Search

The individual burden of disease in hand eczema patients is considerable. However, little is known about the socio-economic impact of this disease. The aims of this review were to evaluate the literature on cost-of-illness in hand eczema, and to compose a checklist for future use. The literature was retrieved from the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases up to October 2015. Quality evaluation was based on seven relevant items in cost-of-illness studies. Cost data (direct and indirect) were extracted and converted into euros (2014 price level) by use of the Dutch Consumer Price Index. Six articles were included. The mean annual total cost per patient ranged from €1712 to €9792 (direct cost per patient, €521 to €3829; and indirect cost per patient, €100 to €6846). Occupational hand eczema patients showed indirect costs up to 70% of total costs, mainly because of absenteeism. A large diversity in hand eczema severity was found between studies. The socio-economic burden of hand eczema is considerable, especially for more severe and/or occupational hand eczema. Absenteeism from paid work leads to a high total cost-of-illness, although disregard of presenteeism often leads to underestimation of indirect costs. Differences in included cost components, the occupational status of patients and hand eczema severity make international comparison difficult. A checklist was added to standardize the approach to cost-of-illness studies in hand eczema. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case study of a 56-year-old female diagnosed with occupational allergic contact dermatitis. Topics discussed include the medical record of the patient, her clinical examinations, the diagnosis and causes of her disease, her treatment options, and information on allergic contact dermatitis .

Background: Real‐world data on the effectiveness of upadacitinib on atopic dermatitis (AD), hand eczema (HE) and HE in the context of AD are limited. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib on AD and on HE in patients with AD. Methods: This prospective observational cohort study includes clinical outcomes: Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA), Hand Eczema Severity Index (HECSI), Photographic guide; and PROMs: average pruritus and pain Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score of the past week, Patient‐Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Patient‐Oriented Eczema, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT), Patient Global Assessment of Disease (PGAD), Quality Of Life Hand Eczema Questionnaire (QOLHEQ) at baseline, Week 4, and Week 16 of upadacitinib‐treated patients. Adverse events were monitored during each visit. Results: Thirty‐eight patients were included, of which 32 patients had HE. At Week 16, EASI‐75 was achieved by 50.0%. Absolute cutoff score NRS‐pruritus ≤4 was reached by 62.5%, POEM ≤7 by 37.5%, DLQI ≤5 by 59.4%, ADCT <7 by 68.8%, and PGAD rating of at least 'good' by 53.1%. HECSI‐75 was achieved by 59.3% and (almost) clear on the Photographic guide by 74.1%. The minimally important change in QOLHEQ was achieved by 57.9%. Sub‐analysis in patients with concomitant irritant contact dermatitis showed no differences. Safety analysis showed no new findings compared to clinical trials. Conclusions: Upadacitinib can be an effective treatment for patients with AD and concomitant HE in daily practice. Future studies should focus on the effectiveness of upadacitinib on chronic HE, especially on the different etiological subtypes of HE, including HE in non‐atopic individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence regarding the association between lifestyle factors and hand eczema is limited.To extensively investigate the association between lifestyle factors (smoking, alcohol consumption, stress, physical activity, body mass index, diet, and sleep) and the prevalence, incidence, subtype, severity, and prognosis of hand eczema, a systematic review and meta‐analysis were conducted in accordance with the Meta‐analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology consensus statement. MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched up to October 2021. The (modified) Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale was used to judge risk of bias. Quality of the evidence was rated using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Eligibility and quality were blindly assessed by two independent investigators; disagreements were resolved by a third investigator. Data were pooled using a random‐effects model, and when insufficient for a meta‐analysis, evidence was narratively summarized. Fifty‐five studies were included. The meta‐analysis (17 studies) found very low quality evidence that smoking is associated with a higher prevalence of hand eczema (odds ratio 1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.09‐1.26). No convincing evidence of associations for the other lifestyle factors with hand eczema were found, mostly due to heterogeneity, conflicting results, and/or the limited number of studies per outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]