Recent advances in occupational dermatitis

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.

Contact dermatitis: a practice parameter-update 2015

This parameter was developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, which represents the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. The AAAAI and the ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "Contact Dermatitis: A Practice Parameter-Update 2015." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is changing and not all recommendations will be appropriate or applicable to all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including members serving on the Joint Task Force, are authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information or interpretation of this practice parameter by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. These parameters are not designed for use by the pharmaceutical industry in drug development or promotion. Previously published practice parameters of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters for Allergy & Immunology are available at http://www.JCAAI.org or http://www.allergyparameters.org.

Skin sensitization

Skin sensitization associated with allergic contact dermatitis is a common health problem and is an important consideration for toxicologists in safety assessment. Historically, in vivo predictive tests have been used with good success to identify substances that have the potential to induce skin sensitization, and these tests formed the basis of safety evaluation. These original tests are now being replaced gradually either by in vitro assays or by further refinements of in vivo methods such as the local lymph node assay. Human data have also been available to inform classification decisions for some substances and have been used by risk managers to introduce measures for exposure reduction. However, humans encounter hazards in the context of exposure rather than in the form of intrinsic hazards per se, and so in this article, we have examined critically the extent to which human data have been used to refine classification decisions and safety evaluations. We have also evaluated information on the burden of human allergic skin disease and used this to address the question of whether, and to what extent, the identification and evaluation of skin sensitization hazards has led to an improvement of public and/or occupational health.

Occlusive gloves and skin conditions: is there a problem? Results of a cross-sectional study in a semiconductor company

BACKGROUND

Although there is poor scientific evidence that working with occlusive gloves is as damaging as wet work, prolonged glove occlusion is considered to be a risk factor for developing hand eczema similar to wet work.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of wearing occlusive gloves during the whole working day, without exposure to any additional hazardous substances, on skin condition and skin barrier function.

METHODS

We investigated 323 employees of a semiconductor production company in Germany: 177 clean-room workers wearing occlusive gloves during the whole shift (exposed group) and 146 employees working in administration (control group). A standardized interview was performed, the skin condition of both hands was studied using the quantitative skin score HEROS, and transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and stratum corneum hydration were measured.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in skin condition between the two subgroups. Values for TEWL and corneometry were significantly higher in exposed participants (P < 0·05). However, the TEWL values were similar to control values if participants took off the occlusive gloves at least 30 min before the measurement. Hence, the effect of occlusion on skin barrier function seems to be transient.

CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged wearing of occlusive gloves with clean hands and without exposure to additional hazardous substances does not seem to affect the skin negatively.

Contact dermatitis in the cleaning industry

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The review summarizes recent findings on contact dermatitis in the cleaning industry.

RECENT FINDINGS

Contact dermatitis is still an important issue in cleaning. Recent studies identified cleaning work sites and tasks, as well as specific cleaning products, which incur a risk increase for occupational contact dermatitis in cleaning. Workers involved in cleaning outdoors prevalence ratio [PR 1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-2.96], cleaning common areas of residential buildings (PR 1.77, 95% CI 1.11-2.84), schools (PR 1.84, 95% CI 1.15-2.93) and cleaning building sites (PR 1.87, 95% CI 1.18-2.95) showed significantly higher rates of contact dermatitis. Relevant allergens in cleaning are rubber chemicals and disinfectants. Leading allergens are thiurams (11.6%, 95% CI 9.1-14.1) and formaldehyde (3.4%, 95% CI 2.0-4.7), but contact with metal allergens might also be important. The most likely allergen sources for sensitization against rubber chemicals are protective gloves. High sensitization rates for disinfectants might result from the fact that employees in cleaning often use single-use medical examination gloves while cleaning. These gloves are not resistant to chemicals, which may break through the gloves within a short period of time, depending on glove material and thickness. No differences in sensitization rates and sensitization profiles were seen in cleaners of younger (≤40 years) and older (>40 years) age.

SUMMARY

Prevalence of occupational contact dermatitis is still high in cleaning. Irritant contact dermatitis is prevailing, but allergic contact dermatitis is quite frequent, too. Up to now, prevention strategies in cleaning seem to be insufficient.