patients 1997-2022

We outline constituents of tattoo and permanent make-up ink with regard to inflammatory tattoo reactions and population-based confounders. The comprehensive review of patch-tested tattoo patients between 1997 and 2022 shows that tattoo allergy cannot be reliably diagnosed via patch testing with today's knowledge. Weak penetration and slow haptenization of pigments, unavailability of pigments as test allergens and a lack of knowledge concerning relevant epitopes hamper the diagnosis of tattoo allergy. Patch testing p-phenylenediamine and disperse (textile) dyes is not able to close this gap. Sensitization to metals was associated with all types of tattoo complications, although often not clinically relevant for the tattoo reaction. Binders and industrial biocides are frequently missing on ink declarations and should be patch tested. The pigment carbon black (C.I. 77266) is no skin sensitizer. Patch tests with culprit inks were usually positive with cheap ink products for non-professional use or with professionally used inks in patients with eczematous reactions characterized by papules and infiltration. Tape stripping before patch testing and patch test readings on Day 8 or 10 may improve the diagnostic quality. The meaningfulness of the categorical EU-wide ban of Pigment Green 7 and Pigment Blue 15:3 is not substantiated by the presented data.

Systemic Contact Dermatitis: The Routes of Allergen Entry

Systemic contact dermatitis (SCD) is a generalized reactivation of type IV hypersensitivity skin diseases in individuals with previous sensitization after a contact allergen is administered systemically. Patients with SCD may consider their dermatitis unpredictable and recalcitrant since the causative allergens are difficult to find. If a patient has a pattern of dermatitis suggestive of SCD but fails to improve with conventional treatment, SCD should be taken into consideration. If doctors are not familiar with the presentations of SCD and the possible routes of allergen sensitization and exposure, the diagnosis of SCD may be delayed. In this work, we summarized all of the routes through which allergens can enter the body and cause SCD, including oral intake, local contact (through skin, inhalation, nasal spray and anal application), implants, and other iatrogenic or invasive routes (intravenous, intramuscular, intraarticular, and intravesicular). This will provide a comprehensive reference for the clinicians to identify the culprit of SCD.

Tattoos - more than just colored skin? Searching for tattoo allergens

During tattooing, a high amount of ink is injected into the skin. Tattoo inks contain numerous substances such as the coloring pigments, impurities, solvents, emulsifiers, and preservatives. Black amorphous carbon particles (carbon black), white titanium dioxide, azo or polycyclic pigments create all varieties of color shades in the visible spectrum. Some ingredients of tattoo inks might be hazardous and allergenic chemicals of unknown potential. In Germany, about 20 % of the general population is tattooed and related adverse reactions are increasingly reported. Since tattoo needles inevitably harm the skin, microorganisms can enter the wound and may cause infections. Non-allergic inflammatory reactions (for example cutaneous granuloma and pseudolymphoma) as well as allergic reactions may emerge during or after wound healing. Especially with allergies occurring after weeks, months or years, it remains difficult to identify the specific ingredient(s) that trigger the reaction. This review summarizes possible adverse effects related to tattooing with a focus on the development of tattoo-mediated allergies. To date, relevant allergens were only identified in rare cases. Here we present established methods and discuss current experimental approaches to identify culprit allergens in tattoo inks - via testing of the patient and in vitro approaches.

Distribution of nickel and chromium containing particles from tattoo needle wear in humans and its possible impact on allergic reactions

BACKGROUND

Allergic reactions to tattoos are amongst the most common side effects occurring with this permanent deposition of pigments into the dermal skin layer. The characterization of such pigments and their distribution has been investigated in recent decades. The health impact of tattoo equipment on the extensive number of people with inked skin has been the focus of neither research nor medical diagnostics. Although tattoo needles contain high amounts of sensitizing elements like nickel (Ni) and chromium (Cr), their influence on metal deposition in skin has never been investigated.

RESULTS

Here, we report the deposition of nano- and micrometer sized tattoo needle wear particles in human skin that translocate to lymph nodes. Usually tattoo needles contain nickel (6-8%) and chromium (15-20%) both of which prompt a high rate of sensitization in the general population. As verified in pig skin, wear significantly increased upon tattooing with the suspected abrasive titanium dioxide white when compared to carbon black pigment. Additionally, scanning electron microscopy of the tattoo needle revealed a high wear after tattooing with ink containing titanium dioxide. The investigation of a skin biopsy obtained from a nickel sensitized patient with type IV allergy toward a tattoo showed both wear particles and iron pigments contaminated with nickel.

CONCLUSION

Previously, the virtually inevitable nickel contamination of iron pigments was suspected to be responsible for nickel-driven tattoo allergies. The evidence from our study clearly points to an additional entry of nickel to both skin and lymph nodes originating from tattoo needle wear with an as yet to be assessed impact on tattoo allergy formation and systemic sensitization.

Pathomechanisms of Contact Sensitization

Contact sensitization is the initial process involved in the development of an allergic reaction to xenobiotic environmental substances. Here, we briefly describe the differences between irritant and allergic contact dermatitis. Then, we highlight the essential steps involved in the development of an ACD reaction, i.e., the protein binding of haptens, genetic factors influencing the penetration of sensitizers into the skin, the different mechanisms driving the initial development of an inflammatory cytokine micromilieu enabling the full maturation of dendritic cells, the role of pre- and pro-haptens, antigen presentation and T cell activation via MHC and CD1 molecules, dendritic cell (DC) migration, and potential LC contribution as well as the different T cell subsets involved in ACD. In addition, we discuss the latest publications regarding factors that might influence the sensitizing potential such as repeated sensitizer application, penetration enhancers, humidity of the skin, microbiota, Tregs, and phthalates. Last but not least, we briefly touch upon novel targets for drug development that might serve as treatment options for ACD.