The efficacy of a moisturizer (Locobase) among cleaners and kitchen assistants during everyday exposure to water and detergents

Prevalence, risk factors, and prevention of occupational contact dermatitis among professional cleaners: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence, risk factors, and prevention of occupational contact dermatitis (OCD), as well as risk factors and consequences of OCD among professional cleaners.

METHODS

A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was performed using Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies containing over 109.000 participants were included in the review. The prevalence of OCD varied between 2.2% and 30.1%. Main occupational risk factors for developing OCD among cleaners included wet work and irritants in cleaning products (bleach, chlorine, ammonia, multi-use-cleaning) and skin contact to metal. The most common contact allergies included rubber, biocides, nickel/cobalt, and perfumes. Other risk factors were inconsistent use of protective gloves and low educational level. Consequences associated with OCD included significant impairment in quality of life, tendency to have unscheduled absence from work, sick leave, increased rate of disability, and recognized degree of injury. Only one prevention study has been published investigating the effect of an educative course in skin-protective behavior in cleaners. The study reported a higher degree of knowledge of skin protection, a decrease in the severity of hand eczema, and a shift toward fewer daily hand washings at follow-up after 3 months.

CONCLUSION

Our study proves that OCD is common in cleaners, and the main risk factors included wet work, irritants, and contact allergies, as well as inconsistent use of protective gloves and low educational level. More focus and a greater number of studies are needed on skin protection in this population.

Hand Dermatitis in the Time of COVID-19: A Review of Occupational Irritant Contact Dermatitis

Occupational contact dermatitis accounts for 95% of all cases of occupational skin disease with irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) constituting 80% to 90% of these cases. Health care workers, hairdressers, and food service workers are typically most affected by occupational ICD of the hands as these occupations require frequent hand hygiene and/or prolonged exposure to water, also known as "wet work." In the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic, frequent hand hygiene has become a global recommendation for all individuals, and new workplace guidelines for hand sanitization and surface sterilization are affecting occupations not previously considered at risk of excessive wet work including grocery or retail workers, postal workers, sanitization workers, and others. In this review, we discuss the etiology and pathogenesis of occupational ICD with additional focus on treatment and interventions that can be made at an institutional and even national level for education and prevention of ICD resulting from frequent hand hygiene.

How irritant are n-propanol and isopropanol? - A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The use of alcoholic-based hand rubs (ABHRs) is an important tool for hand hygiene, especially in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Possible irritant effects of ABHR may prevent their use by persons at risk of infection.

METHODS

This systematic review is based on a PubMed search of articles published between January 2000 and September 2019 in English and German, and a manual search, related to the irritation potential of alcohol-based disinfectants restricted to n-propanol (1-propanol) and its structural isomer isopropanol (isopropyl alcohol, 2-propanol).

RESULTS

The majority of the included studies show a low irritation potential of n-propanol alone. However, recent studies provide evidence for significant barrier damage effects of repeated exposure to 60% n-propanol in healthy, as well as atopic skin in vivo. The synergistic response of combined irritants, (ie, a combination of n-propanol or isopropanol with detergents such as sodium lauryl sulfate) is greater, compared with a quantitatively identical application of the same irritant alone.

CONCLUSION

While recent studies indicate a higher risk of skin irritation for n-propanol and isopropanol than reported in the past, this risk still seems to be lower than that for frequent handwashing with detergents, as recommended by some to prevent COVID-19 infections.

The benefit of a ceramide-linoleic acid-containing moisturizer as an adjunctive therapy for a set of xerotic dermatoses

Atopic dermatitis (AD), chronic eczema, and pruritus hiemalis are a set of prevalent chronic xerotic skin disorders that share clinical features such as dryness, scales, and pruritus. A ceramide deficiency and defective epidermal functions are common in these diseases. This study was designed to assess the effect of ceramide-linoleic acid (LA-Cer)-containing moisturizer as an adjunctive therapy in the treatment of AD, chronic eczema, and pruritus hiemalis. In a 2-month study, patients with one of these three diseases were divided into two groups. The control group was treated with mometasone furoate (0.1%) cream (MF), whereas the treatment group received 0.1% MF in combination with an LA-Cer-containing moisturizer. Capacitance and transepidermal water loss were measured in normal and lesional skin, along with Eczema Assessment Severity Index and pruritus scores at Weeks 0, 2, 4, and 8. The results showed that tropical applications of an LA-Cer-containing moisturizer in combination with a topical glucocorticoid accelerated the reestablishment of epidermal permeability barrier and the amelioration of pruritus in patients with AD and pruritus hiemalis. However, it did not provide the same effect for chronic eczema. Thus, the efficacy of this combination therapy for this set of xerotic disorders requires further evaluation.

A novel dermo-cosmetic product containing thermal spring water, sucralfate, copper sulfate, and zinc sulfate in the management of hand eczema

Background

The regular use of cosmetic products plays a role in the management of hand eczema (HE) and aids in improving barrier function reducing dryness, roughness, pruritus and improving quality of life (QoL). The aim of this open-label study was to assess the efficacy and the reparative effect of a dermo-cosmetic product on subjects suffering from HE after 7 and 21 days of daily application.

Methods

The product was a water-in-oil (W/O) emulsion containing the active ingredients Avène thermal spring water, sucralfate, and copper and zinc sulfates. In total, 32 subjects suffering from either contact dermatitis or climatic dermatitis participated in the trial. The modified total lesion symptom score and physician global assessment scores were used to describe the severity of HE. The safety of the product was assessed through clinical scoring. The subjective tolerance, and acceptance, were documented using a self-assessment questionnaire completed by the subjects. The impact of the dermatosis on QoL was evaluated using the Dermatology Life Quality Index.

Results

After 7 days of application, both the physician and subjects noticed a significant improvement in HE. The formula was very well tolerated and accepted. These benefits were correlated with a significant improvement in QoL.

Conclusion

The W/O emulsion used in this study demonstrated real benefits for the subjects suffering from contact dermatitis and climatic 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.

Clinical Effectiveness of Moisturizers in Atopic Dermatitis and Related Disorders: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Moisturizers are widely used for atopic dermatitis (AD) and related conditions, but available evidence of their effectiveness has not been reviewed in a systematic fashion.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to investigate the effectiveness of emollients, as a group and individually, in the treatment of AD and related conditions, by means of a systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Studies indexed in MEDLINE and/or Embase before 16 January 2015.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Controlled clinical studies comparing the clinical effect of a moisturizer against its vehicle, another moisturizer, or no treatment were eligible. For the outcomes transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and stratum corneum hydration, uncontrolled before-after designs were also eligible.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were patients with AD, irritant hand dermatitis, and/or ichthyosis vulgaris.

RESULTS

Out of the 595 publications initially identified, 45 (48 studies, 3262 patients) were eligible for inclusion. A vast majority of studies indicate that moisturizers have beneficial effects on clinical symptoms [SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis) reductions ranging from 0 to 2.7 points], TEWL (range 0 to -12.2 g/m(2)h) and stratum corneum hydration (range +8 to +100%). Direct comparisons between individual moisturizers are still scarce, but the clinical effect appears to be much more well-documented for urea and glycerin than, for example, propylene glycol, lactate, ceramide, and aluminum chlorohydrate. Compared with urea studies, glycerin studies were more often associated with a high risk of bias.

LIMITATIONS

Due to differences in study designs and outcome measures, a quantitative meta-analytic approach was not deemed feasible, and formal indicators of publication bias such as funnel plots could not be used. However, a large number of moderately sized studies with positive outcomes could be compatible with selective publishing of favourable results.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical effect of moisturizers is well-documented. Urea-based preparations may be preferable as a first-line treatment, but there is an unmet need for well-powered comparisons between individual moisturizers.

Interactions between the stratum corneum and topically applied products: regulatory, instrumental and formulation issues with focus on moisturizers

Virtually everyone in Europe will use at least one cosmetic product every day. The extensive use of cosmetics and results from measurements of quality of life in patients with skin diseases demonstrate the importance of a healthy skin. The skin is not only a barrier against desiccation and intrusion of harmful materials, but also an organ of social communication, where dry, scaly, rough stratum corneum is unappealing to touch, inducing anxiety and depression. Knowledge about the skin biochemistry and the use of noninvasive instruments facilitate the development of topical products and quantification of their effects. The presentation of the products and mode of action determine the regulatory demands and the approval process, as they can fall into different regulatory entities, such as cosmetics, medicinal products, medical devices and as other chemical products. The majority of the topical products on the market are regulated as cosmetics. For example, facial skin care and daily moisturizing routines are frequently used. However, despite visible relief of dryness symptoms, some products are reported to result in deterioration of the skin barrier function. New clinical outcomes show important clinical differences between formulations and the relapse of eczema. In a worst case scenario, treatment with a moisturizing cream may increase the risks of eczema and asthma. In the present overview, product presentations and mode of actions are reflected against the regulatory demands in Europe. The regulations are continuously revisited and new guidelines are being implemented, such as the new cosmetic regulation with advice on testing and responsible marketing.

Protocol for a randomised trial on the effect of group education on skin-protective behaviour versus treatment as usual among individuals with newly notified occupational hand eczema - the Prevention of Hand Eczema (PREVEX) Trial

Background

The incidence of occupational hand eczema is approximately 0.32 per 1,000 person years. The burden of the disease is high, as almost 60% has eczema-related sick leave during the first year after notification, and 15% are excluded from the workforce 12 years after disease onset. New treatments and prevention strategies are needed.

Methods/Design

Trial design: The PREVEX trial is a randomised, parallel-group, superiority trial.

Participants: All individuals from the Capital Region of Denmark and Region Zealand with a suspected occupational skin disorder notified to the National Board of Industrial Injuries between June 2012 and December 2013 are invited to participate in the trial. Inclusion criteria are: self-reported hand eczema and informed consent. Exclusion criteria are: age <18 years or >65 years; permanent exclusion from the workforce; inability to understand the Danish language; any serious medical condition; and lack of written informed consent. We plan to randomise 742 participants. Interventions: The experimental intervention is an educational course in skin-protective behaviour and written information about skin care related to the participants' specific occupation. Also, a telephone hotline is available and a subgroup will be offered a work-place visit. The experimental and the control group have access to usual care and treatment. All participants are contacted every eighth week with questions regarding number of days with sick leave or other absence from work. 12 months after randomisation follow-up is completed. Objective: To assesses the effect of an educational course versus treatment as usual in participants with newly notified occupational hand eczema. Randomisation: Participants are centrally randomised according to a computer-generated allocation sequence with a varying block size concealed to investigators. Blinding: It is not possible to blind the participants and investigators, however, data obtained from registers, data entry, statistical analyses, and drawing of conclusions will be blinded. Outcomes: The three co-primary outcomes, assessed at 12 months, are: total number of self-reported days with sick leave; health-related quality of life; and subjective assessment of hand eczema severity. Explorative outcomes are: self-reported eczema-related sick leave, absence from work registered by the DREAM-register and by self-report, risk behaviour, knowledge of skin protection and performance management (self-efficacy; and self-evaluated ability to self-care).

Discussion

The PREVEX trial will be the first individually randomised trial to investigate the benefits and harms of group-based education in patients with newly notified occupational hand eczema.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01899287

Effect of moisturizers on epidermal barrier function

A daily moisturizing routine is a vital part of the management of patients with atopic dermatitis and other dry skin conditions. The composition of the moisturizer determines whether the treatment strengthens or deteriorates the skin barrier function, which may have consequences for the outcome of the dermatitis. One might expect that a patient's impaired skin barrier function should improve in association with a reduction in the clinical signs of dryness. Despite visible relief of the dryness symptoms, however, the abnormal transepidermal water loss has been reported to remain high, or even to increase under certain regimens, whereas other moisturizers improve skin barrier function. Differing outcomes have also been reported in healthy skin: some moisturizers produce deterioration in skin barrier function and others improve the skin. Possible targets for barrier-influencing moisturizing creams include the intercellular lipid bilayers, where the fraction of lipids forming a fluid phase might be changed due to compositional or organizational changes. Other targets are the projected size of the corneocytes or the thickness of the stratum corneum. Moisturizers with barrier-improving properties may delay relapse of dermatitis in patients with atopic dermatitis. In a worst-case scenario, treatment with moisturizing creams could increase the risks of dermatitis and asthma.

Hand eczema guidelines based on the Danish guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of hand eczema

BACKGROUND

Classification of hand eczema has traditionally been based both on aetiology and clinical appearance. For 20% of cases, the aetiology is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To suggest a classification based on well-defined aetiology as well as on predefined clinical patterns and on the dynamics of hand eczema.

METHODS

Literature studies and discussions among members of the Danish Contact Dermatitis Group.

RESULTS

Criteria are given for the aetiological diagnoses of allergic contact dermatitis of the hands, irritant contact dermatitis of the hands, protein contact dermatitis of the hands, atopic hand eczema and aetiologically unclassifiable hand eczema. Six different clinical patterns are described and illustrated. Suggestions for general treatment principles are given.

CONCLUSION

Operational guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of hand eczema are described.

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.

Effect of topical treatments on irritant hand dermatitis in health care workers

BACKGROUND

Irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) from repetitive hand hygiene is the primary reason for compliance failure among health care workers (HCWs). Chronic ICD has implications for infection control because higher bacterial counts are associated with increased skin compromise. Guidelines recommend lotions/creams to lessen irritation. We evaluated the effects of 5 to 10 daily applications of a test cream (A, glove and chlorhexidine gluconate compatible) and current lotions/creams (B) compared with a control of normal skin care.

METHODS

Outcomes were visual skin erythema and dryness, excess erythema (quantitative image analysis), and hydration among 80 HCWs in an intensive care unit.

RESULTS

Knuckle dryness was lower for both treatments than the no treatment control (P < .02) after 2 weeks. Skin treated with A had lower knuckle erythema (P=.03) than B and control. HCWs using A had lower excess erythema (right) than B and control (P < .04). Excess erythema was lower for A and B versus control (P=.003).

CONCLUSION

Reduction in erythema suggests that frequent use of cream A may mitigate the damaging effects of repetitive hand hygiene and allow the skin to recover. Intensive treatment of HCW ICD may be required to counteract the skin compromise and minimize the negative impact on infection control.

Skin exposure in geriatric care ? a comparison between observation and self-assessment of exposure

The aim of this study was to compare observation and self-assessment of skin exposure to irritants during a working day in nursing in geriatric care. The study group consisted of 40 volunteers, 13 nurses, and 27 assistant nurses. Before the start of a working day, the participants completed a questionnaire regarding skin exposure to water, gloves, hand disinfection, and moisturizers. Observers subsequently used a hand-held computer to register the time and frequency of each exposure. The total mean skin exposure time was 96 min per working day, including glove use. The mean exposure time to water was 9 min per working day. A tendency to overestimate was found for all exposures. A strong correlation between self-reports and observations was found for hand disinfection and moisturizers, while a moderate correlation was found for gloves and number of water exposures and a weak correlation for total time of water exposure. Despite the differences between self-assessment and observation of the exposure, we consider the questionnaire to be useful for surveying skin exposure in nursing. Furthermore, the observations in this study suggest that nursing work in geriatric care may comprise limited exposure to water.

Atopic eczema. What has caused the epidemic in industrialised countries and can early intervention modify the natural history of atopic eczema?

Atopic eczema (AE) has a lifetime prevalence of between 15 and 20% in industrialized countries, but a very low prevalence in rural Africa. The 'atopic eczema epidemic' has developed in industrialized countries within the last four decades. The disease has a strong genetic influence, so environmental factors must be responsible for the dramatic increase in disease prevalence. It is therefore fair to consider what interventions may change its prevalence. In this article, several factors are considered: the increased number of doctors in industrialized countries, the development of drugs like topical steroids and emollients, the 'demanding parents' and 'old mother' syndromes, introduction of vaccination programmes, allergen exposure, breastfeeding and the possible beneficial effects of probiotics. In 90% of children with AE, onset is before the age of 5. Its course runs over years. Approximately two out of three outgrow the disease between 7 and 12 years of age. Although its cause is unknown, type I allergic reactions are common and allergen avoidance has been attempted in many studies as a preventive measure in atopic dermatitis. However, results are rather disappointing. The use of probiotics, i.e. daily intake of Lactobacillus, has proven effective in preventing, or at least delaying, the development of atopic eczema. So has breastfeeding, although some studies cannot confirm its beneficial effect. Therapeutic interventions using antihistamines, desensitisation and control of skin inflammation using topical steroids have not proven successful in shortening the course of atopic eczema, although controlled studies are lacking. The use of emollients has, however, a documented effect in up to one of three children with mild atopic eczema. It will be interesting to observe if the new topical immuno-modulators, tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, may be able to shorten the natural course of the disease.

Do moisturizers work?

Moisturizers are used on large body surfaces to maintain the smoothness of the skin and to break the dry-skin cycle. Many healthcare professionals and patients overlook the importance of moisturizers and do not consider them to be 'active' treatments. However, evidence from clinical and experimental studies shows that moisturizers enhance both the smoothness and hydration of skin. Different moisturizers have different ingredients, and each may have a different mode of action. Some smooth the skin, others affect barrier function. Some enhance barrier function in both diseased and normal skin. Others impair barrier function in both diseased and normal skin. Defective barrier function may trigger the development of eczema. The composition of a particular moisturizer should reflect its desired therapeutic effect, i.e. a moisturizer to diminish dryness may need different ingredients from those required to improve barrier function. The content of excipients, such as emulsifiers, chelating agents and antioxidants, may have greater impact than is commonly believed. Greater tailoring of moisturizers will improve their efficacy. Confidence in the therapeutic effects of moisturizers will be enhanced by well-designed randomized controlled trials.

Artificial reduction in transepidermal water loss improves skin barrier function

BACKGROUND

Artificial reduction of abnormal transepidermal water loss (TEWL) is considered to improve skin diseases associated with a defective barrier function. Treatment of the skin with moisturizers is also known to influence skin barrier function. Whether or not differences in occlusion between creams contribute to their effects on the skin barrier function is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the long-term effects of a semipermeable membrane on the skin barrier function in normal skin. In addition, the occlusive properties of two creams were studied.

METHODS

The study was randomized, controlled and evaluator-blind using measurement of TEWL and skin susceptibility to sodium lauryl sulphate as indicators of skin barrier function.

RESULTS

Coating of the skin with a silicone membrane for 23 h per day for 3 weeks improved skin barrier function, whereas no significant changes were found after using the membrane for 8 h per day.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences between creams in terms of their effect on skin barrier function cannot be solely explained by their occlusive properties.

Moisturizer effect on Irritant Dermatitis: an overview

Moisturizers are empirically used as prevention and treatment of surfactant and irritant dermatitis. Some products state they not only improve barrier function by providing moisturization but also create an environment optimal for healing. Yet, moisturizer clinical efficacy remains a topic of controversy. We reviewed publication from 1992 to 2006 that quantitatively examines moisturizer effectiveness, as an update of our prior overview, Zhai and Maibach in 1998 (2). We intuitively (in a testimonial sense) believe that moisturizers are sometimes effective for preventing and treating irritant dermatitis. However, moisturizer may not be broadly effective (8, 12) and may be relatively specific against certain acids, bases, hydrophilics, and lipophilics. We need to develop principles of what is formulated in moisturizers to improve efficacy; for this purpose, there is a need for experimental moisturizer models for comparative studies.

Transepidermal water loss reflects permeability barrier status: validation in human and rodent in vivo and ex vivo models

Permeability barrier function is measured with instruments that assess transepidermal water loss (TEWL), either with closed- or open-loop systems. Yet, the validity of TEWL as a measure of barrier status has been questioned recently. Hence, we tested the validity of this measure by comparing TEWL across a wide range of perturbations, with a variety of methods, and in a variety of models. TEWL rates with two closed-chamber systems (VapoMeter and H4300) and one closed-loop system (MEECO) under different experimental in vivo conditions were compared with data from four open-loop instruments, i.e. TM 210, TM 300, DermaLab and EP 1. The instruments were compared in vivo both in humans and hairless mice skin subjected to different degrees of acute barrier disruption. The values obtained with bioengineering systems were correlated with absolute water loss rates, determined gravimetrically. Measurements with both closed and open systems correlated not only with each other, but each method detected different degrees of barrier dysfunction. Although all instruments differentiated among gradations in TEWL in the mid-range of barrier disruption in vivo, differences in very low and very high levels of disruption were less accurately measured with the H4300 and DermaLab systems. Nevertheless, a high Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was calculated for data from all instruments vs. gravimetrically assessed TEWL. Together, these results verify the utility of TEWL as a measure of permeability barrier status. Moreover, all tested instruments are reliable tools for the assessment of variations in permeability barrier function.

Knowledge of skin hazards and the use of gloves by Australian hairdressing students and practising hairdressers

Occupational contact dermatitis is common amongst hairdressers. In this population-based study, 193 trainee hairdressers and 184 practising hairdressers completed a questionnaire detailing their knowledge of skin hazards, the skills they practised and the frequency of glove use. Knowledge of skin hazards was poor in both groups. While up to 70% of participants correctly identified hairdressing chemicals as potential skin hazards, less than 15% correctly identified the role of wet work. Only a small proportion recognized that hairdressing chemicals could cause allergy. Contrary to findings elsewhere, less-experienced hairdressers often handled chemicals, particularly hair dyes containing p-phenylene diamine. The use of gloves was inadequate, particularly when performing work at the basin, which both junior and senior hairdressers did on a regular basis. Recommended strategies for the prevention of hand dermatitis in hairdressers include improved student education, appropriate glove use and the application of after-work moisturizing creams.

A systematic review of contact dermatitis treatment and prevention

BACKGROUND

Contact dermatitis (CD) is a common occupational disease. There have been no systematic reviews of CD treatment or prevention.

METHODS

Multiple databases were systematically searched. Using independent double review and published quality review criteria, articles were rated as good, fair, or poor. Treatment benefit data were tabulated and conclusions were based on the rated strength of published evidence.

RESULTS

In all, 49 studies met inclusion criteria. Barrier creams containing dimethicone or perfluoropolyethers, cotton liners, and softened fabrics prevent irritant CD. Lipid-rich moisturizers both prevent and treat irritant CD. Topical skin protectant and quaternium 18 bentonite (organoclay) prevent rhus dermatitis. Diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (chelator) cream prevents nickel, chrome, and copper dermatitis. Potent or moderately potent steroids effectively treat allergic CD. There were no macrolide immunomodulator trials that met inclusion criteria. This review did not include studies of children, animals, or non-English language publications.

CONCLUSIONS

A limited number of interventions effectively prevent or treat irritant and allergic CD, but well-controlled, outcome-blinded studies, particularly in the area of allergic CD prevention are needed.

High-fat petrolatum-based moisturizers and prevention of work-related skin problems in wet-work occupations

The study presented is a randomized, controlled intervention study with the purpose of implementing an evidence-based skin disease prevention programme. The hypothesis explored in this article is whether a high-fat petrolatum-based moisturizer can be an alternative to protective gloves in wet-work occupations. The study population was all gut cleaners in Danish swine slaughterhouses, and data were collected by telephone interviews using a standardized questionnaire - The Nordic Occupational Skin Questionnaire (NOSQ-2002). At baseline, 644 (88%) gut cleaners responded and at 1-year follow-up 622 (72%). 135 gut cleaners in the intervention and 277 in the comparison group responded at both telephone interviews. In the intervention group, the eczema frequency was reduced significantly. Detailed analyses revealed that protective gloves are the overall most effective protective means and did not indicate that a high-fat moisturizer could be an alternative. Furthermore, the most extensive improvements could not be explained by combinations of protective behaviour but was found among those who had received information on, and was having discussions on prevention of skin problems. This only applied to the intervention group. A continuous focus on prevention of skin problems with information and discussions on the shop floor therefore seemed to be most important for reducing skin problems.

The clinical benefit of moisturizers

Moisturizing creams marketed to consumers often contain trendy ingredients and are accompanied by exciting names and attractive claims. Moisturizers are also an important part of the dermatologist's armamentarium to treat dry skin conditions and maintain healthy skin. The products can be regarded as cosmetics, but may also be regulated as medicinal products if they are marketed against dry skin diseases, such as atopic dermatitis and ichthyosis. When moisturizers are used on the so-called dry skin, many distinct disorders that manifest themselves with the generally recognized symptoms of dryness are treated. Dryness is not a single entity, but is characterized by differences in chemistry and morphology in the epidermis depending on the internal and external stressors of the skin. Patients and the society expect dermatologists and pharmacists to be able to recommend treatment for various dry skin conditions upon evidence-based medicine.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE

Upon completing this paper, the reader should be aware of different types of moisturizers and their major constituents. Furthermore, s/he will know more about the relief of dryness symptoms and the functional changes of the skin induced by moisturizers.

Role of topical emollients and moisturizers in the treatment of dry skin barrier disorders

Emollients and moisturizing creams are used to break the dry skin cycle and to maintain the smoothness of the skin. The term 'moisturizer' is often used synonymously with emollient, but moisturizers often contain humectants in order to hydrate the stratum corneum. Dryness is frequently linked to an impaired barrier function observed, for example, in atopic skin, psoriasis, ichthyosis, and contact dermatitis. Dryness and skin barrier disorders are not a single entity, but are characterized by differences in chemistry and morphology in the epidermis. Large differences also exist between moisturizing creams. Moisturizers have multiple functions apart from moistening the skin. Similar to other actives, the efficacy is likely to depend on the dosage, where compliance is a great challenge faced in the management of skin diseases. Strong odor from ingredients and greasy compositions may be disagreeable to the patients. Furthermore, low pH and sensory reactions, from lactic acid and urea for example, may reduce patient acceptance. Once applied to the skin, the ingredients can stay on the surface, be absorbed into the skin, be metabolized, or disappear from the surface by evaporation, sloughing off, or by contact with other materials. In addition to substances considered as actives, e.g. fats and humectants, moisturizers contain substances conventionally considered as excipients (e.g. emulsifiers, antioxidants, preservatives). Recent findings indicate that actives and excipients may have more pronounced effects in the skin than previously considered. Some formulations may deteriorate the skin condition, whereas others improve the clinical appearance and skin barrier function. For example, emulsifiers may weaken the barrier. On the other hand, petrolatum has an immediate barrier-repairing effect in delipidized stratum corneum. Moreover, one ceramide-dominant lipid mixture improved atopic dermatitis and decreased transepidermal water loss (TEWL) in an open-label study in children. In double-blind studies moisturizers with urea have been shown to reduce TEWL in atopic and ichthyotic patients. Urea also makes normal and atopic skin less susceptible against irritation to sodium laurilsulfate. Treatments improving the barrier function may reduce the likelihood of further aggravation of the disease. In order to have optimum effect it is conceivable that moisturizers should be tailored with respect to the epidermal abnormality. New biochemical approaches and non-invasive instruments will increase our understanding of skin barrier disorders and facilitate optimum treatments. The chemistry and function of dry skin and moisturizers is a challenging subject for the practicing dermatologist, as well as for the chemist developing these agents in the pharmaceutical/cosmetic industry.

Wirksamkeit von Hautschutzprodukten im Vergleich zu Hautpflegeprodukten bei Zahntechnikern - eine kontrollierte Feldstudie. Efficacy of barrier creams in comparison to skin care products in dental laboratory technicians - a controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Irritant contact dermatitis of the hands is very common in dental laboratory technicians due to frequent contact with various irritants. Barrier creams (HS) are often avoided because a tight grip of tools and small objects is necessary; furthermore dental objects must not be contaminated by HS. In this study the efficacy of HS applied during working hours was compared to skin care products (HP) applied only after work.

METHOD

2 popular commercial HS (HS-1, HS-2) and 2 moisturizers containing urea and beeswax respectively (HP-1, HP-2) were evaluated in 5 laboratories by a total of 192 technicians. Every technician used one HS (several applications during working hours) and one HP applied at home at least once daily for 4 weeks each with a wash-out period of 2 weeks in between. The sequence HS-HP, HP-HS was randomized for every laboratory in two single blind cross over designs for both combinations (HS-1 with HP-1, HS-2 with HP-2). The technicians scored the products on a scale of efficacy (worse, none, good, very good). The skin condition was evaluated by a dermatologist at the beginning of the study, after 4, 6 and 10 weeks on a scale for erythema, infiltration, vesicles, fissures and scaling to produce a sum score. Furthermore, transepidermal water loss (TEWL) was measured on the back of the hand and on the ventral aspect of the forearm at the beginnung and the end of the 4 weeks application period. The quotient of these two parameters was used for statistical evaluation (covariance analysis).

RESULTS

The assessment of either "good" or "very good" was as follows: HS-1 58%; HS-2 67%; HP-1 77%; HP-2 98%. Both HP, particularly HP-2, were judged superior to either HS. This was confirmed by the improvement of the skin condition (HS-1 35%; HS-2 44%; HP-1 55%; HP-2 56%). Statistical significance of the differences in TEWL data was clearly demonstrated: HP-1 better than HS-1 (p = 0.007); HP-2 better than HS-2 (p = 0.03). The acceptance of the products was high. The majority was willing to continue its usage after the study (68 %-89 %).

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate that the use of after work moisturizers is highly beneficial and under the chosen study conditions even superior to barrier creams applied at work. This approach is more practical for many professions and may effectively reduce the frequency of irritant contact dermatitis.

A randomized comparison of an emollient containing skin-related lipids with a petrolatum-based emollient as adjunct in the treatment of chronic hand dermatitis

Hand dermatitis is a multifactorial skin disorder in which skin barrier impairment is involved in the pathogenesis. The development of topical agents that improve skin barrier function is therefore a promising approach for the management of hand dermatitis. Topically applied lipids may interfere with skin barrier function, and emollients containing skin-related lipids have been suggested to facilitate repair of the skin barrier. However, evidence for the superiority of emollients containing skin-related lipids over the more traditional emollients is still lacking. The aim of this study was to compare an emollient containing skin-related lipids (Locobase Repair) with a traditional petrolatum-based emollient for the management of hand dermatitis. Adult males and females (n = 30) with mild to moderate chronic hand dermatitis were treated twice daily for 2 months either with an emollient containing skin-related lipids or with a pet.-based emollient. In the case of exacerbation, the patients of both treatment groups were allowed to use a mild corticosteroid according to instructions. Both treatment regimes significantly improved clinical signs of hand dermatitis as assessed by the investigator global assessment, hand eczema area and severity score. We did not observe significant differences in the improvement of clinical signs, itching, patients' assessment of efficacy, cosmetic acceptability or usage of topical corticosteroids between both treatment groups. In conclusion, this study confirms that the frequent use of emollients may be useful in the therapy of hand dermatitis. However, we could not demonstrate the superiority of this particular emollient containing skin-related lipids in patients with chronic hand dermatitis.

Problems with trials and intervention studies on barrier creams and emollients at the workplace

The potential effect of barrier creams or emollients in the prevention of work-related hand eczema has mostly been documented in a laboratory setting on experimentally damaged skin. Publications on real intervention studies of barrier creams or emollients in a workplace setting are scarce: only four such studies could be identified. The relatively short follow-up of most studies, and the small numbers of subjects enrolled, may reflect the organisational complexity of such studies. The observed effect is a combination of the intervention effect to be measured, and a number of disturbing variables. These disturbing variables are not just measurement error, but also phenomena such as the course of the disease, confounding and effect modification. In hand-eczema studies, the outcome parameters that should form the basis of the intervention effect are ill defined. Moreover, the study itself (i.e. the investigators) influences the results because there is rarely a single intervention: unknowingly, there are improvements in glove wearing, hand-washing habits or occupational hygiene in general. The performance of a blind study is often difficult or impossible. Large numbers of subjects have to be enrolled if a meaningful reduction in incidence of hand eczema is to be detected. One can demonstrate this by calculating the required enrollment in a study among employees in a nursing home.

Skin-conditioning products in occupational dermatology

Moisturizers are frequently used in the prevention of occupational contact dermatitis. This review discusses their chemistry and mode of action. Methods to prove their preventive efficacy are presented. In addition to pharmacological efficacy, subjective factors that influence application of the products and compliance come into play. In conclusion, moisturizers are only one element of skin-disease prevention at the workplace that should be viewed as a complex, inter-dependent system. The efficacy of the complete, integrated system of occupational skin care has to be proven.

Skin protection programmes

Educational programmes, including evidence-based recommendations on skin protection (skin protection programmes), have been proposed for the prevention of irritant contact dermatitis in occupations with a high frequency of this disease. Recent intervention studies directed at wet-work employees showed a positive influence on wet-work behaviour and on clinical skin symptoms. The structure and implementation of skin protection programmes are discussed.

Effect of a lipid-rich emollient containing ceramide 3 in experimentally induced skin barrier dysfunction

In the present study we compared the effect of a ceramide 3-containing emollient (Locobase(R) Repair) with a control emollient (vaselinum album/cremor lanette ana) and untreated damaged skin using clinical, bioengineering and immunohistochemical methods in two different models of experimentally induced skin barrier dysfunction. In model A (n = 13) skin barrier dysfunction was inflicted at three investigation sites by tape stripping. In model B (n = 13) the volunteers were patch tested at three investigation sites with sodium dodecyl sulphate (0.2%) for 4 h a day for 4 consecutive days. The investigation sites were treated once a day with the above-mentioned agents. Irritant reaction was assessed daily by erythema scoring and measurements of transepidermal water loss (TEWL). After 5D, punch biopsies were taken from all sites. Immunohistochemical assessment was carried out with respect to epidermal proliferation, epidermal differentiation and Langerhans cells. Tape stripping resulted in an erythematous reaction and an increase of TEWL associated with up-regulation of cycling cells, involucrin and expression of cytokeratin 16. At day 4, ceramide 3-containing emollient significantly decreased (p < 0.03) the erythema score, TEWL and cycling cells in comparison with the untreated site. Repetitive exposure to SDS induced a variable degree of erythema, gradual increase of TEWL, an increase of cycling cells, and up-regulation of involucrin, E-FABP and SKALP. The treatment with the control emollient significantly prevented erythema, increase of TEWL and cycling cells at day 4 compared to the untreated site. In summary, the present study demonstrated that both tested emollients improve skin barrier in different conditions compared to the untreated skin. There is some indication that formulations containing skin-related lipids might be of benefit in barrier disruption following tape stripping. Different models and clinical trials are needed to establish the usefulness in specific conditions of emollients containing skin-related lipids.

Occupational irritant and allergic contact dermatitis among healthcare workers

Contact dermatitis is the most frequent occupational dermatosis and non-specific irritants in addition to specific Type IV sensitization are involved. We reviewed our database for data from 1994 to 1998 and selected 360 consecutive patients working in healthcare environments and experiencing contact dermatitis at their hands, wrists and forearms. We found that allergic contact dermatitis and irritant contact dermatitis were considered to be work-related in 16.5% (72/436) and 44.4% (194/436) of diagnoses, respectively. Occupational irritant contact dermatitis is due to exposure to a wide range of irritants in the workplace, such as soaps, solvents, cleansers and protective gloves, which conspire to remove the surface lipid layer and/or produce cellular damage. In this study the major relevant aetiological agents that induced occupational allergic contact dermatitis were: nickel sulphate (41 patch positivities), components of disinfectants [glutaraldehyde (5) and benzalkonium chloride (7)] and rubber chemicals [thiuram mix (15), carba mix (9) and tetramethylthiuram monosulphide (6)]. The best treatment for allergic contact dermatitis is to avoid those allergens causing the rash. Whenever this is not possible, contact with them needs to be reduced using properly selected protective gloves. Finally, subjects with atopic dermatitis should avoid 'wet work' and contact with irritants, because atopic dermatitis is significantly associated with irritant contact dermatitis.