It was thought for a long time that diseases of the skin predisposed to nephritis. This was explained by a suppression of the function of the skin that resulted in nitrogenous retention and albuminuria. Partial varnishing of the skin of man, however, failed to produce albuminuria (d'Edenhurzen and Lomikowsky1 and Senator2).
Thibierge3 (1885), on the strength of these and other experimental studies, in addition to his own clinical material, reasoned that the same noxa that caused nephritis might also cause the manifestations of the skin. Jadassohn4 observed that, although albuminuria accompanied certain lesions of the skin, it did not necessarily denote nephritis, for in many instances the albuminuria disappeared with the dermatitis.
The explanation then offered, and the one now accepted, for the lesions of the skin occurring with true nephritis was that the nephritis was primary and the dermatitis secondary, the latter resulting from a
ROSENTHAL SR. UREMIC DERMATITIS. Arch Derm Syphilol. 1931;23(5):934–945. doi:10.1001/archderm.1931.03880230110013