Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 1.527
Filter
1.
Br J Dermatol ; 190(5): 751-757, 2024 Apr 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38061005

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Occupational exposure to metals such as nickel, chromium and cobalt can be associated with contact dermatitis, which can adversely affect an individual's health, finances and employment. Despite this, little is known about the incidence of metal-related occupational contact dermatitis over prolonged periods of time. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the medically reported trends in the incidence of work-related contact dermatitis attributed to nickel, chromium and cobalt in the UK. METHODS: Incidence and trends in cases of occupational contact dermatitis caused by nickel, chromium or cobalt between 1996 and 2019 (inclusive), reported to the EPIDERM surveillance scheme, were investigated and compared with trends in the incidence of occupational contact dermatitis attributed to agents other than the aforementioned metals. A sensitivity analysis restricting the study cohort to cases attributed to only one type of metal was also conducted. RESULTS: Of all cases reported to EPIDERM during the study period, 2374 (12%) were attributed to nickel, chromium or cobalt. Cases predominantly comprised females (59%), with a mean (SD) age (males and females) of 38 (13) years. Cases were most frequently reported in manufacturing, construction, and human health and social activity industries. The most frequently reported occupations were hairdressing, and sales and retail (assistants, cashiers and checkout operators). The highest annual incidence rate of contact dermatitis was observed in females (2.60 per 100 000 persons employed per year), with the first and second peak seen in those aged 16-24 and ≥ 65 years, respectively. A statistically significant decrease in the incidence of occupational contact dermatitis attributed to metals over the study period was observed for all occupations (annual average change -6.9%, 95% confidence interval -7.8 to -5.9), with much of the decrease occurring between 1996 and 2007. Similar findings were obtained in the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Over a period of 24 years, there has been a statistically significant decline in the incidence of metal-related occupational contact dermatitis in the UK. This could be attributed not only to improvements in working conditions, which have reduced metal exposure, but could also be due to the closure of industries in the UK that might have generated cases of contact dermatitis owing to metal exposure.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Occupational Exposure , Male , Female , Humans , Nickel , Cobalt/analysis , Chromium , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Occupations , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology
2.
J Am Acad Dermatol ; 90(2): 319-327, 2024 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37879460

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Isothiazolinones are a common cause of allergic contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of positive patch test reactions to isothiazolinones from 2017-2020 and characterize isothiazolinone-allergic (Is+) patients compared with isothiazolinone nonallergic (Is-) patients. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 9028 patients patch tested to methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/methylisothiazolinone (MI) 0.02% aqueous, MI 0.2% aqueous, benzisothiazolinone (BIT) 0.1% petrolatum, and/or octylisothiazolinone (OIT) 0.025% petrolatum. Prevalence, reaction strength, concurrent reactions, clinical relevance, and source of allergens were tabulated. RESULTS: In total, 21.9% (1976/9028) of patients had a positive reaction to 1 or more isothiazolinones. Positivity to MI was 14.4% (1296/9012), MCI/MI was 10.0% (903/9017), BIT was 8.6% (777/9018), and OIT was 05% (49/9028). Compared with Is-, Is+ patients were more likely to have occupational skin disease (16.5% vs 10.3%, P <.001), primary hand dermatitis (30.2% vs 19.7%, P <.001), and be >40 years (73.1% vs 61.9%, P <.001). Positive patch test reactions to >1 isothiazolinone occurred in 44.1% (871/1976) of Is+ patients. Testing solely to MCI/MI would miss 47.3% (611/1292) of MI and 60.1% (466/776) of BIT allergic reactions. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective cross-sectional study design and lack of follow-up data. CONCLUSION: Sensitization to isothiazolinones is high and concurrent sensitization to multiple isothiazolinone allergens is common.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Thiazoles , Humans , Cross-Sectional Studies , Retrospective Studies , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Allergens/adverse effects , North America , Patch Tests/adverse effects , Petrolatum , Preservatives, Pharmaceutical/adverse effects
3.
Occup Environ Med ; 81(3): 122-128, 2024 Mar 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38378263

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Self-reported hand eczema was previously found under-reported as an occupational disease to the authorities among Danish hairdressers graduating from 1985 to 2007. This study investigates whether self-reported hand eczema among Danish hairdressers graduating from 2008 to 2018 is under-reported as an occupational disease to the authorities. METHODS: A cross-sectional study on all Danish hairdressers graduating from 2008 to 2018 was conducted. The participants were identified using information from the Danish Hairdressers' and Beauticians' Union. In May 2020, a self-administered survey on hand eczema was sent to all hairdressers. RESULTS: A response rate of 30.7% (1485/4830) was obtained. The lifetime prevalence of self-reported hand eczema was 40.1%, and 84.1% of hairdressers with hand eczema believed it to be occupational of whom 27.0% answered it was reported as an occupational disease to the authorities. Of hairdressers believing their hand eczema was occupational, consulting a doctor and answering it was reported as an occupational disease, 94.4% had consulted a dermatologist. The main reason for not reporting was 'I would probably not gain anything from it anyway' (40.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on hairdressers' perception, occupational hand eczema still seems to be an under-reported disease which may lead to underestimation of the problem and impair prevention, diagnosis and treatment.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Occupational , Eczema , Hand Dermatoses , Occupational Exposure , Humans , Cross-Sectional Studies , Eczema/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Denmark/epidemiology , Perception , Hand Dermatoses/epidemiology , Hand Dermatoses/etiology , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects
4.
Acta Derm Venereol ; 104: adv27985, 2024 Mar 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38501841

ABSTRACT

Timely intervention reduces the risk of a poor prognosis in hand eczema, making early recognition of symptoms important in high-risk professions. However, limited data exist regarding the ability of cleaners and healthcare workers to recognize hand eczema. The aim of this study was to examine cleaners' and healthcare workers' ability to recognize hand eczema in clinical photographs and to assess the severity of the disease. Cleaners and healthcare workers completed a questionnaire consisting of 16 questions and participated in a structured interview referring to a validated photographic severity guide for chronic hand eczema, which comprised clinical photographs of hand eczema at varying levels of severity. Eighty cleaners and 201 healthcare workers (total N = 281) participated in the study. The rates of correctly identified hand eczema in clinical photographs (cleaners/ healthcare workers) were: 41.2%/57.7% (mild hand eczema), 81.2%/92.0% (moderate hand eczema), 85.0%/94.5% (severe hand eczema) and 82.5%/97.0% (very severe hand eczema). The proficiency of healthcare workers in recognizing hand eczema was significantly higher than that of cleaners. The results indicate that a large proportion of cleaners and healthcare workers fail to recognize mild hand eczema in clinical photographs. Healthcare workers had higher success rates in recognizing hand eczema in all severity categories. Symptom underestimation may lead to under-reporting of the true prevalence of hand eczema, with consequent loss of opportunities for prevention.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Occupational , Eczema , Hand Dermatoses , Humans , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/prevention & control , Eczema/diagnosis , Eczema/epidemiology , Health Personnel , Photography , Surveys and Questionnaires , Hand Dermatoses/diagnosis , Hand Dermatoses/epidemiology , Hand Dermatoses/prevention & control
5.
Contact Dermatitis ; 90(3): 253-261, 2024 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38038148

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Ethylenediamine dihydrochloride is a versatile aliphatic amine found in numerous medications and industrial compounds and is a known sensitiser. The sensitization prevalence is affected by geographical and socio-cultural factors. OBJECTIVES: The objectives are to analyse the temporal trend of sensitization to ethylenediamine dihydrochloride in northeastern Italy and to investigate associations with occupations. METHODS: Between 1996 and 2021, 30 629 patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis were patch tested with the Triveneto baseline series. Individual characteristics were collected through a standardised questionnaire. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of ethylenediamine dihydrochloride sensitization was 1.29% with percentages similar in both sexes. We observed a significant decreasing trend over time (p < 0.001), yielding a sensitization prevalence <1% in recent years. Among departments, residence in Pordenone area was protective for sensitization. No significant associations were observed with specific occupations. We found significant associations between ethylenediamine dihydrochloride sensitization and being 26-35 years old (odds ratio [OR], 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-2.08), and sensitization for many haptens, such as paraben mix (OR, 5.3; 95% CI: 3.3-8.5), epoxy resin (OR, 5.1; 95% CI: 3.0-8.7), neomycin sulphate and mercaptobenzothiazole. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed a downward time trend of ethylenediamine dihydrochloride sensitization in northeastern Italian population and pointed to an update of the Triveneto baseline series.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Ethylenediamines , Male , Female , Humans , Adult , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Patch Tests , Italy/epidemiology , Prevalence , Allergens
6.
Contact Dermatitis ; 90(1): 66-73, 2024 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37828279

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: While many studies have reported on occupational allergic contact dermatitis amongst dental personnel, studies on the relevance of patch testing in dental patients are scarce. OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency and clinical relevance of contact allergy in patients with intra- and perioral complaints. METHODS: A total of 360 patients with intra- and perioral complaints suspected of having a contact allergy were patch-tested with the dental allergen series, European Baseline Series, and extended Amsterdam Baseline Series at Amsterdam University Medical Centers between January 2015 and November 2021. RESULTS: A total of 285 patients (79.2%) had a positive patch test reaction for either one (18.6%) or multiple allergens (60.6%). Sodium tetrachloropalladate was the most sensitising allergen with 98 patients (27.2%) testing positive, followed by nickel sulphate (23.3%), methylisothiazolinone (15.6%), and fragrance mix I (14.2%). Clinical relevance was found in 68 of 208 patients (32.7%), with patients having one (15.4%) or multiple (17.3%) patch test reactions clinically relevant to their (peri)oral complaints. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant patch test reactions were frequently seen in dental patients. Although this study provides us with a better understanding on the frequency and clinical relevance of contact allergy in dental patients, further studies are needed to confirm our results.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Humans , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Clinical Relevance , Allergens/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Patch Tests/methods , Retrospective Studies
7.
Contact Dermatitis ; 90(5): 466-469, 2024 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38146793

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) was added to the European baseline series (EBS) in 2019. Few recent data are available on the frequency and relevance of positive reactions to this hapten. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the frequency and relevance of positive patch tests to HEMA in the EBS in a university hospital in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective study in patients with positive patch tests to HEMA investigated between June 2019 and August 2023. RESULTS: Of 2927 consecutive patients, 88 (79 women and 9 men; 3.0%) had a positive reaction to HEMA. The prevalence in women was 3.9%, in men 1.0%. Forty-three (49%) reactions were judged to be of current clinical relevance and 21 (24%) of past relevance. In this group of 64 patients with relevant reactions, 18 (28%) had occupational contact with (meth)acrylate-containing products, of who 11 (61%) were nail stylists. In 46 patients with non-occupational allergic contact dermatitis, 31 (67%) had allergic reactions to nail cosmetics. Glues and glue-containing products accounted for 22% of the materials causing allergic contact dermatitis and dental products for 8%. CONCLUSIONS: Allergic reactions to HEMA are very frequent in women investigated in Amsterdam. Nearly two thirds of cases were caused by nail cosmetics.


Subject(s)
Cosmetics , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Male , Humans , Female , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Retrospective Studies , Patch Tests/methods , Methacrylates/adverse effects , Acrylates/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology
8.
Contact Dermatitis ; 90(4): 331-342, 2024 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38186085

ABSTRACT

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are considered a high-risk group for developing hand eczema (HE), mainly owing to wet work and contact with allergens at work. To meta-analyse the prevalence and incidence of HE in HCWs, as well as mapping the prevalence of atopic dermatitis (AD) and HE severity in HCWs. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses 2020 guidelines. Published literature from 2000 to 2022 was eligible based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 18 studies were included. Pooled life-time, 1-year and point prevalence of self-reported HE in HCWs was 33.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 28.3-38.6), 27.4% (95% CI: 19.3-36.5) and 13.5% (95% CI: 9.3-18.4), respectively. AD prevalence was 15.4% (95% CI: 11.3-19.9). Overall, the majority of HCWs reported mild HE. One included study assessed HE incidence reporting 34 cases/1000 person years. Most studies scored low-moderate using the New Ottawa Scale and the pooled point prevalence data showed broad CIs. In conclusion, the high prevalence of HE in HCWs underlines the increased risk and need for preventive measures for this professional group. There is, however, a need of further standardized high-quality studies.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Occupational , Hand Dermatoses , Health Personnel , Humans , Hand Dermatoses/epidemiology , Hand Dermatoses/etiology , Prevalence , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Incidence , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Eczema/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Atopic/epidemiology
9.
Contact Dermatitis ; 90(2): 143-152, 2024 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37752672

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Occupational contact dermatitis (OCD) is a common occupational disease. Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a known risk factor for OCD. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of previously diagnosed AD among young workers with recognized OCD and assess its impact on OCD prognosis. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study. A questionnaire was sent to 6251 workers with recognized OCD who were under 35 years at notification (response rate: 47%). Of the respondents, 2392 answered a question about previous doctor-diagnosed AD and were included in the study. Eczema severity, occupational consequences and quality of life were examined using statistical analyses comparing workers with and without previously diagnosed AD. RESULTS: The prevalence of previously diagnosed AD was 41.8% (95% CI: 39.8-43.8). Women had a higher AD prevalence, and workers with AD reported OCD at a younger age. Workers with AD reported more frequent and severe eczema symptoms and had a higher risk of OCD negatively affecting job and occupation choices. Health-related quality of life was more adversely affected in workers with AD. CONCLUSIONS: AD significantly impacts severity and has long-term consequences for young people with OCD. Targeted prevention strategies need to be developed.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Atopic , Dermatitis, Occupational , Eczema , Humans , Female , Adolescent , Dermatitis, Atopic/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Atopic/complications , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Quality of Life , Retrospective Studies , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Eczema/complications
10.
Contact Dermatitis ; 90(1): 32-40, 2024 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37795841

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact allergy and dermatitis are frequently reported among epoxy-exposed workers. OBJECTIVES: To determine the risk of dermatitis associated with epoxy exposure. METHODS: We followed 825 epoxy-exposed and 1091 non-exposed blue-collar workers, and 493 white-collar workers of a Danish wind turbine blade factory during 2017-2022 with linked data from national health registers on diagnoses, patch testing, or fillings of prescriptions for topical corticosteroids. Incidence rate ratios of dermatitis or a first-time topical corticosteroid prescription were estimated with Poisson regression using non-exposed blue-collar workers as reference. We similarly estimated incidence rate ratios for the duration of epoxy exposure and current epoxy exposure. RESULTS: Epoxy-exposed blue-collar workers showed a dermatitis incidence rate of 2.1 per 100 000 person days, a two-fold increased risk of dermatitis and a 20% increased risk of filling a prescription for topical corticosteroids. Incidence rate ratios were higher during early exposure and declined with further exposure for both outcomes. White-collar workers had generally lower risks. CONCLUSION: We observed an increased risk of dermatitis following epoxy exposure confirming previous case reports and cross-sectional studies emphasizing the need for intensified focus on preventive efforts for this group of workers.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Occupational Exposure , Humans , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Follow-Up Studies , Cross-Sectional Studies , Epoxy Resins/adverse effects , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Patch Tests/adverse effects , Registries , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/adverse effects
11.
Contact Dermatitis ; 91(3): 203-211, 2024 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38778718

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Earlier studies suggested a potential association between tobacco smoking and nickel sensitization, but little is known about other contact allergens. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association of smoking status and contact sensitizations as well as subtypes of dermatitis, and to analyse the sensitization profiles of tobacco smokers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Within the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), we performed a cross-sectional multicentre pilot study comprising 1091 patch-tested patients from 9 departments, comparing 541 patients with a history of cigarette smoking (281 current and 260 former smokers) with 550 never-smokers. RESULTS: We could not confirm the previously reported association between nickel sensitization and tobacco smoking. Moreover, sensitizations to other allergens, including colophony, fragrance mix I, Myroxylon pereirae and formaldehyde, were not increased in cigarette smokers compared with never smokers. Hand dermatitis (50.6% vs. 33.6%) and occupational cause (36.2% vs. 22.5%) were significantly more frequent among cigarette smokers compared with never-smokers as shown by non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Although our study does not allow a firm conclusion on whether smoking status contributes to certain contact sensitizations, it confirms an association of smoking with hand dermatitis and occupational cause.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Patch Tests , Humans , Cross-Sectional Studies , Pilot Projects , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Adult , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Hand Dermatoses/epidemiology , Hand Dermatoses/etiology , Nickel/adverse effects , Tobacco Smoking/adverse effects , Tobacco Smoking/epidemiology , Allergens/adverse effects , Aged
12.
Contact Dermatitis ; 91(1): 30-37, 2024 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38702937

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers are at high risk of developing occupational hand dermatitis (HD) due to their frequent exposure to wet-work and use of gloves. Complaints of HD may interfere with work and cause loss of work productivity, or sick leave, and may have impact on job pleasure and performing daily activities. The prevalence of HD among intensive care unit (ICU) nurses is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the point prevalence and the 1-year prevalence of HD among ICU nurses, and to determine the impact of HD on work and daily activities. METHOD: A questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was performed among ICU nurses. Participants were recruited in the Amsterdam University Medical Centre. A symptom-based questionnaire was used to determine HD and atopic predisposition, and an additional questionnaire was used concerning the influence of HD. ICU nurses with an atopic predisposition or symptoms suiting HD were invited for the hand dermatitis consultation hour (HDCH). Data were analysed with logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 184 ICU nurses were included. The point prevalence of HD was 9.8% (95% CI: 5.9-15.0) and the 1-year prevalence was 26.6% (95% CI: 20.4-33.6). Sick leave was reported by 0.5%. HD seemed to have more impact on job pleasure than on work productivity. CONCLUSION: The high prevalence rate of HD resulting from our study highlights the need for the prevention of occupational HD among healthcare workers.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Occupational , Hand Dermatoses , Humans , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Hand Dermatoses/epidemiology , Female , Prevalence , Cross-Sectional Studies , Adult , Male , Middle Aged , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Netherlands/epidemiology , Sick Leave/statistics & numerical data , Nursing Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Surveys and Questionnaires , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Critical Care Nursing
13.
Contact Dermatitis ; 90(6): 574-584, 2024 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38501375

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Professional ice hockey players may contract irritant and allergic contact dermatitis. AIMS: To investigate the presence of contact allergy (CA) in professional ice hockey players in Sweden. METHODS: Ten teams from the two top leagues were assessed for potential occupational exposure to sensitizers. Exactly 107 players were patch tested with an extended baseline series and a working series, in total 74 test preparations. The CA rates were compared between the ice hockey players and controls from the general population and dermatitis patients. RESULTS: One out of 4 players had at least one contact allergy. The most common sensitizers were Amerchol L 101, nickel and oxidized limonene. CA was as common in the ice hockey players as in dermatitis patients and significantly more common than in the general population. Fragrances and combined sensitizers in cosmetic products (fragrances + preservatives + emulsifier) were significantly more common in ice hockey players compared with the general population. CONCLUSION: The possible relationship between CA to fragrances and cosmetic products on the one hand and the presence of dermatitis on the other should be explored further.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Hockey , Patch Tests , Humans , Sweden/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Adult , Male , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Nickel/adverse effects , Young Adult , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Cosmetics/adverse effects , Perfume/adverse effects , Case-Control Studies , Middle Aged , Limonene/adverse effects
14.
Contact Dermatitis ; 91(2): 104-111, 2024 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38845162

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Most studies investigating the prevalence of hand eczema (HE) in professional cleaners use self-reported questionnaire-based data. However, no validation studies of self-reporting of HE among professional cleaners have previously been conducted. OBJECTIVES: To investigate (1) the point prevalence of self-reported HE, (2) the point prevalence of HE estimated by physical examination of the hands and (3) the sensitivity and specificity of self-reporting of HE compared with the diagnosis based on physical examination among professional cleaners. METHODS: Professional cleaners at three different hospitals in Region Zealand were invited to fill out a questionnaire. The point prevalence of self-reported HE was estimated based on questions from the Nordic Occupational Skin Questionnaire. After completing the questionnaire, each cleaner underwent a physical examination of the hands by a dermatologist on the same day. RESULTS: In total, 234 cleaners were invited to participate in the study, and 224 (response rate = 96.0%) agreed to take part. Based on the self-reported questionnaires, 5.3% (n = 12) of the cleaners had current HE. Based on an examination by a physician, 19.2% (n = 43) of the cleaners had current HE. The sensitivity of self-reported HE was found to be 28.0%, while the specificity was found to be 100.0%. The positive predictive value was found to be 100.0%, while the negative predictive value was 85.0%. CONCLUSION: The true point prevalence of HE among professional cleaners is underestimated when based on self-reporting.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Occupational , Eczema , Hand Dermatoses , Self Report , Sensitivity and Specificity , Humans , Hand Dermatoses/epidemiology , Hand Dermatoses/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Male , Female , Adult , Prevalence , Eczema/epidemiology , Eczema/diagnosis , Middle Aged , Surveys and Questionnaires , Physical Examination , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology
15.
Contact Dermatitis ; 91(1): 38-44, 2024 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38561321

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Artificial nail modelling systems (ANMS) pose a significant risk for nail stylists and their clients regarding acrylate sensitization, which might jeopardize the use of acrylate-containing medical devices. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the frequency of artificial nail practices among female healthcare workers (HCWs) compared with controls and assess ANMS-related side effects. METHODS: In this comparative, cross-sectional, single-centre study, a face-to-face interview with 200 female HCWs and 200 age-matched female dermatology patients (controls) was conducted regarding the use of ANMS between March and November 2023. RESULTS: Among 400 participants (median age: 25), 85 (21.3%) have applied ANMS at least once. The prevalence of ANMS application was significantly higher in HCWs (n = 54/200, 27%) compared with controls (n = 31/200, 15.5%) (p < 0.05). Long-lasting nail polish was the most commonly preferred technique (n = 82/85, 96.5%). ANMS were mainly performed in nail studios by nail stylists (n = 79/85, 92.9%), while three participants were using home kits. Nail brittleness was the most frequently reported side effect (n = 19/85, 22.4%). No case of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) was detected. CONCLUSIONS: The popularity of ANMS among young female HCWs is growing. This striking trend might further put these individuals not only at risk of medical device-related adverse events but also occupational ACD.


Subject(s)
Acrylates , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Health Personnel , Nails , Humans , Female , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Acrylates/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Allergens/adverse effects , Young Adult , Case-Control Studies , Middle Aged
16.
Contact Dermatitis ; 91(5): 412-423, 2024 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39138617

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: This exploratory study aimed to assess contact dermatitis (CD) risk among workers using the Manitoba Occupational Disease Surveillance System (MODSS). METHODS: The MODSS linked accepted time-loss claims from the Workers' Compensation Board of Manitoba (2006-2019), with administrative health data from medical and hospital records (1996-2020). CD risk by occupation and industry (hazard ratio, 95% confidence intervals) was estimated using Cox proportional hazard models, adjusted for age and stratified by sex. RESULTS: Increased risk of new onset CD was observed among some occupations and industries with known skin irritants and allergens. Some occupations with known increased risks of CD remained elevated when removing the accepted WCB cases was performed, suggesting that all CD cases in these occupations may not show up in WCB statistics. Increased risk was also observed for occupations and industries with unknown exposures related to CD, whereas some groups known to be at risk of CD were not observed to have elevated risks in this cohort. DISCUSSION: The MODSS successfully identified some occupations and industries known to be at high risk of occupational CD, but not others. Some occupations not typically associated with work-related CD were also identified, which warrants further investigation.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Occupational , Humans , Manitoba/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Female , Male , Adult , Middle Aged , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Occupational Exposure/statistics & numerical data , Risk Assessment , Proportional Hazards Models , Occupations/statistics & numerical data , Young Adult , Industry , Risk Factors
17.
Contact Dermatitis ; 90(1): 17-22, 2024 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37750436

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Hand eczema (HE) is a common inflammatory skin disease that may have serious consequences. The age of HE onset varies, but is estimated to be early- to mid-20s. However, very little is known about HE in childhood and adolescence. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the epidemiology, aetiology and severity of HE among a random sample of Danish adolescents drawn from the general population. METHODS: The study was designed as a self-administered questionnaire study. An electronic questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 13 000 individuals aged 15-19 years. RESULTS: The point-prevalence, 1-year prevalence and life-time prevalence of HE among Danish adolescents was 4.9%, 12.1% and 18.3%, respectively. Among patients with a history of HE, 64.6% of cases were not associated with atopic dermatitis. Of all respondents, 60.2% were either part-time or full-time employed. Among respondents with current HE, 38.2% believed that the occupational exposures either caused or exacerbated the HE. CONCLUSION: We found a high prevalence of HE among Danish adolescents which raises concern. Knowing the potential consequences that HE may have, attention should be paid to the prevention of HE in adolescence, especially on occupational aspects and prevention of skin disease in young workers.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Atopic , Dermatitis, Occupational , Eczema , Hand Dermatoses , Humans , Adolescent , Dermatitis, Atopic/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Eczema/epidemiology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Denmark/epidemiology , Hand Dermatoses/epidemiology , Hand Dermatoses/etiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology
18.
Contact Dermatitis ; 91(2): 126-132, 2024 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38769738

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Due to an increasing occupational usage of isothiazolinone (IT)-containing preservatives, and their potential to cause skin sensitization and allergic contact dermatitis, that is, chronic disease, there is a need for more knowledge on how highly exposed workers are affected. OBJECTIVES: The overall objective was to explore dermatological symptoms of potentially long-lasting or chronic character in Swedish painters. METHODS: Building painters from western and southern Sweden were initially invited to perform a questionnaire on occurrence of skin symptoms. Participants with affirmative responses, and the right inclusion criteria, were further invited to patch testing with four different ITs: benzisothiazolinone (BIT), methylisothiazolinone, methylchloroisothiazolinone and octylisothiazolinone. RESULTS: There was a tendency towards higher occurrence of positive patch test reactions among the painters compared with occupationally unexposed registry patients; however, not statistically significant differences. BIT was the substance most frequently causing positive test results in both groups. The occurrence of adult-onset eczema was higher in painters than in the control group of electricians, and just shy of statistical significance concerning any of several skin locations (face/legs/arms/hands). CONCLUSION: Building painters present with positive patch test reactions to common paint preservatives (ITs), and they report adult-onset eczema more often than do less occupationally exposed groups.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Eczema , Occupational Exposure , Paint , Patch Tests , Preservatives, Pharmaceutical , Thiazoles , Humans , Thiazoles/adverse effects , Sweden/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Male , Adult , Middle Aged , Preservatives, Pharmaceutical/adverse effects , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Eczema/chemically induced , Eczema/epidemiology , Female , Paint/adverse effects , Self Report , Surveys and Questionnaires
19.
Contact Dermatitis ; 91(5): 392-397, 2024 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39041641

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Neomycin is an aminoglycoside antibiotic that may cause contact allergy. It was withdrawn as a medicine for human use in Denmark in October 2009 but is still found in some vaccines. OBJECTIVES: To identify time trends in contact allergy to neomycin in the period from 2000 to 2023. METHODS: A cross-section study of patients ≥18 years consecutively patch-tested with neomycin sulfate (20% in pet.) at Gentofte Hospital, Denmark, during the period 2000-2023 was conducted. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of contact allergy to neomycin was 1.4%. The prevalence was significantly lower in the period '2010-2023' (1.2%) than in '2000-2009' (1.8%) (p < 0.005). Contact allergy to neomycin was significantly positively associated with facial dermatitis and age >40 years, and significantly negatively associated with occupational dermatitis and hand dermatitis. No changes in sex, occupational dermatitis, atopic dermatitis, hand dermatitis, leg dermatitis, facial dermatitis, or age > 40/≤40 (the MOAHLFA-index) were identified when comparing neomycin contact allergic-patients in the two periods '2010-2023' and '2001-2009'. CONCLUSION: Neomycin is a rare cause of contact allergy in Denmark with a significantly lower prevalence following its withdrawal as a medicinal product for human use in Denmark in 2009.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Neomycin , Patch Tests , Humans , Denmark/epidemiology , Neomycin/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Male , Adult , Prevalence , Middle Aged , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Facial Dermatoses/epidemiology , Facial Dermatoses/chemically induced , Hand Dermatoses/epidemiology , Hand Dermatoses/chemically induced , Young Adult , Aged , Eczema/epidemiology , Eczema/chemically induced , Age Factors , Leg Dermatoses/chemically induced , Leg Dermatoses/epidemiology , Adolescent
20.
Contact Dermatitis ; 91(1): 22-29, 2024 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38515234

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, increased hand hygiene practices were implemented. Impaired skin health on the hands among healthcare workers has been reported previously. Knowledge of how worker in other occupations have been affected is scarce. OBJECTIVES: To investigate self-reported hand water-, and soap exposure and use of hand disinfectants, and hand eczema (HE) in frontline workers outside the hospital setting and in IT personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a questionnaire was sent out between 1 March and 30 April in 2021, to 6060 randomly selected individuals representing six occupational groups. RESULTS: A significant increase in water exposure and hand disinfectant use was shown: Relative position (RP) 19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-0.21 and RP = 0.38: 95% CI 0.36-0.41, respectively. Newly debuted HE was reported by 7.4% of the population, more frequently among frontline workers (8.6%) compared to IT personnel (4.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Water and soap exposure and use of hand disinfectants increased during COVID-19 pandemic, which may increase the risk of hand eczema. This highlights the importance of communication and implementation of preventive measures to protect the skin barrier also in occupations other than healthcare workers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Dermatitis, Occupational , Eczema , Hand Dermatoses , Hand Disinfection , Self Report , Soaps , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Soaps/adverse effects , Male , Hand Dermatoses/epidemiology , Hand Dermatoses/etiology , Female , Adult , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Eczema/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Water , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Disinfectants/adverse effects , Surveys and Questionnaires , Hand Hygiene
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL