Secondary acrylamides in Nyloprint printing plate as a source of contact dermatitis

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.

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.

Clinical examinations to validate self-completion questionnaires: dermatitis in the UK printing industry

A self-completion questionnaire sent to 2600 Nottinghamshire members of the Graphical Paper and Media Union elicited a 62% response. Forty one per cent of respondents reported suffering a skin complaint at some time and 11% had a current skin problem on the hand. This paper reports the validation stage of the study. Samples of 45 'cases' of self-reported dermatitis and 60 'controls', who reported they had never suffered a skin complaint, were clinically examined. All 45 self-reported cases were clinically confirmed as dermatitis. Occupationally related irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) was diagnosed in 20 (44%); 26 (58%) complaints were thought to be induced or exacerbated by occupation. Of the controls, 21 (35%) were also diagnosed with a skin complaint, the majority being mild, with an occupational association in 17, the majority (15) being ICD. Sixteen ICD cases were patch tested resulting in positive reactions to colophony, neomycin, nickel and potassium dichromate (2 of each). Two cases of basal cell carcinoma on the face were also identified, of which the participants were unaware. Although there was no false positive self-reporting there was a considerable number of false negatives, demonstrating the importance of clinical validation of questionnaires relating to industrial skin disease. This study has highlighted the need for improvement in skin care provision in the printing industry.

Occupational contact allergy to (meth)acrylates

Among 13,833 patients suspected of contact dermatitis examined during the years 1978-1999, occupational contact allergy to (meth)acrylates was diagnosed in 31 patients. The 3 most common sensitizers were ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (17 positive patch tests), 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (14) and triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (6). The aim of this report was to assess the different occupations and industries responsible for occupational sensitization to (meth)acrylates. 14 of the 31 patients work in the dental sector, either as a dentist or as a student of dental technology, where (meth)acrylate-containing dental prostheses and dental composites are mainly responsible for allergy to (meth)acrylates. An increasing trend in dermatological problems related to the expansion of the use of (meth)acrylates is clearly reflected in the patient population of our dermatology department.

Different sensitising acrylic monomers in Napp printing plate

3 chemically pure fractions were isolated from Napp printing plate and subsequently identified by means of nuclear magnetic resonance, infrared spectrophotometry and elemental analysis. 1 of the fractions elicited positive test reactions in 3 Napp-allergic printers, and another fraction also elicited a positive test reaction in 1 of the printers. The 2 allergens were 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate and N,N'-methylene-bis-acrylamide. The 1st of the 2 allergens was also demonstrated in another printing plate, Nyloprint WD.