Search

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.

BACKGROUND: Skin cancer is the most common malignancy in Caucasian populations worldwide and ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is known for being the number one carcinogen. As, especially in outdoor workers, UVR is an inevitable carcinogen, the prevention and management of UVR-related skin cancers in these at-risk populations represent a collective challenge for dermatologists and healthcare policymakers likewise.OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview on the current regulations on the acknowledgement and management of work-related skin cancer in 11 European countries.METHODS: Dermatologists from 11 countries networking within the EU Horizon 2020 COST Action TD1206 'StanDerm' contributed to a standardized survey regarding current national regulations, implemented for the recognition, prevention and management as well as possible compensation regulations in their individual country of residence.RESULTS: Ten of 11 participating countries in this survey reported the existence of an established programme available on certain occupational diseases; work-related skin diseases were only specifically recognized in eight countries. Seven of 11 countries recognize cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in outdoor workers as 'occupational skin cancer'. Basal cell carcinoma (6 of 11), actinic keratosis (5 of 11), Bowen's disease (5 of 11) and malignant melanoma (5 of 11) are not as regularly approved as potentially 'work-induced'. Only a few of the countries included into this survey established a general documentation system (national registry) on occupational skin diseases. So far, representatives of only three countries of this survey referred to a specific established national programme for the prevention, management or compensation of occupational skin cancers acquired during work-related UVR exposure.CONCLUSION: This survey highlights the need for mandatory regulations on the prevention, management and potential compensation of work-related UV-induced skin c

Six out of 10 patients with chronic wounds suffer from persistent wound pain. A multinational and multicenter randomized double-blind clinical investigation of 122 patients compared two moist wound healing dressings: a nonadhesive foam dressing with ibuprofen (62 patients randomized to Biatain Ibu Nonadhesive Coloplast A/S) and a nonadhesive foam without ibuprofen (60 patients to Biatain Non-Adhesive-comparator). Patients were recruited from September 2005 to April 2006. The ibuprofen foam was considered successful if the pain relief on a five-point Verbal Rating Scale was higher than the comparator without compromising safety including appropriate healing rate. Additional endpoints were change in persistent wound pain between dressing changes and pain at dressing change on days 1-5 (double blind) and days 43-47 (single blind). The primary response variable, persistent pain relief, was significantly higher in the ibuprofen-foam group, as compared with the comparator on day 1-5, with a quick onset of action (p < 0.05). Wound pain intensity was significantly reduced with the ibuprofen foam during day 1-5 with 40% from baseline, compared with 30% with the comparator (p < 0.001). At day 43-47, the patients in the ibuprofen-foam group had a significant (p < 0.05) reemergence of persistent pain and pain at dressing change (p < 0.05) when the active dressing was changed to the comparator. Wound healing was similar in the ibuprofen foam and comparator group. No difference in adverse events between the comparator and the ibuprofen foam with local sustained release of low-dose ibuprofen was observed in this study. It was generally found that women reported less pain intensity than men, and pain intensity decreased with increasing age. In addition, pain intensity increased with initial pain intensity and increasing wound size. This study has demonstrated that the ibuprofen-foam dressing provided pain relief and reduced pain intensity without compromising healing or

Six out of 10 patients with chronic wounds suffer from persistent wound pain. A multinational and multicenter randomized double-blind clinical investigation of 122 patients compared two moist wound healing dressings: a nonadhesive foam dressing with ibuprofen (62 patients randomized to Biatain Ibu Nonadhesive Coloplast A/S) and a nonadhesive foam without ibuprofen (60 patients to Biatain Non-Adhesive-comparator). Patients were recruited from September 2005 to April 2006. The ibuprofen foam was considered successful if the pain relief on a five-point Verbal Rating Scale was higher than the comparator without compromising safety including appropriate healing rate. Additional endpoints were change in persistent wound pain between dressing changes and pain at dressing change on days 1-5 (double blind) and days 43-47 (single blind). The primary response variable, persistent pain relief, was significantly higher in the ibuprofen-foam group, as compared with the comparator on day 1-5, with a quick onset of action (p < 0.05). Wound pain intensity was significantly reduced with the ibuprofen foam during day 1-5 with 40% from baseline, compared with 30% with the comparator (p < 0.001). At day 43-47, the patients in the ibuprofen-foam group had a significant (p < 0.05) reemergence of persistent pain and pain at dressing change (p < 0.05) when the active dressing was changed to the comparator. Wound healing was similar in the ibuprofen foam and comparator group. No difference in adverse events between the comparator and the ibuprofen foam with local sustained release of low-dose ibuprofen was observed in this study. It was generally found that women reported less pain intensity than men, and pain intensity decreased with increasing age. In addition, pain intensity increased with initial pain intensity and increasing wound size. This study has demonstrated that the ibuprofen-foam dressing provided pain relief and reduced pain intensity without compromising healing or