Perioral Dermatitis Treatment: What the Trials Show, the Steroid Trigger and Barrier-Safe Skincare
Start with our pillar guide: What Is the Skin Barrier? The Science of Hydration, Ceramides and Occlusives, or browse all Skincare Fundamentals articles.
Perioral dermatitis treatment has no FDA-approved standard. Trials have tested oral tetracycline, topical metronidazole and pimecrolimus, but a 2022 systematic review rated all the evidence low or very low certainty. Topical steroids are the best-supported trigger, so care often begins with a clinician reviewing steroid use and simplifying skincare.
Evidence: Limited.
Key takeaways
- A 2022 systematic review of 11 studies and 733 participants found only low and very low certainty evidence for perioral dermatitis treatment (Gray et al., 2022).
- A 2026 JAAD review states that no therapies are specifically FDA-approved for the condition (Acevedo-Fontanez et al., 2026).
- A 2021 systematic review found the strongest evidence for topical corticosteroid misuse as the principal cause (Searle et al., 2021).
- A 108-patient randomized trial found oral tetracycline significantly more effective than 1% metronidazole cream at 8 weeks (Veien, 1991).
- A 40-patient pimecrolimus trial found a benefit during treatment but no significant difference at follow-up (Oppel, 2007).
- The fluoride toothpaste trigger rests on one case report in the abstracts we reviewed (Peters, 2013).
What is perioral dermatitis, and why is treatment uncertain?
Perioral dermatitis is a chronic facial rash of small bumps and pus-filled spots, usually around the mouth. Treatment is uncertain because its cause is incompletely understood and no therapy is specifically FDA-approved (Acevedo-Fontanez et al., 2026).
The 2026 JAAD narrative review covers inciting factors, skin barrier dysfunction, inflammation and the microbiome, without figures in its abstract. Its authors state industry ties, including one author's work with Galderma and other companies, and describe those ties as unrelated to the paper or topic.
A narrower 2019 review argues that a weak skin barrier is the main underlying factor, but its abstract offers no data (Balić et al., 2019). In a single-center review of 1,032 rosacea and perioral dermatitis patients, 18.5% had perioral dermatitis, and they were younger and predominantly female (Hoepfner et al., 2020). No conflict statement appears in either PubMed record. Evidence: Limited.
What triggers perioral dermatitis?
Topical steroids are the best-supported trigger. Evidence for nasal and inhaled steroids in children is an association, while the case for fluoride toothpaste and cosmetics is much weaker.
Topical steroids. A 2021 systematic review graded with Oxford evidence levels found the "strongest evidence" for topical corticosteroid misuse as the principal cause (Searle et al., 2021). Its abstract doesn't give the number of included studies, and the record has no conflict statement. A narrative paper adds that prolonged or repeated use can worsen the rash or, in some cases, induce it (Del Rosso, 2011).
Nasal and inhaled steroids in children. A 2026 retrospective TriNetX cohort of US patients under 18 with allergic rhinitis or asthma reported a relative risk (RR) of 3.25 for new perioral dermatitis at 6 months and 2.27 at 1 year (Merkle et al., 2026). Nonsteroid nasal and inhaled products showed no such association. The total n isn't in the abstract, the authors declare no conflicts, and this design can't prove cause. These medicines treat real conditions, so ask the prescriber about any concern and see a pediatric clinician about the rash.
High-fluoride toothpaste. The evidence here is one case report: a 45-year-old woman with a 1-year rash linked to highly fluoridated toothpaste started for dental caries (Peters, 2013). One case can't show how often this happens. Ask your dentist before changing a prescribed toothpaste.
Cosmetics and rich creams. A 2005 appraisal of 30 papers noted consistent reports around discontinuing cosmetics (Weber et al., 2005), and the barrier review proposes that irritants affect vulnerable skin (Balić et al., 2019). No trial in the abstracts we reviewed tests rich creams as a trigger. Evidence: Limited for steroids and children's association data; Early / preliminary for fluoride; Expert opinion for cosmetics.
Why can stopping steroids make perioral dermatitis flare first?
Clinicians often warn that the rash can look worse when a steroid comes off, but no study in the abstracts we reviewed measures this rebound. If you use a steroid, ask the prescriber how to come off it.
We can't give a timeline, a rebound rate or a proven way to reduce a flare. The closest trial finding is indirect: patients with prior topical steroid use "benefited most" in a pimecrolimus trial (Schwarz, 2008). That tells us who responded in one study, not what happens after a steroid is withdrawn. If you use a nasal or inhaled steroid for asthma or allergies, ask the prescriber. Evidence: Expert opinion; no study in the abstracts we reviewed measures rebound.
Is "zero therapy" a real perioral dermatitis treatment?
Zero therapy, meaning pausing nonessential facial products while the rash settles, is a common approach but a weakly studied one. No trial in the abstracts we reviewed tests it.
The closest source is the 2005 appraisal, which found only 2 therapeutic trials of medium-range quality among 30 papers. It noted consistency for discontinuing topical steroids and cosmetics and, "to a lesser extent," for no therapy (Weber et al., 2005). Consistency across mostly low-quality papers isn't the same as a controlled result. The authors had 2 other reviewers assess their own 2 papers.
There's one indirect clue. Vehicle patients, who still applied the cream base twice a day without the drug, averaged a severity score of 3.5 from a baseline of 5.2 in a pimecrolimus trial (Schwarz, 2008). The trial noted that vehicle isn't a true placebo, and because those patients still applied a cream, this isn't a test of doing less, so it doesn't prove that doing less works. Evidence: Expert opinion; weakly studied.
Which prescription perioral dermatitis treatment has the best evidence?
Oral tetracycline has the most direct comparative support, and pimecrolimus has vehicle-controlled trials. Even so, the best available review rates the whole evidence base low or very low certainty (Gray et al., 2022).
The table reports strengths and products as studied, not as recommendations. PODSI is the Perioral Dermatitis Severity Index, a clinician score of rash severity. Vehicle means the same base without the active ingredient. Talk to a dermatologist about whether any of these options suits you.
| Treatment | Design, n | Result as in abstract | Certainty and ties |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oral tetracycline (Veien; Gray) | Double-blind RCT vs 1% metronidazole cream, n=108, 8 wk | Veien: median papules fell to 0% of baseline. Gray (2022 review): may improve severity from day 20 | Low certainty; no funding in Veien record |
| 1% pimecrolimus cream (Schwarz) | Multicenter double-blind vehicle RCT in adults, n not in abstract, until clearance, max 4 wk | PODSI 2.6 vs 3.5; difference 0.9 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.4, P=.0011) | Non-US-government support tag; funder not named |
| 1% pimecrolimus cream (Oppel) | Single-center double-blind vehicle RCT, n=40, 4 wk plus 4 wk follow-up | Lower PODSI during treatment (P=0.005-0.02); no significant difference at follow-up | Non-US-government support tag; funder not named |
| Azelaic acid gel (Gray; Jansen) | Systematic review; separate open study has title only | May result in no change at 6 wk | Certainty not stated for this result; open study not assessable |
| 3% praziquantel ointment (Bribeche) | Single-blind vehicle pilot RCT, n=46, 4 wk plus 4 wk follow-up | Better PODSI; IGA advantage at wk 4 (P<0.001); no serious treatment-related adverse events | Very uncertain in Gray; no funding in record; not a US product |
| ALA photodynamic therapy (Richey) | Split-face vs topical clindamycin, 21 enrolled, 14 completed, duration not reported | Mean clearance 92.1% vs 80.9% (P=0.0227) | Early / preliminary; no funding in record |
| Ivermectin cream (Charnowski; Schaller) | Report and retrospective case series; no abstracts | Titles only; no results can be reported here | Schaller author has Galderma ties; Charnowski authors disclose nothing |
| Oral isotretinoin, adapalene gel (Searle) | Systematic review, number of studies not in abstract | "Further research is required" | No conflict statement in record |
Oral tetracycline's possible adverse effects include abdominal discomfort, facial dryness and itching, while pimecrolimus's may include redness, herpes simplex infection, burning and itching (Gray et al., 2022). For pimecrolimus at 4 weeks, Gray reports a mean difference of -0.49 (95% CI -1.02 to 0.04, n=164). That interval includes zero, which fits the review's cautious wording of "slightly." Both pimecrolimus trials carry a PubMed tag for non-US-government support, and neither abstract names the funder.
Ivermectin needs an extra caution. The 2019 Charnowski paper is titled "Perioral Dermatitis Successfully Treated with Topical Ivermectin," but it has no abstract, so we can't report its n or result. The 2025 Schaller case series also has no abstract. Its first author reports consulting for Galderma, which makes ivermectin cream, as well as AbbVie, Bayer, L'Oréal and UCB. The other 3 authors declare no conflicts.
A narrative paper makes the case for a low-dose modified-release doxycycline plus selected skin care, but its abstract reports no outcome figures, so treat this as expert opinion (Del Rosso, 2011).
| Gray et al., JEADV, 2022 | 11 studies, 733 participants | Varied by study | Pharmacological treatments | All important outcomes supported by low or very low certainty evidence |
| Searle et al., J Cosmet Dermatol, 2021 | Not reported in abstract | Not reported | Causes and management | Strongest evidence supports topical corticosteroid misuse as the principal cause |
| Veien, JAAD, 1991 | 108 | 8 weeks | 1% metronidazole cream vs oral tetracycline | Median papules fell to 8% vs 0% of baseline; tetracycline significantly more effective |
| Oppel, JEADV, 2007 | 40 | 4 weeks plus 4 weeks of follow-up | 1% pimecrolimus cream vs vehicle | Lower PODSI during treatment; no significant difference at follow-up |
| Merkle et al., Pediatr Dermatol, 2026 | Not reported in abstract | 6 and 12 months | Nasal or inhaled steroids vs nonsteroid products and controls | New perioral dermatitis RR 3.25 at 6 months and RR 2.27 at 1 year |
Gray et al., JEADV, 2022
Result: All important outcomes supported by low or very low certainty evidence
Systematic review and meta-analysis. No grant or conflict statement in the PubMed record. Evidence: Limited.
Searle et al., J Cosmet Dermatol, 2021
Result: Strongest evidence supports topical corticosteroid misuse as the principal cause
Systematic review using Oxford evidence levels. No conflict statement in the PubMed record. Evidence: Limited.
Veien, JAAD, 1991
Result: Median papules fell to 8% vs 0% of baseline; tetracycline significantly more effective
Double-blind, double-dummy randomized trial. No funding in the PubMed record. Evidence: Limited.
Oppel, JEADV, 2007
Result: Lower PODSI during treatment; no significant difference at follow-up
Single-center randomized trial. Week 2 responders were 50% vs 25% (P=0.095, not significant). Non-US-government support tag; funder not named. Evidence: Limited.
Merkle et al., Pediatr Dermatol, 2026
Result: New perioral dermatitis RR 3.25 at 6 months and RR 2.27 at 1 year
Propensity-matched retrospective cohort in patients under 18. Association, not proof of cause. Authors declare no conflicts. Evidence: Limited.
Three papers have no abstract, so we cite only their titles: Jansen 2004, Charnowski 2019 and Schaller 2025.
Evidence: Limited overall; Early / preliminary for praziquantel and photodynamic therapy.
Do topical antibiotics for perioral dermatitis work?
Topical metronidazole reduced lesions in a head-to-head trial, but oral tetracycline did better. Topical clindamycin evidence is sparse, and results across topical therapies have been inconsistent.
In a double-blind, double-dummy trial, meaning each group also received a placebo version of the other treatment, 108 patients were treated for 8 weeks. Median papules fell to 8% of baseline with 1% metronidazole cream and 0% with oral tetracycline (Veien, 1991). Both worked, according to the authors, but the trial had no placebo arm to show how much improvement would have happened anyway.
Clindamycin appears mainly as the comparator in a split-face study, where it reached 80.9% mean clearance against 92.1% for photodynamic therapy (Richey, 2006). Only 14 of 21 patients completed that study. Gray rates the evidence on clindamycin with benzoyl peroxide as very uncertain (Gray et al., 2022), and Weber found inconsistency across topical therapy (Weber et al., 2005). Evidence: Limited for metronidazole; Early / preliminary for clindamycin.
Does any over-the-counter perioral dermatitis treatment work?
No over-the-counter drug trial appears in the abstracts we reviewed, so we can't name a proven OTC treatment for perioral dermatitis. The closest study tested a branded cosmetic fluid, not a medicine.
The 8-week TOLPOD study gave 51 patients Toleriane Fluide, a La Roche-Posay product (Ehmann et al., 2014). It was open-label, so patients knew what they were using, and it compared results with historical vehicle controls rather than a concurrent group. PODSI scores improved over time, but the change was "better, but not significantly better" than the historical controls.
The abstract doesn't state funding, and we make no claim that the brand sponsored the study. For a rash near the mouth, a product's label can't tell you whether the diagnosis is right, so a clinician's assessment comes first. Evidence: Early / preliminary.
What skincare is safe during perioral dermatitis treatment?
No trial in the abstracts we reviewed defines a safe routine for this rash. Expert opinion favors a gentle cleanser, a fragrance-free moisturizer and sunscreen you tolerate, with fewer products overall.
The rationale comes from a barrier review, which says treatment "should emphasize repairing" barrier function but presents no trial data in its abstract (Balić et al., 2019). It describes perioral skin as having a thin, permeable stratum corneum, the skin's outer layer. For general principles, see our guides to repairing a damaged barrier and hydration and the barrier.
As expert opinion, not trial evidence:
- Cleanser: choose a gentle, fragrance-free option.
- Moisturizer: use a light, fragrance-free product. Our guide to body lotion on the face explains why heavier formulas can be a poor fit.
- Sunscreen: many clinicians prefer mineral filters for reactive skin. See sunscreen for sensitive skin.
- Actives: consider pausing rich or occlusive creams, including peptide creams and slugging, which means sealing skin under a thick ointment.
No study in the abstracts we reviewed tests peptides for perioral dermatitis, either as a treatment or a trigger. Pausing them is a cautious way to simplify, not a finding that they harm skin. If a new active seems to have caused a reaction, our piece on reactions to copper peptides covers that separate question. Evidence: Expert opinion.
What does early-stage perioral dermatitis look like, and can it reach the nose or eyes?
The abstracts we reviewed don't define an early stage of perioral dermatitis. They describe a papulopustular rash, meaning small bumps and pus-filled spots (Acevedo-Fontanez et al., 2026), with acne-like eruptions that often look eczema-like (Searle et al., 2021).
Recent reviews use the name periorificial dermatitis, meaning around the body's openings. As expert description rather than study data, clinicians use it when a similar rash extends beyond the mouth, including around the nose or eyes. The abstracts we reviewed give no data on how often this spread occurs or how early rashes progress.
See a clinician if the rash involves the eye area. See a pediatric clinician for any child's facial rash. Evidence: Expert opinion; no staging data in the abstracts we reviewed.
Is it perioral dermatitis, rosacea, purging or dry skin around the mouth?
Appearance alone can mislead, so a clinician should make the diagnosis. The 2026 JAAD review covers mimickers, but its abstract gives no diagnostic figures (Acevedo-Fontanez et al., 2026).
Hoepfner's clinic data offer a useful comparison, though only for patients at one university hospital (Hoepfner et al., 2020):
| Feature | Perioral dermatitis | Rosacea |
|---|---|---|
| Share of patients | 18.5% | 81.5% |
| Overall clinic prevalence | 0.3% | 1.4% |
| Who was affected | Younger and predominantly female | Phymatous subtype older and predominantly male |
| Steroid link | No steroid figure in the clinic-series abstract (Searle 2021 review: topical steroid misuse has the strongest evidence) | Steroid-induced rosacea in 5.4% |
| Eye-related detail | No eye-specific figure in the abstract | Ocular rosacea in 6.9% |
Bottom line: A steroid history or eye symptoms don't settle the diagnosis on their own.
Purging is a different idea: a temporary breakout linked to a new active. Our guide to what skin purging is covers that topic, but no study in the abstracts we reviewed compares it with perioral dermatitis.
Dry skin around the mouth has no head-to-head data either. As expert opinion, flaking without bumps points away from a papulopustular rash, but persistent or spreading changes deserve an exam. Evidence: Limited for the clinic comparison; expert opinion for purging and dry skin.
Does perioral dermatitis go away?
It can improve substantially with treatment, but the abstracts we reviewed give no recurrence rate. The best answer is that lasting clearance hasn't been well measured.
The strongest short-term figure is the median papule count reaching 0% of baseline after 8 weeks of oral tetracycline (Veien, 1991). Longer-term signals are less reassuring. The benefit of pimecrolimus over vehicle was no longer significant after 4 weeks of follow-up in the Oppel trial (Oppel, 2007), and the 2026 review calls the condition chronic (Acevedo-Fontanez et al., 2026).
Gray specifically calls for "adequate post-treatment follow-up" in future trials (Gray et al., 2022). Evidence: Limited.
Where the evidence stops
- Evidence quality: all treatment evidence in the 2022 systematic review is low or very low certainty.
- Approval: no therapy is specifically FDA-approved for this condition, according to the 2026 JAAD review.
- Zero therapy and rich creams: no trial in the abstracts we reviewed tests zero therapy or rich and peptide creams as triggers.
- Rebound: no study in the abstracts we reviewed measures a rebound flare after steroids.
- OTC and natural options: no OTC drug trial or natural remedy study appears in the abstracts we reviewed.
- Recurrence: the abstracts we reviewed give no recurrence rate.
- Children: Gray says more data are needed, and the Merkle cohort shows an association only.
- Title-only papers: azelaic acid's open study and both ivermectin papers have no abstract, so their results are unassessed here.
FAQ
What is the most effective perioral dermatitis treatment?
No treatment has been shown to be clearly best. In one 108-patient randomized trial, oral tetracycline was significantly more effective than 1% metronidazole cream, but a 2022 systematic review rated all the treatment evidence low or very low certainty. A dermatologist can explain which options fit your case.
What is the best OTC treatment for perioral dermatitis?
The abstracts we reviewed include no trial of an over-the-counter drug for perioral dermatitis. One open-label study tested a branded cosmetic fluid, and its result was not significantly better than historical controls.
Is there a natural treatment for perioral dermatitis?
The abstracts we reviewed contain no evidence for any natural remedy. The honest natural approach is to work with a clinician to identify and remove likely triggers. If a prescribed steroid may be involved, ask the prescriber how to come off it.
Does perioral dermatitis go away?
It can improve, and in one 8-week trial the median papule count on oral tetracycline fell to 0% of baseline. However, the abstracts we reviewed give no recurrence rate, and a 2026 review describes the condition as chronic.
Should I use hydrocortisone on perioral dermatitis?
Hydrocortisone is a topical steroid, and topical steroids are the best-supported trigger for perioral dermatitis. The abstracts we reviewed do not test over-the-counter hydrocortisone specifically, so ask a clinician before using it on this rash.
What does early stage perioral dermatitis look like?
The abstracts we reviewed do not define an early stage. Papers describe small papules and pustules that can look acne-like or eczema-like around the mouth, so a clinician should assess a new or spreading rash.
Can perioral dermatitis affect the nose or eyes?
Recent reviews call it periorificial dermatitis, and clinicians use that term when a similar rash extends beyond the mouth, including around the nose or eyes. The abstracts we reviewed give no eye-specific treatment data, so see a clinician if the rash involves the eye area.
Can fluoride toothpaste cause perioral dermatitis?
The fluoride link in the abstracts we reviewed rests on one case report of a 45-year-old woman using high-fluoride toothpaste. One case cannot show how often this happens or that switching toothpaste helps, so ask your dentist or clinician before changing a prescribed toothpaste.
References
- Gray et al. Pharmacological interventions for periorificial (perioral) dermatitis in children and adults: a systematic review. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022. Systematic review, 11 studies, 733 participants; no grant or conflict statement in record. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34779023/
- Searle et al. Perioral dermatitis: Diagnosis, proposed etiologies, and management. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021. Systematic review; number of studies not reported in abstract; no conflict statement in record. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33751778/
- Acevedo-Fontanez et al. Periorificial dermatitis: Pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2026. Narrative review; authors state industry ties, including Galderma, and describe them as unrelated. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41197738/
- Weber et al. Critical appraisal of reports on the treatment of perioral dermatitis. Dermatology. 2005. Critical appraisal of 30 papers; 2 other reviewers assessed the authors' own 2 papers. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15942216/
- Veien. Topical metronidazole in the treatment of perioral dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1991. Double-blind, double-dummy multicenter RCT, n=108, 8 weeks; no funding in record. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2007672/
- Schwarz. A randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled study of 1% pimecrolimus cream in adult patients with perioral dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008. Multicenter RCT, n not reported in abstract, up to 4 weeks of treatment; non-US-government support tag, funder not named. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18462835/
- Oppel. Pimecrolimus cream (1%) efficacy in perioral dermatitis - results of a randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled study in 40 patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2007. Single-center RCT, n=40, 4 weeks plus 4-week follow-up; non-US-government support tag, funder not named. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17894701/
- Bribeche. Topical praziquantel as a new treatment for perioral dermatitis: results of a randomized vehicle-controlled pilot study. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2014. Single-blind pilot RCT, n=46, 4 weeks plus 4-week follow-up; no funding in record. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24825135/
- Richey. Photodynamic therapy for perioral dermatitis. J Drugs Dermatol. 2006. Split-face study, 21 enrolled, 14 completed, duration not reported; no funding in record. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16485876/
- Ehmann et al. Efficacy and Safety Results of a Drug-Free Cosmetic Fluid for Perioral Dermatitis: The Toleriane Fluide Efficacy in Perioral Dermatitis (TOLPOD) Study. Ann Dermatol. 2014. Open-label study, n=51, 8 weeks, historical controls; branded La Roche-Posay product; funding not in record. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25143674/
- Jansen. Azelaic acid as a new treatment for perioral dermatitis: results from an open study. Br J Dermatol. 2004. Open study published as a letter; no abstract, cited by title only. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15491447/
- Charnowski et al. Perioral Dermatitis Successfully Treated with Topical Ivermectin. Ann Dermatol. 2019. No abstract, cited by title only; authors report nothing to disclose. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33911686/
- Schaller et al. Topical ivermectin [...] cream alone or in combination with oral doxycycline for patients with perioral dermatitis (POD): A retrospective case series. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2025. Title shortened to omit the strength. Letter with no abstract, cited by title only; first author consults for AbbVie, Bayer, Galderma, L'Oréal and UCB and has received lecture fees from AbbVie, Galderma and others; 3 authors declare no conflicts. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40119774/
- Del Rosso. Management of Papulopustular Rosacea and Perioral Dermatitis with Emphasis on Iatrogenic Causation or Exacerbation of Inflammatory Facial Dermatoses [...]. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2011. Title shortened to omit dose details. Narrative paper with case illustrations; no outcome figures in abstract; no conflict statement in record. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21909455/
- Merkle et al. Association of Nasal and Inhalant Corticosteroids With Pediatric Perioral Dermatitis: A TriNetX Retrospective Cohort Study. Pediatr Dermatol. 2026. Propensity-matched retrospective cohort, under age 18, total n not reported in abstract; authors declare no conflicts. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42107964/
- Peters. Perioral dermatitis from high fluoride dentifrice: a case report and review of literature. Aust Dent J. 2013. Case report, n=1, with literature review; no conflict statement in record. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23981221/
- Balić et al. The Role of the Skin Barrier in Periorificial Dermatitis. Acta Dermatovenerol Croat. 2019. Narrative review; no data in abstract; no conflict statement in record. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31542061/
- Hoepfner et al. Rosacea and perioral dermatitis: a single-center retrospective analysis of the clinical presentation of 1032 patients. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2020. Retrospective single-center analysis, n=1,032, 3-year period; no conflict statement in record. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32469453/
Disclosure: This article is for general information only. It is not medical advice. Peptide Skincare has no affiliate links in this article and received no payment from any manufacturer mentioned. Perioral dermatitis can look like other rashes. See a dermatologist for diagnosis, and see a pediatric clinician for a child's rash. Never stop, start or change a prescribed medication, including nasal or inhaled steroids, without asking the prescriber.