Professional Cleaners' and Healthcare Workers' Ability to Recognize Hand Eczema.

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.

Notification of hand eczema as an occupational disease among Danish hairdressers: a national survey on patients' perception.

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.

2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) sensitization, a global epidemic at its peak in Spain?

BACKGROUND: A global epidemic of allergic contact dermatitis to (meth)acrylates has been described in relation to the widespread use of manicure products. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the frequency of sensitization to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) among consecutively patch tested patients with eczema in Spain; the percentage of current relevance; the MOAHLFA index; and, the potential sources of exposure to (meth)acrylates. METHODS: From January 2019 to December 2022, 2-HEMA 2% pet. was prospectively patch tested in 24 REIDAC (Spanish Allergic Contact Dermatitis Registry) centres. RESULTS: Six thousand one hundred thirty-four patients were consecutively patch tested with 2-HEMA 2% pet. 265/6134 (4.3%) were positive. Positive reactions of current relevance were identified to involve 184/265 (69%). The efficiency (number of patch tests needed to detect relevant positive patch test reactions) was 34 (6134/184). The variable 'occupational' was found to be significantly associated with a higher risk for relevant positive reactions to 2-HEMA (OR: 10.9; 95% CI: 8.1-14.9). CONCLUSION: (Meth)acrylate sensitization is a prevalent health issue in Spain. 2-HEMA 2% pet. has been identified to be a highly effective (meth)acrylate allergy marker in the GEIDAC baseline series. The responsible authorities should implement policies guaranteeing accurate labelling of industrial, medical, and consumer materials while ensuring the enforcement of said labelling through appropriate legal means.

Contact allergy caused by acrylates in nail cosmetics: A pilot study from Greece.

BACKGROUND: The growing popularity of nail techniques based on acrylates has led to a higher frequency of sensitization in both nail technicians and users. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to assess cases of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by acrylates in individuals with occupational or non-occupational exposure to nail techniques. METHODS: A preliminary study was conducted on 30 patients with ACD caused by acrylates in nail techniques, who were patch tested from September 2022 to March 2023 at the First Department of Dermatology and Venereology of Andreas Syggros Hospital, Athens, Greece. RESULTS: Thirty female patients with ACD to acrylates were documented (15 users and 15 nail technicians and users). The most common allergens were: 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate (HPMA) and ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), which tested positive in all 30 patients (100.0%). Twenty patients (66.7%) had been exposed to dental procedures involving acrylates, before the onset of ACD. Nail technicians exhibited extensive skin lesions, 40.0% experienced ACD within the first year of work and 13.3% during their professional practice. Three of them (20.0%) had to discontinue their work. CONCLUSION: Acrylates have been identified as potent allergens, necessitating the implementation of safety measures for the use of these chemicals in nail techniques.

Quality of patch testing patient's own material in patients with suspected occupational skin diseases throughout Germany: Interim results of the German Social Accident Insurance (DGUV) research project FB 317b.

BACKGROUND: Due to limited availability of commercial test preparations, patch testing patient's own material (POM) is of great importance to diagnose occupational allergic contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality of performance and documentation of patch testing with POM in patients with suspected occupational skin diseases (OSD) in Germany. METHODS: Retrospective-prospective analysis of protocols of patch tests with POM was conducted between 2013 and 2021 in patients with suspected OSD and submitted to statutory accident insurance institutions. Assessments were done by predefined criteria. RESULTS: Three thousand and four patch tests with POM from 460 patients were included. A full description of the POM was provided in 73.3% of all tests. The test concentration, test vehicle and pH value were documented in 74.3%, 70.5% and 42.2% of tests, for which the respective parameters were considered relevant. One hundred and sixty-one positive reactions to POM were documented. In 72%, sufficient patch testing with commercial test substances was conducted to investigate the positive reaction. In 30.4%, consecutive patch testing of all ingredients of the POM was done. CONCLUSIONS: The results not only show considerable shortcomings mainly in documentation but also to some extent performance of patch tests with POM in patients with suspected OSD in Germany.

New causes of occupational allergic contact dermatitis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Occupational allergic contact dermatitis (OACD) is an important work-related skin disease. Information about the causative agents comes from many sources, including patch test databases, registries, case series and case reports. This review summarizes new information about common causative allergens and diagnosis. RECENT FINDINGS: Common causes of OACD include rubber components, epoxies and preservatives. New exposure sources for these allergens continue to be described. Often these exposure sources are related to the changing world around us, such as allergens related to smartphones and technology, and personal protective equipment-related exposures during the COVID-19 pandemic. New allergens are also being described, some of which are related to known allergens (e.g. a new epoxy or acrylate component).Accurate diagnosis is critical to effective management of OACD, which may include removing the worker from exposure to the causative allergen. Safety data sheets may not contain complete information and patch testing with specialized series of allergens and workplace materials may be necessary. SUMMARY: This review provides current evidence about causes of OACD and important aspects of diagnosis. This is important for clinical practice to ensure cases of OACD are not missed.

Sensitization to ethylenediamine dihydrochloride in patients with contact dermatitis in northeastern Italy from 1996 to 2021.

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.

More than just methylisothiazolinone: Retrospective analysis of patients with isothiazolinone allergy in North America, 2017-2020.

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.