Minimum standards on prevention, diagnosis and treatment of occupational and work-related skin diseases in Europe - position paper of the COST Action StanDerm (TD 1206).

BACKGROUND: Skin diseases constitute up to 40% of all notified occupational diseases in most European countries, predominantly comprising contact dermatitis, contact urticaria, and skin cancer. While insufficient prevention of work-related skin diseases (WRSD) is a top-priority problem in Europe, common standards for prevention of these conditions are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To develop common European standards on prevention and management of WRSD and occupational skin diseases (OSD). METHOD: Consensus amongst experts within occupational dermatology was achieved with regard to the definition of minimum evidence-based standards on prevention and management of WRSD/OSD. RESULTS: By definition, WRSDs/OSDs are (partially or fully) caused by occupational exposure. The definition of OSD sensu stricto additionally includes diverging national legal requirements, with an impact on registration, prevention, management, and compensation. With the implementation of the classification of WRSD/OSD in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 11th Revision in future, a valid surveillance and comparability across countries will be possible. Currently, WRDS and OSD are still under-reported. Depending on legislation and regulations, huge differences exist in notification procedures in Europe, although notification is crucial to prevent chronic and relapsing disease. Facilities for early diagnosis, essential for individual patient management, should be based on existing guidelines and include a multidisciplinary approach. Patch testing is essential if contact dermatitis persists or relapses. Workplace exposure assessment of WRSD/OSD requires full labelling of product ingredients on material safety data sheets helping to identify allergens, irritants and skin carcinogens. Comparable standards in primary, secondary and tertiary prevention must be established in Europe to reduce the burden of WRSD/OSD in Europe. CONCLUSION: The adoption of common European standards on prevention of WRSD/OSD will contribute to reduce the incidence of OSD and their socio-economic burden.

Occupational skin diseases: actual state analysis of patient management pathways in 28 European countries.

BACKGROUND: Work-related skin diseases (WSD) are caused or worsened by a professional activity. Occupational skin diseases (OSD) need to fulfil additional legal criteria which differ from country to country. OSD range amongst the five most frequently notified occupational diseases (musculoskeletal diseases, neurologic diseases, lung diseases, diseases of the sensory organs, skin diseases) in Europe. OBJECTIVE: To retrieve information and compare the current state of national frameworks and pathways to manage patients with occupational skin disease with regard to prevention, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation in different European countries. METHODS: A questionnaire-based survey of the current situation regarding OSD patient management pathways was carried out with experts on occupational dermatology and/or occupational medicine from 28 European countries contributing to the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Action TD 1206 (StanDerm) (www.standerm.eu). RESULTS: Besides a national health service or a statutory health insurance, most European member states implemented a second insurance scheme specifically geared at occupational diseases [insurance against occupational risks (synonyms: insurance against work accidents and occupational injuries; statutory social accident insurance)]. Legal standards for the assessment of occupationally triggered diseases with a genetic background differ between different countries, however, in most European member states recognition as OSD is possible. In one-third of the countries UV light-induced tumours can be recognized as OSD under specific conditions. CONCLUSION: OSD definitions vary between European countries and are not directly comparable, which hampers comparisons between statistics collected in different countries. Awareness of this fact and further efforts for standardization are necessary.

Screening for contact allergy to artificial nails.

27 patients (26 women and 1 man), all in contact with artificial nails, were tested for acrylic compounds, known to be present in nail cosmetics. The patch test results obtained in these patients demonstrated that 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate and ethyl cyanoacrylate were the only 2 allergens needed to diagnose contact allergy to acrylic-containing nail cosmetics, except for 1 patient who reacted only to her nail preparation used and in which we were unable to identify the allergen. This concerns clearly a limited number of patients. The purpose was, however, to detect the most valuable allergen(s) to be used in a dermatologist's practice, in which not all possible allergens can be tested, in order to diagnose such cases.

Contact allergy to resorcinol monobenzoate.

Resorcinol monobenzoate is an ultraviolet light absorber used in cellulose plastics and is known to cause allergic contact dermatitis reactions. It is the most important allergen in spectacle frames but can be a potential allergen in shoes as well. We report 7 cases of allergy to resorcinol monobenzoate with different clinical presentations. Our series further illustrates several possible cross-sensitizers.

Contact and photocontact allergy to ketoprofen. The Belgian experience.

Topical ketoprofen (KP) is widely used because of its anti-inflammatory effect. However, photocontact dermatitis is a side-effect. Between May 2001 and June 2002, the Belgian Contact & Environmental Dermatitis Group conducted a prospective, open patch and photopatch test study in 20 patients suspected of KP dermatitis. Severe skin symptoms requiring systemic corticotherapy occurred in 47%. 5 patients were hospitalized. 1 patient showed prolonged photosensitivity. All patients were tested with KP and the other constituents of KP gel. Attribution to KP was demonstrated in all cases. Patch and photopatch tests with KP 2% in petrolatum showed contact photoallergy in 17 patients, contact allergy in 1 patient and photoaggravated contact allergy in 2 patients. 5 patients also reacted to the fragrance components lavender (Lavandula augustifolia) oil and/or neroli (Citrus aurantium dulcis) oil 5% in alcohol. However, in 4 of these, irritant reactions to the ethanolic dilutions could not be ruled out. Additional tests with 3 non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs without benzophenone structure ibuprofen, naproxen and diclofenac identified only 1 contact allergic reaction to diclofenac. Cross-reactivity to the substituted benzophenones, oxybenzone and sulisobenzone occurred only to the first in less than 30% of the patients. A high frequency (69%) of contact allergy to fragrance mix was found. Dermatologists should be aware of the severity of photoallergic reactions to KP and the risk of cross-sensitization.

An epidemic of allergic contact dermatitis due to epilating products.

Over a period of 19 months, 33 cases of acute allergic contact dermatitis from Veet epilating waxes and/or the accompanying tissue (Reckitt Benckiser, Massy, France) were observed in France and Belgium. The lesions started on the legs and spread to other parts of the body, especially the face, and were sometimes so severe that hospitalization and/or systemic corticosteroids were required. Primary sensitization occurred as early as after the first application in several patients. Patch tests were performed in 26 of the patients and produced strong positive reactions to the tissue (25 times) and/or the wax (13 times). The allergenic culprits in the wax were modified-colophonium derivatives (colophonium in the standard series testing negatively in all except 4 patients), while methoxy PEG-22/dodecyl glycol copolymer and to a lesser degree lauryl alcohol turned out to be the main causal allergens in the tissue.