Effectiveness of skin protection creams in the prevention of occupational dermatitis: results of a randomized, controlled trial. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2009;82:653-662. [PMID: 18972125 DOI: 10.1007/s00420-008-0377-2]

The effect of adjuvant radiotherapy on skin biophysical properties in patients with breast cancer at risk for breast lymphedema: A prospective study

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common type of cancer among women. Radiotherapy (RT) is one of the main and primary treatment options for BC, especially in breast-conserving surgery (BCS). BC patients who underwent RT experience a wide range of symptoms, in which breast oedema and irritation of the skin take the lion's share. Breast oedema/lymphedema, which is also a prominent side effect after RT should be well determined in earlier settings due to the chronicity of lymphedema. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze the biophysical parameters of skin on the ipsilateral (IL) and contralateral (CL) sites via Tissue dielectric constant (TDC) and Transepidermal water loss (TEWL) methods in terms of oedema and skin barrier function (SBF). The following reference points before and after the RT were measured: (R1: Pectoralis muscle, R2: Upper breast, R3: Lower breast, R4: Lateral site of the thorax). A total of 24 BC patients (mean age and BMI: 52.78 ± 9.85 years and 28.42 ± 5.64 kg/m² ) were evaluated. In the IL site, the SBF was not found significant in R1-R3, whereas significantly lower SBF was observed in R4 after RT (t = -3.361, p = 0.003). A significant increase in TDC was observed in R2 at the 5.0 mm depth (t = -2.500, p = 0.02). We suggest that a longer period of follow-up should be carefully carried out to track changes in terms of SBF and oedema in the irradiated breast. The increased need for early detection of changes associated with breast lymphedema can be achievable via noninvasive, safe, cheap, and easily repeatable devices.

Doppelblinde, randomisierte repetitive In‐vivo ‐Wirksamkeitsstudie zu kommerziellen Hautschutzprodukten gegen Natriumlaurylsulfat (SLS)

HINTERGRUND

In der Primär- und Sekundärprävention von Berufsdermatosen werden Hautschutzprodukte eingesetzt, die eine präexpositionelle Schutzwirkung aufweisen sollen. Insbesondere finden sich auf dem Markt zahlreiche Produkte, die zum Einsatz bei Feuchtarbeit ausgelobt werden. Eine objektive Qualitätsbeurteilung dieser Produkte für Anwender ist auf Grund fehlender vergleichender Wirksamkeitsstudien oft nicht möglich.

MATERIAL UND METHODIK

In einer doppelblinden, randomisierten und kontrollierten In-vivo-Studie wurden sechs kommerzielle Hautschutzexterna in einem repetitiven Irritationsmodell untersucht. Sie wurden hinsichtlich ihrer präexpositionellen Schutzwirkung vor dem durch Natriumlaurylsulfat (SLS) induzierten irritativen Kontaktekzem mittels hautphysiologischer Methoden getestet. Es wurde ein Wirkindex anhand des transepidermalen Wasserverlustes (TEWL) gemäß des Protokolls der multizentrischen Studie des Forschungsprojektes FP 275 der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung DGUV berechnet.

ERGEBNISSE

Die untersuchten Externa zeigten eine Schutzwirkung gegen SLS im Vergleich zum unbehandelten Kontrollfeld, wiesen allerdings signifikante Wirkunterschiede auf. Die Auswertung der Nebenparameter Corneometrie und visueller Score erbrachte ebenfalls Unterschiede zwischen den Externa.

SCHLUSSFOLGERUNGEN

Die zwischen den untersuchten Externa festgestellten Unterschiede hinsichtlich der Wirkgüte ermöglichten eine Einteilung der Produkte, welche als Grundlage für die Auswahl geeigneter Schutzpräparate dienen kann.

Double blind randomized repetitive efficacy test of various occupational skin protection preparations against sodium lauryl sulphate

BACKGROUND

Skin protection products, formerly named as barrier creams, are being used as primary and secondary prevention measures against occupational dermatoses. Many of these cosmetic products are claimed by manufacturers to be efficacious against wet work-induced skin barrier impairment if applied prior to exposure. However, results of validated and standardized in vivo efficacy tests allowing the comparison of different products are lacking.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Efficacy of six skin protection products against sodium lauryl sulphate-induced irritant contact dermatitis was investigated in a double blind, randomized and controlled repetitive irritation study in healthy volunteers using skin physiological methods. Transepidermal water loss (TEWL) results were used to calculate an efficacy index of protection by mathematical/statistical means according to a protocol developed in a German Statutory Accident Insurance (DGUV) multicenter study (research project FP 275).

RESULTS

All tested products had a demonstrable, protective effect against SLS compared to controls, but their relative efficacy varied significantly. Differences were also seen upon evaluation of other parameters such as corneometry and clinical irritation score (visual score).

CONCLUSIONS

Product ranking as a result of the established differences allows improved selection of appropriate skin protection products based on objective parameters, as compared to heterogenous product claims.

A behaviour change package to prevent hand dermatitis in nurses working in health care: the SCIN cluster RCT

BACKGROUND

Although strategies have been developed to minimise the risk of occupational hand dermatitis in nurses, their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The Skin Care Intervention in Nurses trial tested the hypothesis that a behaviour change package intervention, coupled with provision of hand moisturisers, could reduce the point prevalence of hand dermatitis when compared with standard care among nurses working in the NHS. The secondary aim was to assess the impact of the intervention on participants' beliefs and behaviour regarding hand care, and the cost-effectiveness of the intervention in comparison with normal care.

DESIGN

Cluster randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Thirty-five NHS hospital trusts/health boards/universities.

PARTICIPANTS

First-year student nurses with a history of atopic tendency, and full-time intensive care unit nurses.

INTERVENTION

Sites were randomly allocated to be 'intervention plus' or 'intervention light'. Participants at 'intervention plus' sites received access to a bespoke online behaviour change package intervention, coupled with personal supplies of moisturising cream (student nurses) and optimal availability of moisturising cream (intensive care unit nurses). Nurses at 'intervention light' sites received usual care, including a dermatitis prevention leaflet.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The difference between intervention plus and intervention light sites in the change of point prevalence of visible hand dermatitis was measured from images taken at baseline and at follow-up.

RANDOMISATION

Fourteen sites were randomised to the intervention plus arm, and 21 sites were randomised to the intervention light arm.

BLINDING

The participants, trial statistician, methodologist and the dermatologists interpreting the hand photographs were blinded to intervention assignment.

NUMBERS ANALYSED

An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted on data from 845 student nurses and 1111 intensive care unit nurses.

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat analysis showed no evidence that the risk of developing dermatitis was greater in the intervention light group than in the intervention plus group (student nurses: odds ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 2.69; intensive care unit nurses: odds ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 2.44). Both groups had high levels of baseline beliefs about the benefits of using hand moisturisers before, during and after work. The frequency of use of hand moisturisers before, during and after shifts was significantly higher in the intensive care unit nurses in the intervention plus arm at follow-up than in the comparator group nurses. For student nurses, the intervention plus group mean costs were £2 lower than those for the comparator and 0.00002 more quality-adjusted life-years were gained. For intensive care unit nurses, costs were £4 higher and 0.0016 fewer quality-adjusted life-years were gained.

HARMS

No adverse events were reported.

LIMITATIONS

Only 44.5% of participants in the intervention plus arm accessed the behaviour change package.

CONCLUSION

The intervention did not result in a statistically significant decrease in the prevalence of hand dermatitis in the intervention plus group.

FUTURE WORK

Participants had a high level of baseline beliefs about the importance of using hand moisturisers before, during and after work. Future research should focus on how workplace culture can be changed in order for that knowledge to be actioned.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN53303171.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 58. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effectiveness of interventions for preventing occupational irritant hand dermatitis: a quantitative systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to identify, appraise and synthesize the best available evidence on the effectiveness of moisturizers, barrier creams, protective gloves, skin protection education and complex interventions (a combination of two or more of the interventions listed here) in preventing occupational irritant hand dermatitis (OIHD) in wet workers, comparing each intervention to an alternative intervention or to usual care (workers' regular skin care regimen).

INTRODUCTION

The most significant occupational skin problem potentially encountered in wet work occupations is occupational dermatitis. When the skin comes into contact with hazardous substances at work, this can cause occupational dermatitis. Substances which may cause occupational dermatitis include cleaning products, organic solvents, metalworking fluids, cement, flour, adhesives, other chemicals and even certain plants. Occupational skin disease has adverse effects on quality of life and the long term prognosis for skin health is poor unless workplace exposures are addressed. To date, no systematic review has been undertaken to determine the effectiveness of interventions for the primary prevention of OIHD in wet workers.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

The review included any workers from healthcare (e.g. nurses, doctors and allied health professionals) and also people in different wet work occupations (e.g. hairdressers, florists, catering workers, metal workers) at similar risk of OIHD. Studies that assessed the following interventions in the primary prevention of OIHD in wet workers at the workplace and at home (before and after work) were included:Types of studies considered were experimental study designs including randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, and before and after studies. Primary outcome measures were OIHD incidence, and secondary outcome measures were product evaluation and change of occupation because of OIHD versus staying in the occupation.

METHODS

Published and unpublished literature in the English language was sought between 2004 and 2017. The databases searched included: COCHRANE CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED and Embase. The search for unpublished studies included: Google Scholar, Open DOAR and Robert Gordon University's thesis database, "OPEN AIR".

RESULTS

There were no studies located that met the inclusion requirements of this review.

CONCLUSION

There is currently no evidence available to determine the effectiveness of interventions to prevent OIHD amongst wet workers that met this review's inclusion criteria.

Interventions for preventing occupational irritant hand dermatitis

BACKGROUND

Occupational irritant hand dermatitis (OIHD) causes significant functional impairment, disruption of work, and discomfort in the working population. Different preventive measures such as protective gloves, barrier creams and moisturisers can be used, but it is not clear how effective these are. This is an update of a Cochrane review which was previously published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of primary preventive interventions and strategies (physical and behavioural) for preventing OIHD in healthy people (who have no hand dermatitis) who work in occupations where the skin is at risk of damage due to contact with water, detergents, chemicals or other irritants, or from wearing gloves.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to January 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLlNE, and Embase. We also searched five trials registers and checked the bibliographies of included studies for further references to relevant trials. We handsearched two sets of conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the effectiveness of barrier creams, moisturisers, gloves, or educational interventions compared to no intervention for the primary prevention of OIHD under field conditions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were signs and symptoms of OIHD developed during the trials, and the frequency of treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs involving 2888 participants without occupational irritant hand dermatitis (OIHD) at baseline. Six studies, including 1533 participants, investigated the effects of barrier creams, moisturisers, or both. Three studies, including 1355 participants, assessed the effectiveness of skin protection education on the prevention of OIHD. No studies were eligible that investigated the effects of protective gloves. Among each type of intervention, there was heterogeneity concerning the criteria for assessing signs and symptoms of OIHD, the products, and the occupations. Selection bias, performance bias, and reporting bias were generally unclear across all studies. The risk of detection bias was low in five studies and high in one study. The risk of other biases was low in four studies and high in two studies.The eligible trials involved a variety of participants, including: metal workers exposed to cutting fluids, dye and print factory workers, gut cleaners in swine slaughterhouses, cleaners and kitchen workers, nurse apprentices, hospital employees handling irritants, and hairdressing apprentices. All studies were undertaken at the respective work places. Study duration ranged from four weeks to three years. The participants' ages ranged from 16 to 67 years.Meta-analyses for barrier creams, moisturisers, a combination of both barrier creams and moisturisers, or skin protection education showed imprecise effects favouring the intervention. Twenty-nine per cent of participants who applied barrier creams developed signs of OIHD, compared to 33% of the controls, so the risk may be slightly reduced with this measure (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.06; 999 participants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence). However, this risk reduction may not be clinically important. There may be a clinically important protective effect with the use of moisturisers: in the intervention groups, 13% of participants developed symptoms of OIHD compared to 19% of the controls (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.09; 507 participants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence). Likewise, there may be a clinically important protective effect from using a combination of barrier creams and moisturisers: 8% of participants in the intervention group developed signs of OIHD, compared to 13% of the controls (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.42; 474 participants; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether skin protection education reduces the risk of developing signs of OIHD (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.08; 1355 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). Twenty-one per cent of participants who received skin protection education developed signs of OIHD, compared to 28% of the controls.None of the studies addressed the frequency of treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects of the products directly. However, in three studies of barrier creams, the reasons for withdrawal from the studies were unrelated to adverse effects. Likewise, in one study of moisturisers plus barrier creams, and in one study of skin protection education, reasons for dropout were unrelated to adverse effects. The remaining studies (one to two in each comparison) reported dropouts without stating how many of them may have been due to adverse reactions to the interventions. We judged the quality of this evidence as moderate, due to the indirectness of the results. The investigated interventions to prevent OIHD probably cause few or no serious adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moisturisers used alone or in combination with barrier creams may result in a clinically important protective effect, either in the long- or short-term, for the primary prevention of OIHD. Barrier creams alone may have slight protective effect, but this does not appear to be clinically important. The results for all of these comparisons were imprecise, and the low quality of the evidence means that our confidence in the effect estimates is limited. For skin protection education, the results varied substantially across the trials, the effect was imprecise, and the pooled risk reduction was not large enough to be clinically important. The very low quality of the evidence means that we are unsure as to whether skin protection education reduces the risk of developing OIHD. The interventions probably cause few or no serious adverse effects.We conclude that at present there is insufficient evidence to confidently assess the effectiveness of interventions used in the primary prevention of OIHD. This does not necessarily mean that current measures are ineffective. Even though the update of this review included larger studies of reasonable quality, there is still a need for trials which apply standardised measures for the detection of OIHD in order to determine the effectiveness of the different prevention strategies.

The three moments of skin cream application: an evidence-based proposal for use of skin creams in the prevention of irritant contact dermatitis in the workplace

Contact dermatitis is one of the most common occupational diseases, with serious impact on quality of life, lost days at work and a condition that may be chronically relapsing. Regular prophylactic skin cream application is widely acknowledged to be an effective prevention strategy against occupational contact dermatitis; however, compliance rates remain low. To present a simple programme for skin cream application in the workplace with focus on implementation to drive down the rate of occupational irritant contact dermatitis, an expert panel of eight international dermatologists combined personal experience with extensive literature review. The recommendations are based on clinical experience as supported by evidence-based data from interventional studies. The authors identified three moments for skin cream application in the work place: (i) before starting a work period; (ii) after washing hands; and (iii) after work. Affecting behaviour change requires systematic communications, monitoring and reporting, which is proposed through Kotter's principles of organizational change management. Measurement tools are provided in the appendix. Interventional data based on application of this proposal is required to demonstrate its effectiveness.

A behavioural change package to prevent hand dermatitis in nurses working in the national health service (the SCIN trial): study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background

Hand dermatitis can be a serious health problem in healthcare workers. While a range of skin care strategies and policy directives have been developed in recent years to minimise the risk, their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness remain unclear. Evidence now suggests that psychological theory can facilitate behaviour change with respect to improved hand care practices. Therefore, we will test the hypothesis that a behavioural change intervention to improve hand care, based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour and implementation intentions, coupled with provision of hand moisturisers, can produce a clinically useful reduction in the occurrence of hand dermatitis, when compared to standard care, among nurses working in the UK National Health Service (NHS) who are particularly at risk. Secondary aims will be to assess impacts on participants’ beliefs and behaviour regarding hand care. In addition, we will assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention in comparison with normal care.

Methods/Design

We will conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial at 35 NHS hospital trusts/health boards/universities, focussing on student nurses with a previous history of atopic disease or hand eczema and on nurses in intensive care units.

Nurses at ‘intervention-light’ sites will be managed according to what would currently be regarded as best practice, with provision of an advice leaflet about optimal hand care to prevent hand dermatitis and encouragement to contact their occupational health (OH) department early if hand dermatitis occurs. Nurses at ‘intervention-plus’ sites will additionally receive a behavioural change programme (BCP) with on-going active reinforcement of its messages, and enhanced provision of moisturising cream.

The impact of the interventions will be compared using information collected by questionnaires and through standardised photographs of the hands and wrists, collected at baseline and after 12 months follow-up. In addition, we will assemble relevant economic data for an analysis of costs and benefits, and collect information from various sources to evaluate processes.

Statistical analysis will be by multi-level regression modelling to allow for clustering by site, and will compare the prevalence of outcome measures at follow-up after adjustment for values at baseline. The principal outcome measure will be the prevalence of visible hand dermatitis as assessed by the study dermatologists. In addition, several secondary outcome measures will be assessed.

Discussion

This trial will assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of an intervention to prevent hand dermatitis in nurses in the United Kigdom.

Trial registration

ISRCTN53303171: date of registration, 21 June 2013.

Review of allergic contact dermatitis: Scratching the surface

Contact dermatitis-including allergic contact dermatitis (ACD)-n and results in over four million lost work days per year in the United States alone. ACD is a classic example of a type IV delayed hypersensitivity reaction, and represents a significant burden on the health system, economy, and patient quality of life. Thorough history taking, clinical examination, histologic evaluation, and patch testing are keys to diagnosing contact dermatitis. Patch testing, especially with comprehensive and customized panels based on the patient’s exposure history, is particularly useful in identifying potential allergens in the case of allergic contact dermatitis. ACD management requires a combination of direct medical intervention, patient education, and appropriate environmental modification to prevent exposure to offending allergens in the home or workplace. Continuing advances in the study of ACD has led to an increased understanding of the disease processes, new methods for diagnosis, and improved management. This article reviews ACD-aiming to connect recent investigational data with the current clinical understanding of disease pathophysiology, diagnostic techniques, and management strategies.

U.K. standards of care for occupational contact dermatitis and occupational contact urticaria

The diagnosis of occupational contact dermatitis (OCD) and occupational contact urticaria (OCU) is a process that involves fastidious clinical and occupational history taking, clinical examination, patch testing and skin-prick testing. A temporal relationship of work and/or the presence of a rash on the hands only raises suspicion of an occupational cause, and does not necessarily confirm an occupational causation. The identification of allergy by patch or prick tests is a major objective, as exclusion of an offending allergen from the environment can contribute to clinical recovery in the individual worker and avoidance of new cases of disease. This can be a complex process where allergens and irritants, and therefore allergic and irritant contact dermatitis, may coexist. This article provides guidance to healthcare professionals dealing with workers exposed to agents that potentially cause OCD and OCU. Specifically it aims to summarize the 2010 British Occupational Health Research Foundation (BOHRF) systematic review, and also to help practitioners translate the BOHRF guideline into clinical practice. As such, it aims to be of value to physicians and nurses based in primary and secondary care, as well as occupational health and public health clinicians. It is hoped that it will also be of value to employers, interested workers and those with responsibility for workplace standards, such as health and safety representatives. Note that it is not intended, nor should it be taken to imply, that these standards of care override existing statutory and legal obligations. Duties under the U.K. Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, the Equality Act 2010 and other relevant legislation and guidance must be given due consideration, as should laws relevant to other countries.

Abnormal epidermal barrier in the pathogenesis of contact dermatitis

A crucial role of the epidermal permeability barrier is obvious in contact dermatitis. An intact skin barrier prevents the penetration of harmful substances into the skin. Irritants and allergens that stay on the skin surface and come into contact with the stratum corneum only do not harm the skin. After disruption of the skin barrier, however, irritants may penetrate into the living epidermal layers, injure the keratinocyte membrane, and release cytokines, which leads to inflammation and to irritant contact dermatitis. The skin barrier is often disrupted by chronic exposure to water plus detergents, solvents, or other irritants. A disrupted barrier in irritant contact dermatitis also allows for the penetration of allergens. Allergens may come into contact with Langerhans and T cells, induce immunological reactions, and cause inflammation, which results in allergic contact dermatitis. Treatments in contact dermatitis should restore the skin barrier to prevent relapse of the disease. Topical corticosteroids, most often used in treating contact dermatitis, reduce immunological reactions and inflammation but do not lead to a complete barrier repair. Skin barrier repair is more complete after treatment with calcineurin inhibitors and bland lipid-based emollient; therefore, these preparations should be preferred for long-term treatment of contact dermatitis.

Chronic hand eczema--self-management and prognosis: a study protocol for a randomised clinical trial

Background

Hand eczema has a one-year prevalence of approximately 10 % in the general Danish population. Often the disease becomes chronic with numerous implications for the individual’s daily life, occupation and quality of life. However, no guidelines of self-management recommendations beyond the acute stage are given. Self-management of the disease is pivotal and involves self-monitoring of the condition, medication adherence, and preventive behaviour. Interventions best to support the individual in this ongoing process need to be developed.

Methods/design

This paper describes the design of a randomised clinical trial to test a newly developed intervention of individual counselling versus conventional information. 300 patients consecutively referred to dermatologic treatment at two different settings are individually randomised to either the intervention programme, named ‘The Healthy Skin Clinic’ or to the control group. Block-wise randomisation according to setting and gender is carried out.

The intervention offers a tool for self-monitoring; basic and specific individual counselling; the possibility of asynchronous communication with the intervention team; and an electronic patient dialogue forum. Primary outcome variable is objective assessment of the hand eczema severity performed at baseline prior to randomisation, and repeated at six months follow-up. Secondary outcome variables are dermatology related life quality and perceived global burden of disease.

Discussion

The trial aims at evaluating a newly developed guidance programme which is expected to support self-management of patients referred to dermatology treatment due to chronic hand eczema. The design of the protocol is pragmatic with blinding of neither participants nor the investigator. Thus, in the interpretation of the results, the investigator takes into account effects that may be attributed to actors of the interventions rather than the intervention per se as well of potential observer bias. Inclusion criterions are wide in order to increase transferability of the results.

Trial registration

The trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.Gov with registration number NCT01482663.

Occupational contact dermatitis: known knowns and known unknowns

It is only by recognizing what we know that we know, and being cognizant of the things that we know that we don't know that clinicians and the health profession are able to deliver quality care to patients. Traditional learning methods can sometimes perpetuate unappraised and unfounded beliefs and practices. Evidence-based practice requires robustly conducted systematic reviews and evidence-based guidelines. There have only been three systematic reviews of occupational contact dermatitis. These inform us of what we know we know and what we know that we don't know. We know which agents cause allergic and irritant occupational contact dermatitis, and we know the occupations that present the greatest risk. We know that conditioning creams are helpful in the prevention and management of the disease, and we know that we don't know the optimal frequency of application. We know that prework creams are not universally effective. We know that avoidance of exposure can help to improve symptoms in those who have developed dermatitis, but we know that we don't know if earlier identification and earlier avoidance of exposure produces better outcomes. Most importantly, we know that there is a need for better research conducted in occupational rather than experimental settings and with contact dermatitis rather than subclinical findings as an outcome measure.

Evidence-based guidelines for the prevention, identification and management of occupational contact dermatitis and urticaria

BACKGROUND

Occupational contact dermatitis is the most frequently reported work-related skin disease in many countries. A systematic review was commissioned by the British Occupational Health Research Foundation in response to a House of Lords Science and Technology Committee recommendation.

OBJECTIVES

The systematic review aims to improve the prevention, identification and management of occupational contact dermatitis and urticaria by providing evidence-based recommendations.

METHODS

The literature was searched systematically using Medline and Embase for English-language articles published up to the end of September 2009. Evidence-based statements and recommendations were graded using the Royal College of General Practitioner's three-star system and the revised Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network grading system.

RESULTS

Three thousand one hundred and fifty-five abstracts were identified and screened. From these, 786 full papers were obtained and appraised. One hundred and nineteen of these studies were used to produce 36 graded evidence statements and 10 key recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

This evidence review and its recommendations focus on interventions and outcomes to provide a robust approach to the prevention, identification and occupational management of occupational contact dermatitis and urticaria, based on and using the best available medical evidence.

Interventions for preventing occupational irritant hand dermatitis

BACKGROUND

Occupational irritant hand dermatitis (OIHD) is an important cause of discomfort in the working population. Different preventive measures are in place but it is not clear how effective these are.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of interventions for preventing OIHD in healthy people who work in occupations where the skin is at risk of damage.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In May 2010, we searched the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLlNE and EMBASE. Conference proceedings, and ongoing trials registers were also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) studying the effectiveness of barrier creams, moisturisers, gloves, complex educational interventions, and other interventions for the prevention of OIHD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the trials and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Four RCTs involving 894 participants from different occupations were included. The primary outcome was numbers of new cases.One large RCT of 708 print and dye workers compared 2 barrier creams (containing silicone or hydrocarbon) versus no intervention. Fewer workers using barrier creams developed OIHD than those who did not (39.9% versus 45%, (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.07. P = 0.11) but this was not statistically significant.In 1 RCT of 54 metal workers less developed OIHD when using an after work emollient or a barrier cream compared to no intervention. There was no statistical difference between the groups at different times of follow-up.One RCT of 111 cleaners and kitchen workers compared a moisturiser (Locobase) versus no intervention using a cross-over design. While using the moisturiser no participant developed OIHD. During the control period with no skin treatment, 19 (20.4%) out of 93 participants developed OIHD.One RCT of 21 hairdressers compared a barrier cream containing aluminium chlorohydrate (Excipial protect) versus its vehicle. No participant developed OIHD while the products were used.Only limited side-effects such as transient itching, stinging, and dryness were reported for the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although the findings of this review were generally positive, no statistical significance was reached. We conclude that at present there is insufficient evidence for the effectiveness of most of the interventions used in the primary prevention of OIHD. This does not mean that current measures are necessarily ineffective, as the limited studies to date have been rather small and of poor quality. Larger well designed RCTs are now needed in different workplaces to establish the effectiveness of various preventative strategies.

Effectiveness of skin protection measures in prevention of occupational hand eczema: results of a prospective randomized controlled trial over a follow-up period of 1 year

BACKGROUND

We recently found a very low adherence to a generally recommended skin protection regimen in a sample of 1355 metalworkers.

OBJECTIVES

The present study assessed the effectiveness of skin protection as presently recommended, especially the differential contribution of skin care and skin protection, to the prevention of occupational hand eczema. Methods Of 1355 metalworkers screened, 1020 male volunteers, all fit for work, were recruited for a prospective intervention study with four arms (skin care, skin protection, both combined, and control group, i.e. no recommendation). The study was performed from winter 2006/2007 to spring 2008, following each subject for up for 12 months. Both hands were examined using a quantitative skin score, and a standardized personal interview was performed three times. The change of the objective skin score from baseline to 12 months was used as primary outcome measure.

RESULTS

After 12 months 800 subjects were included (78.4% of those recruited). The compliance to follow the randomized measure depended on the recommended measure and ranged from 73.7% to 88.7%. While in the control group a significant deterioration was found, the largest and significant improvement was noted in the group following the generally recommended skin protection programme (skin care + skin protection) followed by skin protection alone as second best.

CONCLUSIONS

The generally recommended skin protection regimen seems to provide effective prevention of occupational skin disease. Therefore, the compliance to follow the skin protection regimen, especially the use of skin protection, should be enhanced.