Occupational irritant contact dermatitis diagnosed by analysis of contact irritants and allergens in the work environment

Work-related and personal risk factors for occupational contact dermatitis: A systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis

The objective of this review is to identify work-related and personal risk factors for contact dermatitis (CD), and assess their association with this frequently occurring occupational disease. A systematic review of the literature from 1990 to June 2, 2020, was conducted using Medline and Embase. Prospective cohort and case-control studies were included, and meta-analyses were conducted when feasible. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Twenty-nine studies were identified, comprising 26 study populations and with a total of 846 209 participants investigating 52 risk factors for CD. Meta-analyses were performed for five risk factors, all of them for irritant contact dermatitis (ICD). Moderate-quality evidence was found for associations between wet work and ICD (OR: 1.56, 95%CI: 1.21-2.01). High-quality evidence was found for the association between atopic dermatitis and ICD (OR: 2.44, 95%CI: 1.89-3.15). There was no evidence for an association between ICD and sex or history of hand dermatitis, respiratory and mucosal atopy. In conclusion, several work-related and personal risk factors associated with CD were identified. Our data emphasize the need for the assessment of both, work-related and personal, risk factors to prevent occupational CD.

Applying skin protective cream and the wearing of gloves?-A randomized controlled experimental study

BACKGROUND

Glove occlusion might enhance skin sensitivity to a subsequent detergent challenge (occlusion effect). Thus, some skin protection creams (PC) claim to protect against this effect of occlusion, and are recommended to be used before wearing liquid-proof gloves.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of PC applied prior to glove occlusion on the 'occlusion effect'-refers to increased susceptibility of the skin to a model detergent.

METHODS

One hundred and eleven volunteers were enrolled in a single-blind, randomized study. Seven PCs were applied before glove occlusion over 7 days (D1-D7). After sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS) challenge, we compared the irritation between the areas treated with PC and occlusion alone. Clinical scoring and bioengineering methods (capacitance, transepidermal water loss [TEWL], and colourimetry [erythema]) were used to quantify the irritant reactions.

RESULTS

After 1 week of occlusion and PC application, we did not observe significant changes in TEWL, nor in erythema, whereas skin hydration raised in three cream-treated areas. On day 10, after a challenge with SLS, some products significantly aggravated the skin irritation as compared to occlusion alone.

CONCLUSIONS

The 'occlusion effect'-shown as higher skin susceptibility to a model detergent-was not mitigated by PCs when applied prior to glove occlusion. On the contrary, some PCs might have negative effects on skin barrier function and augment such sensitivity.

Causes of irritant contact dermatitis after occupational skin exposure: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) is a major cause of occupational disease. The aim was to review the relation between exposure to occupational irritants and ICD and the prognosis of ICD.

METHODS

Through a systematic search, 1516 titles were identified, and 48 studies were included in the systematic review.

RESULTS

We found that the evidence for an association between ICD and occupational irritants was strong for wet work, moderate for detergents and non-alcoholic disinfectants, and strong for a combination. The highest quality studies provided limited evidence for an association with use of occlusive gloves without other exposures and moderate evidence with simultaneous exposure to other wet work irritants. The evidence for an association between minor ICD and exposure to metalworking fluids was moderate. Regarding mechanical exposures, the literature was scarce and the evidence limited. We found that the prognosis for complete healing of ICD is poor, but improves after decrease of exposure through change of occupation or work tasks. There was no substantial evidence for an influence of gender, age, or household exposures. Inclusion of atopic dermatitis in the analysis did not alter the risk of ICD. Studies were at risk of bias, mainly due to selection and misclassification of exposure and outcome. This may have attenuated the results.

CONCLUSION

This review reports strong evidence for an association between ICD and a combination of exposure to wet work and non-alcoholic disinfectants, moderate for metalworking fluids, limited for mechanical and glove exposure, and a strong evidence for a poor prognosis of ICD.

Occupational Contact Dermatitis: An Individualized Approach to the Worker with Dermatitis

Purpose of Review

To provide an up-to-date, customizable approach to the worker presenting with dermatitis.

Recent Findings

Occupational contact dermatitis (OCD) is often a result of combined allergic, irritant, and endogenous factors. Potential causes of OCD can be categorized in 3 main groupings: workplace materials, personal protective equipment, and skin care. Although patterns of dermatitis may provide some indication of the etiological factor(s), patch testing remains essential in the diagnosis of allergic OCD. Management of OCD may require changes in workplace practices to reduce worker exposure to the causative agents and improve skin care practices.

Summary

OCD is a multifaceted condition with significant consequences for affected workers and their families, employers, and insurers. A methodical and individualized approach to the patient with OCD should ensure timely and accurate diagnosis(es).

Contact dermatitis

Contact dermatitis (CD) is among the most common inflammatory dermatological conditions and includes allergic CD, photoallergic CD, irritant CD, photoirritant CD (also called phototoxic CD) and protein CD. Occupational CD can be of any type and is the most prevalent occupational skin disease. Each CD type is characterized by different immunological mechanisms and/or requisite exposures. Clinical manifestations of CD vary widely and multiple subtypes may occur simultaneously. The diagnosis relies on clinical presentation, thorough exposure assessment and evaluation with techniques such as patch testing and skin-prick testing. Management is based on patient education, avoidance strategies of specific substances, and topical treatments; in severe or recalcitrant cases, which can negatively affect the quality of life of patients, systemic medications may be needed.

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.

Allergic Contact Dermatitis

Allergic contact dermatitis is common, resulting in considerable morbidity. Diagnosis is based on a thorough history, physical examination, and patch testing. Several commercially available panels of patch testing are currently used. Allergens are found in a wide variety of daily products, occupational exposures, and foods. The mainstay of treatment is avoidance of the allergen, and databases like Contact Allergen Management Program and Contact Allergen Replacement Database help patients to select products that do not contain allergens to which they are sensitized. Topical corticosteroids can be used to treat exacerbations, but should be avoided in long-term treatment.

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.

Recent Trends in Occupational Contact Dermatitis

Occupational contact dermatitis (OCD) remains prevalent among workers and impacts quality of life and workability. The purpose of this review is to summarize the recent advances in occupational contact dermatitis as well as potential hazardous agents in the workplaces causing OCD. The review covers new developments in the epidemiology, etiology, diagnosis, and management of occupational contact dermatitis. This article also provides updated information on the prevalence of work-related skin symptoms and on new contact allergens among working population. It is emphasized that in the context of prevention of OCD, special attention should be focused on the identified high-risk occupational groups, especially healthcare workers and hairdressers starting with the apprentices. Current approaches include working out the standards and guidelines to improve the education, knowledge, diagnosis, and management of OCD based on a multidisciplinary team of medical specialists and an employer.

The combined diagnosis of allergic and irritant contact dermatitis in a retrospective cohort of 1000 consecutive patients with occupational contact dermatitis

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of combined allergic and irritant contact dermatitis is an accepted subdiagnosis for hand dermatitis, and it is often considered in a patient with contact dermatitis, a positive and relevant patch test result, and wet work exposure. We therefore hypothesize that it is arbitrary for wet work exposure to be taken into consideration in a patient with newly diagnosed relevant contact allergy. Furthermore, an overestimation of the diagnosis will probably occur if the criteria for wet work exposure are applied correctly, as many occupations have an element of wet work.

OBJECTIVES

To find the statistically expected number of combined allergic and irritant contact dermatitis cases in 1000 patients, and to evaluate the diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis.

METHODS

One thousand consecutive patients with occupational contact dermatitis from a hospital unit in Denmark were assessed.

RESULTS

The expected number of cases with the diagnosis of combined allergic and irritant contact dermatitis was 0.33%, as compared with the observed number of 6.4%. Females occupied in wet occupations were often diagnosed with combined allergic and irritant contact dermatitis (p < 0.005).

CONCLUSION

The diagnosis of combined allergic and irritant contact dermatitis should be used critically to avoid misclassification, and possible criteria for the diagnosis are proposed.