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]

Introduction: Hairdressers constitute a major subgroup in the service sector. They are exposed to various substances hazardous for skin, airways or systemically. Accordingly, skin and other occupational diseases are common. The present systematic review will compile and appraise evidence regarding skin, systemic and airways toxicity of an indicative set of specific, important product ingredients. Additionally, evidence concerning hand eczema morbidity among hairdressers will be reviewed., Methods and Analysis: Systematic searches will be performed in two electronic literature databases (Medline, Web of Science-Core Collection), the Cochrane register and two collections of toxicological dossiers (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety of the European Commission and the MAK Commission of the German Research Council). Additional literature sources will be retrieved using hand search of reference lists of included studies and snowballing methods. We will include studies with all types of quantitative study designs, including results from in vitro and in vivo experiments, chemical analysis, epidemiological findings and clinical results. We will assess the risk of bias within studies amalgamating an abbreviated version of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, basic Cochrane criteria and US Environmental Protection Agency assessment factors for scientific information. As we expect large heterogeneity in methods and outcomes, we will conduct a narrative synthesis of results instead of a meta-analysis, except where quantitative pooling is feasible., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval and patient consent are not required as this is a systematic review based on published studies. The results of this study will be published in international peer-reviewed journals., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42021238118., Competing Interests: Competing interests: WU has received a honorarium for a lecture on contact allergy from mixed dermatopharmaceutical sponsors (GEIDAC, Toledo, September 2018) and travel reimbursement for participation in study meetings of the IDEA project (IFRA). WU is external expert for the SCCS. Other authors: none to declare. Provenance and peer review: not commissioned; externally peer reviewed., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)