Search

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to enhanced hygiene procedures and use of personal protective equipment, but also to increased attention to occupational skin disease in healthcare workers. The occurrence of hand and facial skin disease in > 5,000 Swedish healthcare workers was investigated in a questionnaire survey. Levels of skin exposure related to hygiene procedures and personal protective equipment were recorded. Caring for patients with COVID-19 entailed higher levels of wet work and face mask exposures, and was associated with higher 1-year prevalence of both hand eczema (36%) and facial skin disease (32%) compared with not being directly engaged in COVID-19 care (28% and 22%, respectively). Acne and eczema were the most common facial skin diseases; for both, a dose-dependent association with face mask use was found. Dose-dependent associations could be shown between hand eczema and exposure to soap and gloves, but not to alcohol-based hand disinfectants.

The preservative methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) is a well-known sensitiser and present in most baseline series since at least 20 years. The proportions of MCI/MI are 3:1. MI alone has been used as a preservative in occupational and household products, and cosmetics since less than 10 years. MCI/MI tested at 100 ppm fails to detect a significant percentage of contact-allergic reactions to MI. Our aim was to investigate whether a separate test preparation with MI picks up additional cases of contact allergy to MI not detected with MCI/MI 200 ppm. MI was inserted into the baseline series of the Malmo clinic in 2003 starting at 475 ppm, then 900 ppm, then 1,000 ppm, 1,500 ppm and finally 2,000 ppm. In 5,881 consecutively tested dermatitis patients the contact allergy rate for MI varied between 0.5 and 6.5%, with a marked increase in recent years. The contact allergy rate to MI 2,000 ppm alone, not traced by MCI/MI 200 ppm, varied between 0 and 1.9%. In conclusion, due to the increase of contact allergy to MI not traced by MCI/MI 200 ppm, MI in water at 2,000 ppm should be tested in a baseline series. Independent of patch test technique a dose of 60 µg/cm should not be exceeded to avoid adverse reactions and particularly patch test sensitisation. (Less)

The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of a questionnaire and medical anamnesis to identify persons with dermatitis in an occupational setting. The design was a clinical epidemiological cross-sectional study. The study was performed between the second and fourth week of January 2001. A questionnaire was followed a week later by a medical occupational interview and a clinical dermatological examination, including a comprehensive patch test with potential workplace chemicals. The anamnesis and the clinical examination were made independently by occupational and dermatological physicians, and the skin examination was performed blinded to anamnestic data. The setting was the mother plants of a Danish-based international company producing wind turbine systems. The study population was a workplace cohort, highly exposed to epoxy resin systems and other chemicals, and totalled 724 production workers at 4 facilities. The rate of participation was 84.7%. Using enquete questions of current skin rash against the clinical presence of dermatitis, we found a sensitivity of 22% and a specificity of 89%, compared to 45% and 87%, respectively, when the anamnestic work history, taken by an occupational physician, was the screening parameter. Using 'workplace periodic prevalence' of dermatitis, we found sensitivities in the range of 63-76% by a questionnaire and 70-83% by medical anamnesis. Questionnaire screening by skin symptoms gave the highest values for redness, a sensitivity of 33% and a specificity of 76%, and decreasing validity parameters as more symptoms were added to the list of screening questions. We found that the use of a questionnaire and medical anamnesis were problematic, when the purpose was screening for contact dermatitis and allergy, in this industrial cohort manufacturing reinforced plastic products. But these instruments might be useful for epidemiological surveillance, when the questionnaire has been validated in the given occupational setting.

AIMS: To identify workplace and individual risk factors for occupational contact allergy and dermatitis.METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out at an international company producing wind turbine systems in Denmark. A cohort of 724 production workers at four facilities was highly exposed to epoxy resin as well as other chemicals. A screening questionnaire (participation rate 84.7%) was followed by an interview by an occupational physician and a dermatological examination, including patch testing, for a comprehensive list of potential workplace sensitizers.RESULTS: Clinically diagnosed dermatitis was found among 214 workers (35.8%) and contact allergy to materials used in the workplace was found in 66 workers (10.9% of the total population and 20.3% of those who underwent patch testing). Of the 66 workers with a work-related allergy, 40 (60.6%) were allergic to epoxy compounds, 25 (37.9%) to hardeners and ten (15.2%) to other workplace materials, where one person showed an allergy only to these materials. Experiencing contact allergy was related to older age and longer employment in the workplace-however, neither of these risk factors was significant. The main risk factor for current dermatitis was contact allergy to materials used in the workplace, determined by patch testing, OR=5.4 (95% CI 3.9-9.9). Fewer days of absence from work was also related to current dermatitis, OR=2.0 (95% CI 1.2-3.5).CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of workers with extensive exposure to chemicals related to epoxy-resin systems, contact dermatitis and allergy was prevalent. Older age and longer duration of employment at the workplace were individual risk factors for allergy to workplace materials, whilst work-related allergies and longer duration of employment at the workplace were significant risk factors for current dermatitis.

Background Hand eczema is common in the general population and affects women twice as often as men. It is also the most frequent occupational skin disease. The economic consequences are considerable for society and for the affected individuals. Methods To investigate the prevalence and incidence of hand eczema and to evaluate risk factors for development of hand eczema in young adults. Subjects and methods; This is a prospective follow-up study of 2,403 young adults, 16 – 19 years old in 1995 and aged 29 – 32 years, 13 years later, in 2008. They completed a postal questionnaire that included questions regarding one-year prevalence of hand eczema, childhood eczema, asthma, rhino-conjunctivitis and factors considered to affect hand eczema such as hand-washing, washing and cleaning, cooking, taking care of small children and usage of moisturisers. These factors were evaluated with the multinominal logistic regression analysis. Results The one-year prevalence of hand eczema was 15.8% (females 20.3% and males 10.0%, p