Search

Introduction: Hairdressers are exposed to wet work and manifold allergens at work, rendering exposure complex and the aetiology of occupational hand eczema (OHE) often multifactorial in this occupational group. Objectives: To identify exposure patterns associated with increased risk of hand eczema in hairdressers. Methods: All hairdressers graduating from 2004 to 2007 and 2015 to 2018 received a questionnaire in 2009 and 2020, respectively. Current exposures (with or without regular glove use) and OHE were self‐reported, and their association examined. Patterns of exposure were identified by latent class analysis (LCA). Results: A total response of 39.9% (668/1675) was obtained. Six exposure profiles (#1–6) were identified by LCA across 11 tasks performed with or without gloves as well as deep conditioning, that is, 23 task items. Compared to profile #1 with the lowest OHE risk (reference) an increased risk of current OHE were seen in profile #4 [adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 6.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5–44.8 and #6 (aOR 39.4, 95%CI 6.1–362.8)] in logistic regression analysis. Profile #1 and #6 had performed the same tasks, but in profile #6 regular glove use was performed in 9.1% (1/ 11) of tasks compared to 72.7% (8/11) of tasks in profile #1 (p = 0.002). Conclusion: Although occupational exposures in hairdressing are complex, meaningful patterns associated with a wide range of OHE risk can be identified by LCA. The increase of OHE risk seems predominantly to be due to poor compliance with protective gloves. LCA could be applied to further fields of complex (skin) exposures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The burden of occupational hand eczema in hairdressers is high, and (partly strong) allergens abound in the hair cosmetic products they use. Objectives: To systematically review published evidence concerning contact allergy to an indicative list of active ingredients of hair cosmetics, namely, p‐phenylenediamine (PPD), toluene‐2,5‐diamine (PTD), persulfates, mostly ammonium persulfate (APS), glyceryl thioglycolate (GMTG), and ammonium thioglycolate (ATG), concerning the prevalence of sensitization, particularly in terms of a comparison (relative risk; RR) between hairdressers and non‐hairdressers. Methods: Following a PROSPERO‐registered and published protocol, eligible literature published from 2000 to February 2021 was identified, yielding 322 publications, and extracted in standardized publication record forms, also considering risk of bias. Results: Based on 141 publications, the contact allergy prevalence to PPD was 4.3% (95% CI: 3.8–4.9%) in consecutively patch tested patients. Other ingredients were mostly tested in an aimed fashion, yielding variable, and partly high contact allergy prevalences. Where possible, the RR was calculated, yielding an average increased sensitization risk in hairdressers of between 5.4 (PPD) and 3.4 (ATG). Additional evidence related to immediate‐type hypersensitivity, experimental results, exposures, and information from case reports was qualitatively synthesized. Conclusions: An excess risk of contact allergy is clearly evident from the pooled published evidence from the last 20 years. This should prompt an improvement in working conditions and product safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Occupational hand eczema is frequent in metalworkers. The contribution of metal allergies is poorly elucidated even though such exposures are common at the workplace. To estimate the prevalence of metal allergy to cobalt (Co), chromium (Cr) and nickel (Ni) in metalworkers and compare these to estimates from the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA). Two authors independently searched PubMed for studies reporting on the prevalence of metal allergy in metalworkers. Proportion meta‐analyses were performed to calculate the pooled proportions of metal allergy in metalworkers. In total, 29 studies (22 from Europe) were included yielding 5691 subjects for quantitative analysis. The pooled proportion (95% confidence interval) of Co, Cr and Ni in European metalworkers with dermatitis referred to patch test clinics was 8.2% (5.3%–11.7%), 8.0% (5.1%–11.4%), and 11.0% (7.3%–15.4%), respectively. The corresponding estimates for unselected metalworkers from workplace studies were 4.9% (2.4%–8.1%), 5.2% (1.0%–12.6%), and 7.6% (3.8%–12.6%), respectively. In comparison, the prevalence of metal allergy in 13 382 consecutive European males with dermatitis was 3.9% (3.6%–4.2%), 4.4% (4.1%–4.8%) and 6.7% (6.3%–7.0%) for Co, Cr and Ni, respectively. Data on sex, age, body piercings and atopic dermatitis in metalworkers with metal allergy was mostly lacking. Metal allergy to all three metals was significantly more common in European metalworkers with dermatitis attending patch test clinics as compared to ESSCA data, indicating a relationship to occupational exposures, however, confounders could not be accounted for. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Compliance with glove use and safe work practices are important factors in primary prevention of occupational hand eczema (OHE) in hairdressers. Objective: To assess the risk OHE and compliance with skin protective measures in hairdressers trained before and after implementation of a nationwide skin protection program in Danish hairdressing vocational schools in 2011. Methods: A repeated cross‐sectional study was performed. A questionnaire was sent in 2009 and 2020. The Danish Labour Market Supplementary Pension Scheme provided information on yearly payments from the hairdressing profession. Results: A response rate of 66.6% (305/460) was obtained in the 2009 survey and of 29.9% (363/1215) in the 2020 survey. The career time prevalence of OHE decreased from 42.8% to 29.0% (adjusted odds ratio 0.55 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40‐0.77) and the incidence rate of OHE decreased from 57.5 (95%CI 48.4‐68.4) to 42.0 (95%CI 34.6‐50.9) per 1000 person years (incidence rate ratio 0.73 [95%CI 0.56‐0.95] between the two surveys). A statistically significant (P <.05) increase in glove use when doing wet‐work and when handling hair dyes, permanent wave solutions and bleaching products was observed in the 2020 compared to the 2009 survey. Conclusion: Our data suggest that skin protection training during apprenticeship reduces the risk of OHE in hairdressers. The lack of primary prevention of OHE in hairdressing vocational schools may be a missed opportunity in the prevention of the disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current cosmetic regulations primarily focus on protecting consumers, not the professional user who is subjected to a partly different, and certainly more intense exposure to hazardous substances. Against this background, this systematic review aims to compile and appraise evidence regarding skin toxicity of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA; CAS no. 212-782-2) and ethyl cyanoacrylate (ECA; CAS no. 7085-85-0) contained in cosmetic glues used among hairdressers and beauticians who perform nail treatments and eyelash extension as well as hair extension applications. This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 recommendations for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analysis. In total, six publications from six countries were eligible for this systematic review. A meta-analysis revealed that hairdressers and beauticians have a ninefold increased risk of developing contact allergy to HEMA compared with controls who are not hairdressers and beauticians. Results for ECA are lacking. The results of this systematic review clearly show that--regarding contact allergy to acrylates--it is not appropriate to apply risk assessment for consumers to hairdressers and beauticians who occupationally handle cosmetic glues. The regulations in existence do not adequately address occupational risks for hairdressers and beauticians connected with the use of acrylate-containing cosmetic substances and need reconsideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hairdressers are at high risk of developing occupational hand eczema. Opinions on the health and safety concerns of nonfood consumer products, such as cosmetics and their ingredients, consider the exposure of a "common consumer," which may not account for occupational exposure of hairdressers. As a result, there is a parlous scenario in which serious safety concerns about occupational exposures are present. The purpose of this review is to compare the frequency of exposure to various types of hair cosmetic products among hairdressers and consumers. Database searches for this review yielded a total of 229 articles; 7 publications were ultimately included. The analysis showed that—dependent on the task—hairdressers were exposed 4 to 78 times more than consumers to a wide spectrum of hair cosmetic products used in their daily working life, ranging from shampoos, conditioners, oxidative and nonoxidative hair colors, to bleaching agents. The highest frequency was found for coloring hair with oxidative hair color. Consumer use frequency does not appear to be appropriate for representing hairdresser exposure. The current standards do not effectively address the occupational risks associated with hairdressers' use of cosmetics. The findings of this study should cause current risk‐assessment procedures to be reconsidered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hairdressers are commonly affected by hand eczema (HE) due to skin hazardous exposure such as irritants and allergens in the work environment. Objective: To give an overview of the current prevalence, incidence, and severity, as well as the pattern of debut and the contribution of atopic dermatitis on HE in hairdressers. Methods: A systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines was performed. Studies published from 2000 to April 2021 that fulfilled predefined eligibility criteria were retrieved. Results: A pooled lifetime prevalence of 38.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 32.6‐43.8), a pooled 1‐year prevalence of 20.3% (95% CI 18.0‐22.6), and a pooled point prevalence of 7.7% (95% CI 5.8‐9.6) of HE was observed in hairdressers. The lifetime prevalence in fully trained hairdressers and hairdressing apprentices was almost identical. The pooled incidence rate of HE was 51.8 cases/1000 person‐years (95% CI 42.6‐61.0) and the pooled prevalence of atopic dermatitis was 18.1% (95% CI 13.6‐22.5). Conclusion: HE is common in hairdressers and most hairdressers have debut during apprenticeship. The prevalence of atopic dermatitis in hairdressers is comparable with estimates in the general population, indicating that occupational exposures are the main factor in the increased prevalence of HE in hairdressers. This warrants a strategic and collective effort to prevent HE in hairdressers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regular and correct glove use is important[3] and it may impair compliance when almost one-third of the hairdressers report gloves as reasons for their hand eczema, as hairdressers may begin to question the overall benefit of gloves. Of these, 93.8% (544/580) had worked in the hairdressing occupation at the onset of hand eczema and 84.1% (487/579) believed their hand eczema were caused or exacerbated by their occupation. Keywords: contact dermatitis; hairdressers; hand eczema; occupational disease EN contact dermatitis hairdressers hand eczema occupational disease 162 164 3 01/13/23 20230201 NES 230201 INTRODUCTION Hairdressers have a high incidence of occupational hand eczema (OHE).[1] The risk of OHE in hairdressers is associated with a high degree of occupational exposure to wet work and allergens in hair cosmetics. [Extracted from the article]

Keywords: 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate; artificial nail modelling systems; case report; dental plastic fillings; occupational contact dermatitis EN 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate artificial nail modelling systems case report dental plastic fillings occupational contact dermatitis 106 108 3 06/14/22 20220701 NES 220701 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA; CAS No. 868-77-9) is a plastic material used in printing industry, artificial nail modelling systems such as gel nails and long-lasting nail polish, and in dental plastic fillings. 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, case report, occupational contact dermatitis, artificial nail modelling systems, dental plastic fillings Local and systemic contact dermatitis elicited by dental plastic fillings in a patient allergic to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate. [Extracted from the article]

Background: In 2005, methylisothiazolinone (MI) was allowed as a stand‐alone preservative in cosmetics. This resulted in an epidemic of allergic contact dermatitis to MI, mainly affecting women exposed to leave‐on cosmetics. Consequently, a regulation of Annex V in the European Union in 2017 banned the use of MI in leave‐on cosmetics and reduced the allowed concentration in rinse‐off products. Objective: To analyze the temporal trends in contact allergy to MI in Danish patients in relation to key events including European regulations over time. Methods: A retrospective study of consecutive patients patch tested with methylisothiazolinone from 2005 to 2019. Demographics and clinical characteristics in terms of MOAHLFA (male, occupational, atopic dermatitis, hand dermatitis, leg dermatitis, facial dermatitis and age >40 years), sources of exposure, and clinical relevance were analyzed in relation to key historical events. Results: Three hundred eighty of 12 494 patients (3.0%, 95CI: 2.7–3.4%) tested from 2005 to 2019 were sensitized to MI. An increasing trend in the prevalence of MI contact allergy from 2005 to 2019 (P <.01) was observed, although a decline in the absolute number of patch‐test positive patients was seen from 2013 and onward. A reduction in leave‐on cosmetics as a source of exposure was observed following the legislative ban in 2017, from 24.8% from in 2010 to 2013 to 6.2% in 2017 to 2019 (P <.01). Conclusion: The epidemic of MI contact allergy is declining in absolute terms, although the prevalence in the patch‐tested population has not returned to its pre‐epidemic levels. The legislative regulation of MI in 2017 has been effective in terms of leave‐on cosmetics as a source of exposure in MI allergic patients. The process of post‐marketing risk assessment of contact allergens in the European Union needs improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Occupational hand eczema is common among hairdressers, and protective gloves are important in limiting exposure to irritants and allergens. Various glove types may differ in their protective ability, and their use may lead to hand eczema due to skin irritancy and allergy. MEDLINE was searched for studies investigating permeation of gloves to irritants and allergens used in the hairdressing trade, as well as adverse effects of glove use affecting hairdressers. Forty‐four studies were identified; nine reported on permeation. Of those, two in vitro studies found nitrile rubber (NR) gloves to give the best protection when handling hair dyes. Polyethylene (PE) gloves had the lowest reported break‐through time. The prevalence of sensitization to rubber materials in European hairdressers was as follows: thiuram mix, median 2.5% (range 0%‐8.2%), weighted average 3.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.0%‐3.1%); mercapto mix, median 0.4% (range 0%‐3.3%), weighted average 0.5% (95% CI 0.47%‐0.50%), mercaptobenzothiazole, median 0.6% (range 0%‐6.6%), weighted average 0.7% (95% CI 0.6%‐0.7%), NRL‐type I allergy, median 1.3% (range 1%‐16.4%), weighted average 4.0% (95% CI 3.6%‐4.5%). In conclusion, NR gloves provide the best skin protection for hairdressers, although natural rubber latex (NRL) and polyvinylchloride (PVC) gloves may be sufficient in most cases. PE gloves are not recommended. Synthetic rubber gloves with low or no levels of accelerators are preferred. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined trends in prevalence of HEMA allergy as well as the characteristics of patients with contact allergy to HEMA. Because there was only one male patient with contact allergy to HEMA during the study period, we studied all female patients who were patch tested with HEMA between January 1, 2017 and July 1, 2019. GLO:FQV/01apr20:cod13439-fig-0001.jpg PHOTO (COLOR): A history of using UV nail polish in patch test HEMA-positive and HEMA-negative patients. [Extracted from the article]

Background TNF inhibitors have proven to be effective and relatively safe in the management of psoriasis. While infections and certain malignancies are established as acknowledged side effects, paradoxical inflammatory, non-neoplastic, noninfectious adverse events are being recognized less frequently. We aimed to identify published, peer-reviewed cases of paradoxical inflammatory, non-neoplastic, noninfectious adverse events in psoriasis patients during TNF inhibitor therapy. Methods A literature search in MEDLINE was performed for articles published from inception through the 8th of June 2016 that reported suspected incidents fulfilling a predefined search strategy. In addition, articles identified by reference lists were added. Results A total of 295 cases from various organ systems among 13 269 patients were identified: 91 cases were related to infliximab, 101 cases were related to etanercept, and 102 cases were related to adalimumab. One case report was related to both etanercept and adalimumab. Conclusion Induction of paradoxical non-neoplastic noninflammatory adverse events in psoriasis patients treated with a TNF inhibitor is worth recognizing. The amount of cases identified by this study suggests that continuous surveillance and research into these adverse effects is relevant. Nondermatologic paradoxical inflammatory reactions may be underreported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]