contact dermatitis - american college of occupational and ... · occupational skin disease is a...
TRANSCRIPT
3/27/2015
1
Occupational DermatologyPearls
Heather P. Lampel, MD, MPH, FAAD, FACOEM
Duke University
Assistant Professor of Dermatology and
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
May 3, 2015
Disclosures
I have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
I will be discussing off-label use of patch testing and off-label treatment of contact dermatitis
I will mention companies
Objectives
Discuss the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in the occupational setting
Differentiate irritant from allergic contact dermatitis
Understand the role of patch testing in diagnosis
Highlight recently described allergens in the workplace
Review the trends in the occupational dermatitis literature 2014- present
Explore pitfalls and misconceptions in the workplace
Why should we care?
Occupational skin disease is a “hot” topic
Healthy People 2020
“Reduce occupational skin diseases or disorders among full-time workers”
ACOEM Core Competencies- Clinical Dermatology
OEM physicians can provide early recognition, diagnosis, and management …
Diagnose primary irritant-induced dermatoses
Differentiate occupational skin disorders…
Diagnose and determine the cause of allergic contact dermatitis …
Manage occupational and environmental skin injuries and dermatoses
Treat and prevent recurrence of contact dermatitis
Epidemiology of Occupational Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis
Contact dermatitis (CD) is reported to account for up to 30% of all occupational disease in industrialized nations
CD is the most common occupational skin disorder
About 90-95% of all cases of occupational skin diseases
Occupational CD Epidemiology United States
Incidence rate of 0.5-1.9 cases per 1000 full-time workers per year
US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004 estimated 48,800 cases of Occupational CD
1 year prevalence estimate of 20%
21-22% in healthcare workers
Ibler et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012;67:200-207.
Luk et al., Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:329-335.
Occupational CD Epidemiology Denmark
Occupational CD
95% of all occupational skin cases
Irritant CD 70% of these Occupational CD
68% due to wet work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
True epidemiologic data are lacking
Likely underestimated due to underreporting
Mild cases specifically
Bureau of Labor Statistics has rigorous criteria for inclusion
May not be obviously work-related (delayed-onset)
Self-treated
Only requiring first aid excluded
Underestimated by 85-88%
Luckhaupt et al., Am J Ind Med 2012.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Survey of established cases of Occupational CD reported that over one year:
19.9% reported prolonged sick leave
23% reported job loss
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
1985 Mathias estimated annual costs of Occupational CD to be between $222 million and $1 billion
2004 NIOSH estimates $1.2 billion
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Hands are usually involved
80-90% of cases
Great impact on quality of life
What percent of all contact dermatitis is allergic versus irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis accounts for 60-80% of all CD
Allergic contact dermatitis accounts for remaining 20-40%
Overlap common
Contact Dermatitis Overview
ACD is a SPECIFIC immunologic reaction, requiring prior sensitization
Elliott G and Das PK. Using p-Phenylenediamine: A Gateway to Chemical Immunology. Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2010) 130, 641–643.
Immunology of Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis Overview
90% of the population can be sensitized to certain antigens such as dinitrochlorobenzene
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis is NONSPECIFIC
Requires no prior sensitization
Clinically can be difficult to distinguish ICD from ACD
Common Occupational Irritants
Alkalis
Soaps
Detergents
Cleansers
Acids
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum
Oils
Solvents
Common Occupational Irritants
Frictional Dermatitis
Repetitive handling of objects or materials
Likely underappreciated
Examples
Fabric
Paper
Metal objects
Driving
Common Occupational Irritants
Gloves
Prolonged contact with skin affects the epidermal barrier
May be irritant itself
May make epidermal barrier more susceptible to allergens or other irritants
Irritants- Recent Literature
Wet work
Irritant chemicals
Solvents
Food
Detergents
Gloves
Mechanical trauma
Air (warm, dry)
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations
Occupations at High-Risk for Hand Dermatitis
Hairdressers
Musicians
Food Industry workers
Agricultural workers
Factory workers
Electronics workers
Cleaners/Washers
Housekeepers
Printers
Builders
Medical and Dental workers
Occupations at Risk for ICD
Hairdressers
Nursing
Doctors
Mechanics
Cooks
Cleaners
Painters
Plumbers
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations at Risk for CD- Denmark
Healthcare
Cleaning
Kitchen work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Epidemiology by Occupation
Shoe manufacturer
Indonesia
29% OCD point prevalence
Febriana et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2014; 87.
Poultry processing and manual laborers
1 year prevalence 23% skin symptoms
Quandt et al., Am J Indust Medicine 2014; 57.
Construction Industry
25.4% point prevalence of hand skin symptoms
Timmerman et al., Am J Ind Med 2014; 57.
Healthcare workers
Dutch apprentice nurses followed prospectively
1 year period prevalence of hand eczema
23% in first year
25% in second year
31% in third year
Frequent hand washing at work, at home, and outside wet work job all risk factors
Visser et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 44-55.
ACD vs ICD
Photo Quiz
Allergic or Irritant Contact Dermatitis?
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic and Irritant
Debunking the myths…
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
FALSE
Allergy can develop after years of using the same product
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
FALSE
There are many cross-reactants in other products, it is best to have NO exposures to topicals/cross-reactors when clearing a rash
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
NOT NECESSARILY
Common misconception held by MDs
There are many aspects affecting end-product eruption
Can be patchy!
CD Misconceptions
Adult onset “eczema”
If no history of eczema or atopy, more likely ACD
Especially if on hands, face, neck
90% of eczema has onset by age 5
“The greatest abuse of patch testing is failure to use the test.”
Coleman, 1982
Epicutaneous Patch testing
Intended to detect allergens relevant to eruption
Is at least a week-long process
Detects Type IV allergic reaction (delayed-type hypersensitivity)
Requires at least 2-3 visits to clinic for complete testing
T.R.U.E. Test
Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test
Allerderm product
Only FDA-approved patch testing product
36 allergens
Comes pre-filled
May not detect all relevant allergens
Patch testing
Step 1: Take extensive exposure history
Include home exposures, work tasks and exposures, implants, intermittent exposures, MSDS if appropriate
Patch testing
Step 2: Determine allergen panel
Would be pre-determined if only TRUE Test is available
Patch testing
Step 3: Prepare allergen tray as appropriate
TRUE test is pre-prepared
Patch testing
Step 4: Apply patches to back
Back must be clear of rash
Patches are marked
Securing paper tape is used
Patch testing
Step 5: Patches removed in 48 hours
Variability in how this is done
Areas remarked
Reactions noted- Irritant
Patch testing
Step 6: Patches read at 3-7 days after application
Our clinic reads at 4 days
Consider delayed read for late reactors
Patch testing
Step 7: Determine clinical relevance
Consider the Mathias Criteria for Occupational cases
Excellent tool for ascertaining occupational causation
Keep in mind that irritant CD remains a diagnosis of exclusion, and dermatitis may be both ICD and ACD, multifactorial, etc.
Patch testing
Step 8: Instruct in avoidance of allergen(s) and cross-reactors
If in topical medicaments, cosmetics, etc. it is best to print out the CAMP “safe list”
On American Contact Dermatitis Society member webpage
Mayo Clinic also has a database
Also consider all objects that may contain allergen
Information (written) and verbal counseling of patient is KEY
May include modified work, increased or alternative PPE, modified environment-both home and work
Mathias Criteria
1. Is the clinical appearance consistent with contact dermatitis?
2. Are there workplace exposures to potential cutaneous irritants or allergens?
3. Is the anatomic distribution of the dermatitis consistent with cutaneous exposure in relation to work tasks?
4. Is there a temporal association between onset of dermatitis and exposure consistent with contact dermatitis?
Mathias Criteria
5. Are non-occupational exposures excluded as probable causes?
6. Does dermatitis improve away from work exposure to the suspected allergen or irritant?
7. Do patch or provocation tests identify a probable causal agent?
Mathias Criteria
Answer of “yes” to 4 or more of the 7 criteria yields a greater than 50% probability of occupational cause
Provides a “reasonable degree of medical certainty”
Allergens
Top 10 Allergens in North America
Nickel sulfate
Balsam of Peru
Fragrance mix I
Quaternium-15
Neomycin
Bacitracin
Formaldehyde
Cobalt chloride
Fragrance mix II
p-Phenylenediamine
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Formaldehyde-Releasers
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Quaternium-15
Imidazolidinyl urea (Germall 115)
Diazolidinyl urea (Germall II)
DMDM hydantoin (Glydant)
2-Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (Bronopol)
Sodium hydroxymethyl glycinate
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Workplace Allergens- Canada
Epoxy resin
Thiuram Mix
Carba Mix
Nickel sulfate
Cobalt chloride
Potassium dichromate
Glyceryl thioglycolate
P-phenylenediamine
Formaldehyde
Glutaraldehyde
Arrandale et al Am J Ind Med 2012; 55:353-60.
Top Workplace Allergens-Denmark
Rubber allergens
Epoxy (windmill workers)
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
What’s new in Occupational Contact Allergens?
Coconut derivatives
Capryldiethanolamine in metalworking fluids
May not react to:
Monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, methyldiethanolamine, and cocamide DEA
Not in MSDS
Suuronen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 120-121.
Coconut derivatives
Sodium cocoamphopropionate
Surfactant
Derivative of coconut fatty acids condensed with amino-ethyl ethanolamines
Soaps, shampoos, conditioners
Sweden, fast-food workers
Hagvall et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 122-124.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide MEA
AKA tall oil fatty acids monoethanolamide
In metal working fluid
Aalto-Korte et al. Contact Dermatitis, 69,316-7.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA)
Surfactant
Industrial, household and cosmetic products
Finland 19/25 positives were occupational, most in metal industry
Soaps (hand, dish), metalworking fluids, barrier cream
Noted concomitant reactions
Monoethanolamine
Diethanolamine- impurity of cocamide DEA
Aalto-Korte et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 169-174.
Airborne medications
Benzodiazepines
Airborne contact from crushing pills for patients
2 nurses, 1 pharmacy tech, one relative
Consider in facial dermatitis
Swinnen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 227-232.
Sevofluorane
Systemic allergic contact- airborne
Required ROAT (negative to routine patch testing)
Surgeon
Burches et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 62-63.
Medications- Nonairborne
Omeprazole
Horse trainer
Handled paste for horse’s stomach ulcers
Al-Falah et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 377-378.
“Head lad” caring for race horses
Dispensed omeprazole paste via syringe
Alwan et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 376.
Fragrance
Citral
Hands and arms
9 beauticians in high-end spa
DeMozzi and Johnston, Contact Dermatitis 70, 377-378.
D- limonene
Machine cleaners, hand soaps, moisturizers, surface cleanser, dishwashing soaps
Pesonen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 273-279.
Isothiazolinones (Denmark)
Occupations
Painting
Welding (blacksmiths)
Machine operating
Cosmetology
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 295-302.
Sources
Paints and varnishes
Cleaners
Polishing liquids
Some in high concentrations
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 65-74.
Methylisothiazolinone
Ultrasound gel in ultrasonographer
Madsen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 312-313.
Water cooling tower technicians
Maor et al., Dermatitis 26, 62-64.
Allergens
Tricresyl phosphate
Cleaning occupation
In vinyl gloves
Plasticizer
Also in sheer strips (Band Aids)
Crepy et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 325-328.
Blue Collar Workers
Compared to controls patch-tested, BCW higher hand eczema, lower atopic dermatitis
Epoxy resins
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile
2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
Potassium dichromate
Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/ methylisothiazolinone (MI)
Allergen: Occupation
Epoxy: construction
MCI/MI: Painting
Potassium dichromate: tile setting/terrazzo work
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 348-355.
Blue Collar Workers
Case report of a cement worker with poor PPE
Sweden
Legislation in Europe to decrease hexavalent chromium in cement
Addition of ferrous sulfate
Chromium allergy persists
Hedberg et al, Contact dermatitis 70, 321-323.
Hairdressers- Denmark
Hairdressers 2002-2011
Compared to patch tested controls, hairdressers more significantly had Occupational CD and hand eczema, lower AD
Allergens significantly associated:
p-phenylenediamine, thiuram mix, benzocaine
Frequent sensitizers from the hairdressing series:
ammonium persulfate, toluene-2,5-diamine, 3-aminophenol, and 4-aminophenol
New sensitizers:
Cysteamine hydrochloride- substitute for glycerol monothioglycolate (restricted in Germany)
Chloroacetamide- preservative
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 233-237.
Hairdressers- Germany
German contact allergy database 2007-2012
Compared hairdressers to clients
Allergens significantly associated with hairdressers > clients:
Ammonium persulfate
Glyceryl monothioglycolate
Demonstrated concern as young hairdressers still with some positive reaction, despite legislation
Uter et al, Contact Dermatitis 71, 13-20.
Food Industry
Cobalt in a baker
Bregnbak et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 118-119.
Food Industry
Pizza makers
Diallyl disulfide and
Ammonium persulfate
Lembo et al., Dermatitis 25, 194-196.
Wine maker
Potassium metabisulfite
Ortiz et al., Dermatitis 25, 150-151.
Heathcare workers
Chlorhexidine
Australian study
2% relevant ACD in healthcare workers
Higher than other studies, keep on radar
Toholka et al., Australiasian J Derm 54, 303-306.
Preferred Approach to Occupational Exposure
1. Elimination
2. Substitution
3. Isolation
4. Engineering controls
5. Safe work practices
6. Personal protection
Material Safety Data Sheets
Mandated
Hazardous chemical name
Chemical properties
Physical hazards
Route of entry
Known exposure limits
Carcinogenicity
Clean-up practices
Control measures
Contact information
Not required
If proprietary
Specific name often avoided (general category used)
Irritants and sensitizers if <1% concentration
Often do not address prevention of sensitization and irritancy
Diagnosis- MSDS
Diagnosis- MSDS
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
AVOIDANCE!
Allergens
Irritants
Treatment/Prevention
Avoidance
Harder with omnipresent allergens (epoxy versus rubber allergens)
Contact urticaria more problematic than ACD
Clemmensen et al., Br J Dermatol 2014;170.
Personal protective equipment
Legislation
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Recommended short-term high-potency topical steroids for hands:
Clobetasol propionate
Ointment
Halcinonide ointment
No propylene glycol, no sensitizers
For body:
Short-term hydrocortisone 2.5% bid for face, neck, axillae, groin, intertriginousareas
Short-term triamcinolone 0.1% bid for body
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Avoid more than a few weeks of potent steroid use topically
Can thin the skin making hands more susceptible to allergen/irritant!
Consider calcineurin inhibitors topically
Consider IM steroids x 1
Oral steroids with SLOW taper
Doxycycline for anti-inflammatory effects
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Barrier creams- Repair versus Protect
Repair creams with ceramides
Barrier creams with dimethicone
Studies are variable in demonstrating any benefit from barrier creams when compared to regular emollients
At least recommend moisturizing
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Prevention
Barrier creams
Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis
At high dose of application (2-20x actual application) can help prevent ICD
Schliemann et al., Contact dermatitis 70, 19-26.
Cotton liners under gloves
Adisesh et al., Br J Dermatol 2013.
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Appropriate gloves
Match task with glove
“Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing” by Forsberg and Mansdorf
ACDS website lists glove manufacturers
Treating Dermatitis- Step 2 (Maintenance)
Calcineurin inhibitors
Tacrolimus 0.1%
Pimecrolimus 0.1%
Therapeutic moisturizers
Shea butter
Aquaphor
Petrolatum
Lower potency steroids for hands:
Triamcinolone 0.1%
Fluticasone cream or lotion
Hydrocortisone butyrate lipid cream
Clocortolone cream
Treating Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Hand psoralen- ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA)
Narrow-band UV B therapy (NBUVB)
Often used for recalcitrant body dermatitis
Excimer laser
308 nm
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Methotrexate
Mycophenolate mofetil
2-3g/day recommended for control
Acitretin
Best for psoriasiform hand dermatitis
2-4 month course
Cyclosporine
2.5-5 mg/kg daily
Azathioprine
1-3 mg/kg daily
Biologics are not helpful overall (yet!)
Treatment
Multidisciplinary teams aid in successful return to work
German model included inpatient and outpatient care
87% remained in workforce
Weisshaar et al., Contact Dermatitis 2013;68:169-174.
Netherlands included a dermatologist, education nurse, occupational medicine physician
Van Gils et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012 66(4) and 66(5).
Canadian model
Gomez et al., Dermatitis 2011;22(3).
Prevention
Evidence-based intervention
1 hour voluntary hand protective behavior lecture/ intervention
Full-time hospital cleaners
At 3 months post-intervention
Decreased hand cleansing
Better knowledge of hand preservation
Improved hand dermatitis
Clemmensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 47-54.
Occupational Dermatitis Resources
Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing by Forsberg and Mansdorf
Contact and Occupational Dermatology by Marks, Elsner, DeLeo
ACDS website
OSHA, NIOSH
Article December 2011 The Dermatologist
Summary
Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish
We are constantly being exposed to new allergens, often earlier in life
Occupational contact dermatitis is underreported
Patch testing for ACD is the gold standard
Can try TRUE test, consider referral for comprehensive panels
Novel allergens in the workplace
Summary
Think outside the box
Try a stepwise approach
Elimination
Treatment
Escalate treatment
Will be chronic if exposure continues
You can make a huge difference in patient’s quality of life
References
Marks et al., 2002. Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact and Occupational Dermatology, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby, 2002.
Nelson and Yiannias, 2009. Nelson S.A., Yiannias J.A.: Relevance and avoidance of skin-care product allergens: Pearls and pitfalls. Dermatol Clin 2009; 27(3):329-336.
Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test. Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test) : Available at:[accessed 03.07.11] http://www.truetest.com/PatientPDF/File18.pdf
Zug et al., 2009. Zug K.A., Warshaw E.M., Fowler J.F., et al: Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 2009; 20:149-160.
Emmett EA. Occupational contact dermatitis I. Incidence and return to work pressures. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2002;13:30–4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. [Bulletin 2512]. Washington (DC): US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1999.
Lushniak BD. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin1995; 13:671–9.
Skoet R, Olsen J, Mathiesen B, et al. A survey of occupational hand eczema in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51(4):159–66.
Staton I, Ma R, Evans N, et al. Dermal nickel exposure associated with coin handling and in various occupational settings: assessment using a newly developed finger immersion method. Br J Dermatol 2006;154(4):658–64.
Veien NK, Menne T. Treatment of hand eczema. Skin Therapy Lett 2003;8(5):4–7. 137.
Warshaw E. Therapeutic options for chronic hand dermatitis. Dermatol Ther2004;4:17240–50.
Schalock PC, Zug KA, Carter JC, et al. Efficacy and patient perception of Grenz ray therapy in the treatment of dermatoses refractory to other medical therapy. Dermatitis 2008;19(2):90–4.
Abramovits W, Granowski P. Innovative management of severe hand dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 28 (2010) 453-65.
Blanciforti, L. Economic burden of dermatitis in US workers. JOEM 52. (11):1045-54. 2010.
References
Sprigle AM, Marks JG Jr, Anderson BE. Prevention of nickel release with barrier coatings. Dermatitis. 2008,19(1):28-31.
Diepgen T.L., Coenraads P.J.: The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72. (8): 496-506.1999.
Keil J.E., Shmunes E.: The epidemiology of work-related skin disease in South Carolina. Arch Dermatol 119. (8): 650-654.1983.
Mathias C.G.: Occupational dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol 19. (6): 1107-1114.1988.
Goh C.L.: An epidemiological comparison between occupational and non-occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 120. (1): 77-82.1989.
Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact & occupational dermatology. 3rd ed Mosby St. Louis, (MO)2002.
Holness D.L.: Characteristic features of occupational dermatitis: epidemiologic studies of occupational skin disease reported by contact dermatitis clinics. Occup Med 9. (1): 45-52.1994.
Belsito D.V.: Occupational contact dermatitis: etiology, prevalence, and resultant impairment/disability. J Am Acad Dermatol 53. (2): 303-313.2005.
Kanerva L., Estlander T., Jolanki R.: Occupational skin disease in Finland. An analysis of 10 years of statistics from an occupational dermatology clinic. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60. (2): 89-94.1988.
Sertoli A., Gola M., Martinelli C., et al: Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Semin Dermatol 8. (2): 120-126.1989.
Rietschel R.L., Mathias C.G., Fowler , Jr. , Jr.J.F., et al: Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermatitis 13. (4): 170-176.2002.
Nethercott J.R., Holness D.L.: Disease outcome in workers with occupational skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 30. (4): 569-574.1994.
Mathias C.G., Morrison J.H.: Occupational skin diseases, United States. Results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 1973 through 1984. Arch Dermatol 124. (10): 1519-1524.1988.
Koch P.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol 2. (6): 353-365.2001.
Bureau of Labor Statistics : Occupational Injuries and illnesses in the United States. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif
Lushniak B.D.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 17. (3): 272-277.2004.
Mathias C.G.: The cost of ccupational skin disease. Arch Dermatol 121. (3): 332-334.1985.
Cvetkovski R.S., Rothman K.J., Olsen J., et al: Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave, and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 152. (1): 93-98.2005.
Thank you!
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
23
1
2
24
25
1
2
26
27
1
2
28
1
2
29
30
1
2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1
2
70
71
72
73
74
1
2
75
76
1
2
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
1
2
84
85
1
2
86
1
2
87
88
89
1
2
90
1
2
91
92
93
94
1
2
95
96
97
98
1
2
3
4
99
100
101
102
103
1
2
104
1
2
105
106
107
108
1
2
109
110
1
2
111
112
113
114
1
2
115
1
2
116
117
118
3/27/2015
2
Occupational DermatologyPearls
Heather P. Lampel, MD, MPH, FAAD, FACOEM
Duke University
Assistant Professor of Dermatology and
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
May 3, 2015
Disclosures
I have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
I will be discussing off-label use of patch testing and off-label treatment of contact dermatitis
I will mention companies
Objectives
Discuss the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in the occupational setting
Differentiate irritant from allergic contact dermatitis
Understand the role of patch testing in diagnosis
Highlight recently described allergens in the workplace
Review the trends in the occupational dermatitis literature 2014- present
Explore pitfalls and misconceptions in the workplace
Why should we care?
Occupational skin disease is a “hot” topic
Healthy People 2020
“Reduce occupational skin diseases or disorders among full-time workers”
ACOEM Core Competencies- Clinical Dermatology
OEM physicians can provide early recognition, diagnosis, and management …
Diagnose primary irritant-induced dermatoses
Differentiate occupational skin disorders…
Diagnose and determine the cause of allergic contact dermatitis …
Manage occupational and environmental skin injuries and dermatoses
Treat and prevent recurrence of contact dermatitis
Epidemiology of Occupational Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis
Contact dermatitis (CD) is reported to account for up to 30% of all occupational disease in industrialized nations
CD is the most common occupational skin disorder
About 90-95% of all cases of occupational skin diseases
Occupational CD Epidemiology United States
Incidence rate of 0.5-1.9 cases per 1000 full-time workers per year
US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004 estimated 48,800 cases of Occupational CD
1 year prevalence estimate of 20%
21-22% in healthcare workers
Ibler et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012;67:200-207.
Luk et al., Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:329-335.
Occupational CD Epidemiology Denmark
Occupational CD
95% of all occupational skin cases
Irritant CD 70% of these Occupational CD
68% due to wet work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
True epidemiologic data are lacking
Likely underestimated due to underreporting
Mild cases specifically
Bureau of Labor Statistics has rigorous criteria for inclusion
May not be obviously work-related (delayed-onset)
Self-treated
Only requiring first aid excluded
Underestimated by 85-88%
Luckhaupt et al., Am J Ind Med 2012.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Survey of established cases of Occupational CD reported that over one year:
19.9% reported prolonged sick leave
23% reported job loss
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
1985 Mathias estimated annual costs of Occupational CD to be between $222 million and $1 billion
2004 NIOSH estimates $1.2 billion
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Hands are usually involved
80-90% of cases
Great impact on quality of life
What percent of all contact dermatitis is allergic versus irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis accounts for 60-80% of all CD
Allergic contact dermatitis accounts for remaining 20-40%
Overlap common
Contact Dermatitis Overview
ACD is a SPECIFIC immunologic reaction, requiring prior sensitization
Elliott G and Das PK. Using p-Phenylenediamine: A Gateway to Chemical Immunology. Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2010) 130, 641–643.
Immunology of Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis Overview
90% of the population can be sensitized to certain antigens such as dinitrochlorobenzene
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis is NONSPECIFIC
Requires no prior sensitization
Clinically can be difficult to distinguish ICD from ACD
Common Occupational Irritants
Alkalis
Soaps
Detergents
Cleansers
Acids
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum
Oils
Solvents
Common Occupational Irritants
Frictional Dermatitis
Repetitive handling of objects or materials
Likely underappreciated
Examples
Fabric
Paper
Metal objects
Driving
Common Occupational Irritants
Gloves
Prolonged contact with skin affects the epidermal barrier
May be irritant itself
May make epidermal barrier more susceptible to allergens or other irritants
Irritants- Recent Literature
Wet work
Irritant chemicals
Solvents
Food
Detergents
Gloves
Mechanical trauma
Air (warm, dry)
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations
Occupations at High-Risk for Hand Dermatitis
Hairdressers
Musicians
Food Industry workers
Agricultural workers
Factory workers
Electronics workers
Cleaners/Washers
Housekeepers
Printers
Builders
Medical and Dental workers
Occupations at Risk for ICD
Hairdressers
Nursing
Doctors
Mechanics
Cooks
Cleaners
Painters
Plumbers
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations at Risk for CD- Denmark
Healthcare
Cleaning
Kitchen work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Epidemiology by Occupation
Shoe manufacturer
Indonesia
29% OCD point prevalence
Febriana et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2014; 87.
Poultry processing and manual laborers
1 year prevalence 23% skin symptoms
Quandt et al., Am J Indust Medicine 2014; 57.
Construction Industry
25.4% point prevalence of hand skin symptoms
Timmerman et al., Am J Ind Med 2014; 57.
Healthcare workers
Dutch apprentice nurses followed prospectively
1 year period prevalence of hand eczema
23% in first year
25% in second year
31% in third year
Frequent hand washing at work, at home, and outside wet work job all risk factors
Visser et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 44-55.
ACD vs ICD
Photo Quiz
Allergic or Irritant Contact Dermatitis?
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic and Irritant
Debunking the myths…
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
FALSE
Allergy can develop after years of using the same product
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
FALSE
There are many cross-reactants in other products, it is best to have NO exposures to topicals/cross-reactors when clearing a rash
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
NOT NECESSARILY
Common misconception held by MDs
There are many aspects affecting end-product eruption
Can be patchy!
CD Misconceptions
Adult onset “eczema”
If no history of eczema or atopy, more likely ACD
Especially if on hands, face, neck
90% of eczema has onset by age 5
“The greatest abuse of patch testing is failure to use the test.”
Coleman, 1982
Epicutaneous Patch testing
Intended to detect allergens relevant to eruption
Is at least a week-long process
Detects Type IV allergic reaction (delayed-type hypersensitivity)
Requires at least 2-3 visits to clinic for complete testing
T.R.U.E. Test
Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test
Allerderm product
Only FDA-approved patch testing product
36 allergens
Comes pre-filled
May not detect all relevant allergens
Patch testing
Step 1: Take extensive exposure history
Include home exposures, work tasks and exposures, implants, intermittent exposures, MSDS if appropriate
Patch testing
Step 2: Determine allergen panel
Would be pre-determined if only TRUE Test is available
Patch testing
Step 3: Prepare allergen tray as appropriate
TRUE test is pre-prepared
Patch testing
Step 4: Apply patches to back
Back must be clear of rash
Patches are marked
Securing paper tape is used
Patch testing
Step 5: Patches removed in 48 hours
Variability in how this is done
Areas remarked
Reactions noted- Irritant
Patch testing
Step 6: Patches read at 3-7 days after application
Our clinic reads at 4 days
Consider delayed read for late reactors
Patch testing
Step 7: Determine clinical relevance
Consider the Mathias Criteria for Occupational cases
Excellent tool for ascertaining occupational causation
Keep in mind that irritant CD remains a diagnosis of exclusion, and dermatitis may be both ICD and ACD, multifactorial, etc.
Patch testing
Step 8: Instruct in avoidance of allergen(s) and cross-reactors
If in topical medicaments, cosmetics, etc. it is best to print out the CAMP “safe list”
On American Contact Dermatitis Society member webpage
Mayo Clinic also has a database
Also consider all objects that may contain allergen
Information (written) and verbal counseling of patient is KEY
May include modified work, increased or alternative PPE, modified environment-both home and work
Mathias Criteria
1. Is the clinical appearance consistent with contact dermatitis?
2. Are there workplace exposures to potential cutaneous irritants or allergens?
3. Is the anatomic distribution of the dermatitis consistent with cutaneous exposure in relation to work tasks?
4. Is there a temporal association between onset of dermatitis and exposure consistent with contact dermatitis?
Mathias Criteria
5. Are non-occupational exposures excluded as probable causes?
6. Does dermatitis improve away from work exposure to the suspected allergen or irritant?
7. Do patch or provocation tests identify a probable causal agent?
Mathias Criteria
Answer of “yes” to 4 or more of the 7 criteria yields a greater than 50% probability of occupational cause
Provides a “reasonable degree of medical certainty”
Allergens
Top 10 Allergens in North America
Nickel sulfate
Balsam of Peru
Fragrance mix I
Quaternium-15
Neomycin
Bacitracin
Formaldehyde
Cobalt chloride
Fragrance mix II
p-Phenylenediamine
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Formaldehyde-Releasers
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Quaternium-15
Imidazolidinyl urea (Germall 115)
Diazolidinyl urea (Germall II)
DMDM hydantoin (Glydant)
2-Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (Bronopol)
Sodium hydroxymethyl glycinate
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Workplace Allergens- Canada
Epoxy resin
Thiuram Mix
Carba Mix
Nickel sulfate
Cobalt chloride
Potassium dichromate
Glyceryl thioglycolate
P-phenylenediamine
Formaldehyde
Glutaraldehyde
Arrandale et al Am J Ind Med 2012; 55:353-60.
Top Workplace Allergens-Denmark
Rubber allergens
Epoxy (windmill workers)
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
What’s new in Occupational Contact Allergens?
Coconut derivatives
Capryldiethanolamine in metalworking fluids
May not react to:
Monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, methyldiethanolamine, and cocamide DEA
Not in MSDS
Suuronen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 120-121.
Coconut derivatives
Sodium cocoamphopropionate
Surfactant
Derivative of coconut fatty acids condensed with amino-ethyl ethanolamines
Soaps, shampoos, conditioners
Sweden, fast-food workers
Hagvall et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 122-124.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide MEA
AKA tall oil fatty acids monoethanolamide
In metal working fluid
Aalto-Korte et al. Contact Dermatitis, 69,316-7.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA)
Surfactant
Industrial, household and cosmetic products
Finland 19/25 positives were occupational, most in metal industry
Soaps (hand, dish), metalworking fluids, barrier cream
Noted concomitant reactions
Monoethanolamine
Diethanolamine- impurity of cocamide DEA
Aalto-Korte et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 169-174.
Airborne medications
Benzodiazepines
Airborne contact from crushing pills for patients
2 nurses, 1 pharmacy tech, one relative
Consider in facial dermatitis
Swinnen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 227-232.
Sevofluorane
Systemic allergic contact- airborne
Required ROAT (negative to routine patch testing)
Surgeon
Burches et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 62-63.
Medications- Nonairborne
Omeprazole
Horse trainer
Handled paste for horse’s stomach ulcers
Al-Falah et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 377-378.
“Head lad” caring for race horses
Dispensed omeprazole paste via syringe
Alwan et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 376.
Fragrance
Citral
Hands and arms
9 beauticians in high-end spa
DeMozzi and Johnston, Contact Dermatitis 70, 377-378.
D- limonene
Machine cleaners, hand soaps, moisturizers, surface cleanser, dishwashing soaps
Pesonen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 273-279.
Isothiazolinones (Denmark)
Occupations
Painting
Welding (blacksmiths)
Machine operating
Cosmetology
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 295-302.
Sources
Paints and varnishes
Cleaners
Polishing liquids
Some in high concentrations
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 65-74.
Methylisothiazolinone
Ultrasound gel in ultrasonographer
Madsen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 312-313.
Water cooling tower technicians
Maor et al., Dermatitis 26, 62-64.
Allergens
Tricresyl phosphate
Cleaning occupation
In vinyl gloves
Plasticizer
Also in sheer strips (Band Aids)
Crepy et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 325-328.
Blue Collar Workers
Compared to controls patch-tested, BCW higher hand eczema, lower atopic dermatitis
Epoxy resins
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile
2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
Potassium dichromate
Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/ methylisothiazolinone (MI)
Allergen: Occupation
Epoxy: construction
MCI/MI: Painting
Potassium dichromate: tile setting/terrazzo work
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 348-355.
Blue Collar Workers
Case report of a cement worker with poor PPE
Sweden
Legislation in Europe to decrease hexavalent chromium in cement
Addition of ferrous sulfate
Chromium allergy persists
Hedberg et al, Contact dermatitis 70, 321-323.
Hairdressers- Denmark
Hairdressers 2002-2011
Compared to patch tested controls, hairdressers more significantly had Occupational CD and hand eczema, lower AD
Allergens significantly associated:
p-phenylenediamine, thiuram mix, benzocaine
Frequent sensitizers from the hairdressing series:
ammonium persulfate, toluene-2,5-diamine, 3-aminophenol, and 4-aminophenol
New sensitizers:
Cysteamine hydrochloride- substitute for glycerol monothioglycolate (restricted in Germany)
Chloroacetamide- preservative
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 233-237.
Hairdressers- Germany
German contact allergy database 2007-2012
Compared hairdressers to clients
Allergens significantly associated with hairdressers > clients:
Ammonium persulfate
Glyceryl monothioglycolate
Demonstrated concern as young hairdressers still with some positive reaction, despite legislation
Uter et al, Contact Dermatitis 71, 13-20.
Food Industry
Cobalt in a baker
Bregnbak et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 118-119.
Food Industry
Pizza makers
Diallyl disulfide and
Ammonium persulfate
Lembo et al., Dermatitis 25, 194-196.
Wine maker
Potassium metabisulfite
Ortiz et al., Dermatitis 25, 150-151.
Heathcare workers
Chlorhexidine
Australian study
2% relevant ACD in healthcare workers
Higher than other studies, keep on radar
Toholka et al., Australiasian J Derm 54, 303-306.
Preferred Approach to Occupational Exposure
1. Elimination
2. Substitution
3. Isolation
4. Engineering controls
5. Safe work practices
6. Personal protection
Material Safety Data Sheets
Mandated
Hazardous chemical name
Chemical properties
Physical hazards
Route of entry
Known exposure limits
Carcinogenicity
Clean-up practices
Control measures
Contact information
Not required
If proprietary
Specific name often avoided (general category used)
Irritants and sensitizers if <1% concentration
Often do not address prevention of sensitization and irritancy
Diagnosis- MSDS
Diagnosis- MSDS
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
AVOIDANCE!
Allergens
Irritants
Treatment/Prevention
Avoidance
Harder with omnipresent allergens (epoxy versus rubber allergens)
Contact urticaria more problematic than ACD
Clemmensen et al., Br J Dermatol 2014;170.
Personal protective equipment
Legislation
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Recommended short-term high-potency topical steroids for hands:
Clobetasol propionate
Ointment
Halcinonide ointment
No propylene glycol, no sensitizers
For body:
Short-term hydrocortisone 2.5% bid for face, neck, axillae, groin, intertriginousareas
Short-term triamcinolone 0.1% bid for body
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Avoid more than a few weeks of potent steroid use topically
Can thin the skin making hands more susceptible to allergen/irritant!
Consider calcineurin inhibitors topically
Consider IM steroids x 1
Oral steroids with SLOW taper
Doxycycline for anti-inflammatory effects
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Barrier creams- Repair versus Protect
Repair creams with ceramides
Barrier creams with dimethicone
Studies are variable in demonstrating any benefit from barrier creams when compared to regular emollients
At least recommend moisturizing
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Prevention
Barrier creams
Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis
At high dose of application (2-20x actual application) can help prevent ICD
Schliemann et al., Contact dermatitis 70, 19-26.
Cotton liners under gloves
Adisesh et al., Br J Dermatol 2013.
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Appropriate gloves
Match task with glove
“Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing” by Forsberg and Mansdorf
ACDS website lists glove manufacturers
Treating Dermatitis- Step 2 (Maintenance)
Calcineurin inhibitors
Tacrolimus 0.1%
Pimecrolimus 0.1%
Therapeutic moisturizers
Shea butter
Aquaphor
Petrolatum
Lower potency steroids for hands:
Triamcinolone 0.1%
Fluticasone cream or lotion
Hydrocortisone butyrate lipid cream
Clocortolone cream
Treating Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Hand psoralen- ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA)
Narrow-band UV B therapy (NBUVB)
Often used for recalcitrant body dermatitis
Excimer laser
308 nm
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Methotrexate
Mycophenolate mofetil
2-3g/day recommended for control
Acitretin
Best for psoriasiform hand dermatitis
2-4 month course
Cyclosporine
2.5-5 mg/kg daily
Azathioprine
1-3 mg/kg daily
Biologics are not helpful overall (yet!)
Treatment
Multidisciplinary teams aid in successful return to work
German model included inpatient and outpatient care
87% remained in workforce
Weisshaar et al., Contact Dermatitis 2013;68:169-174.
Netherlands included a dermatologist, education nurse, occupational medicine physician
Van Gils et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012 66(4) and 66(5).
Canadian model
Gomez et al., Dermatitis 2011;22(3).
Prevention
Evidence-based intervention
1 hour voluntary hand protective behavior lecture/ intervention
Full-time hospital cleaners
At 3 months post-intervention
Decreased hand cleansing
Better knowledge of hand preservation
Improved hand dermatitis
Clemmensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 47-54.
Occupational Dermatitis Resources
Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing by Forsberg and Mansdorf
Contact and Occupational Dermatology by Marks, Elsner, DeLeo
ACDS website
OSHA, NIOSH
Article December 2011 The Dermatologist
Summary
Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish
We are constantly being exposed to new allergens, often earlier in life
Occupational contact dermatitis is underreported
Patch testing for ACD is the gold standard
Can try TRUE test, consider referral for comprehensive panels
Novel allergens in the workplace
Summary
Think outside the box
Try a stepwise approach
Elimination
Treatment
Escalate treatment
Will be chronic if exposure continues
You can make a huge difference in patient’s quality of life
References
Marks et al., 2002. Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact and Occupational Dermatology, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby, 2002.
Nelson and Yiannias, 2009. Nelson S.A., Yiannias J.A.: Relevance and avoidance of skin-care product allergens: Pearls and pitfalls. Dermatol Clin 2009; 27(3):329-336.
Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test. Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test) : Available at:[accessed 03.07.11] http://www.truetest.com/PatientPDF/File18.pdf
Zug et al., 2009. Zug K.A., Warshaw E.M., Fowler J.F., et al: Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 2009; 20:149-160.
Emmett EA. Occupational contact dermatitis I. Incidence and return to work pressures. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2002;13:30–4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. [Bulletin 2512]. Washington (DC): US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1999.
Lushniak BD. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin1995; 13:671–9.
Skoet R, Olsen J, Mathiesen B, et al. A survey of occupational hand eczema in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51(4):159–66.
Staton I, Ma R, Evans N, et al. Dermal nickel exposure associated with coin handling and in various occupational settings: assessment using a newly developed finger immersion method. Br J Dermatol 2006;154(4):658–64.
Veien NK, Menne T. Treatment of hand eczema. Skin Therapy Lett 2003;8(5):4–7. 137.
Warshaw E. Therapeutic options for chronic hand dermatitis. Dermatol Ther2004;4:17240–50.
Schalock PC, Zug KA, Carter JC, et al. Efficacy and patient perception of Grenz ray therapy in the treatment of dermatoses refractory to other medical therapy. Dermatitis 2008;19(2):90–4.
Abramovits W, Granowski P. Innovative management of severe hand dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 28 (2010) 453-65.
Blanciforti, L. Economic burden of dermatitis in US workers. JOEM 52. (11):1045-54. 2010.
References
Sprigle AM, Marks JG Jr, Anderson BE. Prevention of nickel release with barrier coatings. Dermatitis. 2008,19(1):28-31.
Diepgen T.L., Coenraads P.J.: The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72. (8): 496-506.1999.
Keil J.E., Shmunes E.: The epidemiology of work-related skin disease in South Carolina. Arch Dermatol 119. (8): 650-654.1983.
Mathias C.G.: Occupational dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol 19. (6): 1107-1114.1988.
Goh C.L.: An epidemiological comparison between occupational and non-occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 120. (1): 77-82.1989.
Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact & occupational dermatology. 3rd ed Mosby St. Louis, (MO)2002.
Holness D.L.: Characteristic features of occupational dermatitis: epidemiologic studies of occupational skin disease reported by contact dermatitis clinics. Occup Med 9. (1): 45-52.1994.
Belsito D.V.: Occupational contact dermatitis: etiology, prevalence, and resultant impairment/disability. J Am Acad Dermatol 53. (2): 303-313.2005.
Kanerva L., Estlander T., Jolanki R.: Occupational skin disease in Finland. An analysis of 10 years of statistics from an occupational dermatology clinic. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60. (2): 89-94.1988.
Sertoli A., Gola M., Martinelli C., et al: Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Semin Dermatol 8. (2): 120-126.1989.
Rietschel R.L., Mathias C.G., Fowler , Jr. , Jr.J.F., et al: Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermatitis 13. (4): 170-176.2002.
Nethercott J.R., Holness D.L.: Disease outcome in workers with occupational skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 30. (4): 569-574.1994.
Mathias C.G., Morrison J.H.: Occupational skin diseases, United States. Results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 1973 through 1984. Arch Dermatol 124. (10): 1519-1524.1988.
Koch P.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol 2. (6): 353-365.2001.
Bureau of Labor Statistics : Occupational Injuries and illnesses in the United States. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif
Lushniak B.D.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 17. (3): 272-277.2004.
Mathias C.G.: The cost of ccupational skin disease. Arch Dermatol 121. (3): 332-334.1985.
Cvetkovski R.S., Rothman K.J., Olsen J., et al: Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave, and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 152. (1): 93-98.2005.
Thank you!
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
23
1
2
24
25
1
2
26
27
1
2
28
1
2
29
30
1
2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1
2
70
71
72
73
74
1
2
75
76
1
2
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
1
2
84
85
1
2
86
1
2
87
88
89
1
2
90
1
2
91
92
93
94
1
2
95
96
97
98
1
2
3
4
99
100
101
102
103
1
2
104
1
2
105
106
107
108
1
2
109
110
1
2
111
112
113
114
1
2
115
1
2
116
117
118
3/27/2015
3
Occupational DermatologyPearls
Heather P. Lampel, MD, MPH, FAAD, FACOEM
Duke University
Assistant Professor of Dermatology and
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
May 3, 2015
Disclosures
I have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
I will be discussing off-label use of patch testing and off-label treatment of contact dermatitis
I will mention companies
Objectives
Discuss the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in the occupational setting
Differentiate irritant from allergic contact dermatitis
Understand the role of patch testing in diagnosis
Highlight recently described allergens in the workplace
Review the trends in the occupational dermatitis literature 2014- present
Explore pitfalls and misconceptions in the workplace
Why should we care?
Occupational skin disease is a “hot” topic
Healthy People 2020
“Reduce occupational skin diseases or disorders among full-time workers”
ACOEM Core Competencies- Clinical Dermatology
OEM physicians can provide early recognition, diagnosis, and management …
Diagnose primary irritant-induced dermatoses
Differentiate occupational skin disorders…
Diagnose and determine the cause of allergic contact dermatitis …
Manage occupational and environmental skin injuries and dermatoses
Treat and prevent recurrence of contact dermatitis
Epidemiology of Occupational Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis
Contact dermatitis (CD) is reported to account for up to 30% of all occupational disease in industrialized nations
CD is the most common occupational skin disorder
About 90-95% of all cases of occupational skin diseases
Occupational CD Epidemiology United States
Incidence rate of 0.5-1.9 cases per 1000 full-time workers per year
US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004 estimated 48,800 cases of Occupational CD
1 year prevalence estimate of 20%
21-22% in healthcare workers
Ibler et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012;67:200-207.
Luk et al., Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:329-335.
Occupational CD Epidemiology Denmark
Occupational CD
95% of all occupational skin cases
Irritant CD 70% of these Occupational CD
68% due to wet work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
True epidemiologic data are lacking
Likely underestimated due to underreporting
Mild cases specifically
Bureau of Labor Statistics has rigorous criteria for inclusion
May not be obviously work-related (delayed-onset)
Self-treated
Only requiring first aid excluded
Underestimated by 85-88%
Luckhaupt et al., Am J Ind Med 2012.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Survey of established cases of Occupational CD reported that over one year:
19.9% reported prolonged sick leave
23% reported job loss
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
1985 Mathias estimated annual costs of Occupational CD to be between $222 million and $1 billion
2004 NIOSH estimates $1.2 billion
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Hands are usually involved
80-90% of cases
Great impact on quality of life
What percent of all contact dermatitis is allergic versus irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis accounts for 60-80% of all CD
Allergic contact dermatitis accounts for remaining 20-40%
Overlap common
Contact Dermatitis Overview
ACD is a SPECIFIC immunologic reaction, requiring prior sensitization
Elliott G and Das PK. Using p-Phenylenediamine: A Gateway to Chemical Immunology. Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2010) 130, 641–643.
Immunology of Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis Overview
90% of the population can be sensitized to certain antigens such as dinitrochlorobenzene
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis is NONSPECIFIC
Requires no prior sensitization
Clinically can be difficult to distinguish ICD from ACD
Common Occupational Irritants
Alkalis
Soaps
Detergents
Cleansers
Acids
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum
Oils
Solvents
Common Occupational Irritants
Frictional Dermatitis
Repetitive handling of objects or materials
Likely underappreciated
Examples
Fabric
Paper
Metal objects
Driving
Common Occupational Irritants
Gloves
Prolonged contact with skin affects the epidermal barrier
May be irritant itself
May make epidermal barrier more susceptible to allergens or other irritants
Irritants- Recent Literature
Wet work
Irritant chemicals
Solvents
Food
Detergents
Gloves
Mechanical trauma
Air (warm, dry)
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations
Occupations at High-Risk for Hand Dermatitis
Hairdressers
Musicians
Food Industry workers
Agricultural workers
Factory workers
Electronics workers
Cleaners/Washers
Housekeepers
Printers
Builders
Medical and Dental workers
Occupations at Risk for ICD
Hairdressers
Nursing
Doctors
Mechanics
Cooks
Cleaners
Painters
Plumbers
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations at Risk for CD- Denmark
Healthcare
Cleaning
Kitchen work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Epidemiology by Occupation
Shoe manufacturer
Indonesia
29% OCD point prevalence
Febriana et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2014; 87.
Poultry processing and manual laborers
1 year prevalence 23% skin symptoms
Quandt et al., Am J Indust Medicine 2014; 57.
Construction Industry
25.4% point prevalence of hand skin symptoms
Timmerman et al., Am J Ind Med 2014; 57.
Healthcare workers
Dutch apprentice nurses followed prospectively
1 year period prevalence of hand eczema
23% in first year
25% in second year
31% in third year
Frequent hand washing at work, at home, and outside wet work job all risk factors
Visser et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 44-55.
ACD vs ICD
Photo Quiz
Allergic or Irritant Contact Dermatitis?
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic and Irritant
Debunking the myths…
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
FALSE
Allergy can develop after years of using the same product
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
FALSE
There are many cross-reactants in other products, it is best to have NO exposures to topicals/cross-reactors when clearing a rash
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
NOT NECESSARILY
Common misconception held by MDs
There are many aspects affecting end-product eruption
Can be patchy!
CD Misconceptions
Adult onset “eczema”
If no history of eczema or atopy, more likely ACD
Especially if on hands, face, neck
90% of eczema has onset by age 5
“The greatest abuse of patch testing is failure to use the test.”
Coleman, 1982
Epicutaneous Patch testing
Intended to detect allergens relevant to eruption
Is at least a week-long process
Detects Type IV allergic reaction (delayed-type hypersensitivity)
Requires at least 2-3 visits to clinic for complete testing
T.R.U.E. Test
Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test
Allerderm product
Only FDA-approved patch testing product
36 allergens
Comes pre-filled
May not detect all relevant allergens
Patch testing
Step 1: Take extensive exposure history
Include home exposures, work tasks and exposures, implants, intermittent exposures, MSDS if appropriate
Patch testing
Step 2: Determine allergen panel
Would be pre-determined if only TRUE Test is available
Patch testing
Step 3: Prepare allergen tray as appropriate
TRUE test is pre-prepared
Patch testing
Step 4: Apply patches to back
Back must be clear of rash
Patches are marked
Securing paper tape is used
Patch testing
Step 5: Patches removed in 48 hours
Variability in how this is done
Areas remarked
Reactions noted- Irritant
Patch testing
Step 6: Patches read at 3-7 days after application
Our clinic reads at 4 days
Consider delayed read for late reactors
Patch testing
Step 7: Determine clinical relevance
Consider the Mathias Criteria for Occupational cases
Excellent tool for ascertaining occupational causation
Keep in mind that irritant CD remains a diagnosis of exclusion, and dermatitis may be both ICD and ACD, multifactorial, etc.
Patch testing
Step 8: Instruct in avoidance of allergen(s) and cross-reactors
If in topical medicaments, cosmetics, etc. it is best to print out the CAMP “safe list”
On American Contact Dermatitis Society member webpage
Mayo Clinic also has a database
Also consider all objects that may contain allergen
Information (written) and verbal counseling of patient is KEY
May include modified work, increased or alternative PPE, modified environment-both home and work
Mathias Criteria
1. Is the clinical appearance consistent with contact dermatitis?
2. Are there workplace exposures to potential cutaneous irritants or allergens?
3. Is the anatomic distribution of the dermatitis consistent with cutaneous exposure in relation to work tasks?
4. Is there a temporal association between onset of dermatitis and exposure consistent with contact dermatitis?
Mathias Criteria
5. Are non-occupational exposures excluded as probable causes?
6. Does dermatitis improve away from work exposure to the suspected allergen or irritant?
7. Do patch or provocation tests identify a probable causal agent?
Mathias Criteria
Answer of “yes” to 4 or more of the 7 criteria yields a greater than 50% probability of occupational cause
Provides a “reasonable degree of medical certainty”
Allergens
Top 10 Allergens in North America
Nickel sulfate
Balsam of Peru
Fragrance mix I
Quaternium-15
Neomycin
Bacitracin
Formaldehyde
Cobalt chloride
Fragrance mix II
p-Phenylenediamine
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Formaldehyde-Releasers
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Quaternium-15
Imidazolidinyl urea (Germall 115)
Diazolidinyl urea (Germall II)
DMDM hydantoin (Glydant)
2-Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (Bronopol)
Sodium hydroxymethyl glycinate
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Workplace Allergens- Canada
Epoxy resin
Thiuram Mix
Carba Mix
Nickel sulfate
Cobalt chloride
Potassium dichromate
Glyceryl thioglycolate
P-phenylenediamine
Formaldehyde
Glutaraldehyde
Arrandale et al Am J Ind Med 2012; 55:353-60.
Top Workplace Allergens-Denmark
Rubber allergens
Epoxy (windmill workers)
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
What’s new in Occupational Contact Allergens?
Coconut derivatives
Capryldiethanolamine in metalworking fluids
May not react to:
Monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, methyldiethanolamine, and cocamide DEA
Not in MSDS
Suuronen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 120-121.
Coconut derivatives
Sodium cocoamphopropionate
Surfactant
Derivative of coconut fatty acids condensed with amino-ethyl ethanolamines
Soaps, shampoos, conditioners
Sweden, fast-food workers
Hagvall et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 122-124.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide MEA
AKA tall oil fatty acids monoethanolamide
In metal working fluid
Aalto-Korte et al. Contact Dermatitis, 69,316-7.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA)
Surfactant
Industrial, household and cosmetic products
Finland 19/25 positives were occupational, most in metal industry
Soaps (hand, dish), metalworking fluids, barrier cream
Noted concomitant reactions
Monoethanolamine
Diethanolamine- impurity of cocamide DEA
Aalto-Korte et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 169-174.
Airborne medications
Benzodiazepines
Airborne contact from crushing pills for patients
2 nurses, 1 pharmacy tech, one relative
Consider in facial dermatitis
Swinnen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 227-232.
Sevofluorane
Systemic allergic contact- airborne
Required ROAT (negative to routine patch testing)
Surgeon
Burches et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 62-63.
Medications- Nonairborne
Omeprazole
Horse trainer
Handled paste for horse’s stomach ulcers
Al-Falah et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 377-378.
“Head lad” caring for race horses
Dispensed omeprazole paste via syringe
Alwan et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 376.
Fragrance
Citral
Hands and arms
9 beauticians in high-end spa
DeMozzi and Johnston, Contact Dermatitis 70, 377-378.
D- limonene
Machine cleaners, hand soaps, moisturizers, surface cleanser, dishwashing soaps
Pesonen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 273-279.
Isothiazolinones (Denmark)
Occupations
Painting
Welding (blacksmiths)
Machine operating
Cosmetology
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 295-302.
Sources
Paints and varnishes
Cleaners
Polishing liquids
Some in high concentrations
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 65-74.
Methylisothiazolinone
Ultrasound gel in ultrasonographer
Madsen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 312-313.
Water cooling tower technicians
Maor et al., Dermatitis 26, 62-64.
Allergens
Tricresyl phosphate
Cleaning occupation
In vinyl gloves
Plasticizer
Also in sheer strips (Band Aids)
Crepy et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 325-328.
Blue Collar Workers
Compared to controls patch-tested, BCW higher hand eczema, lower atopic dermatitis
Epoxy resins
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile
2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
Potassium dichromate
Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/ methylisothiazolinone (MI)
Allergen: Occupation
Epoxy: construction
MCI/MI: Painting
Potassium dichromate: tile setting/terrazzo work
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 348-355.
Blue Collar Workers
Case report of a cement worker with poor PPE
Sweden
Legislation in Europe to decrease hexavalent chromium in cement
Addition of ferrous sulfate
Chromium allergy persists
Hedberg et al, Contact dermatitis 70, 321-323.
Hairdressers- Denmark
Hairdressers 2002-2011
Compared to patch tested controls, hairdressers more significantly had Occupational CD and hand eczema, lower AD
Allergens significantly associated:
p-phenylenediamine, thiuram mix, benzocaine
Frequent sensitizers from the hairdressing series:
ammonium persulfate, toluene-2,5-diamine, 3-aminophenol, and 4-aminophenol
New sensitizers:
Cysteamine hydrochloride- substitute for glycerol monothioglycolate (restricted in Germany)
Chloroacetamide- preservative
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 233-237.
Hairdressers- Germany
German contact allergy database 2007-2012
Compared hairdressers to clients
Allergens significantly associated with hairdressers > clients:
Ammonium persulfate
Glyceryl monothioglycolate
Demonstrated concern as young hairdressers still with some positive reaction, despite legislation
Uter et al, Contact Dermatitis 71, 13-20.
Food Industry
Cobalt in a baker
Bregnbak et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 118-119.
Food Industry
Pizza makers
Diallyl disulfide and
Ammonium persulfate
Lembo et al., Dermatitis 25, 194-196.
Wine maker
Potassium metabisulfite
Ortiz et al., Dermatitis 25, 150-151.
Heathcare workers
Chlorhexidine
Australian study
2% relevant ACD in healthcare workers
Higher than other studies, keep on radar
Toholka et al., Australiasian J Derm 54, 303-306.
Preferred Approach to Occupational Exposure
1. Elimination
2. Substitution
3. Isolation
4. Engineering controls
5. Safe work practices
6. Personal protection
Material Safety Data Sheets
Mandated
Hazardous chemical name
Chemical properties
Physical hazards
Route of entry
Known exposure limits
Carcinogenicity
Clean-up practices
Control measures
Contact information
Not required
If proprietary
Specific name often avoided (general category used)
Irritants and sensitizers if <1% concentration
Often do not address prevention of sensitization and irritancy
Diagnosis- MSDS
Diagnosis- MSDS
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
AVOIDANCE!
Allergens
Irritants
Treatment/Prevention
Avoidance
Harder with omnipresent allergens (epoxy versus rubber allergens)
Contact urticaria more problematic than ACD
Clemmensen et al., Br J Dermatol 2014;170.
Personal protective equipment
Legislation
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Recommended short-term high-potency topical steroids for hands:
Clobetasol propionate
Ointment
Halcinonide ointment
No propylene glycol, no sensitizers
For body:
Short-term hydrocortisone 2.5% bid for face, neck, axillae, groin, intertriginousareas
Short-term triamcinolone 0.1% bid for body
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Avoid more than a few weeks of potent steroid use topically
Can thin the skin making hands more susceptible to allergen/irritant!
Consider calcineurin inhibitors topically
Consider IM steroids x 1
Oral steroids with SLOW taper
Doxycycline for anti-inflammatory effects
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Barrier creams- Repair versus Protect
Repair creams with ceramides
Barrier creams with dimethicone
Studies are variable in demonstrating any benefit from barrier creams when compared to regular emollients
At least recommend moisturizing
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Prevention
Barrier creams
Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis
At high dose of application (2-20x actual application) can help prevent ICD
Schliemann et al., Contact dermatitis 70, 19-26.
Cotton liners under gloves
Adisesh et al., Br J Dermatol 2013.
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Appropriate gloves
Match task with glove
“Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing” by Forsberg and Mansdorf
ACDS website lists glove manufacturers
Treating Dermatitis- Step 2 (Maintenance)
Calcineurin inhibitors
Tacrolimus 0.1%
Pimecrolimus 0.1%
Therapeutic moisturizers
Shea butter
Aquaphor
Petrolatum
Lower potency steroids for hands:
Triamcinolone 0.1%
Fluticasone cream or lotion
Hydrocortisone butyrate lipid cream
Clocortolone cream
Treating Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Hand psoralen- ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA)
Narrow-band UV B therapy (NBUVB)
Often used for recalcitrant body dermatitis
Excimer laser
308 nm
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Methotrexate
Mycophenolate mofetil
2-3g/day recommended for control
Acitretin
Best for psoriasiform hand dermatitis
2-4 month course
Cyclosporine
2.5-5 mg/kg daily
Azathioprine
1-3 mg/kg daily
Biologics are not helpful overall (yet!)
Treatment
Multidisciplinary teams aid in successful return to work
German model included inpatient and outpatient care
87% remained in workforce
Weisshaar et al., Contact Dermatitis 2013;68:169-174.
Netherlands included a dermatologist, education nurse, occupational medicine physician
Van Gils et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012 66(4) and 66(5).
Canadian model
Gomez et al., Dermatitis 2011;22(3).
Prevention
Evidence-based intervention
1 hour voluntary hand protective behavior lecture/ intervention
Full-time hospital cleaners
At 3 months post-intervention
Decreased hand cleansing
Better knowledge of hand preservation
Improved hand dermatitis
Clemmensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 47-54.
Occupational Dermatitis Resources
Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing by Forsberg and Mansdorf
Contact and Occupational Dermatology by Marks, Elsner, DeLeo
ACDS website
OSHA, NIOSH
Article December 2011 The Dermatologist
Summary
Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish
We are constantly being exposed to new allergens, often earlier in life
Occupational contact dermatitis is underreported
Patch testing for ACD is the gold standard
Can try TRUE test, consider referral for comprehensive panels
Novel allergens in the workplace
Summary
Think outside the box
Try a stepwise approach
Elimination
Treatment
Escalate treatment
Will be chronic if exposure continues
You can make a huge difference in patient’s quality of life
References
Marks et al., 2002. Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact and Occupational Dermatology, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby, 2002.
Nelson and Yiannias, 2009. Nelson S.A., Yiannias J.A.: Relevance and avoidance of skin-care product allergens: Pearls and pitfalls. Dermatol Clin 2009; 27(3):329-336.
Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test. Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test) : Available at:[accessed 03.07.11] http://www.truetest.com/PatientPDF/File18.pdf
Zug et al., 2009. Zug K.A., Warshaw E.M., Fowler J.F., et al: Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 2009; 20:149-160.
Emmett EA. Occupational contact dermatitis I. Incidence and return to work pressures. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2002;13:30–4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. [Bulletin 2512]. Washington (DC): US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1999.
Lushniak BD. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin1995; 13:671–9.
Skoet R, Olsen J, Mathiesen B, et al. A survey of occupational hand eczema in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51(4):159–66.
Staton I, Ma R, Evans N, et al. Dermal nickel exposure associated with coin handling and in various occupational settings: assessment using a newly developed finger immersion method. Br J Dermatol 2006;154(4):658–64.
Veien NK, Menne T. Treatment of hand eczema. Skin Therapy Lett 2003;8(5):4–7. 137.
Warshaw E. Therapeutic options for chronic hand dermatitis. Dermatol Ther2004;4:17240–50.
Schalock PC, Zug KA, Carter JC, et al. Efficacy and patient perception of Grenz ray therapy in the treatment of dermatoses refractory to other medical therapy. Dermatitis 2008;19(2):90–4.
Abramovits W, Granowski P. Innovative management of severe hand dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 28 (2010) 453-65.
Blanciforti, L. Economic burden of dermatitis in US workers. JOEM 52. (11):1045-54. 2010.
References
Sprigle AM, Marks JG Jr, Anderson BE. Prevention of nickel release with barrier coatings. Dermatitis. 2008,19(1):28-31.
Diepgen T.L., Coenraads P.J.: The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72. (8): 496-506.1999.
Keil J.E., Shmunes E.: The epidemiology of work-related skin disease in South Carolina. Arch Dermatol 119. (8): 650-654.1983.
Mathias C.G.: Occupational dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol 19. (6): 1107-1114.1988.
Goh C.L.: An epidemiological comparison between occupational and non-occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 120. (1): 77-82.1989.
Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact & occupational dermatology. 3rd ed Mosby St. Louis, (MO)2002.
Holness D.L.: Characteristic features of occupational dermatitis: epidemiologic studies of occupational skin disease reported by contact dermatitis clinics. Occup Med 9. (1): 45-52.1994.
Belsito D.V.: Occupational contact dermatitis: etiology, prevalence, and resultant impairment/disability. J Am Acad Dermatol 53. (2): 303-313.2005.
Kanerva L., Estlander T., Jolanki R.: Occupational skin disease in Finland. An analysis of 10 years of statistics from an occupational dermatology clinic. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60. (2): 89-94.1988.
Sertoli A., Gola M., Martinelli C., et al: Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Semin Dermatol 8. (2): 120-126.1989.
Rietschel R.L., Mathias C.G., Fowler , Jr. , Jr.J.F., et al: Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermatitis 13. (4): 170-176.2002.
Nethercott J.R., Holness D.L.: Disease outcome in workers with occupational skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 30. (4): 569-574.1994.
Mathias C.G., Morrison J.H.: Occupational skin diseases, United States. Results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 1973 through 1984. Arch Dermatol 124. (10): 1519-1524.1988.
Koch P.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol 2. (6): 353-365.2001.
Bureau of Labor Statistics : Occupational Injuries and illnesses in the United States. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif
Lushniak B.D.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 17. (3): 272-277.2004.
Mathias C.G.: The cost of ccupational skin disease. Arch Dermatol 121. (3): 332-334.1985.
Cvetkovski R.S., Rothman K.J., Olsen J., et al: Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave, and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 152. (1): 93-98.2005.
Thank you!
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
23
1
2
24
25
1
2
26
27
1
2
28
1
2
29
30
1
2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1
2
70
71
72
73
74
1
2
75
76
1
2
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
1
2
84
85
1
2
86
1
2
87
88
89
1
2
90
1
2
91
92
93
94
1
2
95
96
97
98
1
2
3
4
99
100
101
102
103
1
2
104
1
2
105
106
107
108
1
2
109
110
1
2
111
112
113
114
1
2
115
1
2
116
117
118
3/27/2015
4
Occupational DermatologyPearls
Heather P. Lampel, MD, MPH, FAAD, FACOEM
Duke University
Assistant Professor of Dermatology and
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
May 3, 2015
Disclosures
I have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
I will be discussing off-label use of patch testing and off-label treatment of contact dermatitis
I will mention companies
Objectives
Discuss the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in the occupational setting
Differentiate irritant from allergic contact dermatitis
Understand the role of patch testing in diagnosis
Highlight recently described allergens in the workplace
Review the trends in the occupational dermatitis literature 2014- present
Explore pitfalls and misconceptions in the workplace
Why should we care?
Occupational skin disease is a “hot” topic
Healthy People 2020
“Reduce occupational skin diseases or disorders among full-time workers”
ACOEM Core Competencies- Clinical Dermatology
OEM physicians can provide early recognition, diagnosis, and management …
Diagnose primary irritant-induced dermatoses
Differentiate occupational skin disorders…
Diagnose and determine the cause of allergic contact dermatitis …
Manage occupational and environmental skin injuries and dermatoses
Treat and prevent recurrence of contact dermatitis
Epidemiology of Occupational Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis
Contact dermatitis (CD) is reported to account for up to 30% of all occupational disease in industrialized nations
CD is the most common occupational skin disorder
About 90-95% of all cases of occupational skin diseases
Occupational CD Epidemiology United States
Incidence rate of 0.5-1.9 cases per 1000 full-time workers per year
US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004 estimated 48,800 cases of Occupational CD
1 year prevalence estimate of 20%
21-22% in healthcare workers
Ibler et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012;67:200-207.
Luk et al., Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:329-335.
Occupational CD Epidemiology Denmark
Occupational CD
95% of all occupational skin cases
Irritant CD 70% of these Occupational CD
68% due to wet work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
True epidemiologic data are lacking
Likely underestimated due to underreporting
Mild cases specifically
Bureau of Labor Statistics has rigorous criteria for inclusion
May not be obviously work-related (delayed-onset)
Self-treated
Only requiring first aid excluded
Underestimated by 85-88%
Luckhaupt et al., Am J Ind Med 2012.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Survey of established cases of Occupational CD reported that over one year:
19.9% reported prolonged sick leave
23% reported job loss
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
1985 Mathias estimated annual costs of Occupational CD to be between $222 million and $1 billion
2004 NIOSH estimates $1.2 billion
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Hands are usually involved
80-90% of cases
Great impact on quality of life
What percent of all contact dermatitis is allergic versus irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis accounts for 60-80% of all CD
Allergic contact dermatitis accounts for remaining 20-40%
Overlap common
Contact Dermatitis Overview
ACD is a SPECIFIC immunologic reaction, requiring prior sensitization
Elliott G and Das PK. Using p-Phenylenediamine: A Gateway to Chemical Immunology. Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2010) 130, 641–643.
Immunology of Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis Overview
90% of the population can be sensitized to certain antigens such as dinitrochlorobenzene
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis is NONSPECIFIC
Requires no prior sensitization
Clinically can be difficult to distinguish ICD from ACD
Common Occupational Irritants
Alkalis
Soaps
Detergents
Cleansers
Acids
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum
Oils
Solvents
Common Occupational Irritants
Frictional Dermatitis
Repetitive handling of objects or materials
Likely underappreciated
Examples
Fabric
Paper
Metal objects
Driving
Common Occupational Irritants
Gloves
Prolonged contact with skin affects the epidermal barrier
May be irritant itself
May make epidermal barrier more susceptible to allergens or other irritants
Irritants- Recent Literature
Wet work
Irritant chemicals
Solvents
Food
Detergents
Gloves
Mechanical trauma
Air (warm, dry)
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations
Occupations at High-Risk for Hand Dermatitis
Hairdressers
Musicians
Food Industry workers
Agricultural workers
Factory workers
Electronics workers
Cleaners/Washers
Housekeepers
Printers
Builders
Medical and Dental workers
Occupations at Risk for ICD
Hairdressers
Nursing
Doctors
Mechanics
Cooks
Cleaners
Painters
Plumbers
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations at Risk for CD- Denmark
Healthcare
Cleaning
Kitchen work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Epidemiology by Occupation
Shoe manufacturer
Indonesia
29% OCD point prevalence
Febriana et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2014; 87.
Poultry processing and manual laborers
1 year prevalence 23% skin symptoms
Quandt et al., Am J Indust Medicine 2014; 57.
Construction Industry
25.4% point prevalence of hand skin symptoms
Timmerman et al., Am J Ind Med 2014; 57.
Healthcare workers
Dutch apprentice nurses followed prospectively
1 year period prevalence of hand eczema
23% in first year
25% in second year
31% in third year
Frequent hand washing at work, at home, and outside wet work job all risk factors
Visser et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 44-55.
ACD vs ICD
Photo Quiz
Allergic or Irritant Contact Dermatitis?
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic and Irritant
Debunking the myths…
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
FALSE
Allergy can develop after years of using the same product
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
FALSE
There are many cross-reactants in other products, it is best to have NO exposures to topicals/cross-reactors when clearing a rash
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
NOT NECESSARILY
Common misconception held by MDs
There are many aspects affecting end-product eruption
Can be patchy!
CD Misconceptions
Adult onset “eczema”
If no history of eczema or atopy, more likely ACD
Especially if on hands, face, neck
90% of eczema has onset by age 5
“The greatest abuse of patch testing is failure to use the test.”
Coleman, 1982
Epicutaneous Patch testing
Intended to detect allergens relevant to eruption
Is at least a week-long process
Detects Type IV allergic reaction (delayed-type hypersensitivity)
Requires at least 2-3 visits to clinic for complete testing
T.R.U.E. Test
Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test
Allerderm product
Only FDA-approved patch testing product
36 allergens
Comes pre-filled
May not detect all relevant allergens
Patch testing
Step 1: Take extensive exposure history
Include home exposures, work tasks and exposures, implants, intermittent exposures, MSDS if appropriate
Patch testing
Step 2: Determine allergen panel
Would be pre-determined if only TRUE Test is available
Patch testing
Step 3: Prepare allergen tray as appropriate
TRUE test is pre-prepared
Patch testing
Step 4: Apply patches to back
Back must be clear of rash
Patches are marked
Securing paper tape is used
Patch testing
Step 5: Patches removed in 48 hours
Variability in how this is done
Areas remarked
Reactions noted- Irritant
Patch testing
Step 6: Patches read at 3-7 days after application
Our clinic reads at 4 days
Consider delayed read for late reactors
Patch testing
Step 7: Determine clinical relevance
Consider the Mathias Criteria for Occupational cases
Excellent tool for ascertaining occupational causation
Keep in mind that irritant CD remains a diagnosis of exclusion, and dermatitis may be both ICD and ACD, multifactorial, etc.
Patch testing
Step 8: Instruct in avoidance of allergen(s) and cross-reactors
If in topical medicaments, cosmetics, etc. it is best to print out the CAMP “safe list”
On American Contact Dermatitis Society member webpage
Mayo Clinic also has a database
Also consider all objects that may contain allergen
Information (written) and verbal counseling of patient is KEY
May include modified work, increased or alternative PPE, modified environment-both home and work
Mathias Criteria
1. Is the clinical appearance consistent with contact dermatitis?
2. Are there workplace exposures to potential cutaneous irritants or allergens?
3. Is the anatomic distribution of the dermatitis consistent with cutaneous exposure in relation to work tasks?
4. Is there a temporal association between onset of dermatitis and exposure consistent with contact dermatitis?
Mathias Criteria
5. Are non-occupational exposures excluded as probable causes?
6. Does dermatitis improve away from work exposure to the suspected allergen or irritant?
7. Do patch or provocation tests identify a probable causal agent?
Mathias Criteria
Answer of “yes” to 4 or more of the 7 criteria yields a greater than 50% probability of occupational cause
Provides a “reasonable degree of medical certainty”
Allergens
Top 10 Allergens in North America
Nickel sulfate
Balsam of Peru
Fragrance mix I
Quaternium-15
Neomycin
Bacitracin
Formaldehyde
Cobalt chloride
Fragrance mix II
p-Phenylenediamine
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Formaldehyde-Releasers
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Quaternium-15
Imidazolidinyl urea (Germall 115)
Diazolidinyl urea (Germall II)
DMDM hydantoin (Glydant)
2-Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (Bronopol)
Sodium hydroxymethyl glycinate
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Workplace Allergens- Canada
Epoxy resin
Thiuram Mix
Carba Mix
Nickel sulfate
Cobalt chloride
Potassium dichromate
Glyceryl thioglycolate
P-phenylenediamine
Formaldehyde
Glutaraldehyde
Arrandale et al Am J Ind Med 2012; 55:353-60.
Top Workplace Allergens-Denmark
Rubber allergens
Epoxy (windmill workers)
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
What’s new in Occupational Contact Allergens?
Coconut derivatives
Capryldiethanolamine in metalworking fluids
May not react to:
Monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, methyldiethanolamine, and cocamide DEA
Not in MSDS
Suuronen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 120-121.
Coconut derivatives
Sodium cocoamphopropionate
Surfactant
Derivative of coconut fatty acids condensed with amino-ethyl ethanolamines
Soaps, shampoos, conditioners
Sweden, fast-food workers
Hagvall et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 122-124.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide MEA
AKA tall oil fatty acids monoethanolamide
In metal working fluid
Aalto-Korte et al. Contact Dermatitis, 69,316-7.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA)
Surfactant
Industrial, household and cosmetic products
Finland 19/25 positives were occupational, most in metal industry
Soaps (hand, dish), metalworking fluids, barrier cream
Noted concomitant reactions
Monoethanolamine
Diethanolamine- impurity of cocamide DEA
Aalto-Korte et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 169-174.
Airborne medications
Benzodiazepines
Airborne contact from crushing pills for patients
2 nurses, 1 pharmacy tech, one relative
Consider in facial dermatitis
Swinnen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 227-232.
Sevofluorane
Systemic allergic contact- airborne
Required ROAT (negative to routine patch testing)
Surgeon
Burches et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 62-63.
Medications- Nonairborne
Omeprazole
Horse trainer
Handled paste for horse’s stomach ulcers
Al-Falah et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 377-378.
“Head lad” caring for race horses
Dispensed omeprazole paste via syringe
Alwan et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 376.
Fragrance
Citral
Hands and arms
9 beauticians in high-end spa
DeMozzi and Johnston, Contact Dermatitis 70, 377-378.
D- limonene
Machine cleaners, hand soaps, moisturizers, surface cleanser, dishwashing soaps
Pesonen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 273-279.
Isothiazolinones (Denmark)
Occupations
Painting
Welding (blacksmiths)
Machine operating
Cosmetology
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 295-302.
Sources
Paints and varnishes
Cleaners
Polishing liquids
Some in high concentrations
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 65-74.
Methylisothiazolinone
Ultrasound gel in ultrasonographer
Madsen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 312-313.
Water cooling tower technicians
Maor et al., Dermatitis 26, 62-64.
Allergens
Tricresyl phosphate
Cleaning occupation
In vinyl gloves
Plasticizer
Also in sheer strips (Band Aids)
Crepy et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 325-328.
Blue Collar Workers
Compared to controls patch-tested, BCW higher hand eczema, lower atopic dermatitis
Epoxy resins
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile
2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
Potassium dichromate
Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/ methylisothiazolinone (MI)
Allergen: Occupation
Epoxy: construction
MCI/MI: Painting
Potassium dichromate: tile setting/terrazzo work
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 348-355.
Blue Collar Workers
Case report of a cement worker with poor PPE
Sweden
Legislation in Europe to decrease hexavalent chromium in cement
Addition of ferrous sulfate
Chromium allergy persists
Hedberg et al, Contact dermatitis 70, 321-323.
Hairdressers- Denmark
Hairdressers 2002-2011
Compared to patch tested controls, hairdressers more significantly had Occupational CD and hand eczema, lower AD
Allergens significantly associated:
p-phenylenediamine, thiuram mix, benzocaine
Frequent sensitizers from the hairdressing series:
ammonium persulfate, toluene-2,5-diamine, 3-aminophenol, and 4-aminophenol
New sensitizers:
Cysteamine hydrochloride- substitute for glycerol monothioglycolate (restricted in Germany)
Chloroacetamide- preservative
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 233-237.
Hairdressers- Germany
German contact allergy database 2007-2012
Compared hairdressers to clients
Allergens significantly associated with hairdressers > clients:
Ammonium persulfate
Glyceryl monothioglycolate
Demonstrated concern as young hairdressers still with some positive reaction, despite legislation
Uter et al, Contact Dermatitis 71, 13-20.
Food Industry
Cobalt in a baker
Bregnbak et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 118-119.
Food Industry
Pizza makers
Diallyl disulfide and
Ammonium persulfate
Lembo et al., Dermatitis 25, 194-196.
Wine maker
Potassium metabisulfite
Ortiz et al., Dermatitis 25, 150-151.
Heathcare workers
Chlorhexidine
Australian study
2% relevant ACD in healthcare workers
Higher than other studies, keep on radar
Toholka et al., Australiasian J Derm 54, 303-306.
Preferred Approach to Occupational Exposure
1. Elimination
2. Substitution
3. Isolation
4. Engineering controls
5. Safe work practices
6. Personal protection
Material Safety Data Sheets
Mandated
Hazardous chemical name
Chemical properties
Physical hazards
Route of entry
Known exposure limits
Carcinogenicity
Clean-up practices
Control measures
Contact information
Not required
If proprietary
Specific name often avoided (general category used)
Irritants and sensitizers if <1% concentration
Often do not address prevention of sensitization and irritancy
Diagnosis- MSDS
Diagnosis- MSDS
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
AVOIDANCE!
Allergens
Irritants
Treatment/Prevention
Avoidance
Harder with omnipresent allergens (epoxy versus rubber allergens)
Contact urticaria more problematic than ACD
Clemmensen et al., Br J Dermatol 2014;170.
Personal protective equipment
Legislation
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Recommended short-term high-potency topical steroids for hands:
Clobetasol propionate
Ointment
Halcinonide ointment
No propylene glycol, no sensitizers
For body:
Short-term hydrocortisone 2.5% bid for face, neck, axillae, groin, intertriginousareas
Short-term triamcinolone 0.1% bid for body
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Avoid more than a few weeks of potent steroid use topically
Can thin the skin making hands more susceptible to allergen/irritant!
Consider calcineurin inhibitors topically
Consider IM steroids x 1
Oral steroids with SLOW taper
Doxycycline for anti-inflammatory effects
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Barrier creams- Repair versus Protect
Repair creams with ceramides
Barrier creams with dimethicone
Studies are variable in demonstrating any benefit from barrier creams when compared to regular emollients
At least recommend moisturizing
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Prevention
Barrier creams
Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis
At high dose of application (2-20x actual application) can help prevent ICD
Schliemann et al., Contact dermatitis 70, 19-26.
Cotton liners under gloves
Adisesh et al., Br J Dermatol 2013.
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Appropriate gloves
Match task with glove
“Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing” by Forsberg and Mansdorf
ACDS website lists glove manufacturers
Treating Dermatitis- Step 2 (Maintenance)
Calcineurin inhibitors
Tacrolimus 0.1%
Pimecrolimus 0.1%
Therapeutic moisturizers
Shea butter
Aquaphor
Petrolatum
Lower potency steroids for hands:
Triamcinolone 0.1%
Fluticasone cream or lotion
Hydrocortisone butyrate lipid cream
Clocortolone cream
Treating Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Hand psoralen- ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA)
Narrow-band UV B therapy (NBUVB)
Often used for recalcitrant body dermatitis
Excimer laser
308 nm
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Methotrexate
Mycophenolate mofetil
2-3g/day recommended for control
Acitretin
Best for psoriasiform hand dermatitis
2-4 month course
Cyclosporine
2.5-5 mg/kg daily
Azathioprine
1-3 mg/kg daily
Biologics are not helpful overall (yet!)
Treatment
Multidisciplinary teams aid in successful return to work
German model included inpatient and outpatient care
87% remained in workforce
Weisshaar et al., Contact Dermatitis 2013;68:169-174.
Netherlands included a dermatologist, education nurse, occupational medicine physician
Van Gils et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012 66(4) and 66(5).
Canadian model
Gomez et al., Dermatitis 2011;22(3).
Prevention
Evidence-based intervention
1 hour voluntary hand protective behavior lecture/ intervention
Full-time hospital cleaners
At 3 months post-intervention
Decreased hand cleansing
Better knowledge of hand preservation
Improved hand dermatitis
Clemmensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 47-54.
Occupational Dermatitis Resources
Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing by Forsberg and Mansdorf
Contact and Occupational Dermatology by Marks, Elsner, DeLeo
ACDS website
OSHA, NIOSH
Article December 2011 The Dermatologist
Summary
Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish
We are constantly being exposed to new allergens, often earlier in life
Occupational contact dermatitis is underreported
Patch testing for ACD is the gold standard
Can try TRUE test, consider referral for comprehensive panels
Novel allergens in the workplace
Summary
Think outside the box
Try a stepwise approach
Elimination
Treatment
Escalate treatment
Will be chronic if exposure continues
You can make a huge difference in patient’s quality of life
References
Marks et al., 2002. Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact and Occupational Dermatology, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby, 2002.
Nelson and Yiannias, 2009. Nelson S.A., Yiannias J.A.: Relevance and avoidance of skin-care product allergens: Pearls and pitfalls. Dermatol Clin 2009; 27(3):329-336.
Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test. Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test) : Available at:[accessed 03.07.11] http://www.truetest.com/PatientPDF/File18.pdf
Zug et al., 2009. Zug K.A., Warshaw E.M., Fowler J.F., et al: Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 2009; 20:149-160.
Emmett EA. Occupational contact dermatitis I. Incidence and return to work pressures. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2002;13:30–4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. [Bulletin 2512]. Washington (DC): US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1999.
Lushniak BD. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin1995; 13:671–9.
Skoet R, Olsen J, Mathiesen B, et al. A survey of occupational hand eczema in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51(4):159–66.
Staton I, Ma R, Evans N, et al. Dermal nickel exposure associated with coin handling and in various occupational settings: assessment using a newly developed finger immersion method. Br J Dermatol 2006;154(4):658–64.
Veien NK, Menne T. Treatment of hand eczema. Skin Therapy Lett 2003;8(5):4–7. 137.
Warshaw E. Therapeutic options for chronic hand dermatitis. Dermatol Ther2004;4:17240–50.
Schalock PC, Zug KA, Carter JC, et al. Efficacy and patient perception of Grenz ray therapy in the treatment of dermatoses refractory to other medical therapy. Dermatitis 2008;19(2):90–4.
Abramovits W, Granowski P. Innovative management of severe hand dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 28 (2010) 453-65.
Blanciforti, L. Economic burden of dermatitis in US workers. JOEM 52. (11):1045-54. 2010.
References
Sprigle AM, Marks JG Jr, Anderson BE. Prevention of nickel release with barrier coatings. Dermatitis. 2008,19(1):28-31.
Diepgen T.L., Coenraads P.J.: The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72. (8): 496-506.1999.
Keil J.E., Shmunes E.: The epidemiology of work-related skin disease in South Carolina. Arch Dermatol 119. (8): 650-654.1983.
Mathias C.G.: Occupational dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol 19. (6): 1107-1114.1988.
Goh C.L.: An epidemiological comparison between occupational and non-occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 120. (1): 77-82.1989.
Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact & occupational dermatology. 3rd ed Mosby St. Louis, (MO)2002.
Holness D.L.: Characteristic features of occupational dermatitis: epidemiologic studies of occupational skin disease reported by contact dermatitis clinics. Occup Med 9. (1): 45-52.1994.
Belsito D.V.: Occupational contact dermatitis: etiology, prevalence, and resultant impairment/disability. J Am Acad Dermatol 53. (2): 303-313.2005.
Kanerva L., Estlander T., Jolanki R.: Occupational skin disease in Finland. An analysis of 10 years of statistics from an occupational dermatology clinic. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60. (2): 89-94.1988.
Sertoli A., Gola M., Martinelli C., et al: Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Semin Dermatol 8. (2): 120-126.1989.
Rietschel R.L., Mathias C.G., Fowler , Jr. , Jr.J.F., et al: Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermatitis 13. (4): 170-176.2002.
Nethercott J.R., Holness D.L.: Disease outcome in workers with occupational skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 30. (4): 569-574.1994.
Mathias C.G., Morrison J.H.: Occupational skin diseases, United States. Results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 1973 through 1984. Arch Dermatol 124. (10): 1519-1524.1988.
Koch P.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol 2. (6): 353-365.2001.
Bureau of Labor Statistics : Occupational Injuries and illnesses in the United States. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif
Lushniak B.D.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 17. (3): 272-277.2004.
Mathias C.G.: The cost of ccupational skin disease. Arch Dermatol 121. (3): 332-334.1985.
Cvetkovski R.S., Rothman K.J., Olsen J., et al: Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave, and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 152. (1): 93-98.2005.
Thank you!
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
23
1
2
24
25
1
2
26
27
1
2
28
1
2
29
30
1
2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1
2
70
71
72
73
74
1
2
75
76
1
2
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
1
2
84
85
1
2
86
1
2
87
88
89
1
2
90
1
2
91
92
93
94
1
2
95
96
97
98
1
2
3
4
99
100
101
102
103
1
2
104
1
2
105
106
107
108
1
2
109
110
1
2
111
112
113
114
1
2
115
1
2
116
117
118
3/27/2015
5
Occupational DermatologyPearls
Heather P. Lampel, MD, MPH, FAAD, FACOEM
Duke University
Assistant Professor of Dermatology and
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
May 3, 2015
Disclosures
I have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
I will be discussing off-label use of patch testing and off-label treatment of contact dermatitis
I will mention companies
Objectives
Discuss the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in the occupational setting
Differentiate irritant from allergic contact dermatitis
Understand the role of patch testing in diagnosis
Highlight recently described allergens in the workplace
Review the trends in the occupational dermatitis literature 2014- present
Explore pitfalls and misconceptions in the workplace
Why should we care?
Occupational skin disease is a “hot” topic
Healthy People 2020
“Reduce occupational skin diseases or disorders among full-time workers”
ACOEM Core Competencies- Clinical Dermatology
OEM physicians can provide early recognition, diagnosis, and management …
Diagnose primary irritant-induced dermatoses
Differentiate occupational skin disorders…
Diagnose and determine the cause of allergic contact dermatitis …
Manage occupational and environmental skin injuries and dermatoses
Treat and prevent recurrence of contact dermatitis
Epidemiology of Occupational Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis
Contact dermatitis (CD) is reported to account for up to 30% of all occupational disease in industrialized nations
CD is the most common occupational skin disorder
About 90-95% of all cases of occupational skin diseases
Occupational CD Epidemiology United States
Incidence rate of 0.5-1.9 cases per 1000 full-time workers per year
US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004 estimated 48,800 cases of Occupational CD
1 year prevalence estimate of 20%
21-22% in healthcare workers
Ibler et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012;67:200-207.
Luk et al., Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:329-335.
Occupational CD Epidemiology Denmark
Occupational CD
95% of all occupational skin cases
Irritant CD 70% of these Occupational CD
68% due to wet work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
True epidemiologic data are lacking
Likely underestimated due to underreporting
Mild cases specifically
Bureau of Labor Statistics has rigorous criteria for inclusion
May not be obviously work-related (delayed-onset)
Self-treated
Only requiring first aid excluded
Underestimated by 85-88%
Luckhaupt et al., Am J Ind Med 2012.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Survey of established cases of Occupational CD reported that over one year:
19.9% reported prolonged sick leave
23% reported job loss
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
1985 Mathias estimated annual costs of Occupational CD to be between $222 million and $1 billion
2004 NIOSH estimates $1.2 billion
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Hands are usually involved
80-90% of cases
Great impact on quality of life
What percent of all contact dermatitis is allergic versus irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis accounts for 60-80% of all CD
Allergic contact dermatitis accounts for remaining 20-40%
Overlap common
Contact Dermatitis Overview
ACD is a SPECIFIC immunologic reaction, requiring prior sensitization
Elliott G and Das PK. Using p-Phenylenediamine: A Gateway to Chemical Immunology. Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2010) 130, 641–643.
Immunology of Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis Overview
90% of the population can be sensitized to certain antigens such as dinitrochlorobenzene
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis is NONSPECIFIC
Requires no prior sensitization
Clinically can be difficult to distinguish ICD from ACD
Common Occupational Irritants
Alkalis
Soaps
Detergents
Cleansers
Acids
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum
Oils
Solvents
Common Occupational Irritants
Frictional Dermatitis
Repetitive handling of objects or materials
Likely underappreciated
Examples
Fabric
Paper
Metal objects
Driving
Common Occupational Irritants
Gloves
Prolonged contact with skin affects the epidermal barrier
May be irritant itself
May make epidermal barrier more susceptible to allergens or other irritants
Irritants- Recent Literature
Wet work
Irritant chemicals
Solvents
Food
Detergents
Gloves
Mechanical trauma
Air (warm, dry)
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations
Occupations at High-Risk for Hand Dermatitis
Hairdressers
Musicians
Food Industry workers
Agricultural workers
Factory workers
Electronics workers
Cleaners/Washers
Housekeepers
Printers
Builders
Medical and Dental workers
Occupations at Risk for ICD
Hairdressers
Nursing
Doctors
Mechanics
Cooks
Cleaners
Painters
Plumbers
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations at Risk for CD- Denmark
Healthcare
Cleaning
Kitchen work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Epidemiology by Occupation
Shoe manufacturer
Indonesia
29% OCD point prevalence
Febriana et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2014; 87.
Poultry processing and manual laborers
1 year prevalence 23% skin symptoms
Quandt et al., Am J Indust Medicine 2014; 57.
Construction Industry
25.4% point prevalence of hand skin symptoms
Timmerman et al., Am J Ind Med 2014; 57.
Healthcare workers
Dutch apprentice nurses followed prospectively
1 year period prevalence of hand eczema
23% in first year
25% in second year
31% in third year
Frequent hand washing at work, at home, and outside wet work job all risk factors
Visser et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 44-55.
ACD vs ICD
Photo Quiz
Allergic or Irritant Contact Dermatitis?
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic and Irritant
Debunking the myths…
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
FALSE
Allergy can develop after years of using the same product
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
FALSE
There are many cross-reactants in other products, it is best to have NO exposures to topicals/cross-reactors when clearing a rash
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
NOT NECESSARILY
Common misconception held by MDs
There are many aspects affecting end-product eruption
Can be patchy!
CD Misconceptions
Adult onset “eczema”
If no history of eczema or atopy, more likely ACD
Especially if on hands, face, neck
90% of eczema has onset by age 5
“The greatest abuse of patch testing is failure to use the test.”
Coleman, 1982
Epicutaneous Patch testing
Intended to detect allergens relevant to eruption
Is at least a week-long process
Detects Type IV allergic reaction (delayed-type hypersensitivity)
Requires at least 2-3 visits to clinic for complete testing
T.R.U.E. Test
Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test
Allerderm product
Only FDA-approved patch testing product
36 allergens
Comes pre-filled
May not detect all relevant allergens
Patch testing
Step 1: Take extensive exposure history
Include home exposures, work tasks and exposures, implants, intermittent exposures, MSDS if appropriate
Patch testing
Step 2: Determine allergen panel
Would be pre-determined if only TRUE Test is available
Patch testing
Step 3: Prepare allergen tray as appropriate
TRUE test is pre-prepared
Patch testing
Step 4: Apply patches to back
Back must be clear of rash
Patches are marked
Securing paper tape is used
Patch testing
Step 5: Patches removed in 48 hours
Variability in how this is done
Areas remarked
Reactions noted- Irritant
Patch testing
Step 6: Patches read at 3-7 days after application
Our clinic reads at 4 days
Consider delayed read for late reactors
Patch testing
Step 7: Determine clinical relevance
Consider the Mathias Criteria for Occupational cases
Excellent tool for ascertaining occupational causation
Keep in mind that irritant CD remains a diagnosis of exclusion, and dermatitis may be both ICD and ACD, multifactorial, etc.
Patch testing
Step 8: Instruct in avoidance of allergen(s) and cross-reactors
If in topical medicaments, cosmetics, etc. it is best to print out the CAMP “safe list”
On American Contact Dermatitis Society member webpage
Mayo Clinic also has a database
Also consider all objects that may contain allergen
Information (written) and verbal counseling of patient is KEY
May include modified work, increased or alternative PPE, modified environment-both home and work
Mathias Criteria
1. Is the clinical appearance consistent with contact dermatitis?
2. Are there workplace exposures to potential cutaneous irritants or allergens?
3. Is the anatomic distribution of the dermatitis consistent with cutaneous exposure in relation to work tasks?
4. Is there a temporal association between onset of dermatitis and exposure consistent with contact dermatitis?
Mathias Criteria
5. Are non-occupational exposures excluded as probable causes?
6. Does dermatitis improve away from work exposure to the suspected allergen or irritant?
7. Do patch or provocation tests identify a probable causal agent?
Mathias Criteria
Answer of “yes” to 4 or more of the 7 criteria yields a greater than 50% probability of occupational cause
Provides a “reasonable degree of medical certainty”
Allergens
Top 10 Allergens in North America
Nickel sulfate
Balsam of Peru
Fragrance mix I
Quaternium-15
Neomycin
Bacitracin
Formaldehyde
Cobalt chloride
Fragrance mix II
p-Phenylenediamine
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Formaldehyde-Releasers
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Quaternium-15
Imidazolidinyl urea (Germall 115)
Diazolidinyl urea (Germall II)
DMDM hydantoin (Glydant)
2-Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (Bronopol)
Sodium hydroxymethyl glycinate
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Workplace Allergens- Canada
Epoxy resin
Thiuram Mix
Carba Mix
Nickel sulfate
Cobalt chloride
Potassium dichromate
Glyceryl thioglycolate
P-phenylenediamine
Formaldehyde
Glutaraldehyde
Arrandale et al Am J Ind Med 2012; 55:353-60.
Top Workplace Allergens-Denmark
Rubber allergens
Epoxy (windmill workers)
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
What’s new in Occupational Contact Allergens?
Coconut derivatives
Capryldiethanolamine in metalworking fluids
May not react to:
Monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, methyldiethanolamine, and cocamide DEA
Not in MSDS
Suuronen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 120-121.
Coconut derivatives
Sodium cocoamphopropionate
Surfactant
Derivative of coconut fatty acids condensed with amino-ethyl ethanolamines
Soaps, shampoos, conditioners
Sweden, fast-food workers
Hagvall et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 122-124.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide MEA
AKA tall oil fatty acids monoethanolamide
In metal working fluid
Aalto-Korte et al. Contact Dermatitis, 69,316-7.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA)
Surfactant
Industrial, household and cosmetic products
Finland 19/25 positives were occupational, most in metal industry
Soaps (hand, dish), metalworking fluids, barrier cream
Noted concomitant reactions
Monoethanolamine
Diethanolamine- impurity of cocamide DEA
Aalto-Korte et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 169-174.
Airborne medications
Benzodiazepines
Airborne contact from crushing pills for patients
2 nurses, 1 pharmacy tech, one relative
Consider in facial dermatitis
Swinnen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 227-232.
Sevofluorane
Systemic allergic contact- airborne
Required ROAT (negative to routine patch testing)
Surgeon
Burches et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 62-63.
Medications- Nonairborne
Omeprazole
Horse trainer
Handled paste for horse’s stomach ulcers
Al-Falah et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 377-378.
“Head lad” caring for race horses
Dispensed omeprazole paste via syringe
Alwan et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 376.
Fragrance
Citral
Hands and arms
9 beauticians in high-end spa
DeMozzi and Johnston, Contact Dermatitis 70, 377-378.
D- limonene
Machine cleaners, hand soaps, moisturizers, surface cleanser, dishwashing soaps
Pesonen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 273-279.
Isothiazolinones (Denmark)
Occupations
Painting
Welding (blacksmiths)
Machine operating
Cosmetology
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 295-302.
Sources
Paints and varnishes
Cleaners
Polishing liquids
Some in high concentrations
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 65-74.
Methylisothiazolinone
Ultrasound gel in ultrasonographer
Madsen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 312-313.
Water cooling tower technicians
Maor et al., Dermatitis 26, 62-64.
Allergens
Tricresyl phosphate
Cleaning occupation
In vinyl gloves
Plasticizer
Also in sheer strips (Band Aids)
Crepy et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 325-328.
Blue Collar Workers
Compared to controls patch-tested, BCW higher hand eczema, lower atopic dermatitis
Epoxy resins
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile
2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
Potassium dichromate
Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/ methylisothiazolinone (MI)
Allergen: Occupation
Epoxy: construction
MCI/MI: Painting
Potassium dichromate: tile setting/terrazzo work
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 348-355.
Blue Collar Workers
Case report of a cement worker with poor PPE
Sweden
Legislation in Europe to decrease hexavalent chromium in cement
Addition of ferrous sulfate
Chromium allergy persists
Hedberg et al, Contact dermatitis 70, 321-323.
Hairdressers- Denmark
Hairdressers 2002-2011
Compared to patch tested controls, hairdressers more significantly had Occupational CD and hand eczema, lower AD
Allergens significantly associated:
p-phenylenediamine, thiuram mix, benzocaine
Frequent sensitizers from the hairdressing series:
ammonium persulfate, toluene-2,5-diamine, 3-aminophenol, and 4-aminophenol
New sensitizers:
Cysteamine hydrochloride- substitute for glycerol monothioglycolate (restricted in Germany)
Chloroacetamide- preservative
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 233-237.
Hairdressers- Germany
German contact allergy database 2007-2012
Compared hairdressers to clients
Allergens significantly associated with hairdressers > clients:
Ammonium persulfate
Glyceryl monothioglycolate
Demonstrated concern as young hairdressers still with some positive reaction, despite legislation
Uter et al, Contact Dermatitis 71, 13-20.
Food Industry
Cobalt in a baker
Bregnbak et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 118-119.
Food Industry
Pizza makers
Diallyl disulfide and
Ammonium persulfate
Lembo et al., Dermatitis 25, 194-196.
Wine maker
Potassium metabisulfite
Ortiz et al., Dermatitis 25, 150-151.
Heathcare workers
Chlorhexidine
Australian study
2% relevant ACD in healthcare workers
Higher than other studies, keep on radar
Toholka et al., Australiasian J Derm 54, 303-306.
Preferred Approach to Occupational Exposure
1. Elimination
2. Substitution
3. Isolation
4. Engineering controls
5. Safe work practices
6. Personal protection
Material Safety Data Sheets
Mandated
Hazardous chemical name
Chemical properties
Physical hazards
Route of entry
Known exposure limits
Carcinogenicity
Clean-up practices
Control measures
Contact information
Not required
If proprietary
Specific name often avoided (general category used)
Irritants and sensitizers if <1% concentration
Often do not address prevention of sensitization and irritancy
Diagnosis- MSDS
Diagnosis- MSDS
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
AVOIDANCE!
Allergens
Irritants
Treatment/Prevention
Avoidance
Harder with omnipresent allergens (epoxy versus rubber allergens)
Contact urticaria more problematic than ACD
Clemmensen et al., Br J Dermatol 2014;170.
Personal protective equipment
Legislation
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Recommended short-term high-potency topical steroids for hands:
Clobetasol propionate
Ointment
Halcinonide ointment
No propylene glycol, no sensitizers
For body:
Short-term hydrocortisone 2.5% bid for face, neck, axillae, groin, intertriginousareas
Short-term triamcinolone 0.1% bid for body
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Avoid more than a few weeks of potent steroid use topically
Can thin the skin making hands more susceptible to allergen/irritant!
Consider calcineurin inhibitors topically
Consider IM steroids x 1
Oral steroids with SLOW taper
Doxycycline for anti-inflammatory effects
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Barrier creams- Repair versus Protect
Repair creams with ceramides
Barrier creams with dimethicone
Studies are variable in demonstrating any benefit from barrier creams when compared to regular emollients
At least recommend moisturizing
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Prevention
Barrier creams
Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis
At high dose of application (2-20x actual application) can help prevent ICD
Schliemann et al., Contact dermatitis 70, 19-26.
Cotton liners under gloves
Adisesh et al., Br J Dermatol 2013.
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Appropriate gloves
Match task with glove
“Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing” by Forsberg and Mansdorf
ACDS website lists glove manufacturers
Treating Dermatitis- Step 2 (Maintenance)
Calcineurin inhibitors
Tacrolimus 0.1%
Pimecrolimus 0.1%
Therapeutic moisturizers
Shea butter
Aquaphor
Petrolatum
Lower potency steroids for hands:
Triamcinolone 0.1%
Fluticasone cream or lotion
Hydrocortisone butyrate lipid cream
Clocortolone cream
Treating Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Hand psoralen- ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA)
Narrow-band UV B therapy (NBUVB)
Often used for recalcitrant body dermatitis
Excimer laser
308 nm
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Methotrexate
Mycophenolate mofetil
2-3g/day recommended for control
Acitretin
Best for psoriasiform hand dermatitis
2-4 month course
Cyclosporine
2.5-5 mg/kg daily
Azathioprine
1-3 mg/kg daily
Biologics are not helpful overall (yet!)
Treatment
Multidisciplinary teams aid in successful return to work
German model included inpatient and outpatient care
87% remained in workforce
Weisshaar et al., Contact Dermatitis 2013;68:169-174.
Netherlands included a dermatologist, education nurse, occupational medicine physician
Van Gils et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012 66(4) and 66(5).
Canadian model
Gomez et al., Dermatitis 2011;22(3).
Prevention
Evidence-based intervention
1 hour voluntary hand protective behavior lecture/ intervention
Full-time hospital cleaners
At 3 months post-intervention
Decreased hand cleansing
Better knowledge of hand preservation
Improved hand dermatitis
Clemmensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 47-54.
Occupational Dermatitis Resources
Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing by Forsberg and Mansdorf
Contact and Occupational Dermatology by Marks, Elsner, DeLeo
ACDS website
OSHA, NIOSH
Article December 2011 The Dermatologist
Summary
Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish
We are constantly being exposed to new allergens, often earlier in life
Occupational contact dermatitis is underreported
Patch testing for ACD is the gold standard
Can try TRUE test, consider referral for comprehensive panels
Novel allergens in the workplace
Summary
Think outside the box
Try a stepwise approach
Elimination
Treatment
Escalate treatment
Will be chronic if exposure continues
You can make a huge difference in patient’s quality of life
References
Marks et al., 2002. Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact and Occupational Dermatology, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby, 2002.
Nelson and Yiannias, 2009. Nelson S.A., Yiannias J.A.: Relevance and avoidance of skin-care product allergens: Pearls and pitfalls. Dermatol Clin 2009; 27(3):329-336.
Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test. Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test) : Available at:[accessed 03.07.11] http://www.truetest.com/PatientPDF/File18.pdf
Zug et al., 2009. Zug K.A., Warshaw E.M., Fowler J.F., et al: Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 2009; 20:149-160.
Emmett EA. Occupational contact dermatitis I. Incidence and return to work pressures. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2002;13:30–4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. [Bulletin 2512]. Washington (DC): US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1999.
Lushniak BD. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin1995; 13:671–9.
Skoet R, Olsen J, Mathiesen B, et al. A survey of occupational hand eczema in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51(4):159–66.
Staton I, Ma R, Evans N, et al. Dermal nickel exposure associated with coin handling and in various occupational settings: assessment using a newly developed finger immersion method. Br J Dermatol 2006;154(4):658–64.
Veien NK, Menne T. Treatment of hand eczema. Skin Therapy Lett 2003;8(5):4–7. 137.
Warshaw E. Therapeutic options for chronic hand dermatitis. Dermatol Ther2004;4:17240–50.
Schalock PC, Zug KA, Carter JC, et al. Efficacy and patient perception of Grenz ray therapy in the treatment of dermatoses refractory to other medical therapy. Dermatitis 2008;19(2):90–4.
Abramovits W, Granowski P. Innovative management of severe hand dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 28 (2010) 453-65.
Blanciforti, L. Economic burden of dermatitis in US workers. JOEM 52. (11):1045-54. 2010.
References
Sprigle AM, Marks JG Jr, Anderson BE. Prevention of nickel release with barrier coatings. Dermatitis. 2008,19(1):28-31.
Diepgen T.L., Coenraads P.J.: The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72. (8): 496-506.1999.
Keil J.E., Shmunes E.: The epidemiology of work-related skin disease in South Carolina. Arch Dermatol 119. (8): 650-654.1983.
Mathias C.G.: Occupational dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol 19. (6): 1107-1114.1988.
Goh C.L.: An epidemiological comparison between occupational and non-occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 120. (1): 77-82.1989.
Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact & occupational dermatology. 3rd ed Mosby St. Louis, (MO)2002.
Holness D.L.: Characteristic features of occupational dermatitis: epidemiologic studies of occupational skin disease reported by contact dermatitis clinics. Occup Med 9. (1): 45-52.1994.
Belsito D.V.: Occupational contact dermatitis: etiology, prevalence, and resultant impairment/disability. J Am Acad Dermatol 53. (2): 303-313.2005.
Kanerva L., Estlander T., Jolanki R.: Occupational skin disease in Finland. An analysis of 10 years of statistics from an occupational dermatology clinic. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60. (2): 89-94.1988.
Sertoli A., Gola M., Martinelli C., et al: Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Semin Dermatol 8. (2): 120-126.1989.
Rietschel R.L., Mathias C.G., Fowler , Jr. , Jr.J.F., et al: Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermatitis 13. (4): 170-176.2002.
Nethercott J.R., Holness D.L.: Disease outcome in workers with occupational skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 30. (4): 569-574.1994.
Mathias C.G., Morrison J.H.: Occupational skin diseases, United States. Results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 1973 through 1984. Arch Dermatol 124. (10): 1519-1524.1988.
Koch P.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol 2. (6): 353-365.2001.
Bureau of Labor Statistics : Occupational Injuries and illnesses in the United States. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif
Lushniak B.D.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 17. (3): 272-277.2004.
Mathias C.G.: The cost of ccupational skin disease. Arch Dermatol 121. (3): 332-334.1985.
Cvetkovski R.S., Rothman K.J., Olsen J., et al: Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave, and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 152. (1): 93-98.2005.
Thank you!
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
23
1
2
24
25
1
2
26
27
1
2
28
1
2
29
30
1
2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1
2
70
71
72
73
74
1
2
75
76
1
2
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
1
2
84
85
1
2
86
1
2
87
88
89
1
2
90
1
2
91
92
93
94
1
2
95
96
97
98
1
2
3
4
99
100
101
102
103
1
2
104
1
2
105
106
107
108
1
2
109
110
1
2
111
112
113
114
1
2
115
1
2
116
117
118
3/27/2015
6
Occupational DermatologyPearls
Heather P. Lampel, MD, MPH, FAAD, FACOEM
Duke University
Assistant Professor of Dermatology and
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
May 3, 2015
Disclosures
I have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
I will be discussing off-label use of patch testing and off-label treatment of contact dermatitis
I will mention companies
Objectives
Discuss the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in the occupational setting
Differentiate irritant from allergic contact dermatitis
Understand the role of patch testing in diagnosis
Highlight recently described allergens in the workplace
Review the trends in the occupational dermatitis literature 2014- present
Explore pitfalls and misconceptions in the workplace
Why should we care?
Occupational skin disease is a “hot” topic
Healthy People 2020
“Reduce occupational skin diseases or disorders among full-time workers”
ACOEM Core Competencies- Clinical Dermatology
OEM physicians can provide early recognition, diagnosis, and management …
Diagnose primary irritant-induced dermatoses
Differentiate occupational skin disorders…
Diagnose and determine the cause of allergic contact dermatitis …
Manage occupational and environmental skin injuries and dermatoses
Treat and prevent recurrence of contact dermatitis
Epidemiology of Occupational Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis
Contact dermatitis (CD) is reported to account for up to 30% of all occupational disease in industrialized nations
CD is the most common occupational skin disorder
About 90-95% of all cases of occupational skin diseases
Occupational CD Epidemiology United States
Incidence rate of 0.5-1.9 cases per 1000 full-time workers per year
US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004 estimated 48,800 cases of Occupational CD
1 year prevalence estimate of 20%
21-22% in healthcare workers
Ibler et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012;67:200-207.
Luk et al., Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:329-335.
Occupational CD Epidemiology Denmark
Occupational CD
95% of all occupational skin cases
Irritant CD 70% of these Occupational CD
68% due to wet work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
True epidemiologic data are lacking
Likely underestimated due to underreporting
Mild cases specifically
Bureau of Labor Statistics has rigorous criteria for inclusion
May not be obviously work-related (delayed-onset)
Self-treated
Only requiring first aid excluded
Underestimated by 85-88%
Luckhaupt et al., Am J Ind Med 2012.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Survey of established cases of Occupational CD reported that over one year:
19.9% reported prolonged sick leave
23% reported job loss
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
1985 Mathias estimated annual costs of Occupational CD to be between $222 million and $1 billion
2004 NIOSH estimates $1.2 billion
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Hands are usually involved
80-90% of cases
Great impact on quality of life
What percent of all contact dermatitis is allergic versus irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis accounts for 60-80% of all CD
Allergic contact dermatitis accounts for remaining 20-40%
Overlap common
Contact Dermatitis Overview
ACD is a SPECIFIC immunologic reaction, requiring prior sensitization
Elliott G and Das PK. Using p-Phenylenediamine: A Gateway to Chemical Immunology. Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2010) 130, 641–643.
Immunology of Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis Overview
90% of the population can be sensitized to certain antigens such as dinitrochlorobenzene
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis is NONSPECIFIC
Requires no prior sensitization
Clinically can be difficult to distinguish ICD from ACD
Common Occupational Irritants
Alkalis
Soaps
Detergents
Cleansers
Acids
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum
Oils
Solvents
Common Occupational Irritants
Frictional Dermatitis
Repetitive handling of objects or materials
Likely underappreciated
Examples
Fabric
Paper
Metal objects
Driving
Common Occupational Irritants
Gloves
Prolonged contact with skin affects the epidermal barrier
May be irritant itself
May make epidermal barrier more susceptible to allergens or other irritants
Irritants- Recent Literature
Wet work
Irritant chemicals
Solvents
Food
Detergents
Gloves
Mechanical trauma
Air (warm, dry)
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations
Occupations at High-Risk for Hand Dermatitis
Hairdressers
Musicians
Food Industry workers
Agricultural workers
Factory workers
Electronics workers
Cleaners/Washers
Housekeepers
Printers
Builders
Medical and Dental workers
Occupations at Risk for ICD
Hairdressers
Nursing
Doctors
Mechanics
Cooks
Cleaners
Painters
Plumbers
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations at Risk for CD- Denmark
Healthcare
Cleaning
Kitchen work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Epidemiology by Occupation
Shoe manufacturer
Indonesia
29% OCD point prevalence
Febriana et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2014; 87.
Poultry processing and manual laborers
1 year prevalence 23% skin symptoms
Quandt et al., Am J Indust Medicine 2014; 57.
Construction Industry
25.4% point prevalence of hand skin symptoms
Timmerman et al., Am J Ind Med 2014; 57.
Healthcare workers
Dutch apprentice nurses followed prospectively
1 year period prevalence of hand eczema
23% in first year
25% in second year
31% in third year
Frequent hand washing at work, at home, and outside wet work job all risk factors
Visser et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 44-55.
ACD vs ICD
Photo Quiz
Allergic or Irritant Contact Dermatitis?
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic and Irritant
Debunking the myths…
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
FALSE
Allergy can develop after years of using the same product
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
FALSE
There are many cross-reactants in other products, it is best to have NO exposures to topicals/cross-reactors when clearing a rash
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
NOT NECESSARILY
Common misconception held by MDs
There are many aspects affecting end-product eruption
Can be patchy!
CD Misconceptions
Adult onset “eczema”
If no history of eczema or atopy, more likely ACD
Especially if on hands, face, neck
90% of eczema has onset by age 5
“The greatest abuse of patch testing is failure to use the test.”
Coleman, 1982
Epicutaneous Patch testing
Intended to detect allergens relevant to eruption
Is at least a week-long process
Detects Type IV allergic reaction (delayed-type hypersensitivity)
Requires at least 2-3 visits to clinic for complete testing
T.R.U.E. Test
Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test
Allerderm product
Only FDA-approved patch testing product
36 allergens
Comes pre-filled
May not detect all relevant allergens
Patch testing
Step 1: Take extensive exposure history
Include home exposures, work tasks and exposures, implants, intermittent exposures, MSDS if appropriate
Patch testing
Step 2: Determine allergen panel
Would be pre-determined if only TRUE Test is available
Patch testing
Step 3: Prepare allergen tray as appropriate
TRUE test is pre-prepared
Patch testing
Step 4: Apply patches to back
Back must be clear of rash
Patches are marked
Securing paper tape is used
Patch testing
Step 5: Patches removed in 48 hours
Variability in how this is done
Areas remarked
Reactions noted- Irritant
Patch testing
Step 6: Patches read at 3-7 days after application
Our clinic reads at 4 days
Consider delayed read for late reactors
Patch testing
Step 7: Determine clinical relevance
Consider the Mathias Criteria for Occupational cases
Excellent tool for ascertaining occupational causation
Keep in mind that irritant CD remains a diagnosis of exclusion, and dermatitis may be both ICD and ACD, multifactorial, etc.
Patch testing
Step 8: Instruct in avoidance of allergen(s) and cross-reactors
If in topical medicaments, cosmetics, etc. it is best to print out the CAMP “safe list”
On American Contact Dermatitis Society member webpage
Mayo Clinic also has a database
Also consider all objects that may contain allergen
Information (written) and verbal counseling of patient is KEY
May include modified work, increased or alternative PPE, modified environment-both home and work
Mathias Criteria
1. Is the clinical appearance consistent with contact dermatitis?
2. Are there workplace exposures to potential cutaneous irritants or allergens?
3. Is the anatomic distribution of the dermatitis consistent with cutaneous exposure in relation to work tasks?
4. Is there a temporal association between onset of dermatitis and exposure consistent with contact dermatitis?
Mathias Criteria
5. Are non-occupational exposures excluded as probable causes?
6. Does dermatitis improve away from work exposure to the suspected allergen or irritant?
7. Do patch or provocation tests identify a probable causal agent?
Mathias Criteria
Answer of “yes” to 4 or more of the 7 criteria yields a greater than 50% probability of occupational cause
Provides a “reasonable degree of medical certainty”
Allergens
Top 10 Allergens in North America
Nickel sulfate
Balsam of Peru
Fragrance mix I
Quaternium-15
Neomycin
Bacitracin
Formaldehyde
Cobalt chloride
Fragrance mix II
p-Phenylenediamine
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Formaldehyde-Releasers
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Quaternium-15
Imidazolidinyl urea (Germall 115)
Diazolidinyl urea (Germall II)
DMDM hydantoin (Glydant)
2-Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (Bronopol)
Sodium hydroxymethyl glycinate
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Workplace Allergens- Canada
Epoxy resin
Thiuram Mix
Carba Mix
Nickel sulfate
Cobalt chloride
Potassium dichromate
Glyceryl thioglycolate
P-phenylenediamine
Formaldehyde
Glutaraldehyde
Arrandale et al Am J Ind Med 2012; 55:353-60.
Top Workplace Allergens-Denmark
Rubber allergens
Epoxy (windmill workers)
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
What’s new in Occupational Contact Allergens?
Coconut derivatives
Capryldiethanolamine in metalworking fluids
May not react to:
Monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, methyldiethanolamine, and cocamide DEA
Not in MSDS
Suuronen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 120-121.
Coconut derivatives
Sodium cocoamphopropionate
Surfactant
Derivative of coconut fatty acids condensed with amino-ethyl ethanolamines
Soaps, shampoos, conditioners
Sweden, fast-food workers
Hagvall et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 122-124.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide MEA
AKA tall oil fatty acids monoethanolamide
In metal working fluid
Aalto-Korte et al. Contact Dermatitis, 69,316-7.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA)
Surfactant
Industrial, household and cosmetic products
Finland 19/25 positives were occupational, most in metal industry
Soaps (hand, dish), metalworking fluids, barrier cream
Noted concomitant reactions
Monoethanolamine
Diethanolamine- impurity of cocamide DEA
Aalto-Korte et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 169-174.
Airborne medications
Benzodiazepines
Airborne contact from crushing pills for patients
2 nurses, 1 pharmacy tech, one relative
Consider in facial dermatitis
Swinnen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 227-232.
Sevofluorane
Systemic allergic contact- airborne
Required ROAT (negative to routine patch testing)
Surgeon
Burches et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 62-63.
Medications- Nonairborne
Omeprazole
Horse trainer
Handled paste for horse’s stomach ulcers
Al-Falah et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 377-378.
“Head lad” caring for race horses
Dispensed omeprazole paste via syringe
Alwan et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 376.
Fragrance
Citral
Hands and arms
9 beauticians in high-end spa
DeMozzi and Johnston, Contact Dermatitis 70, 377-378.
D- limonene
Machine cleaners, hand soaps, moisturizers, surface cleanser, dishwashing soaps
Pesonen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 273-279.
Isothiazolinones (Denmark)
Occupations
Painting
Welding (blacksmiths)
Machine operating
Cosmetology
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 295-302.
Sources
Paints and varnishes
Cleaners
Polishing liquids
Some in high concentrations
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 65-74.
Methylisothiazolinone
Ultrasound gel in ultrasonographer
Madsen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 312-313.
Water cooling tower technicians
Maor et al., Dermatitis 26, 62-64.
Allergens
Tricresyl phosphate
Cleaning occupation
In vinyl gloves
Plasticizer
Also in sheer strips (Band Aids)
Crepy et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 325-328.
Blue Collar Workers
Compared to controls patch-tested, BCW higher hand eczema, lower atopic dermatitis
Epoxy resins
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile
2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
Potassium dichromate
Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/ methylisothiazolinone (MI)
Allergen: Occupation
Epoxy: construction
MCI/MI: Painting
Potassium dichromate: tile setting/terrazzo work
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 348-355.
Blue Collar Workers
Case report of a cement worker with poor PPE
Sweden
Legislation in Europe to decrease hexavalent chromium in cement
Addition of ferrous sulfate
Chromium allergy persists
Hedberg et al, Contact dermatitis 70, 321-323.
Hairdressers- Denmark
Hairdressers 2002-2011
Compared to patch tested controls, hairdressers more significantly had Occupational CD and hand eczema, lower AD
Allergens significantly associated:
p-phenylenediamine, thiuram mix, benzocaine
Frequent sensitizers from the hairdressing series:
ammonium persulfate, toluene-2,5-diamine, 3-aminophenol, and 4-aminophenol
New sensitizers:
Cysteamine hydrochloride- substitute for glycerol monothioglycolate (restricted in Germany)
Chloroacetamide- preservative
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 233-237.
Hairdressers- Germany
German contact allergy database 2007-2012
Compared hairdressers to clients
Allergens significantly associated with hairdressers > clients:
Ammonium persulfate
Glyceryl monothioglycolate
Demonstrated concern as young hairdressers still with some positive reaction, despite legislation
Uter et al, Contact Dermatitis 71, 13-20.
Food Industry
Cobalt in a baker
Bregnbak et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 118-119.
Food Industry
Pizza makers
Diallyl disulfide and
Ammonium persulfate
Lembo et al., Dermatitis 25, 194-196.
Wine maker
Potassium metabisulfite
Ortiz et al., Dermatitis 25, 150-151.
Heathcare workers
Chlorhexidine
Australian study
2% relevant ACD in healthcare workers
Higher than other studies, keep on radar
Toholka et al., Australiasian J Derm 54, 303-306.
Preferred Approach to Occupational Exposure
1. Elimination
2. Substitution
3. Isolation
4. Engineering controls
5. Safe work practices
6. Personal protection
Material Safety Data Sheets
Mandated
Hazardous chemical name
Chemical properties
Physical hazards
Route of entry
Known exposure limits
Carcinogenicity
Clean-up practices
Control measures
Contact information
Not required
If proprietary
Specific name often avoided (general category used)
Irritants and sensitizers if <1% concentration
Often do not address prevention of sensitization and irritancy
Diagnosis- MSDS
Diagnosis- MSDS
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
AVOIDANCE!
Allergens
Irritants
Treatment/Prevention
Avoidance
Harder with omnipresent allergens (epoxy versus rubber allergens)
Contact urticaria more problematic than ACD
Clemmensen et al., Br J Dermatol 2014;170.
Personal protective equipment
Legislation
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Recommended short-term high-potency topical steroids for hands:
Clobetasol propionate
Ointment
Halcinonide ointment
No propylene glycol, no sensitizers
For body:
Short-term hydrocortisone 2.5% bid for face, neck, axillae, groin, intertriginousareas
Short-term triamcinolone 0.1% bid for body
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Avoid more than a few weeks of potent steroid use topically
Can thin the skin making hands more susceptible to allergen/irritant!
Consider calcineurin inhibitors topically
Consider IM steroids x 1
Oral steroids with SLOW taper
Doxycycline for anti-inflammatory effects
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Barrier creams- Repair versus Protect
Repair creams with ceramides
Barrier creams with dimethicone
Studies are variable in demonstrating any benefit from barrier creams when compared to regular emollients
At least recommend moisturizing
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Prevention
Barrier creams
Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis
At high dose of application (2-20x actual application) can help prevent ICD
Schliemann et al., Contact dermatitis 70, 19-26.
Cotton liners under gloves
Adisesh et al., Br J Dermatol 2013.
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Appropriate gloves
Match task with glove
“Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing” by Forsberg and Mansdorf
ACDS website lists glove manufacturers
Treating Dermatitis- Step 2 (Maintenance)
Calcineurin inhibitors
Tacrolimus 0.1%
Pimecrolimus 0.1%
Therapeutic moisturizers
Shea butter
Aquaphor
Petrolatum
Lower potency steroids for hands:
Triamcinolone 0.1%
Fluticasone cream or lotion
Hydrocortisone butyrate lipid cream
Clocortolone cream
Treating Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Hand psoralen- ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA)
Narrow-band UV B therapy (NBUVB)
Often used for recalcitrant body dermatitis
Excimer laser
308 nm
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Methotrexate
Mycophenolate mofetil
2-3g/day recommended for control
Acitretin
Best for psoriasiform hand dermatitis
2-4 month course
Cyclosporine
2.5-5 mg/kg daily
Azathioprine
1-3 mg/kg daily
Biologics are not helpful overall (yet!)
Treatment
Multidisciplinary teams aid in successful return to work
German model included inpatient and outpatient care
87% remained in workforce
Weisshaar et al., Contact Dermatitis 2013;68:169-174.
Netherlands included a dermatologist, education nurse, occupational medicine physician
Van Gils et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012 66(4) and 66(5).
Canadian model
Gomez et al., Dermatitis 2011;22(3).
Prevention
Evidence-based intervention
1 hour voluntary hand protective behavior lecture/ intervention
Full-time hospital cleaners
At 3 months post-intervention
Decreased hand cleansing
Better knowledge of hand preservation
Improved hand dermatitis
Clemmensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 47-54.
Occupational Dermatitis Resources
Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing by Forsberg and Mansdorf
Contact and Occupational Dermatology by Marks, Elsner, DeLeo
ACDS website
OSHA, NIOSH
Article December 2011 The Dermatologist
Summary
Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish
We are constantly being exposed to new allergens, often earlier in life
Occupational contact dermatitis is underreported
Patch testing for ACD is the gold standard
Can try TRUE test, consider referral for comprehensive panels
Novel allergens in the workplace
Summary
Think outside the box
Try a stepwise approach
Elimination
Treatment
Escalate treatment
Will be chronic if exposure continues
You can make a huge difference in patient’s quality of life
References
Marks et al., 2002. Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact and Occupational Dermatology, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby, 2002.
Nelson and Yiannias, 2009. Nelson S.A., Yiannias J.A.: Relevance and avoidance of skin-care product allergens: Pearls and pitfalls. Dermatol Clin 2009; 27(3):329-336.
Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test. Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test) : Available at:[accessed 03.07.11] http://www.truetest.com/PatientPDF/File18.pdf
Zug et al., 2009. Zug K.A., Warshaw E.M., Fowler J.F., et al: Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 2009; 20:149-160.
Emmett EA. Occupational contact dermatitis I. Incidence and return to work pressures. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2002;13:30–4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. [Bulletin 2512]. Washington (DC): US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1999.
Lushniak BD. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin1995; 13:671–9.
Skoet R, Olsen J, Mathiesen B, et al. A survey of occupational hand eczema in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51(4):159–66.
Staton I, Ma R, Evans N, et al. Dermal nickel exposure associated with coin handling and in various occupational settings: assessment using a newly developed finger immersion method. Br J Dermatol 2006;154(4):658–64.
Veien NK, Menne T. Treatment of hand eczema. Skin Therapy Lett 2003;8(5):4–7. 137.
Warshaw E. Therapeutic options for chronic hand dermatitis. Dermatol Ther2004;4:17240–50.
Schalock PC, Zug KA, Carter JC, et al. Efficacy and patient perception of Grenz ray therapy in the treatment of dermatoses refractory to other medical therapy. Dermatitis 2008;19(2):90–4.
Abramovits W, Granowski P. Innovative management of severe hand dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 28 (2010) 453-65.
Blanciforti, L. Economic burden of dermatitis in US workers. JOEM 52. (11):1045-54. 2010.
References
Sprigle AM, Marks JG Jr, Anderson BE. Prevention of nickel release with barrier coatings. Dermatitis. 2008,19(1):28-31.
Diepgen T.L., Coenraads P.J.: The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72. (8): 496-506.1999.
Keil J.E., Shmunes E.: The epidemiology of work-related skin disease in South Carolina. Arch Dermatol 119. (8): 650-654.1983.
Mathias C.G.: Occupational dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol 19. (6): 1107-1114.1988.
Goh C.L.: An epidemiological comparison between occupational and non-occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 120. (1): 77-82.1989.
Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact & occupational dermatology. 3rd ed Mosby St. Louis, (MO)2002.
Holness D.L.: Characteristic features of occupational dermatitis: epidemiologic studies of occupational skin disease reported by contact dermatitis clinics. Occup Med 9. (1): 45-52.1994.
Belsito D.V.: Occupational contact dermatitis: etiology, prevalence, and resultant impairment/disability. J Am Acad Dermatol 53. (2): 303-313.2005.
Kanerva L., Estlander T., Jolanki R.: Occupational skin disease in Finland. An analysis of 10 years of statistics from an occupational dermatology clinic. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60. (2): 89-94.1988.
Sertoli A., Gola M., Martinelli C., et al: Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Semin Dermatol 8. (2): 120-126.1989.
Rietschel R.L., Mathias C.G., Fowler , Jr. , Jr.J.F., et al: Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermatitis 13. (4): 170-176.2002.
Nethercott J.R., Holness D.L.: Disease outcome in workers with occupational skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 30. (4): 569-574.1994.
Mathias C.G., Morrison J.H.: Occupational skin diseases, United States. Results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 1973 through 1984. Arch Dermatol 124. (10): 1519-1524.1988.
Koch P.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol 2. (6): 353-365.2001.
Bureau of Labor Statistics : Occupational Injuries and illnesses in the United States. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif
Lushniak B.D.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 17. (3): 272-277.2004.
Mathias C.G.: The cost of ccupational skin disease. Arch Dermatol 121. (3): 332-334.1985.
Cvetkovski R.S., Rothman K.J., Olsen J., et al: Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave, and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 152. (1): 93-98.2005.
Thank you!
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
23
1
2
24
25
1
2
26
27
1
2
28
1
2
29
30
1
2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1
2
70
71
72
73
74
1
2
75
76
1
2
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
1
2
84
85
1
2
86
1
2
87
88
89
1
2
90
1
2
91
92
93
94
1
2
95
96
97
98
1
2
3
4
99
100
101
102
103
1
2
104
1
2
105
106
107
108
1
2
109
110
1
2
111
112
113
114
1
2
115
1
2
116
117
118
3/27/2015
7
Occupational DermatologyPearls
Heather P. Lampel, MD, MPH, FAAD, FACOEM
Duke University
Assistant Professor of Dermatology and
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
May 3, 2015
Disclosures
I have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
I will be discussing off-label use of patch testing and off-label treatment of contact dermatitis
I will mention companies
Objectives
Discuss the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in the occupational setting
Differentiate irritant from allergic contact dermatitis
Understand the role of patch testing in diagnosis
Highlight recently described allergens in the workplace
Review the trends in the occupational dermatitis literature 2014- present
Explore pitfalls and misconceptions in the workplace
Why should we care?
Occupational skin disease is a “hot” topic
Healthy People 2020
“Reduce occupational skin diseases or disorders among full-time workers”
ACOEM Core Competencies- Clinical Dermatology
OEM physicians can provide early recognition, diagnosis, and management …
Diagnose primary irritant-induced dermatoses
Differentiate occupational skin disorders…
Diagnose and determine the cause of allergic contact dermatitis …
Manage occupational and environmental skin injuries and dermatoses
Treat and prevent recurrence of contact dermatitis
Epidemiology of Occupational Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis
Contact dermatitis (CD) is reported to account for up to 30% of all occupational disease in industrialized nations
CD is the most common occupational skin disorder
About 90-95% of all cases of occupational skin diseases
Occupational CD Epidemiology United States
Incidence rate of 0.5-1.9 cases per 1000 full-time workers per year
US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004 estimated 48,800 cases of Occupational CD
1 year prevalence estimate of 20%
21-22% in healthcare workers
Ibler et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012;67:200-207.
Luk et al., Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:329-335.
Occupational CD Epidemiology Denmark
Occupational CD
95% of all occupational skin cases
Irritant CD 70% of these Occupational CD
68% due to wet work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
True epidemiologic data are lacking
Likely underestimated due to underreporting
Mild cases specifically
Bureau of Labor Statistics has rigorous criteria for inclusion
May not be obviously work-related (delayed-onset)
Self-treated
Only requiring first aid excluded
Underestimated by 85-88%
Luckhaupt et al., Am J Ind Med 2012.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Survey of established cases of Occupational CD reported that over one year:
19.9% reported prolonged sick leave
23% reported job loss
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
1985 Mathias estimated annual costs of Occupational CD to be between $222 million and $1 billion
2004 NIOSH estimates $1.2 billion
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Hands are usually involved
80-90% of cases
Great impact on quality of life
What percent of all contact dermatitis is allergic versus irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis accounts for 60-80% of all CD
Allergic contact dermatitis accounts for remaining 20-40%
Overlap common
Contact Dermatitis Overview
ACD is a SPECIFIC immunologic reaction, requiring prior sensitization
Elliott G and Das PK. Using p-Phenylenediamine: A Gateway to Chemical Immunology. Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2010) 130, 641–643.
Immunology of Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis Overview
90% of the population can be sensitized to certain antigens such as dinitrochlorobenzene
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis is NONSPECIFIC
Requires no prior sensitization
Clinically can be difficult to distinguish ICD from ACD
Common Occupational Irritants
Alkalis
Soaps
Detergents
Cleansers
Acids
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum
Oils
Solvents
Common Occupational Irritants
Frictional Dermatitis
Repetitive handling of objects or materials
Likely underappreciated
Examples
Fabric
Paper
Metal objects
Driving
Common Occupational Irritants
Gloves
Prolonged contact with skin affects the epidermal barrier
May be irritant itself
May make epidermal barrier more susceptible to allergens or other irritants
Irritants- Recent Literature
Wet work
Irritant chemicals
Solvents
Food
Detergents
Gloves
Mechanical trauma
Air (warm, dry)
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations
Occupations at High-Risk for Hand Dermatitis
Hairdressers
Musicians
Food Industry workers
Agricultural workers
Factory workers
Electronics workers
Cleaners/Washers
Housekeepers
Printers
Builders
Medical and Dental workers
Occupations at Risk for ICD
Hairdressers
Nursing
Doctors
Mechanics
Cooks
Cleaners
Painters
Plumbers
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations at Risk for CD- Denmark
Healthcare
Cleaning
Kitchen work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Epidemiology by Occupation
Shoe manufacturer
Indonesia
29% OCD point prevalence
Febriana et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2014; 87.
Poultry processing and manual laborers
1 year prevalence 23% skin symptoms
Quandt et al., Am J Indust Medicine 2014; 57.
Construction Industry
25.4% point prevalence of hand skin symptoms
Timmerman et al., Am J Ind Med 2014; 57.
Healthcare workers
Dutch apprentice nurses followed prospectively
1 year period prevalence of hand eczema
23% in first year
25% in second year
31% in third year
Frequent hand washing at work, at home, and outside wet work job all risk factors
Visser et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 44-55.
ACD vs ICD
Photo Quiz
Allergic or Irritant Contact Dermatitis?
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic and Irritant
Debunking the myths…
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
FALSE
Allergy can develop after years of using the same product
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
FALSE
There are many cross-reactants in other products, it is best to have NO exposures to topicals/cross-reactors when clearing a rash
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
NOT NECESSARILY
Common misconception held by MDs
There are many aspects affecting end-product eruption
Can be patchy!
CD Misconceptions
Adult onset “eczema”
If no history of eczema or atopy, more likely ACD
Especially if on hands, face, neck
90% of eczema has onset by age 5
“The greatest abuse of patch testing is failure to use the test.”
Coleman, 1982
Epicutaneous Patch testing
Intended to detect allergens relevant to eruption
Is at least a week-long process
Detects Type IV allergic reaction (delayed-type hypersensitivity)
Requires at least 2-3 visits to clinic for complete testing
T.R.U.E. Test
Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test
Allerderm product
Only FDA-approved patch testing product
36 allergens
Comes pre-filled
May not detect all relevant allergens
Patch testing
Step 1: Take extensive exposure history
Include home exposures, work tasks and exposures, implants, intermittent exposures, MSDS if appropriate
Patch testing
Step 2: Determine allergen panel
Would be pre-determined if only TRUE Test is available
Patch testing
Step 3: Prepare allergen tray as appropriate
TRUE test is pre-prepared
Patch testing
Step 4: Apply patches to back
Back must be clear of rash
Patches are marked
Securing paper tape is used
Patch testing
Step 5: Patches removed in 48 hours
Variability in how this is done
Areas remarked
Reactions noted- Irritant
Patch testing
Step 6: Patches read at 3-7 days after application
Our clinic reads at 4 days
Consider delayed read for late reactors
Patch testing
Step 7: Determine clinical relevance
Consider the Mathias Criteria for Occupational cases
Excellent tool for ascertaining occupational causation
Keep in mind that irritant CD remains a diagnosis of exclusion, and dermatitis may be both ICD and ACD, multifactorial, etc.
Patch testing
Step 8: Instruct in avoidance of allergen(s) and cross-reactors
If in topical medicaments, cosmetics, etc. it is best to print out the CAMP “safe list”
On American Contact Dermatitis Society member webpage
Mayo Clinic also has a database
Also consider all objects that may contain allergen
Information (written) and verbal counseling of patient is KEY
May include modified work, increased or alternative PPE, modified environment-both home and work
Mathias Criteria
1. Is the clinical appearance consistent with contact dermatitis?
2. Are there workplace exposures to potential cutaneous irritants or allergens?
3. Is the anatomic distribution of the dermatitis consistent with cutaneous exposure in relation to work tasks?
4. Is there a temporal association between onset of dermatitis and exposure consistent with contact dermatitis?
Mathias Criteria
5. Are non-occupational exposures excluded as probable causes?
6. Does dermatitis improve away from work exposure to the suspected allergen or irritant?
7. Do patch or provocation tests identify a probable causal agent?
Mathias Criteria
Answer of “yes” to 4 or more of the 7 criteria yields a greater than 50% probability of occupational cause
Provides a “reasonable degree of medical certainty”
Allergens
Top 10 Allergens in North America
Nickel sulfate
Balsam of Peru
Fragrance mix I
Quaternium-15
Neomycin
Bacitracin
Formaldehyde
Cobalt chloride
Fragrance mix II
p-Phenylenediamine
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Formaldehyde-Releasers
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Quaternium-15
Imidazolidinyl urea (Germall 115)
Diazolidinyl urea (Germall II)
DMDM hydantoin (Glydant)
2-Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (Bronopol)
Sodium hydroxymethyl glycinate
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Workplace Allergens- Canada
Epoxy resin
Thiuram Mix
Carba Mix
Nickel sulfate
Cobalt chloride
Potassium dichromate
Glyceryl thioglycolate
P-phenylenediamine
Formaldehyde
Glutaraldehyde
Arrandale et al Am J Ind Med 2012; 55:353-60.
Top Workplace Allergens-Denmark
Rubber allergens
Epoxy (windmill workers)
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
What’s new in Occupational Contact Allergens?
Coconut derivatives
Capryldiethanolamine in metalworking fluids
May not react to:
Monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, methyldiethanolamine, and cocamide DEA
Not in MSDS
Suuronen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 120-121.
Coconut derivatives
Sodium cocoamphopropionate
Surfactant
Derivative of coconut fatty acids condensed with amino-ethyl ethanolamines
Soaps, shampoos, conditioners
Sweden, fast-food workers
Hagvall et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 122-124.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide MEA
AKA tall oil fatty acids monoethanolamide
In metal working fluid
Aalto-Korte et al. Contact Dermatitis, 69,316-7.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA)
Surfactant
Industrial, household and cosmetic products
Finland 19/25 positives were occupational, most in metal industry
Soaps (hand, dish), metalworking fluids, barrier cream
Noted concomitant reactions
Monoethanolamine
Diethanolamine- impurity of cocamide DEA
Aalto-Korte et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 169-174.
Airborne medications
Benzodiazepines
Airborne contact from crushing pills for patients
2 nurses, 1 pharmacy tech, one relative
Consider in facial dermatitis
Swinnen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 227-232.
Sevofluorane
Systemic allergic contact- airborne
Required ROAT (negative to routine patch testing)
Surgeon
Burches et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 62-63.
Medications- Nonairborne
Omeprazole
Horse trainer
Handled paste for horse’s stomach ulcers
Al-Falah et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 377-378.
“Head lad” caring for race horses
Dispensed omeprazole paste via syringe
Alwan et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 376.
Fragrance
Citral
Hands and arms
9 beauticians in high-end spa
DeMozzi and Johnston, Contact Dermatitis 70, 377-378.
D- limonene
Machine cleaners, hand soaps, moisturizers, surface cleanser, dishwashing soaps
Pesonen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 273-279.
Isothiazolinones (Denmark)
Occupations
Painting
Welding (blacksmiths)
Machine operating
Cosmetology
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 295-302.
Sources
Paints and varnishes
Cleaners
Polishing liquids
Some in high concentrations
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 65-74.
Methylisothiazolinone
Ultrasound gel in ultrasonographer
Madsen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 312-313.
Water cooling tower technicians
Maor et al., Dermatitis 26, 62-64.
Allergens
Tricresyl phosphate
Cleaning occupation
In vinyl gloves
Plasticizer
Also in sheer strips (Band Aids)
Crepy et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 325-328.
Blue Collar Workers
Compared to controls patch-tested, BCW higher hand eczema, lower atopic dermatitis
Epoxy resins
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile
2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
Potassium dichromate
Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/ methylisothiazolinone (MI)
Allergen: Occupation
Epoxy: construction
MCI/MI: Painting
Potassium dichromate: tile setting/terrazzo work
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 348-355.
Blue Collar Workers
Case report of a cement worker with poor PPE
Sweden
Legislation in Europe to decrease hexavalent chromium in cement
Addition of ferrous sulfate
Chromium allergy persists
Hedberg et al, Contact dermatitis 70, 321-323.
Hairdressers- Denmark
Hairdressers 2002-2011
Compared to patch tested controls, hairdressers more significantly had Occupational CD and hand eczema, lower AD
Allergens significantly associated:
p-phenylenediamine, thiuram mix, benzocaine
Frequent sensitizers from the hairdressing series:
ammonium persulfate, toluene-2,5-diamine, 3-aminophenol, and 4-aminophenol
New sensitizers:
Cysteamine hydrochloride- substitute for glycerol monothioglycolate (restricted in Germany)
Chloroacetamide- preservative
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 233-237.
Hairdressers- Germany
German contact allergy database 2007-2012
Compared hairdressers to clients
Allergens significantly associated with hairdressers > clients:
Ammonium persulfate
Glyceryl monothioglycolate
Demonstrated concern as young hairdressers still with some positive reaction, despite legislation
Uter et al, Contact Dermatitis 71, 13-20.
Food Industry
Cobalt in a baker
Bregnbak et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 118-119.
Food Industry
Pizza makers
Diallyl disulfide and
Ammonium persulfate
Lembo et al., Dermatitis 25, 194-196.
Wine maker
Potassium metabisulfite
Ortiz et al., Dermatitis 25, 150-151.
Heathcare workers
Chlorhexidine
Australian study
2% relevant ACD in healthcare workers
Higher than other studies, keep on radar
Toholka et al., Australiasian J Derm 54, 303-306.
Preferred Approach to Occupational Exposure
1. Elimination
2. Substitution
3. Isolation
4. Engineering controls
5. Safe work practices
6. Personal protection
Material Safety Data Sheets
Mandated
Hazardous chemical name
Chemical properties
Physical hazards
Route of entry
Known exposure limits
Carcinogenicity
Clean-up practices
Control measures
Contact information
Not required
If proprietary
Specific name often avoided (general category used)
Irritants and sensitizers if <1% concentration
Often do not address prevention of sensitization and irritancy
Diagnosis- MSDS
Diagnosis- MSDS
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
AVOIDANCE!
Allergens
Irritants
Treatment/Prevention
Avoidance
Harder with omnipresent allergens (epoxy versus rubber allergens)
Contact urticaria more problematic than ACD
Clemmensen et al., Br J Dermatol 2014;170.
Personal protective equipment
Legislation
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Recommended short-term high-potency topical steroids for hands:
Clobetasol propionate
Ointment
Halcinonide ointment
No propylene glycol, no sensitizers
For body:
Short-term hydrocortisone 2.5% bid for face, neck, axillae, groin, intertriginousareas
Short-term triamcinolone 0.1% bid for body
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Avoid more than a few weeks of potent steroid use topically
Can thin the skin making hands more susceptible to allergen/irritant!
Consider calcineurin inhibitors topically
Consider IM steroids x 1
Oral steroids with SLOW taper
Doxycycline for anti-inflammatory effects
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Barrier creams- Repair versus Protect
Repair creams with ceramides
Barrier creams with dimethicone
Studies are variable in demonstrating any benefit from barrier creams when compared to regular emollients
At least recommend moisturizing
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Prevention
Barrier creams
Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis
At high dose of application (2-20x actual application) can help prevent ICD
Schliemann et al., Contact dermatitis 70, 19-26.
Cotton liners under gloves
Adisesh et al., Br J Dermatol 2013.
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Appropriate gloves
Match task with glove
“Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing” by Forsberg and Mansdorf
ACDS website lists glove manufacturers
Treating Dermatitis- Step 2 (Maintenance)
Calcineurin inhibitors
Tacrolimus 0.1%
Pimecrolimus 0.1%
Therapeutic moisturizers
Shea butter
Aquaphor
Petrolatum
Lower potency steroids for hands:
Triamcinolone 0.1%
Fluticasone cream or lotion
Hydrocortisone butyrate lipid cream
Clocortolone cream
Treating Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Hand psoralen- ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA)
Narrow-band UV B therapy (NBUVB)
Often used for recalcitrant body dermatitis
Excimer laser
308 nm
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Methotrexate
Mycophenolate mofetil
2-3g/day recommended for control
Acitretin
Best for psoriasiform hand dermatitis
2-4 month course
Cyclosporine
2.5-5 mg/kg daily
Azathioprine
1-3 mg/kg daily
Biologics are not helpful overall (yet!)
Treatment
Multidisciplinary teams aid in successful return to work
German model included inpatient and outpatient care
87% remained in workforce
Weisshaar et al., Contact Dermatitis 2013;68:169-174.
Netherlands included a dermatologist, education nurse, occupational medicine physician
Van Gils et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012 66(4) and 66(5).
Canadian model
Gomez et al., Dermatitis 2011;22(3).
Prevention
Evidence-based intervention
1 hour voluntary hand protective behavior lecture/ intervention
Full-time hospital cleaners
At 3 months post-intervention
Decreased hand cleansing
Better knowledge of hand preservation
Improved hand dermatitis
Clemmensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 47-54.
Occupational Dermatitis Resources
Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing by Forsberg and Mansdorf
Contact and Occupational Dermatology by Marks, Elsner, DeLeo
ACDS website
OSHA, NIOSH
Article December 2011 The Dermatologist
Summary
Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish
We are constantly being exposed to new allergens, often earlier in life
Occupational contact dermatitis is underreported
Patch testing for ACD is the gold standard
Can try TRUE test, consider referral for comprehensive panels
Novel allergens in the workplace
Summary
Think outside the box
Try a stepwise approach
Elimination
Treatment
Escalate treatment
Will be chronic if exposure continues
You can make a huge difference in patient’s quality of life
References
Marks et al., 2002. Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact and Occupational Dermatology, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby, 2002.
Nelson and Yiannias, 2009. Nelson S.A., Yiannias J.A.: Relevance and avoidance of skin-care product allergens: Pearls and pitfalls. Dermatol Clin 2009; 27(3):329-336.
Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test. Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test) : Available at:[accessed 03.07.11] http://www.truetest.com/PatientPDF/File18.pdf
Zug et al., 2009. Zug K.A., Warshaw E.M., Fowler J.F., et al: Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 2009; 20:149-160.
Emmett EA. Occupational contact dermatitis I. Incidence and return to work pressures. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2002;13:30–4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. [Bulletin 2512]. Washington (DC): US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1999.
Lushniak BD. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin1995; 13:671–9.
Skoet R, Olsen J, Mathiesen B, et al. A survey of occupational hand eczema in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51(4):159–66.
Staton I, Ma R, Evans N, et al. Dermal nickel exposure associated with coin handling and in various occupational settings: assessment using a newly developed finger immersion method. Br J Dermatol 2006;154(4):658–64.
Veien NK, Menne T. Treatment of hand eczema. Skin Therapy Lett 2003;8(5):4–7. 137.
Warshaw E. Therapeutic options for chronic hand dermatitis. Dermatol Ther2004;4:17240–50.
Schalock PC, Zug KA, Carter JC, et al. Efficacy and patient perception of Grenz ray therapy in the treatment of dermatoses refractory to other medical therapy. Dermatitis 2008;19(2):90–4.
Abramovits W, Granowski P. Innovative management of severe hand dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 28 (2010) 453-65.
Blanciforti, L. Economic burden of dermatitis in US workers. JOEM 52. (11):1045-54. 2010.
References
Sprigle AM, Marks JG Jr, Anderson BE. Prevention of nickel release with barrier coatings. Dermatitis. 2008,19(1):28-31.
Diepgen T.L., Coenraads P.J.: The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72. (8): 496-506.1999.
Keil J.E., Shmunes E.: The epidemiology of work-related skin disease in South Carolina. Arch Dermatol 119. (8): 650-654.1983.
Mathias C.G.: Occupational dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol 19. (6): 1107-1114.1988.
Goh C.L.: An epidemiological comparison between occupational and non-occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 120. (1): 77-82.1989.
Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact & occupational dermatology. 3rd ed Mosby St. Louis, (MO)2002.
Holness D.L.: Characteristic features of occupational dermatitis: epidemiologic studies of occupational skin disease reported by contact dermatitis clinics. Occup Med 9. (1): 45-52.1994.
Belsito D.V.: Occupational contact dermatitis: etiology, prevalence, and resultant impairment/disability. J Am Acad Dermatol 53. (2): 303-313.2005.
Kanerva L., Estlander T., Jolanki R.: Occupational skin disease in Finland. An analysis of 10 years of statistics from an occupational dermatology clinic. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60. (2): 89-94.1988.
Sertoli A., Gola M., Martinelli C., et al: Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Semin Dermatol 8. (2): 120-126.1989.
Rietschel R.L., Mathias C.G., Fowler , Jr. , Jr.J.F., et al: Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermatitis 13. (4): 170-176.2002.
Nethercott J.R., Holness D.L.: Disease outcome in workers with occupational skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 30. (4): 569-574.1994.
Mathias C.G., Morrison J.H.: Occupational skin diseases, United States. Results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 1973 through 1984. Arch Dermatol 124. (10): 1519-1524.1988.
Koch P.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol 2. (6): 353-365.2001.
Bureau of Labor Statistics : Occupational Injuries and illnesses in the United States. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif
Lushniak B.D.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 17. (3): 272-277.2004.
Mathias C.G.: The cost of ccupational skin disease. Arch Dermatol 121. (3): 332-334.1985.
Cvetkovski R.S., Rothman K.J., Olsen J., et al: Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave, and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 152. (1): 93-98.2005.
Thank you!
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
23
1
2
24
25
1
2
26
27
1
2
28
1
2
29
30
1
2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1
2
70
71
72
73
74
1
2
75
76
1
2
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
1
2
84
85
1
2
86
1
2
87
88
89
1
2
90
1
2
91
92
93
94
1
2
95
96
97
98
1
2
3
4
99
100
101
102
103
1
2
104
1
2
105
106
107
108
1
2
109
110
1
2
111
112
113
114
1
2
115
1
2
116
117
118
3/27/2015
8
Occupational DermatologyPearls
Heather P. Lampel, MD, MPH, FAAD, FACOEM
Duke University
Assistant Professor of Dermatology and
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
May 3, 2015
Disclosures
I have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
I will be discussing off-label use of patch testing and off-label treatment of contact dermatitis
I will mention companies
Objectives
Discuss the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in the occupational setting
Differentiate irritant from allergic contact dermatitis
Understand the role of patch testing in diagnosis
Highlight recently described allergens in the workplace
Review the trends in the occupational dermatitis literature 2014- present
Explore pitfalls and misconceptions in the workplace
Why should we care?
Occupational skin disease is a “hot” topic
Healthy People 2020
“Reduce occupational skin diseases or disorders among full-time workers”
ACOEM Core Competencies- Clinical Dermatology
OEM physicians can provide early recognition, diagnosis, and management …
Diagnose primary irritant-induced dermatoses
Differentiate occupational skin disorders…
Diagnose and determine the cause of allergic contact dermatitis …
Manage occupational and environmental skin injuries and dermatoses
Treat and prevent recurrence of contact dermatitis
Epidemiology of Occupational Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis
Contact dermatitis (CD) is reported to account for up to 30% of all occupational disease in industrialized nations
CD is the most common occupational skin disorder
About 90-95% of all cases of occupational skin diseases
Occupational CD Epidemiology United States
Incidence rate of 0.5-1.9 cases per 1000 full-time workers per year
US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004 estimated 48,800 cases of Occupational CD
1 year prevalence estimate of 20%
21-22% in healthcare workers
Ibler et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012;67:200-207.
Luk et al., Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:329-335.
Occupational CD Epidemiology Denmark
Occupational CD
95% of all occupational skin cases
Irritant CD 70% of these Occupational CD
68% due to wet work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
True epidemiologic data are lacking
Likely underestimated due to underreporting
Mild cases specifically
Bureau of Labor Statistics has rigorous criteria for inclusion
May not be obviously work-related (delayed-onset)
Self-treated
Only requiring first aid excluded
Underestimated by 85-88%
Luckhaupt et al., Am J Ind Med 2012.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Survey of established cases of Occupational CD reported that over one year:
19.9% reported prolonged sick leave
23% reported job loss
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
1985 Mathias estimated annual costs of Occupational CD to be between $222 million and $1 billion
2004 NIOSH estimates $1.2 billion
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Hands are usually involved
80-90% of cases
Great impact on quality of life
What percent of all contact dermatitis is allergic versus irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis accounts for 60-80% of all CD
Allergic contact dermatitis accounts for remaining 20-40%
Overlap common
Contact Dermatitis Overview
ACD is a SPECIFIC immunologic reaction, requiring prior sensitization
Elliott G and Das PK. Using p-Phenylenediamine: A Gateway to Chemical Immunology. Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2010) 130, 641–643.
Immunology of Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis Overview
90% of the population can be sensitized to certain antigens such as dinitrochlorobenzene
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis is NONSPECIFIC
Requires no prior sensitization
Clinically can be difficult to distinguish ICD from ACD
Common Occupational Irritants
Alkalis
Soaps
Detergents
Cleansers
Acids
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum
Oils
Solvents
Common Occupational Irritants
Frictional Dermatitis
Repetitive handling of objects or materials
Likely underappreciated
Examples
Fabric
Paper
Metal objects
Driving
Common Occupational Irritants
Gloves
Prolonged contact with skin affects the epidermal barrier
May be irritant itself
May make epidermal barrier more susceptible to allergens or other irritants
Irritants- Recent Literature
Wet work
Irritant chemicals
Solvents
Food
Detergents
Gloves
Mechanical trauma
Air (warm, dry)
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations
Occupations at High-Risk for Hand Dermatitis
Hairdressers
Musicians
Food Industry workers
Agricultural workers
Factory workers
Electronics workers
Cleaners/Washers
Housekeepers
Printers
Builders
Medical and Dental workers
Occupations at Risk for ICD
Hairdressers
Nursing
Doctors
Mechanics
Cooks
Cleaners
Painters
Plumbers
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations at Risk for CD- Denmark
Healthcare
Cleaning
Kitchen work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Epidemiology by Occupation
Shoe manufacturer
Indonesia
29% OCD point prevalence
Febriana et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2014; 87.
Poultry processing and manual laborers
1 year prevalence 23% skin symptoms
Quandt et al., Am J Indust Medicine 2014; 57.
Construction Industry
25.4% point prevalence of hand skin symptoms
Timmerman et al., Am J Ind Med 2014; 57.
Healthcare workers
Dutch apprentice nurses followed prospectively
1 year period prevalence of hand eczema
23% in first year
25% in second year
31% in third year
Frequent hand washing at work, at home, and outside wet work job all risk factors
Visser et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 44-55.
ACD vs ICD
Photo Quiz
Allergic or Irritant Contact Dermatitis?
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic and Irritant
Debunking the myths…
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
FALSE
Allergy can develop after years of using the same product
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
FALSE
There are many cross-reactants in other products, it is best to have NO exposures to topicals/cross-reactors when clearing a rash
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
NOT NECESSARILY
Common misconception held by MDs
There are many aspects affecting end-product eruption
Can be patchy!
CD Misconceptions
Adult onset “eczema”
If no history of eczema or atopy, more likely ACD
Especially if on hands, face, neck
90% of eczema has onset by age 5
“The greatest abuse of patch testing is failure to use the test.”
Coleman, 1982
Epicutaneous Patch testing
Intended to detect allergens relevant to eruption
Is at least a week-long process
Detects Type IV allergic reaction (delayed-type hypersensitivity)
Requires at least 2-3 visits to clinic for complete testing
T.R.U.E. Test
Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test
Allerderm product
Only FDA-approved patch testing product
36 allergens
Comes pre-filled
May not detect all relevant allergens
Patch testing
Step 1: Take extensive exposure history
Include home exposures, work tasks and exposures, implants, intermittent exposures, MSDS if appropriate
Patch testing
Step 2: Determine allergen panel
Would be pre-determined if only TRUE Test is available
Patch testing
Step 3: Prepare allergen tray as appropriate
TRUE test is pre-prepared
Patch testing
Step 4: Apply patches to back
Back must be clear of rash
Patches are marked
Securing paper tape is used
Patch testing
Step 5: Patches removed in 48 hours
Variability in how this is done
Areas remarked
Reactions noted- Irritant
Patch testing
Step 6: Patches read at 3-7 days after application
Our clinic reads at 4 days
Consider delayed read for late reactors
Patch testing
Step 7: Determine clinical relevance
Consider the Mathias Criteria for Occupational cases
Excellent tool for ascertaining occupational causation
Keep in mind that irritant CD remains a diagnosis of exclusion, and dermatitis may be both ICD and ACD, multifactorial, etc.
Patch testing
Step 8: Instruct in avoidance of allergen(s) and cross-reactors
If in topical medicaments, cosmetics, etc. it is best to print out the CAMP “safe list”
On American Contact Dermatitis Society member webpage
Mayo Clinic also has a database
Also consider all objects that may contain allergen
Information (written) and verbal counseling of patient is KEY
May include modified work, increased or alternative PPE, modified environment-both home and work
Mathias Criteria
1. Is the clinical appearance consistent with contact dermatitis?
2. Are there workplace exposures to potential cutaneous irritants or allergens?
3. Is the anatomic distribution of the dermatitis consistent with cutaneous exposure in relation to work tasks?
4. Is there a temporal association between onset of dermatitis and exposure consistent with contact dermatitis?
Mathias Criteria
5. Are non-occupational exposures excluded as probable causes?
6. Does dermatitis improve away from work exposure to the suspected allergen or irritant?
7. Do patch or provocation tests identify a probable causal agent?
Mathias Criteria
Answer of “yes” to 4 or more of the 7 criteria yields a greater than 50% probability of occupational cause
Provides a “reasonable degree of medical certainty”
Allergens
Top 10 Allergens in North America
Nickel sulfate
Balsam of Peru
Fragrance mix I
Quaternium-15
Neomycin
Bacitracin
Formaldehyde
Cobalt chloride
Fragrance mix II
p-Phenylenediamine
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Formaldehyde-Releasers
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Quaternium-15
Imidazolidinyl urea (Germall 115)
Diazolidinyl urea (Germall II)
DMDM hydantoin (Glydant)
2-Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (Bronopol)
Sodium hydroxymethyl glycinate
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Workplace Allergens- Canada
Epoxy resin
Thiuram Mix
Carba Mix
Nickel sulfate
Cobalt chloride
Potassium dichromate
Glyceryl thioglycolate
P-phenylenediamine
Formaldehyde
Glutaraldehyde
Arrandale et al Am J Ind Med 2012; 55:353-60.
Top Workplace Allergens-Denmark
Rubber allergens
Epoxy (windmill workers)
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
What’s new in Occupational Contact Allergens?
Coconut derivatives
Capryldiethanolamine in metalworking fluids
May not react to:
Monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, methyldiethanolamine, and cocamide DEA
Not in MSDS
Suuronen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 120-121.
Coconut derivatives
Sodium cocoamphopropionate
Surfactant
Derivative of coconut fatty acids condensed with amino-ethyl ethanolamines
Soaps, shampoos, conditioners
Sweden, fast-food workers
Hagvall et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 122-124.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide MEA
AKA tall oil fatty acids monoethanolamide
In metal working fluid
Aalto-Korte et al. Contact Dermatitis, 69,316-7.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA)
Surfactant
Industrial, household and cosmetic products
Finland 19/25 positives were occupational, most in metal industry
Soaps (hand, dish), metalworking fluids, barrier cream
Noted concomitant reactions
Monoethanolamine
Diethanolamine- impurity of cocamide DEA
Aalto-Korte et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 169-174.
Airborne medications
Benzodiazepines
Airborne contact from crushing pills for patients
2 nurses, 1 pharmacy tech, one relative
Consider in facial dermatitis
Swinnen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 227-232.
Sevofluorane
Systemic allergic contact- airborne
Required ROAT (negative to routine patch testing)
Surgeon
Burches et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 62-63.
Medications- Nonairborne
Omeprazole
Horse trainer
Handled paste for horse’s stomach ulcers
Al-Falah et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 377-378.
“Head lad” caring for race horses
Dispensed omeprazole paste via syringe
Alwan et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 376.
Fragrance
Citral
Hands and arms
9 beauticians in high-end spa
DeMozzi and Johnston, Contact Dermatitis 70, 377-378.
D- limonene
Machine cleaners, hand soaps, moisturizers, surface cleanser, dishwashing soaps
Pesonen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 273-279.
Isothiazolinones (Denmark)
Occupations
Painting
Welding (blacksmiths)
Machine operating
Cosmetology
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 295-302.
Sources
Paints and varnishes
Cleaners
Polishing liquids
Some in high concentrations
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 65-74.
Methylisothiazolinone
Ultrasound gel in ultrasonographer
Madsen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 312-313.
Water cooling tower technicians
Maor et al., Dermatitis 26, 62-64.
Allergens
Tricresyl phosphate
Cleaning occupation
In vinyl gloves
Plasticizer
Also in sheer strips (Band Aids)
Crepy et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 325-328.
Blue Collar Workers
Compared to controls patch-tested, BCW higher hand eczema, lower atopic dermatitis
Epoxy resins
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile
2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
Potassium dichromate
Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/ methylisothiazolinone (MI)
Allergen: Occupation
Epoxy: construction
MCI/MI: Painting
Potassium dichromate: tile setting/terrazzo work
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 348-355.
Blue Collar Workers
Case report of a cement worker with poor PPE
Sweden
Legislation in Europe to decrease hexavalent chromium in cement
Addition of ferrous sulfate
Chromium allergy persists
Hedberg et al, Contact dermatitis 70, 321-323.
Hairdressers- Denmark
Hairdressers 2002-2011
Compared to patch tested controls, hairdressers more significantly had Occupational CD and hand eczema, lower AD
Allergens significantly associated:
p-phenylenediamine, thiuram mix, benzocaine
Frequent sensitizers from the hairdressing series:
ammonium persulfate, toluene-2,5-diamine, 3-aminophenol, and 4-aminophenol
New sensitizers:
Cysteamine hydrochloride- substitute for glycerol monothioglycolate (restricted in Germany)
Chloroacetamide- preservative
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 233-237.
Hairdressers- Germany
German contact allergy database 2007-2012
Compared hairdressers to clients
Allergens significantly associated with hairdressers > clients:
Ammonium persulfate
Glyceryl monothioglycolate
Demonstrated concern as young hairdressers still with some positive reaction, despite legislation
Uter et al, Contact Dermatitis 71, 13-20.
Food Industry
Cobalt in a baker
Bregnbak et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 118-119.
Food Industry
Pizza makers
Diallyl disulfide and
Ammonium persulfate
Lembo et al., Dermatitis 25, 194-196.
Wine maker
Potassium metabisulfite
Ortiz et al., Dermatitis 25, 150-151.
Heathcare workers
Chlorhexidine
Australian study
2% relevant ACD in healthcare workers
Higher than other studies, keep on radar
Toholka et al., Australiasian J Derm 54, 303-306.
Preferred Approach to Occupational Exposure
1. Elimination
2. Substitution
3. Isolation
4. Engineering controls
5. Safe work practices
6. Personal protection
Material Safety Data Sheets
Mandated
Hazardous chemical name
Chemical properties
Physical hazards
Route of entry
Known exposure limits
Carcinogenicity
Clean-up practices
Control measures
Contact information
Not required
If proprietary
Specific name often avoided (general category used)
Irritants and sensitizers if <1% concentration
Often do not address prevention of sensitization and irritancy
Diagnosis- MSDS
Diagnosis- MSDS
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
AVOIDANCE!
Allergens
Irritants
Treatment/Prevention
Avoidance
Harder with omnipresent allergens (epoxy versus rubber allergens)
Contact urticaria more problematic than ACD
Clemmensen et al., Br J Dermatol 2014;170.
Personal protective equipment
Legislation
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Recommended short-term high-potency topical steroids for hands:
Clobetasol propionate
Ointment
Halcinonide ointment
No propylene glycol, no sensitizers
For body:
Short-term hydrocortisone 2.5% bid for face, neck, axillae, groin, intertriginousareas
Short-term triamcinolone 0.1% bid for body
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Avoid more than a few weeks of potent steroid use topically
Can thin the skin making hands more susceptible to allergen/irritant!
Consider calcineurin inhibitors topically
Consider IM steroids x 1
Oral steroids with SLOW taper
Doxycycline for anti-inflammatory effects
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Barrier creams- Repair versus Protect
Repair creams with ceramides
Barrier creams with dimethicone
Studies are variable in demonstrating any benefit from barrier creams when compared to regular emollients
At least recommend moisturizing
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Prevention
Barrier creams
Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis
At high dose of application (2-20x actual application) can help prevent ICD
Schliemann et al., Contact dermatitis 70, 19-26.
Cotton liners under gloves
Adisesh et al., Br J Dermatol 2013.
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Appropriate gloves
Match task with glove
“Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing” by Forsberg and Mansdorf
ACDS website lists glove manufacturers
Treating Dermatitis- Step 2 (Maintenance)
Calcineurin inhibitors
Tacrolimus 0.1%
Pimecrolimus 0.1%
Therapeutic moisturizers
Shea butter
Aquaphor
Petrolatum
Lower potency steroids for hands:
Triamcinolone 0.1%
Fluticasone cream or lotion
Hydrocortisone butyrate lipid cream
Clocortolone cream
Treating Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Hand psoralen- ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA)
Narrow-band UV B therapy (NBUVB)
Often used for recalcitrant body dermatitis
Excimer laser
308 nm
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Methotrexate
Mycophenolate mofetil
2-3g/day recommended for control
Acitretin
Best for psoriasiform hand dermatitis
2-4 month course
Cyclosporine
2.5-5 mg/kg daily
Azathioprine
1-3 mg/kg daily
Biologics are not helpful overall (yet!)
Treatment
Multidisciplinary teams aid in successful return to work
German model included inpatient and outpatient care
87% remained in workforce
Weisshaar et al., Contact Dermatitis 2013;68:169-174.
Netherlands included a dermatologist, education nurse, occupational medicine physician
Van Gils et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012 66(4) and 66(5).
Canadian model
Gomez et al., Dermatitis 2011;22(3).
Prevention
Evidence-based intervention
1 hour voluntary hand protective behavior lecture/ intervention
Full-time hospital cleaners
At 3 months post-intervention
Decreased hand cleansing
Better knowledge of hand preservation
Improved hand dermatitis
Clemmensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 47-54.
Occupational Dermatitis Resources
Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing by Forsberg and Mansdorf
Contact and Occupational Dermatology by Marks, Elsner, DeLeo
ACDS website
OSHA, NIOSH
Article December 2011 The Dermatologist
Summary
Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish
We are constantly being exposed to new allergens, often earlier in life
Occupational contact dermatitis is underreported
Patch testing for ACD is the gold standard
Can try TRUE test, consider referral for comprehensive panels
Novel allergens in the workplace
Summary
Think outside the box
Try a stepwise approach
Elimination
Treatment
Escalate treatment
Will be chronic if exposure continues
You can make a huge difference in patient’s quality of life
References
Marks et al., 2002. Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact and Occupational Dermatology, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby, 2002.
Nelson and Yiannias, 2009. Nelson S.A., Yiannias J.A.: Relevance and avoidance of skin-care product allergens: Pearls and pitfalls. Dermatol Clin 2009; 27(3):329-336.
Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test. Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test) : Available at:[accessed 03.07.11] http://www.truetest.com/PatientPDF/File18.pdf
Zug et al., 2009. Zug K.A., Warshaw E.M., Fowler J.F., et al: Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 2009; 20:149-160.
Emmett EA. Occupational contact dermatitis I. Incidence and return to work pressures. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2002;13:30–4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. [Bulletin 2512]. Washington (DC): US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1999.
Lushniak BD. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin1995; 13:671–9.
Skoet R, Olsen J, Mathiesen B, et al. A survey of occupational hand eczema in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51(4):159–66.
Staton I, Ma R, Evans N, et al. Dermal nickel exposure associated with coin handling and in various occupational settings: assessment using a newly developed finger immersion method. Br J Dermatol 2006;154(4):658–64.
Veien NK, Menne T. Treatment of hand eczema. Skin Therapy Lett 2003;8(5):4–7. 137.
Warshaw E. Therapeutic options for chronic hand dermatitis. Dermatol Ther2004;4:17240–50.
Schalock PC, Zug KA, Carter JC, et al. Efficacy and patient perception of Grenz ray therapy in the treatment of dermatoses refractory to other medical therapy. Dermatitis 2008;19(2):90–4.
Abramovits W, Granowski P. Innovative management of severe hand dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 28 (2010) 453-65.
Blanciforti, L. Economic burden of dermatitis in US workers. JOEM 52. (11):1045-54. 2010.
References
Sprigle AM, Marks JG Jr, Anderson BE. Prevention of nickel release with barrier coatings. Dermatitis. 2008,19(1):28-31.
Diepgen T.L., Coenraads P.J.: The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72. (8): 496-506.1999.
Keil J.E., Shmunes E.: The epidemiology of work-related skin disease in South Carolina. Arch Dermatol 119. (8): 650-654.1983.
Mathias C.G.: Occupational dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol 19. (6): 1107-1114.1988.
Goh C.L.: An epidemiological comparison between occupational and non-occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 120. (1): 77-82.1989.
Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact & occupational dermatology. 3rd ed Mosby St. Louis, (MO)2002.
Holness D.L.: Characteristic features of occupational dermatitis: epidemiologic studies of occupational skin disease reported by contact dermatitis clinics. Occup Med 9. (1): 45-52.1994.
Belsito D.V.: Occupational contact dermatitis: etiology, prevalence, and resultant impairment/disability. J Am Acad Dermatol 53. (2): 303-313.2005.
Kanerva L., Estlander T., Jolanki R.: Occupational skin disease in Finland. An analysis of 10 years of statistics from an occupational dermatology clinic. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60. (2): 89-94.1988.
Sertoli A., Gola M., Martinelli C., et al: Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Semin Dermatol 8. (2): 120-126.1989.
Rietschel R.L., Mathias C.G., Fowler , Jr. , Jr.J.F., et al: Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermatitis 13. (4): 170-176.2002.
Nethercott J.R., Holness D.L.: Disease outcome in workers with occupational skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 30. (4): 569-574.1994.
Mathias C.G., Morrison J.H.: Occupational skin diseases, United States. Results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 1973 through 1984. Arch Dermatol 124. (10): 1519-1524.1988.
Koch P.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol 2. (6): 353-365.2001.
Bureau of Labor Statistics : Occupational Injuries and illnesses in the United States. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif
Lushniak B.D.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 17. (3): 272-277.2004.
Mathias C.G.: The cost of ccupational skin disease. Arch Dermatol 121. (3): 332-334.1985.
Cvetkovski R.S., Rothman K.J., Olsen J., et al: Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave, and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 152. (1): 93-98.2005.
Thank you!
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
23
1
2
24
25
1
2
26
27
1
2
28
1
2
29
30
1
2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1
2
70
71
72
73
74
1
2
75
76
1
2
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
1
2
84
85
1
2
86
1
2
87
88
89
1
2
90
1
2
91
92
93
94
1
2
95
96
97
98
1
2
3
4
99
100
101
102
103
1
2
104
1
2
105
106
107
108
1
2
109
110
1
2
111
112
113
114
1
2
115
1
2
116
117
118
3/27/2015
9
Occupational DermatologyPearls
Heather P. Lampel, MD, MPH, FAAD, FACOEM
Duke University
Assistant Professor of Dermatology and
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
May 3, 2015
Disclosures
I have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
I will be discussing off-label use of patch testing and off-label treatment of contact dermatitis
I will mention companies
Objectives
Discuss the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in the occupational setting
Differentiate irritant from allergic contact dermatitis
Understand the role of patch testing in diagnosis
Highlight recently described allergens in the workplace
Review the trends in the occupational dermatitis literature 2014- present
Explore pitfalls and misconceptions in the workplace
Why should we care?
Occupational skin disease is a “hot” topic
Healthy People 2020
“Reduce occupational skin diseases or disorders among full-time workers”
ACOEM Core Competencies- Clinical Dermatology
OEM physicians can provide early recognition, diagnosis, and management …
Diagnose primary irritant-induced dermatoses
Differentiate occupational skin disorders…
Diagnose and determine the cause of allergic contact dermatitis …
Manage occupational and environmental skin injuries and dermatoses
Treat and prevent recurrence of contact dermatitis
Epidemiology of Occupational Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis
Contact dermatitis (CD) is reported to account for up to 30% of all occupational disease in industrialized nations
CD is the most common occupational skin disorder
About 90-95% of all cases of occupational skin diseases
Occupational CD Epidemiology United States
Incidence rate of 0.5-1.9 cases per 1000 full-time workers per year
US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004 estimated 48,800 cases of Occupational CD
1 year prevalence estimate of 20%
21-22% in healthcare workers
Ibler et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012;67:200-207.
Luk et al., Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:329-335.
Occupational CD Epidemiology Denmark
Occupational CD
95% of all occupational skin cases
Irritant CD 70% of these Occupational CD
68% due to wet work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
True epidemiologic data are lacking
Likely underestimated due to underreporting
Mild cases specifically
Bureau of Labor Statistics has rigorous criteria for inclusion
May not be obviously work-related (delayed-onset)
Self-treated
Only requiring first aid excluded
Underestimated by 85-88%
Luckhaupt et al., Am J Ind Med 2012.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Survey of established cases of Occupational CD reported that over one year:
19.9% reported prolonged sick leave
23% reported job loss
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
1985 Mathias estimated annual costs of Occupational CD to be between $222 million and $1 billion
2004 NIOSH estimates $1.2 billion
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Hands are usually involved
80-90% of cases
Great impact on quality of life
What percent of all contact dermatitis is allergic versus irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis accounts for 60-80% of all CD
Allergic contact dermatitis accounts for remaining 20-40%
Overlap common
Contact Dermatitis Overview
ACD is a SPECIFIC immunologic reaction, requiring prior sensitization
Elliott G and Das PK. Using p-Phenylenediamine: A Gateway to Chemical Immunology. Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2010) 130, 641–643.
Immunology of Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis Overview
90% of the population can be sensitized to certain antigens such as dinitrochlorobenzene
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis is NONSPECIFIC
Requires no prior sensitization
Clinically can be difficult to distinguish ICD from ACD
Common Occupational Irritants
Alkalis
Soaps
Detergents
Cleansers
Acids
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum
Oils
Solvents
Common Occupational Irritants
Frictional Dermatitis
Repetitive handling of objects or materials
Likely underappreciated
Examples
Fabric
Paper
Metal objects
Driving
Common Occupational Irritants
Gloves
Prolonged contact with skin affects the epidermal barrier
May be irritant itself
May make epidermal barrier more susceptible to allergens or other irritants
Irritants- Recent Literature
Wet work
Irritant chemicals
Solvents
Food
Detergents
Gloves
Mechanical trauma
Air (warm, dry)
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations
Occupations at High-Risk for Hand Dermatitis
Hairdressers
Musicians
Food Industry workers
Agricultural workers
Factory workers
Electronics workers
Cleaners/Washers
Housekeepers
Printers
Builders
Medical and Dental workers
Occupations at Risk for ICD
Hairdressers
Nursing
Doctors
Mechanics
Cooks
Cleaners
Painters
Plumbers
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations at Risk for CD- Denmark
Healthcare
Cleaning
Kitchen work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Epidemiology by Occupation
Shoe manufacturer
Indonesia
29% OCD point prevalence
Febriana et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2014; 87.
Poultry processing and manual laborers
1 year prevalence 23% skin symptoms
Quandt et al., Am J Indust Medicine 2014; 57.
Construction Industry
25.4% point prevalence of hand skin symptoms
Timmerman et al., Am J Ind Med 2014; 57.
Healthcare workers
Dutch apprentice nurses followed prospectively
1 year period prevalence of hand eczema
23% in first year
25% in second year
31% in third year
Frequent hand washing at work, at home, and outside wet work job all risk factors
Visser et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 44-55.
ACD vs ICD
Photo Quiz
Allergic or Irritant Contact Dermatitis?
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic and Irritant
Debunking the myths…
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
FALSE
Allergy can develop after years of using the same product
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
FALSE
There are many cross-reactants in other products, it is best to have NO exposures to topicals/cross-reactors when clearing a rash
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
NOT NECESSARILY
Common misconception held by MDs
There are many aspects affecting end-product eruption
Can be patchy!
CD Misconceptions
Adult onset “eczema”
If no history of eczema or atopy, more likely ACD
Especially if on hands, face, neck
90% of eczema has onset by age 5
“The greatest abuse of patch testing is failure to use the test.”
Coleman, 1982
Epicutaneous Patch testing
Intended to detect allergens relevant to eruption
Is at least a week-long process
Detects Type IV allergic reaction (delayed-type hypersensitivity)
Requires at least 2-3 visits to clinic for complete testing
T.R.U.E. Test
Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test
Allerderm product
Only FDA-approved patch testing product
36 allergens
Comes pre-filled
May not detect all relevant allergens
Patch testing
Step 1: Take extensive exposure history
Include home exposures, work tasks and exposures, implants, intermittent exposures, MSDS if appropriate
Patch testing
Step 2: Determine allergen panel
Would be pre-determined if only TRUE Test is available
Patch testing
Step 3: Prepare allergen tray as appropriate
TRUE test is pre-prepared
Patch testing
Step 4: Apply patches to back
Back must be clear of rash
Patches are marked
Securing paper tape is used
Patch testing
Step 5: Patches removed in 48 hours
Variability in how this is done
Areas remarked
Reactions noted- Irritant
Patch testing
Step 6: Patches read at 3-7 days after application
Our clinic reads at 4 days
Consider delayed read for late reactors
Patch testing
Step 7: Determine clinical relevance
Consider the Mathias Criteria for Occupational cases
Excellent tool for ascertaining occupational causation
Keep in mind that irritant CD remains a diagnosis of exclusion, and dermatitis may be both ICD and ACD, multifactorial, etc.
Patch testing
Step 8: Instruct in avoidance of allergen(s) and cross-reactors
If in topical medicaments, cosmetics, etc. it is best to print out the CAMP “safe list”
On American Contact Dermatitis Society member webpage
Mayo Clinic also has a database
Also consider all objects that may contain allergen
Information (written) and verbal counseling of patient is KEY
May include modified work, increased or alternative PPE, modified environment-both home and work
Mathias Criteria
1. Is the clinical appearance consistent with contact dermatitis?
2. Are there workplace exposures to potential cutaneous irritants or allergens?
3. Is the anatomic distribution of the dermatitis consistent with cutaneous exposure in relation to work tasks?
4. Is there a temporal association between onset of dermatitis and exposure consistent with contact dermatitis?
Mathias Criteria
5. Are non-occupational exposures excluded as probable causes?
6. Does dermatitis improve away from work exposure to the suspected allergen or irritant?
7. Do patch or provocation tests identify a probable causal agent?
Mathias Criteria
Answer of “yes” to 4 or more of the 7 criteria yields a greater than 50% probability of occupational cause
Provides a “reasonable degree of medical certainty”
Allergens
Top 10 Allergens in North America
Nickel sulfate
Balsam of Peru
Fragrance mix I
Quaternium-15
Neomycin
Bacitracin
Formaldehyde
Cobalt chloride
Fragrance mix II
p-Phenylenediamine
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Formaldehyde-Releasers
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Quaternium-15
Imidazolidinyl urea (Germall 115)
Diazolidinyl urea (Germall II)
DMDM hydantoin (Glydant)
2-Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (Bronopol)
Sodium hydroxymethyl glycinate
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Workplace Allergens- Canada
Epoxy resin
Thiuram Mix
Carba Mix
Nickel sulfate
Cobalt chloride
Potassium dichromate
Glyceryl thioglycolate
P-phenylenediamine
Formaldehyde
Glutaraldehyde
Arrandale et al Am J Ind Med 2012; 55:353-60.
Top Workplace Allergens-Denmark
Rubber allergens
Epoxy (windmill workers)
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
What’s new in Occupational Contact Allergens?
Coconut derivatives
Capryldiethanolamine in metalworking fluids
May not react to:
Monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, methyldiethanolamine, and cocamide DEA
Not in MSDS
Suuronen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 120-121.
Coconut derivatives
Sodium cocoamphopropionate
Surfactant
Derivative of coconut fatty acids condensed with amino-ethyl ethanolamines
Soaps, shampoos, conditioners
Sweden, fast-food workers
Hagvall et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 122-124.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide MEA
AKA tall oil fatty acids monoethanolamide
In metal working fluid
Aalto-Korte et al. Contact Dermatitis, 69,316-7.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA)
Surfactant
Industrial, household and cosmetic products
Finland 19/25 positives were occupational, most in metal industry
Soaps (hand, dish), metalworking fluids, barrier cream
Noted concomitant reactions
Monoethanolamine
Diethanolamine- impurity of cocamide DEA
Aalto-Korte et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 169-174.
Airborne medications
Benzodiazepines
Airborne contact from crushing pills for patients
2 nurses, 1 pharmacy tech, one relative
Consider in facial dermatitis
Swinnen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 227-232.
Sevofluorane
Systemic allergic contact- airborne
Required ROAT (negative to routine patch testing)
Surgeon
Burches et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 62-63.
Medications- Nonairborne
Omeprazole
Horse trainer
Handled paste for horse’s stomach ulcers
Al-Falah et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 377-378.
“Head lad” caring for race horses
Dispensed omeprazole paste via syringe
Alwan et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 376.
Fragrance
Citral
Hands and arms
9 beauticians in high-end spa
DeMozzi and Johnston, Contact Dermatitis 70, 377-378.
D- limonene
Machine cleaners, hand soaps, moisturizers, surface cleanser, dishwashing soaps
Pesonen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 273-279.
Isothiazolinones (Denmark)
Occupations
Painting
Welding (blacksmiths)
Machine operating
Cosmetology
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 295-302.
Sources
Paints and varnishes
Cleaners
Polishing liquids
Some in high concentrations
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 65-74.
Methylisothiazolinone
Ultrasound gel in ultrasonographer
Madsen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 312-313.
Water cooling tower technicians
Maor et al., Dermatitis 26, 62-64.
Allergens
Tricresyl phosphate
Cleaning occupation
In vinyl gloves
Plasticizer
Also in sheer strips (Band Aids)
Crepy et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 325-328.
Blue Collar Workers
Compared to controls patch-tested, BCW higher hand eczema, lower atopic dermatitis
Epoxy resins
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile
2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
Potassium dichromate
Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/ methylisothiazolinone (MI)
Allergen: Occupation
Epoxy: construction
MCI/MI: Painting
Potassium dichromate: tile setting/terrazzo work
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 348-355.
Blue Collar Workers
Case report of a cement worker with poor PPE
Sweden
Legislation in Europe to decrease hexavalent chromium in cement
Addition of ferrous sulfate
Chromium allergy persists
Hedberg et al, Contact dermatitis 70, 321-323.
Hairdressers- Denmark
Hairdressers 2002-2011
Compared to patch tested controls, hairdressers more significantly had Occupational CD and hand eczema, lower AD
Allergens significantly associated:
p-phenylenediamine, thiuram mix, benzocaine
Frequent sensitizers from the hairdressing series:
ammonium persulfate, toluene-2,5-diamine, 3-aminophenol, and 4-aminophenol
New sensitizers:
Cysteamine hydrochloride- substitute for glycerol monothioglycolate (restricted in Germany)
Chloroacetamide- preservative
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 233-237.
Hairdressers- Germany
German contact allergy database 2007-2012
Compared hairdressers to clients
Allergens significantly associated with hairdressers > clients:
Ammonium persulfate
Glyceryl monothioglycolate
Demonstrated concern as young hairdressers still with some positive reaction, despite legislation
Uter et al, Contact Dermatitis 71, 13-20.
Food Industry
Cobalt in a baker
Bregnbak et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 118-119.
Food Industry
Pizza makers
Diallyl disulfide and
Ammonium persulfate
Lembo et al., Dermatitis 25, 194-196.
Wine maker
Potassium metabisulfite
Ortiz et al., Dermatitis 25, 150-151.
Heathcare workers
Chlorhexidine
Australian study
2% relevant ACD in healthcare workers
Higher than other studies, keep on radar
Toholka et al., Australiasian J Derm 54, 303-306.
Preferred Approach to Occupational Exposure
1. Elimination
2. Substitution
3. Isolation
4. Engineering controls
5. Safe work practices
6. Personal protection
Material Safety Data Sheets
Mandated
Hazardous chemical name
Chemical properties
Physical hazards
Route of entry
Known exposure limits
Carcinogenicity
Clean-up practices
Control measures
Contact information
Not required
If proprietary
Specific name often avoided (general category used)
Irritants and sensitizers if <1% concentration
Often do not address prevention of sensitization and irritancy
Diagnosis- MSDS
Diagnosis- MSDS
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
AVOIDANCE!
Allergens
Irritants
Treatment/Prevention
Avoidance
Harder with omnipresent allergens (epoxy versus rubber allergens)
Contact urticaria more problematic than ACD
Clemmensen et al., Br J Dermatol 2014;170.
Personal protective equipment
Legislation
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Recommended short-term high-potency topical steroids for hands:
Clobetasol propionate
Ointment
Halcinonide ointment
No propylene glycol, no sensitizers
For body:
Short-term hydrocortisone 2.5% bid for face, neck, axillae, groin, intertriginousareas
Short-term triamcinolone 0.1% bid for body
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Avoid more than a few weeks of potent steroid use topically
Can thin the skin making hands more susceptible to allergen/irritant!
Consider calcineurin inhibitors topically
Consider IM steroids x 1
Oral steroids with SLOW taper
Doxycycline for anti-inflammatory effects
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Barrier creams- Repair versus Protect
Repair creams with ceramides
Barrier creams with dimethicone
Studies are variable in demonstrating any benefit from barrier creams when compared to regular emollients
At least recommend moisturizing
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Prevention
Barrier creams
Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis
At high dose of application (2-20x actual application) can help prevent ICD
Schliemann et al., Contact dermatitis 70, 19-26.
Cotton liners under gloves
Adisesh et al., Br J Dermatol 2013.
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Appropriate gloves
Match task with glove
“Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing” by Forsberg and Mansdorf
ACDS website lists glove manufacturers
Treating Dermatitis- Step 2 (Maintenance)
Calcineurin inhibitors
Tacrolimus 0.1%
Pimecrolimus 0.1%
Therapeutic moisturizers
Shea butter
Aquaphor
Petrolatum
Lower potency steroids for hands:
Triamcinolone 0.1%
Fluticasone cream or lotion
Hydrocortisone butyrate lipid cream
Clocortolone cream
Treating Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Hand psoralen- ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA)
Narrow-band UV B therapy (NBUVB)
Often used for recalcitrant body dermatitis
Excimer laser
308 nm
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Methotrexate
Mycophenolate mofetil
2-3g/day recommended for control
Acitretin
Best for psoriasiform hand dermatitis
2-4 month course
Cyclosporine
2.5-5 mg/kg daily
Azathioprine
1-3 mg/kg daily
Biologics are not helpful overall (yet!)
Treatment
Multidisciplinary teams aid in successful return to work
German model included inpatient and outpatient care
87% remained in workforce
Weisshaar et al., Contact Dermatitis 2013;68:169-174.
Netherlands included a dermatologist, education nurse, occupational medicine physician
Van Gils et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012 66(4) and 66(5).
Canadian model
Gomez et al., Dermatitis 2011;22(3).
Prevention
Evidence-based intervention
1 hour voluntary hand protective behavior lecture/ intervention
Full-time hospital cleaners
At 3 months post-intervention
Decreased hand cleansing
Better knowledge of hand preservation
Improved hand dermatitis
Clemmensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 47-54.
Occupational Dermatitis Resources
Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing by Forsberg and Mansdorf
Contact and Occupational Dermatology by Marks, Elsner, DeLeo
ACDS website
OSHA, NIOSH
Article December 2011 The Dermatologist
Summary
Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish
We are constantly being exposed to new allergens, often earlier in life
Occupational contact dermatitis is underreported
Patch testing for ACD is the gold standard
Can try TRUE test, consider referral for comprehensive panels
Novel allergens in the workplace
Summary
Think outside the box
Try a stepwise approach
Elimination
Treatment
Escalate treatment
Will be chronic if exposure continues
You can make a huge difference in patient’s quality of life
References
Marks et al., 2002. Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact and Occupational Dermatology, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby, 2002.
Nelson and Yiannias, 2009. Nelson S.A., Yiannias J.A.: Relevance and avoidance of skin-care product allergens: Pearls and pitfalls. Dermatol Clin 2009; 27(3):329-336.
Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test. Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test) : Available at:[accessed 03.07.11] http://www.truetest.com/PatientPDF/File18.pdf
Zug et al., 2009. Zug K.A., Warshaw E.M., Fowler J.F., et al: Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 2009; 20:149-160.
Emmett EA. Occupational contact dermatitis I. Incidence and return to work pressures. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2002;13:30–4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. [Bulletin 2512]. Washington (DC): US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1999.
Lushniak BD. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin1995; 13:671–9.
Skoet R, Olsen J, Mathiesen B, et al. A survey of occupational hand eczema in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51(4):159–66.
Staton I, Ma R, Evans N, et al. Dermal nickel exposure associated with coin handling and in various occupational settings: assessment using a newly developed finger immersion method. Br J Dermatol 2006;154(4):658–64.
Veien NK, Menne T. Treatment of hand eczema. Skin Therapy Lett 2003;8(5):4–7. 137.
Warshaw E. Therapeutic options for chronic hand dermatitis. Dermatol Ther2004;4:17240–50.
Schalock PC, Zug KA, Carter JC, et al. Efficacy and patient perception of Grenz ray therapy in the treatment of dermatoses refractory to other medical therapy. Dermatitis 2008;19(2):90–4.
Abramovits W, Granowski P. Innovative management of severe hand dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 28 (2010) 453-65.
Blanciforti, L. Economic burden of dermatitis in US workers. JOEM 52. (11):1045-54. 2010.
References
Sprigle AM, Marks JG Jr, Anderson BE. Prevention of nickel release with barrier coatings. Dermatitis. 2008,19(1):28-31.
Diepgen T.L., Coenraads P.J.: The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72. (8): 496-506.1999.
Keil J.E., Shmunes E.: The epidemiology of work-related skin disease in South Carolina. Arch Dermatol 119. (8): 650-654.1983.
Mathias C.G.: Occupational dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol 19. (6): 1107-1114.1988.
Goh C.L.: An epidemiological comparison between occupational and non-occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 120. (1): 77-82.1989.
Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact & occupational dermatology. 3rd ed Mosby St. Louis, (MO)2002.
Holness D.L.: Characteristic features of occupational dermatitis: epidemiologic studies of occupational skin disease reported by contact dermatitis clinics. Occup Med 9. (1): 45-52.1994.
Belsito D.V.: Occupational contact dermatitis: etiology, prevalence, and resultant impairment/disability. J Am Acad Dermatol 53. (2): 303-313.2005.
Kanerva L., Estlander T., Jolanki R.: Occupational skin disease in Finland. An analysis of 10 years of statistics from an occupational dermatology clinic. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60. (2): 89-94.1988.
Sertoli A., Gola M., Martinelli C., et al: Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Semin Dermatol 8. (2): 120-126.1989.
Rietschel R.L., Mathias C.G., Fowler , Jr. , Jr.J.F., et al: Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermatitis 13. (4): 170-176.2002.
Nethercott J.R., Holness D.L.: Disease outcome in workers with occupational skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 30. (4): 569-574.1994.
Mathias C.G., Morrison J.H.: Occupational skin diseases, United States. Results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 1973 through 1984. Arch Dermatol 124. (10): 1519-1524.1988.
Koch P.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol 2. (6): 353-365.2001.
Bureau of Labor Statistics : Occupational Injuries and illnesses in the United States. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif
Lushniak B.D.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 17. (3): 272-277.2004.
Mathias C.G.: The cost of ccupational skin disease. Arch Dermatol 121. (3): 332-334.1985.
Cvetkovski R.S., Rothman K.J., Olsen J., et al: Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave, and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 152. (1): 93-98.2005.
Thank you!
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
23
1
2
24
25
1
2
26
27
1
2
28
1
2
29
30
1
2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1
2
70
71
72
73
74
1
2
75
76
1
2
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
1
2
84
85
1
2
86
1
2
87
88
89
1
2
90
1
2
91
92
93
94
1
2
95
96
97
98
1
2
3
4
99
100
101
102
103
1
2
104
1
2
105
106
107
108
1
2
109
110
1
2
111
112
113
114
1
2
115
1
2
116
117
118
3/27/2015
10
Occupational DermatologyPearls
Heather P. Lampel, MD, MPH, FAAD, FACOEM
Duke University
Assistant Professor of Dermatology and
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
May 3, 2015
Disclosures
I have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
I will be discussing off-label use of patch testing and off-label treatment of contact dermatitis
I will mention companies
Objectives
Discuss the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in the occupational setting
Differentiate irritant from allergic contact dermatitis
Understand the role of patch testing in diagnosis
Highlight recently described allergens in the workplace
Review the trends in the occupational dermatitis literature 2014- present
Explore pitfalls and misconceptions in the workplace
Why should we care?
Occupational skin disease is a “hot” topic
Healthy People 2020
“Reduce occupational skin diseases or disorders among full-time workers”
ACOEM Core Competencies- Clinical Dermatology
OEM physicians can provide early recognition, diagnosis, and management …
Diagnose primary irritant-induced dermatoses
Differentiate occupational skin disorders…
Diagnose and determine the cause of allergic contact dermatitis …
Manage occupational and environmental skin injuries and dermatoses
Treat and prevent recurrence of contact dermatitis
Epidemiology of Occupational Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis
Contact dermatitis (CD) is reported to account for up to 30% of all occupational disease in industrialized nations
CD is the most common occupational skin disorder
About 90-95% of all cases of occupational skin diseases
Occupational CD Epidemiology United States
Incidence rate of 0.5-1.9 cases per 1000 full-time workers per year
US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004 estimated 48,800 cases of Occupational CD
1 year prevalence estimate of 20%
21-22% in healthcare workers
Ibler et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012;67:200-207.
Luk et al., Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:329-335.
Occupational CD Epidemiology Denmark
Occupational CD
95% of all occupational skin cases
Irritant CD 70% of these Occupational CD
68% due to wet work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
True epidemiologic data are lacking
Likely underestimated due to underreporting
Mild cases specifically
Bureau of Labor Statistics has rigorous criteria for inclusion
May not be obviously work-related (delayed-onset)
Self-treated
Only requiring first aid excluded
Underestimated by 85-88%
Luckhaupt et al., Am J Ind Med 2012.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Survey of established cases of Occupational CD reported that over one year:
19.9% reported prolonged sick leave
23% reported job loss
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
1985 Mathias estimated annual costs of Occupational CD to be between $222 million and $1 billion
2004 NIOSH estimates $1.2 billion
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Hands are usually involved
80-90% of cases
Great impact on quality of life
What percent of all contact dermatitis is allergic versus irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis accounts for 60-80% of all CD
Allergic contact dermatitis accounts for remaining 20-40%
Overlap common
Contact Dermatitis Overview
ACD is a SPECIFIC immunologic reaction, requiring prior sensitization
Elliott G and Das PK. Using p-Phenylenediamine: A Gateway to Chemical Immunology. Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2010) 130, 641–643.
Immunology of Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis Overview
90% of the population can be sensitized to certain antigens such as dinitrochlorobenzene
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis is NONSPECIFIC
Requires no prior sensitization
Clinically can be difficult to distinguish ICD from ACD
Common Occupational Irritants
Alkalis
Soaps
Detergents
Cleansers
Acids
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum
Oils
Solvents
Common Occupational Irritants
Frictional Dermatitis
Repetitive handling of objects or materials
Likely underappreciated
Examples
Fabric
Paper
Metal objects
Driving
Common Occupational Irritants
Gloves
Prolonged contact with skin affects the epidermal barrier
May be irritant itself
May make epidermal barrier more susceptible to allergens or other irritants
Irritants- Recent Literature
Wet work
Irritant chemicals
Solvents
Food
Detergents
Gloves
Mechanical trauma
Air (warm, dry)
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations
Occupations at High-Risk for Hand Dermatitis
Hairdressers
Musicians
Food Industry workers
Agricultural workers
Factory workers
Electronics workers
Cleaners/Washers
Housekeepers
Printers
Builders
Medical and Dental workers
Occupations at Risk for ICD
Hairdressers
Nursing
Doctors
Mechanics
Cooks
Cleaners
Painters
Plumbers
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations at Risk for CD- Denmark
Healthcare
Cleaning
Kitchen work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Epidemiology by Occupation
Shoe manufacturer
Indonesia
29% OCD point prevalence
Febriana et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2014; 87.
Poultry processing and manual laborers
1 year prevalence 23% skin symptoms
Quandt et al., Am J Indust Medicine 2014; 57.
Construction Industry
25.4% point prevalence of hand skin symptoms
Timmerman et al., Am J Ind Med 2014; 57.
Healthcare workers
Dutch apprentice nurses followed prospectively
1 year period prevalence of hand eczema
23% in first year
25% in second year
31% in third year
Frequent hand washing at work, at home, and outside wet work job all risk factors
Visser et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 44-55.
ACD vs ICD
Photo Quiz
Allergic or Irritant Contact Dermatitis?
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic and Irritant
Debunking the myths…
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
FALSE
Allergy can develop after years of using the same product
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
FALSE
There are many cross-reactants in other products, it is best to have NO exposures to topicals/cross-reactors when clearing a rash
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
NOT NECESSARILY
Common misconception held by MDs
There are many aspects affecting end-product eruption
Can be patchy!
CD Misconceptions
Adult onset “eczema”
If no history of eczema or atopy, more likely ACD
Especially if on hands, face, neck
90% of eczema has onset by age 5
“The greatest abuse of patch testing is failure to use the test.”
Coleman, 1982
Epicutaneous Patch testing
Intended to detect allergens relevant to eruption
Is at least a week-long process
Detects Type IV allergic reaction (delayed-type hypersensitivity)
Requires at least 2-3 visits to clinic for complete testing
T.R.U.E. Test
Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test
Allerderm product
Only FDA-approved patch testing product
36 allergens
Comes pre-filled
May not detect all relevant allergens
Patch testing
Step 1: Take extensive exposure history
Include home exposures, work tasks and exposures, implants, intermittent exposures, MSDS if appropriate
Patch testing
Step 2: Determine allergen panel
Would be pre-determined if only TRUE Test is available
Patch testing
Step 3: Prepare allergen tray as appropriate
TRUE test is pre-prepared
Patch testing
Step 4: Apply patches to back
Back must be clear of rash
Patches are marked
Securing paper tape is used
Patch testing
Step 5: Patches removed in 48 hours
Variability in how this is done
Areas remarked
Reactions noted- Irritant
Patch testing
Step 6: Patches read at 3-7 days after application
Our clinic reads at 4 days
Consider delayed read for late reactors
Patch testing
Step 7: Determine clinical relevance
Consider the Mathias Criteria for Occupational cases
Excellent tool for ascertaining occupational causation
Keep in mind that irritant CD remains a diagnosis of exclusion, and dermatitis may be both ICD and ACD, multifactorial, etc.
Patch testing
Step 8: Instruct in avoidance of allergen(s) and cross-reactors
If in topical medicaments, cosmetics, etc. it is best to print out the CAMP “safe list”
On American Contact Dermatitis Society member webpage
Mayo Clinic also has a database
Also consider all objects that may contain allergen
Information (written) and verbal counseling of patient is KEY
May include modified work, increased or alternative PPE, modified environment-both home and work
Mathias Criteria
1. Is the clinical appearance consistent with contact dermatitis?
2. Are there workplace exposures to potential cutaneous irritants or allergens?
3. Is the anatomic distribution of the dermatitis consistent with cutaneous exposure in relation to work tasks?
4. Is there a temporal association between onset of dermatitis and exposure consistent with contact dermatitis?
Mathias Criteria
5. Are non-occupational exposures excluded as probable causes?
6. Does dermatitis improve away from work exposure to the suspected allergen or irritant?
7. Do patch or provocation tests identify a probable causal agent?
Mathias Criteria
Answer of “yes” to 4 or more of the 7 criteria yields a greater than 50% probability of occupational cause
Provides a “reasonable degree of medical certainty”
Allergens
Top 10 Allergens in North America
Nickel sulfate
Balsam of Peru
Fragrance mix I
Quaternium-15
Neomycin
Bacitracin
Formaldehyde
Cobalt chloride
Fragrance mix II
p-Phenylenediamine
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Formaldehyde-Releasers
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Quaternium-15
Imidazolidinyl urea (Germall 115)
Diazolidinyl urea (Germall II)
DMDM hydantoin (Glydant)
2-Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (Bronopol)
Sodium hydroxymethyl glycinate
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Workplace Allergens- Canada
Epoxy resin
Thiuram Mix
Carba Mix
Nickel sulfate
Cobalt chloride
Potassium dichromate
Glyceryl thioglycolate
P-phenylenediamine
Formaldehyde
Glutaraldehyde
Arrandale et al Am J Ind Med 2012; 55:353-60.
Top Workplace Allergens-Denmark
Rubber allergens
Epoxy (windmill workers)
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
What’s new in Occupational Contact Allergens?
Coconut derivatives
Capryldiethanolamine in metalworking fluids
May not react to:
Monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, methyldiethanolamine, and cocamide DEA
Not in MSDS
Suuronen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 120-121.
Coconut derivatives
Sodium cocoamphopropionate
Surfactant
Derivative of coconut fatty acids condensed with amino-ethyl ethanolamines
Soaps, shampoos, conditioners
Sweden, fast-food workers
Hagvall et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 122-124.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide MEA
AKA tall oil fatty acids monoethanolamide
In metal working fluid
Aalto-Korte et al. Contact Dermatitis, 69,316-7.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA)
Surfactant
Industrial, household and cosmetic products
Finland 19/25 positives were occupational, most in metal industry
Soaps (hand, dish), metalworking fluids, barrier cream
Noted concomitant reactions
Monoethanolamine
Diethanolamine- impurity of cocamide DEA
Aalto-Korte et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 169-174.
Airborne medications
Benzodiazepines
Airborne contact from crushing pills for patients
2 nurses, 1 pharmacy tech, one relative
Consider in facial dermatitis
Swinnen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 227-232.
Sevofluorane
Systemic allergic contact- airborne
Required ROAT (negative to routine patch testing)
Surgeon
Burches et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 62-63.
Medications- Nonairborne
Omeprazole
Horse trainer
Handled paste for horse’s stomach ulcers
Al-Falah et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 377-378.
“Head lad” caring for race horses
Dispensed omeprazole paste via syringe
Alwan et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 376.
Fragrance
Citral
Hands and arms
9 beauticians in high-end spa
DeMozzi and Johnston, Contact Dermatitis 70, 377-378.
D- limonene
Machine cleaners, hand soaps, moisturizers, surface cleanser, dishwashing soaps
Pesonen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 273-279.
Isothiazolinones (Denmark)
Occupations
Painting
Welding (blacksmiths)
Machine operating
Cosmetology
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 295-302.
Sources
Paints and varnishes
Cleaners
Polishing liquids
Some in high concentrations
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 65-74.
Methylisothiazolinone
Ultrasound gel in ultrasonographer
Madsen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 312-313.
Water cooling tower technicians
Maor et al., Dermatitis 26, 62-64.
Allergens
Tricresyl phosphate
Cleaning occupation
In vinyl gloves
Plasticizer
Also in sheer strips (Band Aids)
Crepy et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 325-328.
Blue Collar Workers
Compared to controls patch-tested, BCW higher hand eczema, lower atopic dermatitis
Epoxy resins
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile
2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
Potassium dichromate
Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/ methylisothiazolinone (MI)
Allergen: Occupation
Epoxy: construction
MCI/MI: Painting
Potassium dichromate: tile setting/terrazzo work
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 348-355.
Blue Collar Workers
Case report of a cement worker with poor PPE
Sweden
Legislation in Europe to decrease hexavalent chromium in cement
Addition of ferrous sulfate
Chromium allergy persists
Hedberg et al, Contact dermatitis 70, 321-323.
Hairdressers- Denmark
Hairdressers 2002-2011
Compared to patch tested controls, hairdressers more significantly had Occupational CD and hand eczema, lower AD
Allergens significantly associated:
p-phenylenediamine, thiuram mix, benzocaine
Frequent sensitizers from the hairdressing series:
ammonium persulfate, toluene-2,5-diamine, 3-aminophenol, and 4-aminophenol
New sensitizers:
Cysteamine hydrochloride- substitute for glycerol monothioglycolate (restricted in Germany)
Chloroacetamide- preservative
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 233-237.
Hairdressers- Germany
German contact allergy database 2007-2012
Compared hairdressers to clients
Allergens significantly associated with hairdressers > clients:
Ammonium persulfate
Glyceryl monothioglycolate
Demonstrated concern as young hairdressers still with some positive reaction, despite legislation
Uter et al, Contact Dermatitis 71, 13-20.
Food Industry
Cobalt in a baker
Bregnbak et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 118-119.
Food Industry
Pizza makers
Diallyl disulfide and
Ammonium persulfate
Lembo et al., Dermatitis 25, 194-196.
Wine maker
Potassium metabisulfite
Ortiz et al., Dermatitis 25, 150-151.
Heathcare workers
Chlorhexidine
Australian study
2% relevant ACD in healthcare workers
Higher than other studies, keep on radar
Toholka et al., Australiasian J Derm 54, 303-306.
Preferred Approach to Occupational Exposure
1. Elimination
2. Substitution
3. Isolation
4. Engineering controls
5. Safe work practices
6. Personal protection
Material Safety Data Sheets
Mandated
Hazardous chemical name
Chemical properties
Physical hazards
Route of entry
Known exposure limits
Carcinogenicity
Clean-up practices
Control measures
Contact information
Not required
If proprietary
Specific name often avoided (general category used)
Irritants and sensitizers if <1% concentration
Often do not address prevention of sensitization and irritancy
Diagnosis- MSDS
Diagnosis- MSDS
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
AVOIDANCE!
Allergens
Irritants
Treatment/Prevention
Avoidance
Harder with omnipresent allergens (epoxy versus rubber allergens)
Contact urticaria more problematic than ACD
Clemmensen et al., Br J Dermatol 2014;170.
Personal protective equipment
Legislation
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Recommended short-term high-potency topical steroids for hands:
Clobetasol propionate
Ointment
Halcinonide ointment
No propylene glycol, no sensitizers
For body:
Short-term hydrocortisone 2.5% bid for face, neck, axillae, groin, intertriginousareas
Short-term triamcinolone 0.1% bid for body
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Avoid more than a few weeks of potent steroid use topically
Can thin the skin making hands more susceptible to allergen/irritant!
Consider calcineurin inhibitors topically
Consider IM steroids x 1
Oral steroids with SLOW taper
Doxycycline for anti-inflammatory effects
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Barrier creams- Repair versus Protect
Repair creams with ceramides
Barrier creams with dimethicone
Studies are variable in demonstrating any benefit from barrier creams when compared to regular emollients
At least recommend moisturizing
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Prevention
Barrier creams
Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis
At high dose of application (2-20x actual application) can help prevent ICD
Schliemann et al., Contact dermatitis 70, 19-26.
Cotton liners under gloves
Adisesh et al., Br J Dermatol 2013.
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Appropriate gloves
Match task with glove
“Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing” by Forsberg and Mansdorf
ACDS website lists glove manufacturers
Treating Dermatitis- Step 2 (Maintenance)
Calcineurin inhibitors
Tacrolimus 0.1%
Pimecrolimus 0.1%
Therapeutic moisturizers
Shea butter
Aquaphor
Petrolatum
Lower potency steroids for hands:
Triamcinolone 0.1%
Fluticasone cream or lotion
Hydrocortisone butyrate lipid cream
Clocortolone cream
Treating Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Hand psoralen- ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA)
Narrow-band UV B therapy (NBUVB)
Often used for recalcitrant body dermatitis
Excimer laser
308 nm
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Methotrexate
Mycophenolate mofetil
2-3g/day recommended for control
Acitretin
Best for psoriasiform hand dermatitis
2-4 month course
Cyclosporine
2.5-5 mg/kg daily
Azathioprine
1-3 mg/kg daily
Biologics are not helpful overall (yet!)
Treatment
Multidisciplinary teams aid in successful return to work
German model included inpatient and outpatient care
87% remained in workforce
Weisshaar et al., Contact Dermatitis 2013;68:169-174.
Netherlands included a dermatologist, education nurse, occupational medicine physician
Van Gils et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012 66(4) and 66(5).
Canadian model
Gomez et al., Dermatitis 2011;22(3).
Prevention
Evidence-based intervention
1 hour voluntary hand protective behavior lecture/ intervention
Full-time hospital cleaners
At 3 months post-intervention
Decreased hand cleansing
Better knowledge of hand preservation
Improved hand dermatitis
Clemmensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 47-54.
Occupational Dermatitis Resources
Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing by Forsberg and Mansdorf
Contact and Occupational Dermatology by Marks, Elsner, DeLeo
ACDS website
OSHA, NIOSH
Article December 2011 The Dermatologist
Summary
Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish
We are constantly being exposed to new allergens, often earlier in life
Occupational contact dermatitis is underreported
Patch testing for ACD is the gold standard
Can try TRUE test, consider referral for comprehensive panels
Novel allergens in the workplace
Summary
Think outside the box
Try a stepwise approach
Elimination
Treatment
Escalate treatment
Will be chronic if exposure continues
You can make a huge difference in patient’s quality of life
References
Marks et al., 2002. Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact and Occupational Dermatology, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby, 2002.
Nelson and Yiannias, 2009. Nelson S.A., Yiannias J.A.: Relevance and avoidance of skin-care product allergens: Pearls and pitfalls. Dermatol Clin 2009; 27(3):329-336.
Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test. Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test) : Available at:[accessed 03.07.11] http://www.truetest.com/PatientPDF/File18.pdf
Zug et al., 2009. Zug K.A., Warshaw E.M., Fowler J.F., et al: Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 2009; 20:149-160.
Emmett EA. Occupational contact dermatitis I. Incidence and return to work pressures. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2002;13:30–4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. [Bulletin 2512]. Washington (DC): US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1999.
Lushniak BD. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin1995; 13:671–9.
Skoet R, Olsen J, Mathiesen B, et al. A survey of occupational hand eczema in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51(4):159–66.
Staton I, Ma R, Evans N, et al. Dermal nickel exposure associated with coin handling and in various occupational settings: assessment using a newly developed finger immersion method. Br J Dermatol 2006;154(4):658–64.
Veien NK, Menne T. Treatment of hand eczema. Skin Therapy Lett 2003;8(5):4–7. 137.
Warshaw E. Therapeutic options for chronic hand dermatitis. Dermatol Ther2004;4:17240–50.
Schalock PC, Zug KA, Carter JC, et al. Efficacy and patient perception of Grenz ray therapy in the treatment of dermatoses refractory to other medical therapy. Dermatitis 2008;19(2):90–4.
Abramovits W, Granowski P. Innovative management of severe hand dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 28 (2010) 453-65.
Blanciforti, L. Economic burden of dermatitis in US workers. JOEM 52. (11):1045-54. 2010.
References
Sprigle AM, Marks JG Jr, Anderson BE. Prevention of nickel release with barrier coatings. Dermatitis. 2008,19(1):28-31.
Diepgen T.L., Coenraads P.J.: The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72. (8): 496-506.1999.
Keil J.E., Shmunes E.: The epidemiology of work-related skin disease in South Carolina. Arch Dermatol 119. (8): 650-654.1983.
Mathias C.G.: Occupational dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol 19. (6): 1107-1114.1988.
Goh C.L.: An epidemiological comparison between occupational and non-occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 120. (1): 77-82.1989.
Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact & occupational dermatology. 3rd ed Mosby St. Louis, (MO)2002.
Holness D.L.: Characteristic features of occupational dermatitis: epidemiologic studies of occupational skin disease reported by contact dermatitis clinics. Occup Med 9. (1): 45-52.1994.
Belsito D.V.: Occupational contact dermatitis: etiology, prevalence, and resultant impairment/disability. J Am Acad Dermatol 53. (2): 303-313.2005.
Kanerva L., Estlander T., Jolanki R.: Occupational skin disease in Finland. An analysis of 10 years of statistics from an occupational dermatology clinic. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60. (2): 89-94.1988.
Sertoli A., Gola M., Martinelli C., et al: Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Semin Dermatol 8. (2): 120-126.1989.
Rietschel R.L., Mathias C.G., Fowler , Jr. , Jr.J.F., et al: Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermatitis 13. (4): 170-176.2002.
Nethercott J.R., Holness D.L.: Disease outcome in workers with occupational skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 30. (4): 569-574.1994.
Mathias C.G., Morrison J.H.: Occupational skin diseases, United States. Results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 1973 through 1984. Arch Dermatol 124. (10): 1519-1524.1988.
Koch P.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol 2. (6): 353-365.2001.
Bureau of Labor Statistics : Occupational Injuries and illnesses in the United States. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif
Lushniak B.D.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 17. (3): 272-277.2004.
Mathias C.G.: The cost of ccupational skin disease. Arch Dermatol 121. (3): 332-334.1985.
Cvetkovski R.S., Rothman K.J., Olsen J., et al: Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave, and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 152. (1): 93-98.2005.
Thank you!
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
23
1
2
24
25
1
2
26
27
1
2
28
1
2
29
30
1
2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1
2
70
71
72
73
74
1
2
75
76
1
2
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
1
2
84
85
1
2
86
1
2
87
88
89
1
2
90
1
2
91
92
93
94
1
2
95
96
97
98
1
2
3
4
99
100
101
102
103
1
2
104
1
2
105
106
107
108
1
2
109
110
1
2
111
112
113
114
1
2
115
1
2
116
117
118
3/27/2015
11
Occupational DermatologyPearls
Heather P. Lampel, MD, MPH, FAAD, FACOEM
Duke University
Assistant Professor of Dermatology and
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
May 3, 2015
Disclosures
I have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
I will be discussing off-label use of patch testing and off-label treatment of contact dermatitis
I will mention companies
Objectives
Discuss the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in the occupational setting
Differentiate irritant from allergic contact dermatitis
Understand the role of patch testing in diagnosis
Highlight recently described allergens in the workplace
Review the trends in the occupational dermatitis literature 2014- present
Explore pitfalls and misconceptions in the workplace
Why should we care?
Occupational skin disease is a “hot” topic
Healthy People 2020
“Reduce occupational skin diseases or disorders among full-time workers”
ACOEM Core Competencies- Clinical Dermatology
OEM physicians can provide early recognition, diagnosis, and management …
Diagnose primary irritant-induced dermatoses
Differentiate occupational skin disorders…
Diagnose and determine the cause of allergic contact dermatitis …
Manage occupational and environmental skin injuries and dermatoses
Treat and prevent recurrence of contact dermatitis
Epidemiology of Occupational Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis
Contact dermatitis (CD) is reported to account for up to 30% of all occupational disease in industrialized nations
CD is the most common occupational skin disorder
About 90-95% of all cases of occupational skin diseases
Occupational CD Epidemiology United States
Incidence rate of 0.5-1.9 cases per 1000 full-time workers per year
US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004 estimated 48,800 cases of Occupational CD
1 year prevalence estimate of 20%
21-22% in healthcare workers
Ibler et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012;67:200-207.
Luk et al., Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:329-335.
Occupational CD Epidemiology Denmark
Occupational CD
95% of all occupational skin cases
Irritant CD 70% of these Occupational CD
68% due to wet work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
True epidemiologic data are lacking
Likely underestimated due to underreporting
Mild cases specifically
Bureau of Labor Statistics has rigorous criteria for inclusion
May not be obviously work-related (delayed-onset)
Self-treated
Only requiring first aid excluded
Underestimated by 85-88%
Luckhaupt et al., Am J Ind Med 2012.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Survey of established cases of Occupational CD reported that over one year:
19.9% reported prolonged sick leave
23% reported job loss
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
1985 Mathias estimated annual costs of Occupational CD to be between $222 million and $1 billion
2004 NIOSH estimates $1.2 billion
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Hands are usually involved
80-90% of cases
Great impact on quality of life
What percent of all contact dermatitis is allergic versus irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis accounts for 60-80% of all CD
Allergic contact dermatitis accounts for remaining 20-40%
Overlap common
Contact Dermatitis Overview
ACD is a SPECIFIC immunologic reaction, requiring prior sensitization
Elliott G and Das PK. Using p-Phenylenediamine: A Gateway to Chemical Immunology. Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2010) 130, 641–643.
Immunology of Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis Overview
90% of the population can be sensitized to certain antigens such as dinitrochlorobenzene
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis is NONSPECIFIC
Requires no prior sensitization
Clinically can be difficult to distinguish ICD from ACD
Common Occupational Irritants
Alkalis
Soaps
Detergents
Cleansers
Acids
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum
Oils
Solvents
Common Occupational Irritants
Frictional Dermatitis
Repetitive handling of objects or materials
Likely underappreciated
Examples
Fabric
Paper
Metal objects
Driving
Common Occupational Irritants
Gloves
Prolonged contact with skin affects the epidermal barrier
May be irritant itself
May make epidermal barrier more susceptible to allergens or other irritants
Irritants- Recent Literature
Wet work
Irritant chemicals
Solvents
Food
Detergents
Gloves
Mechanical trauma
Air (warm, dry)
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations
Occupations at High-Risk for Hand Dermatitis
Hairdressers
Musicians
Food Industry workers
Agricultural workers
Factory workers
Electronics workers
Cleaners/Washers
Housekeepers
Printers
Builders
Medical and Dental workers
Occupations at Risk for ICD
Hairdressers
Nursing
Doctors
Mechanics
Cooks
Cleaners
Painters
Plumbers
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations at Risk for CD- Denmark
Healthcare
Cleaning
Kitchen work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Epidemiology by Occupation
Shoe manufacturer
Indonesia
29% OCD point prevalence
Febriana et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2014; 87.
Poultry processing and manual laborers
1 year prevalence 23% skin symptoms
Quandt et al., Am J Indust Medicine 2014; 57.
Construction Industry
25.4% point prevalence of hand skin symptoms
Timmerman et al., Am J Ind Med 2014; 57.
Healthcare workers
Dutch apprentice nurses followed prospectively
1 year period prevalence of hand eczema
23% in first year
25% in second year
31% in third year
Frequent hand washing at work, at home, and outside wet work job all risk factors
Visser et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 44-55.
ACD vs ICD
Photo Quiz
Allergic or Irritant Contact Dermatitis?
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic and Irritant
Debunking the myths…
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
FALSE
Allergy can develop after years of using the same product
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
FALSE
There are many cross-reactants in other products, it is best to have NO exposures to topicals/cross-reactors when clearing a rash
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
NOT NECESSARILY
Common misconception held by MDs
There are many aspects affecting end-product eruption
Can be patchy!
CD Misconceptions
Adult onset “eczema”
If no history of eczema or atopy, more likely ACD
Especially if on hands, face, neck
90% of eczema has onset by age 5
“The greatest abuse of patch testing is failure to use the test.”
Coleman, 1982
Epicutaneous Patch testing
Intended to detect allergens relevant to eruption
Is at least a week-long process
Detects Type IV allergic reaction (delayed-type hypersensitivity)
Requires at least 2-3 visits to clinic for complete testing
T.R.U.E. Test
Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test
Allerderm product
Only FDA-approved patch testing product
36 allergens
Comes pre-filled
May not detect all relevant allergens
Patch testing
Step 1: Take extensive exposure history
Include home exposures, work tasks and exposures, implants, intermittent exposures, MSDS if appropriate
Patch testing
Step 2: Determine allergen panel
Would be pre-determined if only TRUE Test is available
Patch testing
Step 3: Prepare allergen tray as appropriate
TRUE test is pre-prepared
Patch testing
Step 4: Apply patches to back
Back must be clear of rash
Patches are marked
Securing paper tape is used
Patch testing
Step 5: Patches removed in 48 hours
Variability in how this is done
Areas remarked
Reactions noted- Irritant
Patch testing
Step 6: Patches read at 3-7 days after application
Our clinic reads at 4 days
Consider delayed read for late reactors
Patch testing
Step 7: Determine clinical relevance
Consider the Mathias Criteria for Occupational cases
Excellent tool for ascertaining occupational causation
Keep in mind that irritant CD remains a diagnosis of exclusion, and dermatitis may be both ICD and ACD, multifactorial, etc.
Patch testing
Step 8: Instruct in avoidance of allergen(s) and cross-reactors
If in topical medicaments, cosmetics, etc. it is best to print out the CAMP “safe list”
On American Contact Dermatitis Society member webpage
Mayo Clinic also has a database
Also consider all objects that may contain allergen
Information (written) and verbal counseling of patient is KEY
May include modified work, increased or alternative PPE, modified environment-both home and work
Mathias Criteria
1. Is the clinical appearance consistent with contact dermatitis?
2. Are there workplace exposures to potential cutaneous irritants or allergens?
3. Is the anatomic distribution of the dermatitis consistent with cutaneous exposure in relation to work tasks?
4. Is there a temporal association between onset of dermatitis and exposure consistent with contact dermatitis?
Mathias Criteria
5. Are non-occupational exposures excluded as probable causes?
6. Does dermatitis improve away from work exposure to the suspected allergen or irritant?
7. Do patch or provocation tests identify a probable causal agent?
Mathias Criteria
Answer of “yes” to 4 or more of the 7 criteria yields a greater than 50% probability of occupational cause
Provides a “reasonable degree of medical certainty”
Allergens
Top 10 Allergens in North America
Nickel sulfate
Balsam of Peru
Fragrance mix I
Quaternium-15
Neomycin
Bacitracin
Formaldehyde
Cobalt chloride
Fragrance mix II
p-Phenylenediamine
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Formaldehyde-Releasers
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Quaternium-15
Imidazolidinyl urea (Germall 115)
Diazolidinyl urea (Germall II)
DMDM hydantoin (Glydant)
2-Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (Bronopol)
Sodium hydroxymethyl glycinate
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Workplace Allergens- Canada
Epoxy resin
Thiuram Mix
Carba Mix
Nickel sulfate
Cobalt chloride
Potassium dichromate
Glyceryl thioglycolate
P-phenylenediamine
Formaldehyde
Glutaraldehyde
Arrandale et al Am J Ind Med 2012; 55:353-60.
Top Workplace Allergens-Denmark
Rubber allergens
Epoxy (windmill workers)
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
What’s new in Occupational Contact Allergens?
Coconut derivatives
Capryldiethanolamine in metalworking fluids
May not react to:
Monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, methyldiethanolamine, and cocamide DEA
Not in MSDS
Suuronen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 120-121.
Coconut derivatives
Sodium cocoamphopropionate
Surfactant
Derivative of coconut fatty acids condensed with amino-ethyl ethanolamines
Soaps, shampoos, conditioners
Sweden, fast-food workers
Hagvall et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 122-124.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide MEA
AKA tall oil fatty acids monoethanolamide
In metal working fluid
Aalto-Korte et al. Contact Dermatitis, 69,316-7.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA)
Surfactant
Industrial, household and cosmetic products
Finland 19/25 positives were occupational, most in metal industry
Soaps (hand, dish), metalworking fluids, barrier cream
Noted concomitant reactions
Monoethanolamine
Diethanolamine- impurity of cocamide DEA
Aalto-Korte et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 169-174.
Airborne medications
Benzodiazepines
Airborne contact from crushing pills for patients
2 nurses, 1 pharmacy tech, one relative
Consider in facial dermatitis
Swinnen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 227-232.
Sevofluorane
Systemic allergic contact- airborne
Required ROAT (negative to routine patch testing)
Surgeon
Burches et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 62-63.
Medications- Nonairborne
Omeprazole
Horse trainer
Handled paste for horse’s stomach ulcers
Al-Falah et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 377-378.
“Head lad” caring for race horses
Dispensed omeprazole paste via syringe
Alwan et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 376.
Fragrance
Citral
Hands and arms
9 beauticians in high-end spa
DeMozzi and Johnston, Contact Dermatitis 70, 377-378.
D- limonene
Machine cleaners, hand soaps, moisturizers, surface cleanser, dishwashing soaps
Pesonen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 273-279.
Isothiazolinones (Denmark)
Occupations
Painting
Welding (blacksmiths)
Machine operating
Cosmetology
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 295-302.
Sources
Paints and varnishes
Cleaners
Polishing liquids
Some in high concentrations
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 65-74.
Methylisothiazolinone
Ultrasound gel in ultrasonographer
Madsen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 312-313.
Water cooling tower technicians
Maor et al., Dermatitis 26, 62-64.
Allergens
Tricresyl phosphate
Cleaning occupation
In vinyl gloves
Plasticizer
Also in sheer strips (Band Aids)
Crepy et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 325-328.
Blue Collar Workers
Compared to controls patch-tested, BCW higher hand eczema, lower atopic dermatitis
Epoxy resins
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile
2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
Potassium dichromate
Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/ methylisothiazolinone (MI)
Allergen: Occupation
Epoxy: construction
MCI/MI: Painting
Potassium dichromate: tile setting/terrazzo work
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 348-355.
Blue Collar Workers
Case report of a cement worker with poor PPE
Sweden
Legislation in Europe to decrease hexavalent chromium in cement
Addition of ferrous sulfate
Chromium allergy persists
Hedberg et al, Contact dermatitis 70, 321-323.
Hairdressers- Denmark
Hairdressers 2002-2011
Compared to patch tested controls, hairdressers more significantly had Occupational CD and hand eczema, lower AD
Allergens significantly associated:
p-phenylenediamine, thiuram mix, benzocaine
Frequent sensitizers from the hairdressing series:
ammonium persulfate, toluene-2,5-diamine, 3-aminophenol, and 4-aminophenol
New sensitizers:
Cysteamine hydrochloride- substitute for glycerol monothioglycolate (restricted in Germany)
Chloroacetamide- preservative
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 233-237.
Hairdressers- Germany
German contact allergy database 2007-2012
Compared hairdressers to clients
Allergens significantly associated with hairdressers > clients:
Ammonium persulfate
Glyceryl monothioglycolate
Demonstrated concern as young hairdressers still with some positive reaction, despite legislation
Uter et al, Contact Dermatitis 71, 13-20.
Food Industry
Cobalt in a baker
Bregnbak et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 118-119.
Food Industry
Pizza makers
Diallyl disulfide and
Ammonium persulfate
Lembo et al., Dermatitis 25, 194-196.
Wine maker
Potassium metabisulfite
Ortiz et al., Dermatitis 25, 150-151.
Heathcare workers
Chlorhexidine
Australian study
2% relevant ACD in healthcare workers
Higher than other studies, keep on radar
Toholka et al., Australiasian J Derm 54, 303-306.
Preferred Approach to Occupational Exposure
1. Elimination
2. Substitution
3. Isolation
4. Engineering controls
5. Safe work practices
6. Personal protection
Material Safety Data Sheets
Mandated
Hazardous chemical name
Chemical properties
Physical hazards
Route of entry
Known exposure limits
Carcinogenicity
Clean-up practices
Control measures
Contact information
Not required
If proprietary
Specific name often avoided (general category used)
Irritants and sensitizers if <1% concentration
Often do not address prevention of sensitization and irritancy
Diagnosis- MSDS
Diagnosis- MSDS
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
AVOIDANCE!
Allergens
Irritants
Treatment/Prevention
Avoidance
Harder with omnipresent allergens (epoxy versus rubber allergens)
Contact urticaria more problematic than ACD
Clemmensen et al., Br J Dermatol 2014;170.
Personal protective equipment
Legislation
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Recommended short-term high-potency topical steroids for hands:
Clobetasol propionate
Ointment
Halcinonide ointment
No propylene glycol, no sensitizers
For body:
Short-term hydrocortisone 2.5% bid for face, neck, axillae, groin, intertriginousareas
Short-term triamcinolone 0.1% bid for body
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Avoid more than a few weeks of potent steroid use topically
Can thin the skin making hands more susceptible to allergen/irritant!
Consider calcineurin inhibitors topically
Consider IM steroids x 1
Oral steroids with SLOW taper
Doxycycline for anti-inflammatory effects
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Barrier creams- Repair versus Protect
Repair creams with ceramides
Barrier creams with dimethicone
Studies are variable in demonstrating any benefit from barrier creams when compared to regular emollients
At least recommend moisturizing
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Prevention
Barrier creams
Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis
At high dose of application (2-20x actual application) can help prevent ICD
Schliemann et al., Contact dermatitis 70, 19-26.
Cotton liners under gloves
Adisesh et al., Br J Dermatol 2013.
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Appropriate gloves
Match task with glove
“Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing” by Forsberg and Mansdorf
ACDS website lists glove manufacturers
Treating Dermatitis- Step 2 (Maintenance)
Calcineurin inhibitors
Tacrolimus 0.1%
Pimecrolimus 0.1%
Therapeutic moisturizers
Shea butter
Aquaphor
Petrolatum
Lower potency steroids for hands:
Triamcinolone 0.1%
Fluticasone cream or lotion
Hydrocortisone butyrate lipid cream
Clocortolone cream
Treating Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Hand psoralen- ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA)
Narrow-band UV B therapy (NBUVB)
Often used for recalcitrant body dermatitis
Excimer laser
308 nm
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Methotrexate
Mycophenolate mofetil
2-3g/day recommended for control
Acitretin
Best for psoriasiform hand dermatitis
2-4 month course
Cyclosporine
2.5-5 mg/kg daily
Azathioprine
1-3 mg/kg daily
Biologics are not helpful overall (yet!)
Treatment
Multidisciplinary teams aid in successful return to work
German model included inpatient and outpatient care
87% remained in workforce
Weisshaar et al., Contact Dermatitis 2013;68:169-174.
Netherlands included a dermatologist, education nurse, occupational medicine physician
Van Gils et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012 66(4) and 66(5).
Canadian model
Gomez et al., Dermatitis 2011;22(3).
Prevention
Evidence-based intervention
1 hour voluntary hand protective behavior lecture/ intervention
Full-time hospital cleaners
At 3 months post-intervention
Decreased hand cleansing
Better knowledge of hand preservation
Improved hand dermatitis
Clemmensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 47-54.
Occupational Dermatitis Resources
Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing by Forsberg and Mansdorf
Contact and Occupational Dermatology by Marks, Elsner, DeLeo
ACDS website
OSHA, NIOSH
Article December 2011 The Dermatologist
Summary
Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish
We are constantly being exposed to new allergens, often earlier in life
Occupational contact dermatitis is underreported
Patch testing for ACD is the gold standard
Can try TRUE test, consider referral for comprehensive panels
Novel allergens in the workplace
Summary
Think outside the box
Try a stepwise approach
Elimination
Treatment
Escalate treatment
Will be chronic if exposure continues
You can make a huge difference in patient’s quality of life
References
Marks et al., 2002. Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact and Occupational Dermatology, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby, 2002.
Nelson and Yiannias, 2009. Nelson S.A., Yiannias J.A.: Relevance and avoidance of skin-care product allergens: Pearls and pitfalls. Dermatol Clin 2009; 27(3):329-336.
Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test. Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test) : Available at:[accessed 03.07.11] http://www.truetest.com/PatientPDF/File18.pdf
Zug et al., 2009. Zug K.A., Warshaw E.M., Fowler J.F., et al: Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 2009; 20:149-160.
Emmett EA. Occupational contact dermatitis I. Incidence and return to work pressures. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2002;13:30–4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. [Bulletin 2512]. Washington (DC): US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1999.
Lushniak BD. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin1995; 13:671–9.
Skoet R, Olsen J, Mathiesen B, et al. A survey of occupational hand eczema in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51(4):159–66.
Staton I, Ma R, Evans N, et al. Dermal nickel exposure associated with coin handling and in various occupational settings: assessment using a newly developed finger immersion method. Br J Dermatol 2006;154(4):658–64.
Veien NK, Menne T. Treatment of hand eczema. Skin Therapy Lett 2003;8(5):4–7. 137.
Warshaw E. Therapeutic options for chronic hand dermatitis. Dermatol Ther2004;4:17240–50.
Schalock PC, Zug KA, Carter JC, et al. Efficacy and patient perception of Grenz ray therapy in the treatment of dermatoses refractory to other medical therapy. Dermatitis 2008;19(2):90–4.
Abramovits W, Granowski P. Innovative management of severe hand dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 28 (2010) 453-65.
Blanciforti, L. Economic burden of dermatitis in US workers. JOEM 52. (11):1045-54. 2010.
References
Sprigle AM, Marks JG Jr, Anderson BE. Prevention of nickel release with barrier coatings. Dermatitis. 2008,19(1):28-31.
Diepgen T.L., Coenraads P.J.: The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72. (8): 496-506.1999.
Keil J.E., Shmunes E.: The epidemiology of work-related skin disease in South Carolina. Arch Dermatol 119. (8): 650-654.1983.
Mathias C.G.: Occupational dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol 19. (6): 1107-1114.1988.
Goh C.L.: An epidemiological comparison between occupational and non-occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 120. (1): 77-82.1989.
Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact & occupational dermatology. 3rd ed Mosby St. Louis, (MO)2002.
Holness D.L.: Characteristic features of occupational dermatitis: epidemiologic studies of occupational skin disease reported by contact dermatitis clinics. Occup Med 9. (1): 45-52.1994.
Belsito D.V.: Occupational contact dermatitis: etiology, prevalence, and resultant impairment/disability. J Am Acad Dermatol 53. (2): 303-313.2005.
Kanerva L., Estlander T., Jolanki R.: Occupational skin disease in Finland. An analysis of 10 years of statistics from an occupational dermatology clinic. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60. (2): 89-94.1988.
Sertoli A., Gola M., Martinelli C., et al: Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Semin Dermatol 8. (2): 120-126.1989.
Rietschel R.L., Mathias C.G., Fowler , Jr. , Jr.J.F., et al: Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermatitis 13. (4): 170-176.2002.
Nethercott J.R., Holness D.L.: Disease outcome in workers with occupational skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 30. (4): 569-574.1994.
Mathias C.G., Morrison J.H.: Occupational skin diseases, United States. Results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 1973 through 1984. Arch Dermatol 124. (10): 1519-1524.1988.
Koch P.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol 2. (6): 353-365.2001.
Bureau of Labor Statistics : Occupational Injuries and illnesses in the United States. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif
Lushniak B.D.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 17. (3): 272-277.2004.
Mathias C.G.: The cost of ccupational skin disease. Arch Dermatol 121. (3): 332-334.1985.
Cvetkovski R.S., Rothman K.J., Olsen J., et al: Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave, and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 152. (1): 93-98.2005.
Thank you!
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
23
1
2
24
25
1
2
26
27
1
2
28
1
2
29
30
1
2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1
2
70
71
72
73
74
1
2
75
76
1
2
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
1
2
84
85
1
2
86
1
2
87
88
89
1
2
90
1
2
91
92
93
94
1
2
95
96
97
98
1
2
3
4
99
100
101
102
103
1
2
104
1
2
105
106
107
108
1
2
109
110
1
2
111
112
113
114
1
2
115
1
2
116
117
118
3/27/2015
12
Occupational DermatologyPearls
Heather P. Lampel, MD, MPH, FAAD, FACOEM
Duke University
Assistant Professor of Dermatology and
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
May 3, 2015
Disclosures
I have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
I will be discussing off-label use of patch testing and off-label treatment of contact dermatitis
I will mention companies
Objectives
Discuss the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in the occupational setting
Differentiate irritant from allergic contact dermatitis
Understand the role of patch testing in diagnosis
Highlight recently described allergens in the workplace
Review the trends in the occupational dermatitis literature 2014- present
Explore pitfalls and misconceptions in the workplace
Why should we care?
Occupational skin disease is a “hot” topic
Healthy People 2020
“Reduce occupational skin diseases or disorders among full-time workers”
ACOEM Core Competencies- Clinical Dermatology
OEM physicians can provide early recognition, diagnosis, and management …
Diagnose primary irritant-induced dermatoses
Differentiate occupational skin disorders…
Diagnose and determine the cause of allergic contact dermatitis …
Manage occupational and environmental skin injuries and dermatoses
Treat and prevent recurrence of contact dermatitis
Epidemiology of Occupational Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis
Contact dermatitis (CD) is reported to account for up to 30% of all occupational disease in industrialized nations
CD is the most common occupational skin disorder
About 90-95% of all cases of occupational skin diseases
Occupational CD Epidemiology United States
Incidence rate of 0.5-1.9 cases per 1000 full-time workers per year
US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004 estimated 48,800 cases of Occupational CD
1 year prevalence estimate of 20%
21-22% in healthcare workers
Ibler et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012;67:200-207.
Luk et al., Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:329-335.
Occupational CD Epidemiology Denmark
Occupational CD
95% of all occupational skin cases
Irritant CD 70% of these Occupational CD
68% due to wet work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
True epidemiologic data are lacking
Likely underestimated due to underreporting
Mild cases specifically
Bureau of Labor Statistics has rigorous criteria for inclusion
May not be obviously work-related (delayed-onset)
Self-treated
Only requiring first aid excluded
Underestimated by 85-88%
Luckhaupt et al., Am J Ind Med 2012.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Survey of established cases of Occupational CD reported that over one year:
19.9% reported prolonged sick leave
23% reported job loss
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
1985 Mathias estimated annual costs of Occupational CD to be between $222 million and $1 billion
2004 NIOSH estimates $1.2 billion
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Hands are usually involved
80-90% of cases
Great impact on quality of life
What percent of all contact dermatitis is allergic versus irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis accounts for 60-80% of all CD
Allergic contact dermatitis accounts for remaining 20-40%
Overlap common
Contact Dermatitis Overview
ACD is a SPECIFIC immunologic reaction, requiring prior sensitization
Elliott G and Das PK. Using p-Phenylenediamine: A Gateway to Chemical Immunology. Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2010) 130, 641–643.
Immunology of Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis Overview
90% of the population can be sensitized to certain antigens such as dinitrochlorobenzene
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis is NONSPECIFIC
Requires no prior sensitization
Clinically can be difficult to distinguish ICD from ACD
Common Occupational Irritants
Alkalis
Soaps
Detergents
Cleansers
Acids
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum
Oils
Solvents
Common Occupational Irritants
Frictional Dermatitis
Repetitive handling of objects or materials
Likely underappreciated
Examples
Fabric
Paper
Metal objects
Driving
Common Occupational Irritants
Gloves
Prolonged contact with skin affects the epidermal barrier
May be irritant itself
May make epidermal barrier more susceptible to allergens or other irritants
Irritants- Recent Literature
Wet work
Irritant chemicals
Solvents
Food
Detergents
Gloves
Mechanical trauma
Air (warm, dry)
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations
Occupations at High-Risk for Hand Dermatitis
Hairdressers
Musicians
Food Industry workers
Agricultural workers
Factory workers
Electronics workers
Cleaners/Washers
Housekeepers
Printers
Builders
Medical and Dental workers
Occupations at Risk for ICD
Hairdressers
Nursing
Doctors
Mechanics
Cooks
Cleaners
Painters
Plumbers
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations at Risk for CD- Denmark
Healthcare
Cleaning
Kitchen work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Epidemiology by Occupation
Shoe manufacturer
Indonesia
29% OCD point prevalence
Febriana et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2014; 87.
Poultry processing and manual laborers
1 year prevalence 23% skin symptoms
Quandt et al., Am J Indust Medicine 2014; 57.
Construction Industry
25.4% point prevalence of hand skin symptoms
Timmerman et al., Am J Ind Med 2014; 57.
Healthcare workers
Dutch apprentice nurses followed prospectively
1 year period prevalence of hand eczema
23% in first year
25% in second year
31% in third year
Frequent hand washing at work, at home, and outside wet work job all risk factors
Visser et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 44-55.
ACD vs ICD
Photo Quiz
Allergic or Irritant Contact Dermatitis?
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic and Irritant
Debunking the myths…
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
FALSE
Allergy can develop after years of using the same product
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
FALSE
There are many cross-reactants in other products, it is best to have NO exposures to topicals/cross-reactors when clearing a rash
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
NOT NECESSARILY
Common misconception held by MDs
There are many aspects affecting end-product eruption
Can be patchy!
CD Misconceptions
Adult onset “eczema”
If no history of eczema or atopy, more likely ACD
Especially if on hands, face, neck
90% of eczema has onset by age 5
“The greatest abuse of patch testing is failure to use the test.”
Coleman, 1982
Epicutaneous Patch testing
Intended to detect allergens relevant to eruption
Is at least a week-long process
Detects Type IV allergic reaction (delayed-type hypersensitivity)
Requires at least 2-3 visits to clinic for complete testing
T.R.U.E. Test
Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test
Allerderm product
Only FDA-approved patch testing product
36 allergens
Comes pre-filled
May not detect all relevant allergens
Patch testing
Step 1: Take extensive exposure history
Include home exposures, work tasks and exposures, implants, intermittent exposures, MSDS if appropriate
Patch testing
Step 2: Determine allergen panel
Would be pre-determined if only TRUE Test is available
Patch testing
Step 3: Prepare allergen tray as appropriate
TRUE test is pre-prepared
Patch testing
Step 4: Apply patches to back
Back must be clear of rash
Patches are marked
Securing paper tape is used
Patch testing
Step 5: Patches removed in 48 hours
Variability in how this is done
Areas remarked
Reactions noted- Irritant
Patch testing
Step 6: Patches read at 3-7 days after application
Our clinic reads at 4 days
Consider delayed read for late reactors
Patch testing
Step 7: Determine clinical relevance
Consider the Mathias Criteria for Occupational cases
Excellent tool for ascertaining occupational causation
Keep in mind that irritant CD remains a diagnosis of exclusion, and dermatitis may be both ICD and ACD, multifactorial, etc.
Patch testing
Step 8: Instruct in avoidance of allergen(s) and cross-reactors
If in topical medicaments, cosmetics, etc. it is best to print out the CAMP “safe list”
On American Contact Dermatitis Society member webpage
Mayo Clinic also has a database
Also consider all objects that may contain allergen
Information (written) and verbal counseling of patient is KEY
May include modified work, increased or alternative PPE, modified environment-both home and work
Mathias Criteria
1. Is the clinical appearance consistent with contact dermatitis?
2. Are there workplace exposures to potential cutaneous irritants or allergens?
3. Is the anatomic distribution of the dermatitis consistent with cutaneous exposure in relation to work tasks?
4. Is there a temporal association between onset of dermatitis and exposure consistent with contact dermatitis?
Mathias Criteria
5. Are non-occupational exposures excluded as probable causes?
6. Does dermatitis improve away from work exposure to the suspected allergen or irritant?
7. Do patch or provocation tests identify a probable causal agent?
Mathias Criteria
Answer of “yes” to 4 or more of the 7 criteria yields a greater than 50% probability of occupational cause
Provides a “reasonable degree of medical certainty”
Allergens
Top 10 Allergens in North America
Nickel sulfate
Balsam of Peru
Fragrance mix I
Quaternium-15
Neomycin
Bacitracin
Formaldehyde
Cobalt chloride
Fragrance mix II
p-Phenylenediamine
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Formaldehyde-Releasers
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Quaternium-15
Imidazolidinyl urea (Germall 115)
Diazolidinyl urea (Germall II)
DMDM hydantoin (Glydant)
2-Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (Bronopol)
Sodium hydroxymethyl glycinate
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Workplace Allergens- Canada
Epoxy resin
Thiuram Mix
Carba Mix
Nickel sulfate
Cobalt chloride
Potassium dichromate
Glyceryl thioglycolate
P-phenylenediamine
Formaldehyde
Glutaraldehyde
Arrandale et al Am J Ind Med 2012; 55:353-60.
Top Workplace Allergens-Denmark
Rubber allergens
Epoxy (windmill workers)
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
What’s new in Occupational Contact Allergens?
Coconut derivatives
Capryldiethanolamine in metalworking fluids
May not react to:
Monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, methyldiethanolamine, and cocamide DEA
Not in MSDS
Suuronen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 120-121.
Coconut derivatives
Sodium cocoamphopropionate
Surfactant
Derivative of coconut fatty acids condensed with amino-ethyl ethanolamines
Soaps, shampoos, conditioners
Sweden, fast-food workers
Hagvall et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 122-124.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide MEA
AKA tall oil fatty acids monoethanolamide
In metal working fluid
Aalto-Korte et al. Contact Dermatitis, 69,316-7.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA)
Surfactant
Industrial, household and cosmetic products
Finland 19/25 positives were occupational, most in metal industry
Soaps (hand, dish), metalworking fluids, barrier cream
Noted concomitant reactions
Monoethanolamine
Diethanolamine- impurity of cocamide DEA
Aalto-Korte et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 169-174.
Airborne medications
Benzodiazepines
Airborne contact from crushing pills for patients
2 nurses, 1 pharmacy tech, one relative
Consider in facial dermatitis
Swinnen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 227-232.
Sevofluorane
Systemic allergic contact- airborne
Required ROAT (negative to routine patch testing)
Surgeon
Burches et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 62-63.
Medications- Nonairborne
Omeprazole
Horse trainer
Handled paste for horse’s stomach ulcers
Al-Falah et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 377-378.
“Head lad” caring for race horses
Dispensed omeprazole paste via syringe
Alwan et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 376.
Fragrance
Citral
Hands and arms
9 beauticians in high-end spa
DeMozzi and Johnston, Contact Dermatitis 70, 377-378.
D- limonene
Machine cleaners, hand soaps, moisturizers, surface cleanser, dishwashing soaps
Pesonen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 273-279.
Isothiazolinones (Denmark)
Occupations
Painting
Welding (blacksmiths)
Machine operating
Cosmetology
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 295-302.
Sources
Paints and varnishes
Cleaners
Polishing liquids
Some in high concentrations
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 65-74.
Methylisothiazolinone
Ultrasound gel in ultrasonographer
Madsen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 312-313.
Water cooling tower technicians
Maor et al., Dermatitis 26, 62-64.
Allergens
Tricresyl phosphate
Cleaning occupation
In vinyl gloves
Plasticizer
Also in sheer strips (Band Aids)
Crepy et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 325-328.
Blue Collar Workers
Compared to controls patch-tested, BCW higher hand eczema, lower atopic dermatitis
Epoxy resins
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile
2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
Potassium dichromate
Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/ methylisothiazolinone (MI)
Allergen: Occupation
Epoxy: construction
MCI/MI: Painting
Potassium dichromate: tile setting/terrazzo work
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 348-355.
Blue Collar Workers
Case report of a cement worker with poor PPE
Sweden
Legislation in Europe to decrease hexavalent chromium in cement
Addition of ferrous sulfate
Chromium allergy persists
Hedberg et al, Contact dermatitis 70, 321-323.
Hairdressers- Denmark
Hairdressers 2002-2011
Compared to patch tested controls, hairdressers more significantly had Occupational CD and hand eczema, lower AD
Allergens significantly associated:
p-phenylenediamine, thiuram mix, benzocaine
Frequent sensitizers from the hairdressing series:
ammonium persulfate, toluene-2,5-diamine, 3-aminophenol, and 4-aminophenol
New sensitizers:
Cysteamine hydrochloride- substitute for glycerol monothioglycolate (restricted in Germany)
Chloroacetamide- preservative
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 233-237.
Hairdressers- Germany
German contact allergy database 2007-2012
Compared hairdressers to clients
Allergens significantly associated with hairdressers > clients:
Ammonium persulfate
Glyceryl monothioglycolate
Demonstrated concern as young hairdressers still with some positive reaction, despite legislation
Uter et al, Contact Dermatitis 71, 13-20.
Food Industry
Cobalt in a baker
Bregnbak et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 118-119.
Food Industry
Pizza makers
Diallyl disulfide and
Ammonium persulfate
Lembo et al., Dermatitis 25, 194-196.
Wine maker
Potassium metabisulfite
Ortiz et al., Dermatitis 25, 150-151.
Heathcare workers
Chlorhexidine
Australian study
2% relevant ACD in healthcare workers
Higher than other studies, keep on radar
Toholka et al., Australiasian J Derm 54, 303-306.
Preferred Approach to Occupational Exposure
1. Elimination
2. Substitution
3. Isolation
4. Engineering controls
5. Safe work practices
6. Personal protection
Material Safety Data Sheets
Mandated
Hazardous chemical name
Chemical properties
Physical hazards
Route of entry
Known exposure limits
Carcinogenicity
Clean-up practices
Control measures
Contact information
Not required
If proprietary
Specific name often avoided (general category used)
Irritants and sensitizers if <1% concentration
Often do not address prevention of sensitization and irritancy
Diagnosis- MSDS
Diagnosis- MSDS
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
AVOIDANCE!
Allergens
Irritants
Treatment/Prevention
Avoidance
Harder with omnipresent allergens (epoxy versus rubber allergens)
Contact urticaria more problematic than ACD
Clemmensen et al., Br J Dermatol 2014;170.
Personal protective equipment
Legislation
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Recommended short-term high-potency topical steroids for hands:
Clobetasol propionate
Ointment
Halcinonide ointment
No propylene glycol, no sensitizers
For body:
Short-term hydrocortisone 2.5% bid for face, neck, axillae, groin, intertriginousareas
Short-term triamcinolone 0.1% bid for body
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Avoid more than a few weeks of potent steroid use topically
Can thin the skin making hands more susceptible to allergen/irritant!
Consider calcineurin inhibitors topically
Consider IM steroids x 1
Oral steroids with SLOW taper
Doxycycline for anti-inflammatory effects
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Barrier creams- Repair versus Protect
Repair creams with ceramides
Barrier creams with dimethicone
Studies are variable in demonstrating any benefit from barrier creams when compared to regular emollients
At least recommend moisturizing
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Prevention
Barrier creams
Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis
At high dose of application (2-20x actual application) can help prevent ICD
Schliemann et al., Contact dermatitis 70, 19-26.
Cotton liners under gloves
Adisesh et al., Br J Dermatol 2013.
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Appropriate gloves
Match task with glove
“Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing” by Forsberg and Mansdorf
ACDS website lists glove manufacturers
Treating Dermatitis- Step 2 (Maintenance)
Calcineurin inhibitors
Tacrolimus 0.1%
Pimecrolimus 0.1%
Therapeutic moisturizers
Shea butter
Aquaphor
Petrolatum
Lower potency steroids for hands:
Triamcinolone 0.1%
Fluticasone cream or lotion
Hydrocortisone butyrate lipid cream
Clocortolone cream
Treating Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Hand psoralen- ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA)
Narrow-band UV B therapy (NBUVB)
Often used for recalcitrant body dermatitis
Excimer laser
308 nm
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Methotrexate
Mycophenolate mofetil
2-3g/day recommended for control
Acitretin
Best for psoriasiform hand dermatitis
2-4 month course
Cyclosporine
2.5-5 mg/kg daily
Azathioprine
1-3 mg/kg daily
Biologics are not helpful overall (yet!)
Treatment
Multidisciplinary teams aid in successful return to work
German model included inpatient and outpatient care
87% remained in workforce
Weisshaar et al., Contact Dermatitis 2013;68:169-174.
Netherlands included a dermatologist, education nurse, occupational medicine physician
Van Gils et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012 66(4) and 66(5).
Canadian model
Gomez et al., Dermatitis 2011;22(3).
Prevention
Evidence-based intervention
1 hour voluntary hand protective behavior lecture/ intervention
Full-time hospital cleaners
At 3 months post-intervention
Decreased hand cleansing
Better knowledge of hand preservation
Improved hand dermatitis
Clemmensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 47-54.
Occupational Dermatitis Resources
Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing by Forsberg and Mansdorf
Contact and Occupational Dermatology by Marks, Elsner, DeLeo
ACDS website
OSHA, NIOSH
Article December 2011 The Dermatologist
Summary
Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish
We are constantly being exposed to new allergens, often earlier in life
Occupational contact dermatitis is underreported
Patch testing for ACD is the gold standard
Can try TRUE test, consider referral for comprehensive panels
Novel allergens in the workplace
Summary
Think outside the box
Try a stepwise approach
Elimination
Treatment
Escalate treatment
Will be chronic if exposure continues
You can make a huge difference in patient’s quality of life
References
Marks et al., 2002. Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact and Occupational Dermatology, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby, 2002.
Nelson and Yiannias, 2009. Nelson S.A., Yiannias J.A.: Relevance and avoidance of skin-care product allergens: Pearls and pitfalls. Dermatol Clin 2009; 27(3):329-336.
Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test. Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test) : Available at:[accessed 03.07.11] http://www.truetest.com/PatientPDF/File18.pdf
Zug et al., 2009. Zug K.A., Warshaw E.M., Fowler J.F., et al: Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 2009; 20:149-160.
Emmett EA. Occupational contact dermatitis I. Incidence and return to work pressures. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2002;13:30–4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. [Bulletin 2512]. Washington (DC): US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1999.
Lushniak BD. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin1995; 13:671–9.
Skoet R, Olsen J, Mathiesen B, et al. A survey of occupational hand eczema in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51(4):159–66.
Staton I, Ma R, Evans N, et al. Dermal nickel exposure associated with coin handling and in various occupational settings: assessment using a newly developed finger immersion method. Br J Dermatol 2006;154(4):658–64.
Veien NK, Menne T. Treatment of hand eczema. Skin Therapy Lett 2003;8(5):4–7. 137.
Warshaw E. Therapeutic options for chronic hand dermatitis. Dermatol Ther2004;4:17240–50.
Schalock PC, Zug KA, Carter JC, et al. Efficacy and patient perception of Grenz ray therapy in the treatment of dermatoses refractory to other medical therapy. Dermatitis 2008;19(2):90–4.
Abramovits W, Granowski P. Innovative management of severe hand dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 28 (2010) 453-65.
Blanciforti, L. Economic burden of dermatitis in US workers. JOEM 52. (11):1045-54. 2010.
References
Sprigle AM, Marks JG Jr, Anderson BE. Prevention of nickel release with barrier coatings. Dermatitis. 2008,19(1):28-31.
Diepgen T.L., Coenraads P.J.: The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72. (8): 496-506.1999.
Keil J.E., Shmunes E.: The epidemiology of work-related skin disease in South Carolina. Arch Dermatol 119. (8): 650-654.1983.
Mathias C.G.: Occupational dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol 19. (6): 1107-1114.1988.
Goh C.L.: An epidemiological comparison between occupational and non-occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 120. (1): 77-82.1989.
Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact & occupational dermatology. 3rd ed Mosby St. Louis, (MO)2002.
Holness D.L.: Characteristic features of occupational dermatitis: epidemiologic studies of occupational skin disease reported by contact dermatitis clinics. Occup Med 9. (1): 45-52.1994.
Belsito D.V.: Occupational contact dermatitis: etiology, prevalence, and resultant impairment/disability. J Am Acad Dermatol 53. (2): 303-313.2005.
Kanerva L., Estlander T., Jolanki R.: Occupational skin disease in Finland. An analysis of 10 years of statistics from an occupational dermatology clinic. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60. (2): 89-94.1988.
Sertoli A., Gola M., Martinelli C., et al: Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Semin Dermatol 8. (2): 120-126.1989.
Rietschel R.L., Mathias C.G., Fowler , Jr. , Jr.J.F., et al: Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermatitis 13. (4): 170-176.2002.
Nethercott J.R., Holness D.L.: Disease outcome in workers with occupational skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 30. (4): 569-574.1994.
Mathias C.G., Morrison J.H.: Occupational skin diseases, United States. Results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 1973 through 1984. Arch Dermatol 124. (10): 1519-1524.1988.
Koch P.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol 2. (6): 353-365.2001.
Bureau of Labor Statistics : Occupational Injuries and illnesses in the United States. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif
Lushniak B.D.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 17. (3): 272-277.2004.
Mathias C.G.: The cost of ccupational skin disease. Arch Dermatol 121. (3): 332-334.1985.
Cvetkovski R.S., Rothman K.J., Olsen J., et al: Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave, and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 152. (1): 93-98.2005.
Thank you!
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
23
1
2
24
25
1
2
26
27
1
2
28
1
2
29
30
1
2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1
2
70
71
72
73
74
1
2
75
76
1
2
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
1
2
84
85
1
2
86
1
2
87
88
89
1
2
90
1
2
91
92
93
94
1
2
95
96
97
98
1
2
3
4
99
100
101
102
103
1
2
104
1
2
105
106
107
108
1
2
109
110
1
2
111
112
113
114
1
2
115
1
2
116
117
118
3/27/2015
13
Occupational DermatologyPearls
Heather P. Lampel, MD, MPH, FAAD, FACOEM
Duke University
Assistant Professor of Dermatology and
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
May 3, 2015
Disclosures
I have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
I will be discussing off-label use of patch testing and off-label treatment of contact dermatitis
I will mention companies
Objectives
Discuss the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in the occupational setting
Differentiate irritant from allergic contact dermatitis
Understand the role of patch testing in diagnosis
Highlight recently described allergens in the workplace
Review the trends in the occupational dermatitis literature 2014- present
Explore pitfalls and misconceptions in the workplace
Why should we care?
Occupational skin disease is a “hot” topic
Healthy People 2020
“Reduce occupational skin diseases or disorders among full-time workers”
ACOEM Core Competencies- Clinical Dermatology
OEM physicians can provide early recognition, diagnosis, and management …
Diagnose primary irritant-induced dermatoses
Differentiate occupational skin disorders…
Diagnose and determine the cause of allergic contact dermatitis …
Manage occupational and environmental skin injuries and dermatoses
Treat and prevent recurrence of contact dermatitis
Epidemiology of Occupational Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis
Contact dermatitis (CD) is reported to account for up to 30% of all occupational disease in industrialized nations
CD is the most common occupational skin disorder
About 90-95% of all cases of occupational skin diseases
Occupational CD Epidemiology United States
Incidence rate of 0.5-1.9 cases per 1000 full-time workers per year
US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004 estimated 48,800 cases of Occupational CD
1 year prevalence estimate of 20%
21-22% in healthcare workers
Ibler et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012;67:200-207.
Luk et al., Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:329-335.
Occupational CD Epidemiology Denmark
Occupational CD
95% of all occupational skin cases
Irritant CD 70% of these Occupational CD
68% due to wet work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
True epidemiologic data are lacking
Likely underestimated due to underreporting
Mild cases specifically
Bureau of Labor Statistics has rigorous criteria for inclusion
May not be obviously work-related (delayed-onset)
Self-treated
Only requiring first aid excluded
Underestimated by 85-88%
Luckhaupt et al., Am J Ind Med 2012.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Survey of established cases of Occupational CD reported that over one year:
19.9% reported prolonged sick leave
23% reported job loss
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
1985 Mathias estimated annual costs of Occupational CD to be between $222 million and $1 billion
2004 NIOSH estimates $1.2 billion
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Hands are usually involved
80-90% of cases
Great impact on quality of life
What percent of all contact dermatitis is allergic versus irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis accounts for 60-80% of all CD
Allergic contact dermatitis accounts for remaining 20-40%
Overlap common
Contact Dermatitis Overview
ACD is a SPECIFIC immunologic reaction, requiring prior sensitization
Elliott G and Das PK. Using p-Phenylenediamine: A Gateway to Chemical Immunology. Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2010) 130, 641–643.
Immunology of Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis Overview
90% of the population can be sensitized to certain antigens such as dinitrochlorobenzene
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis is NONSPECIFIC
Requires no prior sensitization
Clinically can be difficult to distinguish ICD from ACD
Common Occupational Irritants
Alkalis
Soaps
Detergents
Cleansers
Acids
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum
Oils
Solvents
Common Occupational Irritants
Frictional Dermatitis
Repetitive handling of objects or materials
Likely underappreciated
Examples
Fabric
Paper
Metal objects
Driving
Common Occupational Irritants
Gloves
Prolonged contact with skin affects the epidermal barrier
May be irritant itself
May make epidermal barrier more susceptible to allergens or other irritants
Irritants- Recent Literature
Wet work
Irritant chemicals
Solvents
Food
Detergents
Gloves
Mechanical trauma
Air (warm, dry)
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations
Occupations at High-Risk for Hand Dermatitis
Hairdressers
Musicians
Food Industry workers
Agricultural workers
Factory workers
Electronics workers
Cleaners/Washers
Housekeepers
Printers
Builders
Medical and Dental workers
Occupations at Risk for ICD
Hairdressers
Nursing
Doctors
Mechanics
Cooks
Cleaners
Painters
Plumbers
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations at Risk for CD- Denmark
Healthcare
Cleaning
Kitchen work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Epidemiology by Occupation
Shoe manufacturer
Indonesia
29% OCD point prevalence
Febriana et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2014; 87.
Poultry processing and manual laborers
1 year prevalence 23% skin symptoms
Quandt et al., Am J Indust Medicine 2014; 57.
Construction Industry
25.4% point prevalence of hand skin symptoms
Timmerman et al., Am J Ind Med 2014; 57.
Healthcare workers
Dutch apprentice nurses followed prospectively
1 year period prevalence of hand eczema
23% in first year
25% in second year
31% in third year
Frequent hand washing at work, at home, and outside wet work job all risk factors
Visser et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 44-55.
ACD vs ICD
Photo Quiz
Allergic or Irritant Contact Dermatitis?
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic and Irritant
Debunking the myths…
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
FALSE
Allergy can develop after years of using the same product
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
FALSE
There are many cross-reactants in other products, it is best to have NO exposures to topicals/cross-reactors when clearing a rash
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
NOT NECESSARILY
Common misconception held by MDs
There are many aspects affecting end-product eruption
Can be patchy!
CD Misconceptions
Adult onset “eczema”
If no history of eczema or atopy, more likely ACD
Especially if on hands, face, neck
90% of eczema has onset by age 5
“The greatest abuse of patch testing is failure to use the test.”
Coleman, 1982
Epicutaneous Patch testing
Intended to detect allergens relevant to eruption
Is at least a week-long process
Detects Type IV allergic reaction (delayed-type hypersensitivity)
Requires at least 2-3 visits to clinic for complete testing
T.R.U.E. Test
Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test
Allerderm product
Only FDA-approved patch testing product
36 allergens
Comes pre-filled
May not detect all relevant allergens
Patch testing
Step 1: Take extensive exposure history
Include home exposures, work tasks and exposures, implants, intermittent exposures, MSDS if appropriate
Patch testing
Step 2: Determine allergen panel
Would be pre-determined if only TRUE Test is available
Patch testing
Step 3: Prepare allergen tray as appropriate
TRUE test is pre-prepared
Patch testing
Step 4: Apply patches to back
Back must be clear of rash
Patches are marked
Securing paper tape is used
Patch testing
Step 5: Patches removed in 48 hours
Variability in how this is done
Areas remarked
Reactions noted- Irritant
Patch testing
Step 6: Patches read at 3-7 days after application
Our clinic reads at 4 days
Consider delayed read for late reactors
Patch testing
Step 7: Determine clinical relevance
Consider the Mathias Criteria for Occupational cases
Excellent tool for ascertaining occupational causation
Keep in mind that irritant CD remains a diagnosis of exclusion, and dermatitis may be both ICD and ACD, multifactorial, etc.
Patch testing
Step 8: Instruct in avoidance of allergen(s) and cross-reactors
If in topical medicaments, cosmetics, etc. it is best to print out the CAMP “safe list”
On American Contact Dermatitis Society member webpage
Mayo Clinic also has a database
Also consider all objects that may contain allergen
Information (written) and verbal counseling of patient is KEY
May include modified work, increased or alternative PPE, modified environment-both home and work
Mathias Criteria
1. Is the clinical appearance consistent with contact dermatitis?
2. Are there workplace exposures to potential cutaneous irritants or allergens?
3. Is the anatomic distribution of the dermatitis consistent with cutaneous exposure in relation to work tasks?
4. Is there a temporal association between onset of dermatitis and exposure consistent with contact dermatitis?
Mathias Criteria
5. Are non-occupational exposures excluded as probable causes?
6. Does dermatitis improve away from work exposure to the suspected allergen or irritant?
7. Do patch or provocation tests identify a probable causal agent?
Mathias Criteria
Answer of “yes” to 4 or more of the 7 criteria yields a greater than 50% probability of occupational cause
Provides a “reasonable degree of medical certainty”
Allergens
Top 10 Allergens in North America
Nickel sulfate
Balsam of Peru
Fragrance mix I
Quaternium-15
Neomycin
Bacitracin
Formaldehyde
Cobalt chloride
Fragrance mix II
p-Phenylenediamine
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Formaldehyde-Releasers
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Quaternium-15
Imidazolidinyl urea (Germall 115)
Diazolidinyl urea (Germall II)
DMDM hydantoin (Glydant)
2-Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (Bronopol)
Sodium hydroxymethyl glycinate
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Workplace Allergens- Canada
Epoxy resin
Thiuram Mix
Carba Mix
Nickel sulfate
Cobalt chloride
Potassium dichromate
Glyceryl thioglycolate
P-phenylenediamine
Formaldehyde
Glutaraldehyde
Arrandale et al Am J Ind Med 2012; 55:353-60.
Top Workplace Allergens-Denmark
Rubber allergens
Epoxy (windmill workers)
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
What’s new in Occupational Contact Allergens?
Coconut derivatives
Capryldiethanolamine in metalworking fluids
May not react to:
Monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, methyldiethanolamine, and cocamide DEA
Not in MSDS
Suuronen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 120-121.
Coconut derivatives
Sodium cocoamphopropionate
Surfactant
Derivative of coconut fatty acids condensed with amino-ethyl ethanolamines
Soaps, shampoos, conditioners
Sweden, fast-food workers
Hagvall et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 122-124.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide MEA
AKA tall oil fatty acids monoethanolamide
In metal working fluid
Aalto-Korte et al. Contact Dermatitis, 69,316-7.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA)
Surfactant
Industrial, household and cosmetic products
Finland 19/25 positives were occupational, most in metal industry
Soaps (hand, dish), metalworking fluids, barrier cream
Noted concomitant reactions
Monoethanolamine
Diethanolamine- impurity of cocamide DEA
Aalto-Korte et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 169-174.
Airborne medications
Benzodiazepines
Airborne contact from crushing pills for patients
2 nurses, 1 pharmacy tech, one relative
Consider in facial dermatitis
Swinnen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 227-232.
Sevofluorane
Systemic allergic contact- airborne
Required ROAT (negative to routine patch testing)
Surgeon
Burches et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 62-63.
Medications- Nonairborne
Omeprazole
Horse trainer
Handled paste for horse’s stomach ulcers
Al-Falah et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 377-378.
“Head lad” caring for race horses
Dispensed omeprazole paste via syringe
Alwan et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 376.
Fragrance
Citral
Hands and arms
9 beauticians in high-end spa
DeMozzi and Johnston, Contact Dermatitis 70, 377-378.
D- limonene
Machine cleaners, hand soaps, moisturizers, surface cleanser, dishwashing soaps
Pesonen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 273-279.
Isothiazolinones (Denmark)
Occupations
Painting
Welding (blacksmiths)
Machine operating
Cosmetology
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 295-302.
Sources
Paints and varnishes
Cleaners
Polishing liquids
Some in high concentrations
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 65-74.
Methylisothiazolinone
Ultrasound gel in ultrasonographer
Madsen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 312-313.
Water cooling tower technicians
Maor et al., Dermatitis 26, 62-64.
Allergens
Tricresyl phosphate
Cleaning occupation
In vinyl gloves
Plasticizer
Also in sheer strips (Band Aids)
Crepy et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 325-328.
Blue Collar Workers
Compared to controls patch-tested, BCW higher hand eczema, lower atopic dermatitis
Epoxy resins
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile
2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
Potassium dichromate
Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/ methylisothiazolinone (MI)
Allergen: Occupation
Epoxy: construction
MCI/MI: Painting
Potassium dichromate: tile setting/terrazzo work
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 348-355.
Blue Collar Workers
Case report of a cement worker with poor PPE
Sweden
Legislation in Europe to decrease hexavalent chromium in cement
Addition of ferrous sulfate
Chromium allergy persists
Hedberg et al, Contact dermatitis 70, 321-323.
Hairdressers- Denmark
Hairdressers 2002-2011
Compared to patch tested controls, hairdressers more significantly had Occupational CD and hand eczema, lower AD
Allergens significantly associated:
p-phenylenediamine, thiuram mix, benzocaine
Frequent sensitizers from the hairdressing series:
ammonium persulfate, toluene-2,5-diamine, 3-aminophenol, and 4-aminophenol
New sensitizers:
Cysteamine hydrochloride- substitute for glycerol monothioglycolate (restricted in Germany)
Chloroacetamide- preservative
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 233-237.
Hairdressers- Germany
German contact allergy database 2007-2012
Compared hairdressers to clients
Allergens significantly associated with hairdressers > clients:
Ammonium persulfate
Glyceryl monothioglycolate
Demonstrated concern as young hairdressers still with some positive reaction, despite legislation
Uter et al, Contact Dermatitis 71, 13-20.
Food Industry
Cobalt in a baker
Bregnbak et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 118-119.
Food Industry
Pizza makers
Diallyl disulfide and
Ammonium persulfate
Lembo et al., Dermatitis 25, 194-196.
Wine maker
Potassium metabisulfite
Ortiz et al., Dermatitis 25, 150-151.
Heathcare workers
Chlorhexidine
Australian study
2% relevant ACD in healthcare workers
Higher than other studies, keep on radar
Toholka et al., Australiasian J Derm 54, 303-306.
Preferred Approach to Occupational Exposure
1. Elimination
2. Substitution
3. Isolation
4. Engineering controls
5. Safe work practices
6. Personal protection
Material Safety Data Sheets
Mandated
Hazardous chemical name
Chemical properties
Physical hazards
Route of entry
Known exposure limits
Carcinogenicity
Clean-up practices
Control measures
Contact information
Not required
If proprietary
Specific name often avoided (general category used)
Irritants and sensitizers if <1% concentration
Often do not address prevention of sensitization and irritancy
Diagnosis- MSDS
Diagnosis- MSDS
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
AVOIDANCE!
Allergens
Irritants
Treatment/Prevention
Avoidance
Harder with omnipresent allergens (epoxy versus rubber allergens)
Contact urticaria more problematic than ACD
Clemmensen et al., Br J Dermatol 2014;170.
Personal protective equipment
Legislation
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Recommended short-term high-potency topical steroids for hands:
Clobetasol propionate
Ointment
Halcinonide ointment
No propylene glycol, no sensitizers
For body:
Short-term hydrocortisone 2.5% bid for face, neck, axillae, groin, intertriginousareas
Short-term triamcinolone 0.1% bid for body
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Avoid more than a few weeks of potent steroid use topically
Can thin the skin making hands more susceptible to allergen/irritant!
Consider calcineurin inhibitors topically
Consider IM steroids x 1
Oral steroids with SLOW taper
Doxycycline for anti-inflammatory effects
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Barrier creams- Repair versus Protect
Repair creams with ceramides
Barrier creams with dimethicone
Studies are variable in demonstrating any benefit from barrier creams when compared to regular emollients
At least recommend moisturizing
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Prevention
Barrier creams
Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis
At high dose of application (2-20x actual application) can help prevent ICD
Schliemann et al., Contact dermatitis 70, 19-26.
Cotton liners under gloves
Adisesh et al., Br J Dermatol 2013.
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Appropriate gloves
Match task with glove
“Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing” by Forsberg and Mansdorf
ACDS website lists glove manufacturers
Treating Dermatitis- Step 2 (Maintenance)
Calcineurin inhibitors
Tacrolimus 0.1%
Pimecrolimus 0.1%
Therapeutic moisturizers
Shea butter
Aquaphor
Petrolatum
Lower potency steroids for hands:
Triamcinolone 0.1%
Fluticasone cream or lotion
Hydrocortisone butyrate lipid cream
Clocortolone cream
Treating Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Hand psoralen- ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA)
Narrow-band UV B therapy (NBUVB)
Often used for recalcitrant body dermatitis
Excimer laser
308 nm
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Methotrexate
Mycophenolate mofetil
2-3g/day recommended for control
Acitretin
Best for psoriasiform hand dermatitis
2-4 month course
Cyclosporine
2.5-5 mg/kg daily
Azathioprine
1-3 mg/kg daily
Biologics are not helpful overall (yet!)
Treatment
Multidisciplinary teams aid in successful return to work
German model included inpatient and outpatient care
87% remained in workforce
Weisshaar et al., Contact Dermatitis 2013;68:169-174.
Netherlands included a dermatologist, education nurse, occupational medicine physician
Van Gils et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012 66(4) and 66(5).
Canadian model
Gomez et al., Dermatitis 2011;22(3).
Prevention
Evidence-based intervention
1 hour voluntary hand protective behavior lecture/ intervention
Full-time hospital cleaners
At 3 months post-intervention
Decreased hand cleansing
Better knowledge of hand preservation
Improved hand dermatitis
Clemmensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 47-54.
Occupational Dermatitis Resources
Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing by Forsberg and Mansdorf
Contact and Occupational Dermatology by Marks, Elsner, DeLeo
ACDS website
OSHA, NIOSH
Article December 2011 The Dermatologist
Summary
Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish
We are constantly being exposed to new allergens, often earlier in life
Occupational contact dermatitis is underreported
Patch testing for ACD is the gold standard
Can try TRUE test, consider referral for comprehensive panels
Novel allergens in the workplace
Summary
Think outside the box
Try a stepwise approach
Elimination
Treatment
Escalate treatment
Will be chronic if exposure continues
You can make a huge difference in patient’s quality of life
References
Marks et al., 2002. Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact and Occupational Dermatology, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby, 2002.
Nelson and Yiannias, 2009. Nelson S.A., Yiannias J.A.: Relevance and avoidance of skin-care product allergens: Pearls and pitfalls. Dermatol Clin 2009; 27(3):329-336.
Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test. Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test) : Available at:[accessed 03.07.11] http://www.truetest.com/PatientPDF/File18.pdf
Zug et al., 2009. Zug K.A., Warshaw E.M., Fowler J.F., et al: Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 2009; 20:149-160.
Emmett EA. Occupational contact dermatitis I. Incidence and return to work pressures. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2002;13:30–4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. [Bulletin 2512]. Washington (DC): US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1999.
Lushniak BD. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin1995; 13:671–9.
Skoet R, Olsen J, Mathiesen B, et al. A survey of occupational hand eczema in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51(4):159–66.
Staton I, Ma R, Evans N, et al. Dermal nickel exposure associated with coin handling and in various occupational settings: assessment using a newly developed finger immersion method. Br J Dermatol 2006;154(4):658–64.
Veien NK, Menne T. Treatment of hand eczema. Skin Therapy Lett 2003;8(5):4–7. 137.
Warshaw E. Therapeutic options for chronic hand dermatitis. Dermatol Ther2004;4:17240–50.
Schalock PC, Zug KA, Carter JC, et al. Efficacy and patient perception of Grenz ray therapy in the treatment of dermatoses refractory to other medical therapy. Dermatitis 2008;19(2):90–4.
Abramovits W, Granowski P. Innovative management of severe hand dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 28 (2010) 453-65.
Blanciforti, L. Economic burden of dermatitis in US workers. JOEM 52. (11):1045-54. 2010.
References
Sprigle AM, Marks JG Jr, Anderson BE. Prevention of nickel release with barrier coatings. Dermatitis. 2008,19(1):28-31.
Diepgen T.L., Coenraads P.J.: The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72. (8): 496-506.1999.
Keil J.E., Shmunes E.: The epidemiology of work-related skin disease in South Carolina. Arch Dermatol 119. (8): 650-654.1983.
Mathias C.G.: Occupational dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol 19. (6): 1107-1114.1988.
Goh C.L.: An epidemiological comparison between occupational and non-occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 120. (1): 77-82.1989.
Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact & occupational dermatology. 3rd ed Mosby St. Louis, (MO)2002.
Holness D.L.: Characteristic features of occupational dermatitis: epidemiologic studies of occupational skin disease reported by contact dermatitis clinics. Occup Med 9. (1): 45-52.1994.
Belsito D.V.: Occupational contact dermatitis: etiology, prevalence, and resultant impairment/disability. J Am Acad Dermatol 53. (2): 303-313.2005.
Kanerva L., Estlander T., Jolanki R.: Occupational skin disease in Finland. An analysis of 10 years of statistics from an occupational dermatology clinic. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60. (2): 89-94.1988.
Sertoli A., Gola M., Martinelli C., et al: Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Semin Dermatol 8. (2): 120-126.1989.
Rietschel R.L., Mathias C.G., Fowler , Jr. , Jr.J.F., et al: Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermatitis 13. (4): 170-176.2002.
Nethercott J.R., Holness D.L.: Disease outcome in workers with occupational skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 30. (4): 569-574.1994.
Mathias C.G., Morrison J.H.: Occupational skin diseases, United States. Results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 1973 through 1984. Arch Dermatol 124. (10): 1519-1524.1988.
Koch P.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol 2. (6): 353-365.2001.
Bureau of Labor Statistics : Occupational Injuries and illnesses in the United States. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif
Lushniak B.D.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 17. (3): 272-277.2004.
Mathias C.G.: The cost of ccupational skin disease. Arch Dermatol 121. (3): 332-334.1985.
Cvetkovski R.S., Rothman K.J., Olsen J., et al: Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave, and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 152. (1): 93-98.2005.
Thank you!
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
23
1
2
24
25
1
2
26
27
1
2
28
1
2
29
30
1
2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1
2
70
71
72
73
74
1
2
75
76
1
2
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
1
2
84
85
1
2
86
1
2
87
88
89
1
2
90
1
2
91
92
93
94
1
2
95
96
97
98
1
2
3
4
99
100
101
102
103
1
2
104
1
2
105
106
107
108
1
2
109
110
1
2
111
112
113
114
1
2
115
1
2
116
117
118
3/27/2015
14
Occupational DermatologyPearls
Heather P. Lampel, MD, MPH, FAAD, FACOEM
Duke University
Assistant Professor of Dermatology and
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
May 3, 2015
Disclosures
I have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
I will be discussing off-label use of patch testing and off-label treatment of contact dermatitis
I will mention companies
Objectives
Discuss the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in the occupational setting
Differentiate irritant from allergic contact dermatitis
Understand the role of patch testing in diagnosis
Highlight recently described allergens in the workplace
Review the trends in the occupational dermatitis literature 2014- present
Explore pitfalls and misconceptions in the workplace
Why should we care?
Occupational skin disease is a “hot” topic
Healthy People 2020
“Reduce occupational skin diseases or disorders among full-time workers”
ACOEM Core Competencies- Clinical Dermatology
OEM physicians can provide early recognition, diagnosis, and management …
Diagnose primary irritant-induced dermatoses
Differentiate occupational skin disorders…
Diagnose and determine the cause of allergic contact dermatitis …
Manage occupational and environmental skin injuries and dermatoses
Treat and prevent recurrence of contact dermatitis
Epidemiology of Occupational Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis
Contact dermatitis (CD) is reported to account for up to 30% of all occupational disease in industrialized nations
CD is the most common occupational skin disorder
About 90-95% of all cases of occupational skin diseases
Occupational CD Epidemiology United States
Incidence rate of 0.5-1.9 cases per 1000 full-time workers per year
US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004 estimated 48,800 cases of Occupational CD
1 year prevalence estimate of 20%
21-22% in healthcare workers
Ibler et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012;67:200-207.
Luk et al., Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:329-335.
Occupational CD Epidemiology Denmark
Occupational CD
95% of all occupational skin cases
Irritant CD 70% of these Occupational CD
68% due to wet work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
True epidemiologic data are lacking
Likely underestimated due to underreporting
Mild cases specifically
Bureau of Labor Statistics has rigorous criteria for inclusion
May not be obviously work-related (delayed-onset)
Self-treated
Only requiring first aid excluded
Underestimated by 85-88%
Luckhaupt et al., Am J Ind Med 2012.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Survey of established cases of Occupational CD reported that over one year:
19.9% reported prolonged sick leave
23% reported job loss
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
1985 Mathias estimated annual costs of Occupational CD to be between $222 million and $1 billion
2004 NIOSH estimates $1.2 billion
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Hands are usually involved
80-90% of cases
Great impact on quality of life
What percent of all contact dermatitis is allergic versus irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis accounts for 60-80% of all CD
Allergic contact dermatitis accounts for remaining 20-40%
Overlap common
Contact Dermatitis Overview
ACD is a SPECIFIC immunologic reaction, requiring prior sensitization
Elliott G and Das PK. Using p-Phenylenediamine: A Gateway to Chemical Immunology. Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2010) 130, 641–643.
Immunology of Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis Overview
90% of the population can be sensitized to certain antigens such as dinitrochlorobenzene
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis is NONSPECIFIC
Requires no prior sensitization
Clinically can be difficult to distinguish ICD from ACD
Common Occupational Irritants
Alkalis
Soaps
Detergents
Cleansers
Acids
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum
Oils
Solvents
Common Occupational Irritants
Frictional Dermatitis
Repetitive handling of objects or materials
Likely underappreciated
Examples
Fabric
Paper
Metal objects
Driving
Common Occupational Irritants
Gloves
Prolonged contact with skin affects the epidermal barrier
May be irritant itself
May make epidermal barrier more susceptible to allergens or other irritants
Irritants- Recent Literature
Wet work
Irritant chemicals
Solvents
Food
Detergents
Gloves
Mechanical trauma
Air (warm, dry)
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations
Occupations at High-Risk for Hand Dermatitis
Hairdressers
Musicians
Food Industry workers
Agricultural workers
Factory workers
Electronics workers
Cleaners/Washers
Housekeepers
Printers
Builders
Medical and Dental workers
Occupations at Risk for ICD
Hairdressers
Nursing
Doctors
Mechanics
Cooks
Cleaners
Painters
Plumbers
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations at Risk for CD- Denmark
Healthcare
Cleaning
Kitchen work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Epidemiology by Occupation
Shoe manufacturer
Indonesia
29% OCD point prevalence
Febriana et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2014; 87.
Poultry processing and manual laborers
1 year prevalence 23% skin symptoms
Quandt et al., Am J Indust Medicine 2014; 57.
Construction Industry
25.4% point prevalence of hand skin symptoms
Timmerman et al., Am J Ind Med 2014; 57.
Healthcare workers
Dutch apprentice nurses followed prospectively
1 year period prevalence of hand eczema
23% in first year
25% in second year
31% in third year
Frequent hand washing at work, at home, and outside wet work job all risk factors
Visser et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 44-55.
ACD vs ICD
Photo Quiz
Allergic or Irritant Contact Dermatitis?
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic and Irritant
Debunking the myths…
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
FALSE
Allergy can develop after years of using the same product
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
FALSE
There are many cross-reactants in other products, it is best to have NO exposures to topicals/cross-reactors when clearing a rash
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
NOT NECESSARILY
Common misconception held by MDs
There are many aspects affecting end-product eruption
Can be patchy!
CD Misconceptions
Adult onset “eczema”
If no history of eczema or atopy, more likely ACD
Especially if on hands, face, neck
90% of eczema has onset by age 5
“The greatest abuse of patch testing is failure to use the test.”
Coleman, 1982
Epicutaneous Patch testing
Intended to detect allergens relevant to eruption
Is at least a week-long process
Detects Type IV allergic reaction (delayed-type hypersensitivity)
Requires at least 2-3 visits to clinic for complete testing
T.R.U.E. Test
Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test
Allerderm product
Only FDA-approved patch testing product
36 allergens
Comes pre-filled
May not detect all relevant allergens
Patch testing
Step 1: Take extensive exposure history
Include home exposures, work tasks and exposures, implants, intermittent exposures, MSDS if appropriate
Patch testing
Step 2: Determine allergen panel
Would be pre-determined if only TRUE Test is available
Patch testing
Step 3: Prepare allergen tray as appropriate
TRUE test is pre-prepared
Patch testing
Step 4: Apply patches to back
Back must be clear of rash
Patches are marked
Securing paper tape is used
Patch testing
Step 5: Patches removed in 48 hours
Variability in how this is done
Areas remarked
Reactions noted- Irritant
Patch testing
Step 6: Patches read at 3-7 days after application
Our clinic reads at 4 days
Consider delayed read for late reactors
Patch testing
Step 7: Determine clinical relevance
Consider the Mathias Criteria for Occupational cases
Excellent tool for ascertaining occupational causation
Keep in mind that irritant CD remains a diagnosis of exclusion, and dermatitis may be both ICD and ACD, multifactorial, etc.
Patch testing
Step 8: Instruct in avoidance of allergen(s) and cross-reactors
If in topical medicaments, cosmetics, etc. it is best to print out the CAMP “safe list”
On American Contact Dermatitis Society member webpage
Mayo Clinic also has a database
Also consider all objects that may contain allergen
Information (written) and verbal counseling of patient is KEY
May include modified work, increased or alternative PPE, modified environment-both home and work
Mathias Criteria
1. Is the clinical appearance consistent with contact dermatitis?
2. Are there workplace exposures to potential cutaneous irritants or allergens?
3. Is the anatomic distribution of the dermatitis consistent with cutaneous exposure in relation to work tasks?
4. Is there a temporal association between onset of dermatitis and exposure consistent with contact dermatitis?
Mathias Criteria
5. Are non-occupational exposures excluded as probable causes?
6. Does dermatitis improve away from work exposure to the suspected allergen or irritant?
7. Do patch or provocation tests identify a probable causal agent?
Mathias Criteria
Answer of “yes” to 4 or more of the 7 criteria yields a greater than 50% probability of occupational cause
Provides a “reasonable degree of medical certainty”
Allergens
Top 10 Allergens in North America
Nickel sulfate
Balsam of Peru
Fragrance mix I
Quaternium-15
Neomycin
Bacitracin
Formaldehyde
Cobalt chloride
Fragrance mix II
p-Phenylenediamine
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Formaldehyde-Releasers
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Quaternium-15
Imidazolidinyl urea (Germall 115)
Diazolidinyl urea (Germall II)
DMDM hydantoin (Glydant)
2-Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (Bronopol)
Sodium hydroxymethyl glycinate
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Workplace Allergens- Canada
Epoxy resin
Thiuram Mix
Carba Mix
Nickel sulfate
Cobalt chloride
Potassium dichromate
Glyceryl thioglycolate
P-phenylenediamine
Formaldehyde
Glutaraldehyde
Arrandale et al Am J Ind Med 2012; 55:353-60.
Top Workplace Allergens-Denmark
Rubber allergens
Epoxy (windmill workers)
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
What’s new in Occupational Contact Allergens?
Coconut derivatives
Capryldiethanolamine in metalworking fluids
May not react to:
Monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, methyldiethanolamine, and cocamide DEA
Not in MSDS
Suuronen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 120-121.
Coconut derivatives
Sodium cocoamphopropionate
Surfactant
Derivative of coconut fatty acids condensed with amino-ethyl ethanolamines
Soaps, shampoos, conditioners
Sweden, fast-food workers
Hagvall et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 122-124.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide MEA
AKA tall oil fatty acids monoethanolamide
In metal working fluid
Aalto-Korte et al. Contact Dermatitis, 69,316-7.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA)
Surfactant
Industrial, household and cosmetic products
Finland 19/25 positives were occupational, most in metal industry
Soaps (hand, dish), metalworking fluids, barrier cream
Noted concomitant reactions
Monoethanolamine
Diethanolamine- impurity of cocamide DEA
Aalto-Korte et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 169-174.
Airborne medications
Benzodiazepines
Airborne contact from crushing pills for patients
2 nurses, 1 pharmacy tech, one relative
Consider in facial dermatitis
Swinnen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 227-232.
Sevofluorane
Systemic allergic contact- airborne
Required ROAT (negative to routine patch testing)
Surgeon
Burches et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 62-63.
Medications- Nonairborne
Omeprazole
Horse trainer
Handled paste for horse’s stomach ulcers
Al-Falah et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 377-378.
“Head lad” caring for race horses
Dispensed omeprazole paste via syringe
Alwan et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 376.
Fragrance
Citral
Hands and arms
9 beauticians in high-end spa
DeMozzi and Johnston, Contact Dermatitis 70, 377-378.
D- limonene
Machine cleaners, hand soaps, moisturizers, surface cleanser, dishwashing soaps
Pesonen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 273-279.
Isothiazolinones (Denmark)
Occupations
Painting
Welding (blacksmiths)
Machine operating
Cosmetology
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 295-302.
Sources
Paints and varnishes
Cleaners
Polishing liquids
Some in high concentrations
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 65-74.
Methylisothiazolinone
Ultrasound gel in ultrasonographer
Madsen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 312-313.
Water cooling tower technicians
Maor et al., Dermatitis 26, 62-64.
Allergens
Tricresyl phosphate
Cleaning occupation
In vinyl gloves
Plasticizer
Also in sheer strips (Band Aids)
Crepy et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 325-328.
Blue Collar Workers
Compared to controls patch-tested, BCW higher hand eczema, lower atopic dermatitis
Epoxy resins
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile
2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
Potassium dichromate
Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/ methylisothiazolinone (MI)
Allergen: Occupation
Epoxy: construction
MCI/MI: Painting
Potassium dichromate: tile setting/terrazzo work
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 348-355.
Blue Collar Workers
Case report of a cement worker with poor PPE
Sweden
Legislation in Europe to decrease hexavalent chromium in cement
Addition of ferrous sulfate
Chromium allergy persists
Hedberg et al, Contact dermatitis 70, 321-323.
Hairdressers- Denmark
Hairdressers 2002-2011
Compared to patch tested controls, hairdressers more significantly had Occupational CD and hand eczema, lower AD
Allergens significantly associated:
p-phenylenediamine, thiuram mix, benzocaine
Frequent sensitizers from the hairdressing series:
ammonium persulfate, toluene-2,5-diamine, 3-aminophenol, and 4-aminophenol
New sensitizers:
Cysteamine hydrochloride- substitute for glycerol monothioglycolate (restricted in Germany)
Chloroacetamide- preservative
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 233-237.
Hairdressers- Germany
German contact allergy database 2007-2012
Compared hairdressers to clients
Allergens significantly associated with hairdressers > clients:
Ammonium persulfate
Glyceryl monothioglycolate
Demonstrated concern as young hairdressers still with some positive reaction, despite legislation
Uter et al, Contact Dermatitis 71, 13-20.
Food Industry
Cobalt in a baker
Bregnbak et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 118-119.
Food Industry
Pizza makers
Diallyl disulfide and
Ammonium persulfate
Lembo et al., Dermatitis 25, 194-196.
Wine maker
Potassium metabisulfite
Ortiz et al., Dermatitis 25, 150-151.
Heathcare workers
Chlorhexidine
Australian study
2% relevant ACD in healthcare workers
Higher than other studies, keep on radar
Toholka et al., Australiasian J Derm 54, 303-306.
Preferred Approach to Occupational Exposure
1. Elimination
2. Substitution
3. Isolation
4. Engineering controls
5. Safe work practices
6. Personal protection
Material Safety Data Sheets
Mandated
Hazardous chemical name
Chemical properties
Physical hazards
Route of entry
Known exposure limits
Carcinogenicity
Clean-up practices
Control measures
Contact information
Not required
If proprietary
Specific name often avoided (general category used)
Irritants and sensitizers if <1% concentration
Often do not address prevention of sensitization and irritancy
Diagnosis- MSDS
Diagnosis- MSDS
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
AVOIDANCE!
Allergens
Irritants
Treatment/Prevention
Avoidance
Harder with omnipresent allergens (epoxy versus rubber allergens)
Contact urticaria more problematic than ACD
Clemmensen et al., Br J Dermatol 2014;170.
Personal protective equipment
Legislation
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Recommended short-term high-potency topical steroids for hands:
Clobetasol propionate
Ointment
Halcinonide ointment
No propylene glycol, no sensitizers
For body:
Short-term hydrocortisone 2.5% bid for face, neck, axillae, groin, intertriginousareas
Short-term triamcinolone 0.1% bid for body
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Avoid more than a few weeks of potent steroid use topically
Can thin the skin making hands more susceptible to allergen/irritant!
Consider calcineurin inhibitors topically
Consider IM steroids x 1
Oral steroids with SLOW taper
Doxycycline for anti-inflammatory effects
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Barrier creams- Repair versus Protect
Repair creams with ceramides
Barrier creams with dimethicone
Studies are variable in demonstrating any benefit from barrier creams when compared to regular emollients
At least recommend moisturizing
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Prevention
Barrier creams
Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis
At high dose of application (2-20x actual application) can help prevent ICD
Schliemann et al., Contact dermatitis 70, 19-26.
Cotton liners under gloves
Adisesh et al., Br J Dermatol 2013.
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Appropriate gloves
Match task with glove
“Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing” by Forsberg and Mansdorf
ACDS website lists glove manufacturers
Treating Dermatitis- Step 2 (Maintenance)
Calcineurin inhibitors
Tacrolimus 0.1%
Pimecrolimus 0.1%
Therapeutic moisturizers
Shea butter
Aquaphor
Petrolatum
Lower potency steroids for hands:
Triamcinolone 0.1%
Fluticasone cream or lotion
Hydrocortisone butyrate lipid cream
Clocortolone cream
Treating Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Hand psoralen- ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA)
Narrow-band UV B therapy (NBUVB)
Often used for recalcitrant body dermatitis
Excimer laser
308 nm
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Methotrexate
Mycophenolate mofetil
2-3g/day recommended for control
Acitretin
Best for psoriasiform hand dermatitis
2-4 month course
Cyclosporine
2.5-5 mg/kg daily
Azathioprine
1-3 mg/kg daily
Biologics are not helpful overall (yet!)
Treatment
Multidisciplinary teams aid in successful return to work
German model included inpatient and outpatient care
87% remained in workforce
Weisshaar et al., Contact Dermatitis 2013;68:169-174.
Netherlands included a dermatologist, education nurse, occupational medicine physician
Van Gils et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012 66(4) and 66(5).
Canadian model
Gomez et al., Dermatitis 2011;22(3).
Prevention
Evidence-based intervention
1 hour voluntary hand protective behavior lecture/ intervention
Full-time hospital cleaners
At 3 months post-intervention
Decreased hand cleansing
Better knowledge of hand preservation
Improved hand dermatitis
Clemmensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 47-54.
Occupational Dermatitis Resources
Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing by Forsberg and Mansdorf
Contact and Occupational Dermatology by Marks, Elsner, DeLeo
ACDS website
OSHA, NIOSH
Article December 2011 The Dermatologist
Summary
Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish
We are constantly being exposed to new allergens, often earlier in life
Occupational contact dermatitis is underreported
Patch testing for ACD is the gold standard
Can try TRUE test, consider referral for comprehensive panels
Novel allergens in the workplace
Summary
Think outside the box
Try a stepwise approach
Elimination
Treatment
Escalate treatment
Will be chronic if exposure continues
You can make a huge difference in patient’s quality of life
References
Marks et al., 2002. Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact and Occupational Dermatology, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby, 2002.
Nelson and Yiannias, 2009. Nelson S.A., Yiannias J.A.: Relevance and avoidance of skin-care product allergens: Pearls and pitfalls. Dermatol Clin 2009; 27(3):329-336.
Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test. Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test) : Available at:[accessed 03.07.11] http://www.truetest.com/PatientPDF/File18.pdf
Zug et al., 2009. Zug K.A., Warshaw E.M., Fowler J.F., et al: Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 2009; 20:149-160.
Emmett EA. Occupational contact dermatitis I. Incidence and return to work pressures. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2002;13:30–4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. [Bulletin 2512]. Washington (DC): US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1999.
Lushniak BD. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin1995; 13:671–9.
Skoet R, Olsen J, Mathiesen B, et al. A survey of occupational hand eczema in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51(4):159–66.
Staton I, Ma R, Evans N, et al. Dermal nickel exposure associated with coin handling and in various occupational settings: assessment using a newly developed finger immersion method. Br J Dermatol 2006;154(4):658–64.
Veien NK, Menne T. Treatment of hand eczema. Skin Therapy Lett 2003;8(5):4–7. 137.
Warshaw E. Therapeutic options for chronic hand dermatitis. Dermatol Ther2004;4:17240–50.
Schalock PC, Zug KA, Carter JC, et al. Efficacy and patient perception of Grenz ray therapy in the treatment of dermatoses refractory to other medical therapy. Dermatitis 2008;19(2):90–4.
Abramovits W, Granowski P. Innovative management of severe hand dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 28 (2010) 453-65.
Blanciforti, L. Economic burden of dermatitis in US workers. JOEM 52. (11):1045-54. 2010.
References
Sprigle AM, Marks JG Jr, Anderson BE. Prevention of nickel release with barrier coatings. Dermatitis. 2008,19(1):28-31.
Diepgen T.L., Coenraads P.J.: The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72. (8): 496-506.1999.
Keil J.E., Shmunes E.: The epidemiology of work-related skin disease in South Carolina. Arch Dermatol 119. (8): 650-654.1983.
Mathias C.G.: Occupational dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol 19. (6): 1107-1114.1988.
Goh C.L.: An epidemiological comparison between occupational and non-occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 120. (1): 77-82.1989.
Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact & occupational dermatology. 3rd ed Mosby St. Louis, (MO)2002.
Holness D.L.: Characteristic features of occupational dermatitis: epidemiologic studies of occupational skin disease reported by contact dermatitis clinics. Occup Med 9. (1): 45-52.1994.
Belsito D.V.: Occupational contact dermatitis: etiology, prevalence, and resultant impairment/disability. J Am Acad Dermatol 53. (2): 303-313.2005.
Kanerva L., Estlander T., Jolanki R.: Occupational skin disease in Finland. An analysis of 10 years of statistics from an occupational dermatology clinic. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60. (2): 89-94.1988.
Sertoli A., Gola M., Martinelli C., et al: Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Semin Dermatol 8. (2): 120-126.1989.
Rietschel R.L., Mathias C.G., Fowler , Jr. , Jr.J.F., et al: Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermatitis 13. (4): 170-176.2002.
Nethercott J.R., Holness D.L.: Disease outcome in workers with occupational skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 30. (4): 569-574.1994.
Mathias C.G., Morrison J.H.: Occupational skin diseases, United States. Results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 1973 through 1984. Arch Dermatol 124. (10): 1519-1524.1988.
Koch P.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol 2. (6): 353-365.2001.
Bureau of Labor Statistics : Occupational Injuries and illnesses in the United States. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif
Lushniak B.D.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 17. (3): 272-277.2004.
Mathias C.G.: The cost of ccupational skin disease. Arch Dermatol 121. (3): 332-334.1985.
Cvetkovski R.S., Rothman K.J., Olsen J., et al: Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave, and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 152. (1): 93-98.2005.
Thank you!
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
23
1
2
24
25
1
2
26
27
1
2
28
1
2
29
30
1
2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1
2
70
71
72
73
74
1
2
75
76
1
2
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
1
2
84
85
1
2
86
1
2
87
88
89
1
2
90
1
2
91
92
93
94
1
2
95
96
97
98
1
2
3
4
99
100
101
102
103
1
2
104
1
2
105
106
107
108
1
2
109
110
1
2
111
112
113
114
1
2
115
1
2
116
117
118
3/27/2015
15
Occupational DermatologyPearls
Heather P. Lampel, MD, MPH, FAAD, FACOEM
Duke University
Assistant Professor of Dermatology and
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
May 3, 2015
Disclosures
I have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
I will be discussing off-label use of patch testing and off-label treatment of contact dermatitis
I will mention companies
Objectives
Discuss the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in the occupational setting
Differentiate irritant from allergic contact dermatitis
Understand the role of patch testing in diagnosis
Highlight recently described allergens in the workplace
Review the trends in the occupational dermatitis literature 2014- present
Explore pitfalls and misconceptions in the workplace
Why should we care?
Occupational skin disease is a “hot” topic
Healthy People 2020
“Reduce occupational skin diseases or disorders among full-time workers”
ACOEM Core Competencies- Clinical Dermatology
OEM physicians can provide early recognition, diagnosis, and management …
Diagnose primary irritant-induced dermatoses
Differentiate occupational skin disorders…
Diagnose and determine the cause of allergic contact dermatitis …
Manage occupational and environmental skin injuries and dermatoses
Treat and prevent recurrence of contact dermatitis
Epidemiology of Occupational Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis
Contact dermatitis (CD) is reported to account for up to 30% of all occupational disease in industrialized nations
CD is the most common occupational skin disorder
About 90-95% of all cases of occupational skin diseases
Occupational CD Epidemiology United States
Incidence rate of 0.5-1.9 cases per 1000 full-time workers per year
US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004 estimated 48,800 cases of Occupational CD
1 year prevalence estimate of 20%
21-22% in healthcare workers
Ibler et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012;67:200-207.
Luk et al., Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:329-335.
Occupational CD Epidemiology Denmark
Occupational CD
95% of all occupational skin cases
Irritant CD 70% of these Occupational CD
68% due to wet work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
True epidemiologic data are lacking
Likely underestimated due to underreporting
Mild cases specifically
Bureau of Labor Statistics has rigorous criteria for inclusion
May not be obviously work-related (delayed-onset)
Self-treated
Only requiring first aid excluded
Underestimated by 85-88%
Luckhaupt et al., Am J Ind Med 2012.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Survey of established cases of Occupational CD reported that over one year:
19.9% reported prolonged sick leave
23% reported job loss
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
1985 Mathias estimated annual costs of Occupational CD to be between $222 million and $1 billion
2004 NIOSH estimates $1.2 billion
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Hands are usually involved
80-90% of cases
Great impact on quality of life
What percent of all contact dermatitis is allergic versus irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis accounts for 60-80% of all CD
Allergic contact dermatitis accounts for remaining 20-40%
Overlap common
Contact Dermatitis Overview
ACD is a SPECIFIC immunologic reaction, requiring prior sensitization
Elliott G and Das PK. Using p-Phenylenediamine: A Gateway to Chemical Immunology. Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2010) 130, 641–643.
Immunology of Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis Overview
90% of the population can be sensitized to certain antigens such as dinitrochlorobenzene
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis is NONSPECIFIC
Requires no prior sensitization
Clinically can be difficult to distinguish ICD from ACD
Common Occupational Irritants
Alkalis
Soaps
Detergents
Cleansers
Acids
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum
Oils
Solvents
Common Occupational Irritants
Frictional Dermatitis
Repetitive handling of objects or materials
Likely underappreciated
Examples
Fabric
Paper
Metal objects
Driving
Common Occupational Irritants
Gloves
Prolonged contact with skin affects the epidermal barrier
May be irritant itself
May make epidermal barrier more susceptible to allergens or other irritants
Irritants- Recent Literature
Wet work
Irritant chemicals
Solvents
Food
Detergents
Gloves
Mechanical trauma
Air (warm, dry)
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations
Occupations at High-Risk for Hand Dermatitis
Hairdressers
Musicians
Food Industry workers
Agricultural workers
Factory workers
Electronics workers
Cleaners/Washers
Housekeepers
Printers
Builders
Medical and Dental workers
Occupations at Risk for ICD
Hairdressers
Nursing
Doctors
Mechanics
Cooks
Cleaners
Painters
Plumbers
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations at Risk for CD- Denmark
Healthcare
Cleaning
Kitchen work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Epidemiology by Occupation
Shoe manufacturer
Indonesia
29% OCD point prevalence
Febriana et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2014; 87.
Poultry processing and manual laborers
1 year prevalence 23% skin symptoms
Quandt et al., Am J Indust Medicine 2014; 57.
Construction Industry
25.4% point prevalence of hand skin symptoms
Timmerman et al., Am J Ind Med 2014; 57.
Healthcare workers
Dutch apprentice nurses followed prospectively
1 year period prevalence of hand eczema
23% in first year
25% in second year
31% in third year
Frequent hand washing at work, at home, and outside wet work job all risk factors
Visser et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 44-55.
ACD vs ICD
Photo Quiz
Allergic or Irritant Contact Dermatitis?
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic and Irritant
Debunking the myths…
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
FALSE
Allergy can develop after years of using the same product
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
FALSE
There are many cross-reactants in other products, it is best to have NO exposures to topicals/cross-reactors when clearing a rash
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
NOT NECESSARILY
Common misconception held by MDs
There are many aspects affecting end-product eruption
Can be patchy!
CD Misconceptions
Adult onset “eczema”
If no history of eczema or atopy, more likely ACD
Especially if on hands, face, neck
90% of eczema has onset by age 5
“The greatest abuse of patch testing is failure to use the test.”
Coleman, 1982
Epicutaneous Patch testing
Intended to detect allergens relevant to eruption
Is at least a week-long process
Detects Type IV allergic reaction (delayed-type hypersensitivity)
Requires at least 2-3 visits to clinic for complete testing
T.R.U.E. Test
Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test
Allerderm product
Only FDA-approved patch testing product
36 allergens
Comes pre-filled
May not detect all relevant allergens
Patch testing
Step 1: Take extensive exposure history
Include home exposures, work tasks and exposures, implants, intermittent exposures, MSDS if appropriate
Patch testing
Step 2: Determine allergen panel
Would be pre-determined if only TRUE Test is available
Patch testing
Step 3: Prepare allergen tray as appropriate
TRUE test is pre-prepared
Patch testing
Step 4: Apply patches to back
Back must be clear of rash
Patches are marked
Securing paper tape is used
Patch testing
Step 5: Patches removed in 48 hours
Variability in how this is done
Areas remarked
Reactions noted- Irritant
Patch testing
Step 6: Patches read at 3-7 days after application
Our clinic reads at 4 days
Consider delayed read for late reactors
Patch testing
Step 7: Determine clinical relevance
Consider the Mathias Criteria for Occupational cases
Excellent tool for ascertaining occupational causation
Keep in mind that irritant CD remains a diagnosis of exclusion, and dermatitis may be both ICD and ACD, multifactorial, etc.
Patch testing
Step 8: Instruct in avoidance of allergen(s) and cross-reactors
If in topical medicaments, cosmetics, etc. it is best to print out the CAMP “safe list”
On American Contact Dermatitis Society member webpage
Mayo Clinic also has a database
Also consider all objects that may contain allergen
Information (written) and verbal counseling of patient is KEY
May include modified work, increased or alternative PPE, modified environment-both home and work
Mathias Criteria
1. Is the clinical appearance consistent with contact dermatitis?
2. Are there workplace exposures to potential cutaneous irritants or allergens?
3. Is the anatomic distribution of the dermatitis consistent with cutaneous exposure in relation to work tasks?
4. Is there a temporal association between onset of dermatitis and exposure consistent with contact dermatitis?
Mathias Criteria
5. Are non-occupational exposures excluded as probable causes?
6. Does dermatitis improve away from work exposure to the suspected allergen or irritant?
7. Do patch or provocation tests identify a probable causal agent?
Mathias Criteria
Answer of “yes” to 4 or more of the 7 criteria yields a greater than 50% probability of occupational cause
Provides a “reasonable degree of medical certainty”
Allergens
Top 10 Allergens in North America
Nickel sulfate
Balsam of Peru
Fragrance mix I
Quaternium-15
Neomycin
Bacitracin
Formaldehyde
Cobalt chloride
Fragrance mix II
p-Phenylenediamine
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Formaldehyde-Releasers
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Quaternium-15
Imidazolidinyl urea (Germall 115)
Diazolidinyl urea (Germall II)
DMDM hydantoin (Glydant)
2-Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (Bronopol)
Sodium hydroxymethyl glycinate
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Workplace Allergens- Canada
Epoxy resin
Thiuram Mix
Carba Mix
Nickel sulfate
Cobalt chloride
Potassium dichromate
Glyceryl thioglycolate
P-phenylenediamine
Formaldehyde
Glutaraldehyde
Arrandale et al Am J Ind Med 2012; 55:353-60.
Top Workplace Allergens-Denmark
Rubber allergens
Epoxy (windmill workers)
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
What’s new in Occupational Contact Allergens?
Coconut derivatives
Capryldiethanolamine in metalworking fluids
May not react to:
Monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, methyldiethanolamine, and cocamide DEA
Not in MSDS
Suuronen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 120-121.
Coconut derivatives
Sodium cocoamphopropionate
Surfactant
Derivative of coconut fatty acids condensed with amino-ethyl ethanolamines
Soaps, shampoos, conditioners
Sweden, fast-food workers
Hagvall et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 122-124.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide MEA
AKA tall oil fatty acids monoethanolamide
In metal working fluid
Aalto-Korte et al. Contact Dermatitis, 69,316-7.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA)
Surfactant
Industrial, household and cosmetic products
Finland 19/25 positives were occupational, most in metal industry
Soaps (hand, dish), metalworking fluids, barrier cream
Noted concomitant reactions
Monoethanolamine
Diethanolamine- impurity of cocamide DEA
Aalto-Korte et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 169-174.
Airborne medications
Benzodiazepines
Airborne contact from crushing pills for patients
2 nurses, 1 pharmacy tech, one relative
Consider in facial dermatitis
Swinnen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 227-232.
Sevofluorane
Systemic allergic contact- airborne
Required ROAT (negative to routine patch testing)
Surgeon
Burches et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 62-63.
Medications- Nonairborne
Omeprazole
Horse trainer
Handled paste for horse’s stomach ulcers
Al-Falah et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 377-378.
“Head lad” caring for race horses
Dispensed omeprazole paste via syringe
Alwan et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 376.
Fragrance
Citral
Hands and arms
9 beauticians in high-end spa
DeMozzi and Johnston, Contact Dermatitis 70, 377-378.
D- limonene
Machine cleaners, hand soaps, moisturizers, surface cleanser, dishwashing soaps
Pesonen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 273-279.
Isothiazolinones (Denmark)
Occupations
Painting
Welding (blacksmiths)
Machine operating
Cosmetology
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 295-302.
Sources
Paints and varnishes
Cleaners
Polishing liquids
Some in high concentrations
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 65-74.
Methylisothiazolinone
Ultrasound gel in ultrasonographer
Madsen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 312-313.
Water cooling tower technicians
Maor et al., Dermatitis 26, 62-64.
Allergens
Tricresyl phosphate
Cleaning occupation
In vinyl gloves
Plasticizer
Also in sheer strips (Band Aids)
Crepy et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 325-328.
Blue Collar Workers
Compared to controls patch-tested, BCW higher hand eczema, lower atopic dermatitis
Epoxy resins
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile
2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
Potassium dichromate
Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/ methylisothiazolinone (MI)
Allergen: Occupation
Epoxy: construction
MCI/MI: Painting
Potassium dichromate: tile setting/terrazzo work
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 348-355.
Blue Collar Workers
Case report of a cement worker with poor PPE
Sweden
Legislation in Europe to decrease hexavalent chromium in cement
Addition of ferrous sulfate
Chromium allergy persists
Hedberg et al, Contact dermatitis 70, 321-323.
Hairdressers- Denmark
Hairdressers 2002-2011
Compared to patch tested controls, hairdressers more significantly had Occupational CD and hand eczema, lower AD
Allergens significantly associated:
p-phenylenediamine, thiuram mix, benzocaine
Frequent sensitizers from the hairdressing series:
ammonium persulfate, toluene-2,5-diamine, 3-aminophenol, and 4-aminophenol
New sensitizers:
Cysteamine hydrochloride- substitute for glycerol monothioglycolate (restricted in Germany)
Chloroacetamide- preservative
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 233-237.
Hairdressers- Germany
German contact allergy database 2007-2012
Compared hairdressers to clients
Allergens significantly associated with hairdressers > clients:
Ammonium persulfate
Glyceryl monothioglycolate
Demonstrated concern as young hairdressers still with some positive reaction, despite legislation
Uter et al, Contact Dermatitis 71, 13-20.
Food Industry
Cobalt in a baker
Bregnbak et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 118-119.
Food Industry
Pizza makers
Diallyl disulfide and
Ammonium persulfate
Lembo et al., Dermatitis 25, 194-196.
Wine maker
Potassium metabisulfite
Ortiz et al., Dermatitis 25, 150-151.
Heathcare workers
Chlorhexidine
Australian study
2% relevant ACD in healthcare workers
Higher than other studies, keep on radar
Toholka et al., Australiasian J Derm 54, 303-306.
Preferred Approach to Occupational Exposure
1. Elimination
2. Substitution
3. Isolation
4. Engineering controls
5. Safe work practices
6. Personal protection
Material Safety Data Sheets
Mandated
Hazardous chemical name
Chemical properties
Physical hazards
Route of entry
Known exposure limits
Carcinogenicity
Clean-up practices
Control measures
Contact information
Not required
If proprietary
Specific name often avoided (general category used)
Irritants and sensitizers if <1% concentration
Often do not address prevention of sensitization and irritancy
Diagnosis- MSDS
Diagnosis- MSDS
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
AVOIDANCE!
Allergens
Irritants
Treatment/Prevention
Avoidance
Harder with omnipresent allergens (epoxy versus rubber allergens)
Contact urticaria more problematic than ACD
Clemmensen et al., Br J Dermatol 2014;170.
Personal protective equipment
Legislation
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Recommended short-term high-potency topical steroids for hands:
Clobetasol propionate
Ointment
Halcinonide ointment
No propylene glycol, no sensitizers
For body:
Short-term hydrocortisone 2.5% bid for face, neck, axillae, groin, intertriginousareas
Short-term triamcinolone 0.1% bid for body
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Avoid more than a few weeks of potent steroid use topically
Can thin the skin making hands more susceptible to allergen/irritant!
Consider calcineurin inhibitors topically
Consider IM steroids x 1
Oral steroids with SLOW taper
Doxycycline for anti-inflammatory effects
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Barrier creams- Repair versus Protect
Repair creams with ceramides
Barrier creams with dimethicone
Studies are variable in demonstrating any benefit from barrier creams when compared to regular emollients
At least recommend moisturizing
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Prevention
Barrier creams
Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis
At high dose of application (2-20x actual application) can help prevent ICD
Schliemann et al., Contact dermatitis 70, 19-26.
Cotton liners under gloves
Adisesh et al., Br J Dermatol 2013.
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Appropriate gloves
Match task with glove
“Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing” by Forsberg and Mansdorf
ACDS website lists glove manufacturers
Treating Dermatitis- Step 2 (Maintenance)
Calcineurin inhibitors
Tacrolimus 0.1%
Pimecrolimus 0.1%
Therapeutic moisturizers
Shea butter
Aquaphor
Petrolatum
Lower potency steroids for hands:
Triamcinolone 0.1%
Fluticasone cream or lotion
Hydrocortisone butyrate lipid cream
Clocortolone cream
Treating Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Hand psoralen- ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA)
Narrow-band UV B therapy (NBUVB)
Often used for recalcitrant body dermatitis
Excimer laser
308 nm
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Methotrexate
Mycophenolate mofetil
2-3g/day recommended for control
Acitretin
Best for psoriasiform hand dermatitis
2-4 month course
Cyclosporine
2.5-5 mg/kg daily
Azathioprine
1-3 mg/kg daily
Biologics are not helpful overall (yet!)
Treatment
Multidisciplinary teams aid in successful return to work
German model included inpatient and outpatient care
87% remained in workforce
Weisshaar et al., Contact Dermatitis 2013;68:169-174.
Netherlands included a dermatologist, education nurse, occupational medicine physician
Van Gils et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012 66(4) and 66(5).
Canadian model
Gomez et al., Dermatitis 2011;22(3).
Prevention
Evidence-based intervention
1 hour voluntary hand protective behavior lecture/ intervention
Full-time hospital cleaners
At 3 months post-intervention
Decreased hand cleansing
Better knowledge of hand preservation
Improved hand dermatitis
Clemmensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 47-54.
Occupational Dermatitis Resources
Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing by Forsberg and Mansdorf
Contact and Occupational Dermatology by Marks, Elsner, DeLeo
ACDS website
OSHA, NIOSH
Article December 2011 The Dermatologist
Summary
Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish
We are constantly being exposed to new allergens, often earlier in life
Occupational contact dermatitis is underreported
Patch testing for ACD is the gold standard
Can try TRUE test, consider referral for comprehensive panels
Novel allergens in the workplace
Summary
Think outside the box
Try a stepwise approach
Elimination
Treatment
Escalate treatment
Will be chronic if exposure continues
You can make a huge difference in patient’s quality of life
References
Marks et al., 2002. Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact and Occupational Dermatology, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby, 2002.
Nelson and Yiannias, 2009. Nelson S.A., Yiannias J.A.: Relevance and avoidance of skin-care product allergens: Pearls and pitfalls. Dermatol Clin 2009; 27(3):329-336.
Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test. Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test) : Available at:[accessed 03.07.11] http://www.truetest.com/PatientPDF/File18.pdf
Zug et al., 2009. Zug K.A., Warshaw E.M., Fowler J.F., et al: Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 2009; 20:149-160.
Emmett EA. Occupational contact dermatitis I. Incidence and return to work pressures. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2002;13:30–4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. [Bulletin 2512]. Washington (DC): US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1999.
Lushniak BD. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin1995; 13:671–9.
Skoet R, Olsen J, Mathiesen B, et al. A survey of occupational hand eczema in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51(4):159–66.
Staton I, Ma R, Evans N, et al. Dermal nickel exposure associated with coin handling and in various occupational settings: assessment using a newly developed finger immersion method. Br J Dermatol 2006;154(4):658–64.
Veien NK, Menne T. Treatment of hand eczema. Skin Therapy Lett 2003;8(5):4–7. 137.
Warshaw E. Therapeutic options for chronic hand dermatitis. Dermatol Ther2004;4:17240–50.
Schalock PC, Zug KA, Carter JC, et al. Efficacy and patient perception of Grenz ray therapy in the treatment of dermatoses refractory to other medical therapy. Dermatitis 2008;19(2):90–4.
Abramovits W, Granowski P. Innovative management of severe hand dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 28 (2010) 453-65.
Blanciforti, L. Economic burden of dermatitis in US workers. JOEM 52. (11):1045-54. 2010.
References
Sprigle AM, Marks JG Jr, Anderson BE. Prevention of nickel release with barrier coatings. Dermatitis. 2008,19(1):28-31.
Diepgen T.L., Coenraads P.J.: The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72. (8): 496-506.1999.
Keil J.E., Shmunes E.: The epidemiology of work-related skin disease in South Carolina. Arch Dermatol 119. (8): 650-654.1983.
Mathias C.G.: Occupational dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol 19. (6): 1107-1114.1988.
Goh C.L.: An epidemiological comparison between occupational and non-occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 120. (1): 77-82.1989.
Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact & occupational dermatology. 3rd ed Mosby St. Louis, (MO)2002.
Holness D.L.: Characteristic features of occupational dermatitis: epidemiologic studies of occupational skin disease reported by contact dermatitis clinics. Occup Med 9. (1): 45-52.1994.
Belsito D.V.: Occupational contact dermatitis: etiology, prevalence, and resultant impairment/disability. J Am Acad Dermatol 53. (2): 303-313.2005.
Kanerva L., Estlander T., Jolanki R.: Occupational skin disease in Finland. An analysis of 10 years of statistics from an occupational dermatology clinic. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60. (2): 89-94.1988.
Sertoli A., Gola M., Martinelli C., et al: Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Semin Dermatol 8. (2): 120-126.1989.
Rietschel R.L., Mathias C.G., Fowler , Jr. , Jr.J.F., et al: Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermatitis 13. (4): 170-176.2002.
Nethercott J.R., Holness D.L.: Disease outcome in workers with occupational skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 30. (4): 569-574.1994.
Mathias C.G., Morrison J.H.: Occupational skin diseases, United States. Results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 1973 through 1984. Arch Dermatol 124. (10): 1519-1524.1988.
Koch P.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol 2. (6): 353-365.2001.
Bureau of Labor Statistics : Occupational Injuries and illnesses in the United States. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif
Lushniak B.D.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 17. (3): 272-277.2004.
Mathias C.G.: The cost of ccupational skin disease. Arch Dermatol 121. (3): 332-334.1985.
Cvetkovski R.S., Rothman K.J., Olsen J., et al: Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave, and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 152. (1): 93-98.2005.
Thank you!
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
23
1
2
24
25
1
2
26
27
1
2
28
1
2
29
30
1
2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1
2
70
71
72
73
74
1
2
75
76
1
2
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
1
2
84
85
1
2
86
1
2
87
88
89
1
2
90
1
2
91
92
93
94
1
2
95
96
97
98
1
2
3
4
99
100
101
102
103
1
2
104
1
2
105
106
107
108
1
2
109
110
1
2
111
112
113
114
1
2
115
1
2
116
117
118
3/27/2015
16
Occupational DermatologyPearls
Heather P. Lampel, MD, MPH, FAAD, FACOEM
Duke University
Assistant Professor of Dermatology and
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
May 3, 2015
Disclosures
I have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
I will be discussing off-label use of patch testing and off-label treatment of contact dermatitis
I will mention companies
Objectives
Discuss the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in the occupational setting
Differentiate irritant from allergic contact dermatitis
Understand the role of patch testing in diagnosis
Highlight recently described allergens in the workplace
Review the trends in the occupational dermatitis literature 2014- present
Explore pitfalls and misconceptions in the workplace
Why should we care?
Occupational skin disease is a “hot” topic
Healthy People 2020
“Reduce occupational skin diseases or disorders among full-time workers”
ACOEM Core Competencies- Clinical Dermatology
OEM physicians can provide early recognition, diagnosis, and management …
Diagnose primary irritant-induced dermatoses
Differentiate occupational skin disorders…
Diagnose and determine the cause of allergic contact dermatitis …
Manage occupational and environmental skin injuries and dermatoses
Treat and prevent recurrence of contact dermatitis
Epidemiology of Occupational Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis
Contact dermatitis (CD) is reported to account for up to 30% of all occupational disease in industrialized nations
CD is the most common occupational skin disorder
About 90-95% of all cases of occupational skin diseases
Occupational CD Epidemiology United States
Incidence rate of 0.5-1.9 cases per 1000 full-time workers per year
US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004 estimated 48,800 cases of Occupational CD
1 year prevalence estimate of 20%
21-22% in healthcare workers
Ibler et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012;67:200-207.
Luk et al., Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:329-335.
Occupational CD Epidemiology Denmark
Occupational CD
95% of all occupational skin cases
Irritant CD 70% of these Occupational CD
68% due to wet work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
True epidemiologic data are lacking
Likely underestimated due to underreporting
Mild cases specifically
Bureau of Labor Statistics has rigorous criteria for inclusion
May not be obviously work-related (delayed-onset)
Self-treated
Only requiring first aid excluded
Underestimated by 85-88%
Luckhaupt et al., Am J Ind Med 2012.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Survey of established cases of Occupational CD reported that over one year:
19.9% reported prolonged sick leave
23% reported job loss
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
1985 Mathias estimated annual costs of Occupational CD to be between $222 million and $1 billion
2004 NIOSH estimates $1.2 billion
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Hands are usually involved
80-90% of cases
Great impact on quality of life
What percent of all contact dermatitis is allergic versus irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis accounts for 60-80% of all CD
Allergic contact dermatitis accounts for remaining 20-40%
Overlap common
Contact Dermatitis Overview
ACD is a SPECIFIC immunologic reaction, requiring prior sensitization
Elliott G and Das PK. Using p-Phenylenediamine: A Gateway to Chemical Immunology. Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2010) 130, 641–643.
Immunology of Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis Overview
90% of the population can be sensitized to certain antigens such as dinitrochlorobenzene
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis is NONSPECIFIC
Requires no prior sensitization
Clinically can be difficult to distinguish ICD from ACD
Common Occupational Irritants
Alkalis
Soaps
Detergents
Cleansers
Acids
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum
Oils
Solvents
Common Occupational Irritants
Frictional Dermatitis
Repetitive handling of objects or materials
Likely underappreciated
Examples
Fabric
Paper
Metal objects
Driving
Common Occupational Irritants
Gloves
Prolonged contact with skin affects the epidermal barrier
May be irritant itself
May make epidermal barrier more susceptible to allergens or other irritants
Irritants- Recent Literature
Wet work
Irritant chemicals
Solvents
Food
Detergents
Gloves
Mechanical trauma
Air (warm, dry)
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations
Occupations at High-Risk for Hand Dermatitis
Hairdressers
Musicians
Food Industry workers
Agricultural workers
Factory workers
Electronics workers
Cleaners/Washers
Housekeepers
Printers
Builders
Medical and Dental workers
Occupations at Risk for ICD
Hairdressers
Nursing
Doctors
Mechanics
Cooks
Cleaners
Painters
Plumbers
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations at Risk for CD- Denmark
Healthcare
Cleaning
Kitchen work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Epidemiology by Occupation
Shoe manufacturer
Indonesia
29% OCD point prevalence
Febriana et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2014; 87.
Poultry processing and manual laborers
1 year prevalence 23% skin symptoms
Quandt et al., Am J Indust Medicine 2014; 57.
Construction Industry
25.4% point prevalence of hand skin symptoms
Timmerman et al., Am J Ind Med 2014; 57.
Healthcare workers
Dutch apprentice nurses followed prospectively
1 year period prevalence of hand eczema
23% in first year
25% in second year
31% in third year
Frequent hand washing at work, at home, and outside wet work job all risk factors
Visser et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 44-55.
ACD vs ICD
Photo Quiz
Allergic or Irritant Contact Dermatitis?
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic and Irritant
Debunking the myths…
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
FALSE
Allergy can develop after years of using the same product
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
FALSE
There are many cross-reactants in other products, it is best to have NO exposures to topicals/cross-reactors when clearing a rash
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
NOT NECESSARILY
Common misconception held by MDs
There are many aspects affecting end-product eruption
Can be patchy!
CD Misconceptions
Adult onset “eczema”
If no history of eczema or atopy, more likely ACD
Especially if on hands, face, neck
90% of eczema has onset by age 5
“The greatest abuse of patch testing is failure to use the test.”
Coleman, 1982
Epicutaneous Patch testing
Intended to detect allergens relevant to eruption
Is at least a week-long process
Detects Type IV allergic reaction (delayed-type hypersensitivity)
Requires at least 2-3 visits to clinic for complete testing
T.R.U.E. Test
Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test
Allerderm product
Only FDA-approved patch testing product
36 allergens
Comes pre-filled
May not detect all relevant allergens
Patch testing
Step 1: Take extensive exposure history
Include home exposures, work tasks and exposures, implants, intermittent exposures, MSDS if appropriate
Patch testing
Step 2: Determine allergen panel
Would be pre-determined if only TRUE Test is available
Patch testing
Step 3: Prepare allergen tray as appropriate
TRUE test is pre-prepared
Patch testing
Step 4: Apply patches to back
Back must be clear of rash
Patches are marked
Securing paper tape is used
Patch testing
Step 5: Patches removed in 48 hours
Variability in how this is done
Areas remarked
Reactions noted- Irritant
Patch testing
Step 6: Patches read at 3-7 days after application
Our clinic reads at 4 days
Consider delayed read for late reactors
Patch testing
Step 7: Determine clinical relevance
Consider the Mathias Criteria for Occupational cases
Excellent tool for ascertaining occupational causation
Keep in mind that irritant CD remains a diagnosis of exclusion, and dermatitis may be both ICD and ACD, multifactorial, etc.
Patch testing
Step 8: Instruct in avoidance of allergen(s) and cross-reactors
If in topical medicaments, cosmetics, etc. it is best to print out the CAMP “safe list”
On American Contact Dermatitis Society member webpage
Mayo Clinic also has a database
Also consider all objects that may contain allergen
Information (written) and verbal counseling of patient is KEY
May include modified work, increased or alternative PPE, modified environment-both home and work
Mathias Criteria
1. Is the clinical appearance consistent with contact dermatitis?
2. Are there workplace exposures to potential cutaneous irritants or allergens?
3. Is the anatomic distribution of the dermatitis consistent with cutaneous exposure in relation to work tasks?
4. Is there a temporal association between onset of dermatitis and exposure consistent with contact dermatitis?
Mathias Criteria
5. Are non-occupational exposures excluded as probable causes?
6. Does dermatitis improve away from work exposure to the suspected allergen or irritant?
7. Do patch or provocation tests identify a probable causal agent?
Mathias Criteria
Answer of “yes” to 4 or more of the 7 criteria yields a greater than 50% probability of occupational cause
Provides a “reasonable degree of medical certainty”
Allergens
Top 10 Allergens in North America
Nickel sulfate
Balsam of Peru
Fragrance mix I
Quaternium-15
Neomycin
Bacitracin
Formaldehyde
Cobalt chloride
Fragrance mix II
p-Phenylenediamine
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Formaldehyde-Releasers
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Quaternium-15
Imidazolidinyl urea (Germall 115)
Diazolidinyl urea (Germall II)
DMDM hydantoin (Glydant)
2-Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (Bronopol)
Sodium hydroxymethyl glycinate
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Workplace Allergens- Canada
Epoxy resin
Thiuram Mix
Carba Mix
Nickel sulfate
Cobalt chloride
Potassium dichromate
Glyceryl thioglycolate
P-phenylenediamine
Formaldehyde
Glutaraldehyde
Arrandale et al Am J Ind Med 2012; 55:353-60.
Top Workplace Allergens-Denmark
Rubber allergens
Epoxy (windmill workers)
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
What’s new in Occupational Contact Allergens?
Coconut derivatives
Capryldiethanolamine in metalworking fluids
May not react to:
Monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, methyldiethanolamine, and cocamide DEA
Not in MSDS
Suuronen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 120-121.
Coconut derivatives
Sodium cocoamphopropionate
Surfactant
Derivative of coconut fatty acids condensed with amino-ethyl ethanolamines
Soaps, shampoos, conditioners
Sweden, fast-food workers
Hagvall et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 122-124.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide MEA
AKA tall oil fatty acids monoethanolamide
In metal working fluid
Aalto-Korte et al. Contact Dermatitis, 69,316-7.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA)
Surfactant
Industrial, household and cosmetic products
Finland 19/25 positives were occupational, most in metal industry
Soaps (hand, dish), metalworking fluids, barrier cream
Noted concomitant reactions
Monoethanolamine
Diethanolamine- impurity of cocamide DEA
Aalto-Korte et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 169-174.
Airborne medications
Benzodiazepines
Airborne contact from crushing pills for patients
2 nurses, 1 pharmacy tech, one relative
Consider in facial dermatitis
Swinnen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 227-232.
Sevofluorane
Systemic allergic contact- airborne
Required ROAT (negative to routine patch testing)
Surgeon
Burches et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 62-63.
Medications- Nonairborne
Omeprazole
Horse trainer
Handled paste for horse’s stomach ulcers
Al-Falah et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 377-378.
“Head lad” caring for race horses
Dispensed omeprazole paste via syringe
Alwan et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 376.
Fragrance
Citral
Hands and arms
9 beauticians in high-end spa
DeMozzi and Johnston, Contact Dermatitis 70, 377-378.
D- limonene
Machine cleaners, hand soaps, moisturizers, surface cleanser, dishwashing soaps
Pesonen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 273-279.
Isothiazolinones (Denmark)
Occupations
Painting
Welding (blacksmiths)
Machine operating
Cosmetology
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 295-302.
Sources
Paints and varnishes
Cleaners
Polishing liquids
Some in high concentrations
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 65-74.
Methylisothiazolinone
Ultrasound gel in ultrasonographer
Madsen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 312-313.
Water cooling tower technicians
Maor et al., Dermatitis 26, 62-64.
Allergens
Tricresyl phosphate
Cleaning occupation
In vinyl gloves
Plasticizer
Also in sheer strips (Band Aids)
Crepy et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 325-328.
Blue Collar Workers
Compared to controls patch-tested, BCW higher hand eczema, lower atopic dermatitis
Epoxy resins
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile
2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
Potassium dichromate
Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/ methylisothiazolinone (MI)
Allergen: Occupation
Epoxy: construction
MCI/MI: Painting
Potassium dichromate: tile setting/terrazzo work
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 348-355.
Blue Collar Workers
Case report of a cement worker with poor PPE
Sweden
Legislation in Europe to decrease hexavalent chromium in cement
Addition of ferrous sulfate
Chromium allergy persists
Hedberg et al, Contact dermatitis 70, 321-323.
Hairdressers- Denmark
Hairdressers 2002-2011
Compared to patch tested controls, hairdressers more significantly had Occupational CD and hand eczema, lower AD
Allergens significantly associated:
p-phenylenediamine, thiuram mix, benzocaine
Frequent sensitizers from the hairdressing series:
ammonium persulfate, toluene-2,5-diamine, 3-aminophenol, and 4-aminophenol
New sensitizers:
Cysteamine hydrochloride- substitute for glycerol monothioglycolate (restricted in Germany)
Chloroacetamide- preservative
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 233-237.
Hairdressers- Germany
German contact allergy database 2007-2012
Compared hairdressers to clients
Allergens significantly associated with hairdressers > clients:
Ammonium persulfate
Glyceryl monothioglycolate
Demonstrated concern as young hairdressers still with some positive reaction, despite legislation
Uter et al, Contact Dermatitis 71, 13-20.
Food Industry
Cobalt in a baker
Bregnbak et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 118-119.
Food Industry
Pizza makers
Diallyl disulfide and
Ammonium persulfate
Lembo et al., Dermatitis 25, 194-196.
Wine maker
Potassium metabisulfite
Ortiz et al., Dermatitis 25, 150-151.
Heathcare workers
Chlorhexidine
Australian study
2% relevant ACD in healthcare workers
Higher than other studies, keep on radar
Toholka et al., Australiasian J Derm 54, 303-306.
Preferred Approach to Occupational Exposure
1. Elimination
2. Substitution
3. Isolation
4. Engineering controls
5. Safe work practices
6. Personal protection
Material Safety Data Sheets
Mandated
Hazardous chemical name
Chemical properties
Physical hazards
Route of entry
Known exposure limits
Carcinogenicity
Clean-up practices
Control measures
Contact information
Not required
If proprietary
Specific name often avoided (general category used)
Irritants and sensitizers if <1% concentration
Often do not address prevention of sensitization and irritancy
Diagnosis- MSDS
Diagnosis- MSDS
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
AVOIDANCE!
Allergens
Irritants
Treatment/Prevention
Avoidance
Harder with omnipresent allergens (epoxy versus rubber allergens)
Contact urticaria more problematic than ACD
Clemmensen et al., Br J Dermatol 2014;170.
Personal protective equipment
Legislation
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Recommended short-term high-potency topical steroids for hands:
Clobetasol propionate
Ointment
Halcinonide ointment
No propylene glycol, no sensitizers
For body:
Short-term hydrocortisone 2.5% bid for face, neck, axillae, groin, intertriginousareas
Short-term triamcinolone 0.1% bid for body
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Avoid more than a few weeks of potent steroid use topically
Can thin the skin making hands more susceptible to allergen/irritant!
Consider calcineurin inhibitors topically
Consider IM steroids x 1
Oral steroids with SLOW taper
Doxycycline for anti-inflammatory effects
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Barrier creams- Repair versus Protect
Repair creams with ceramides
Barrier creams with dimethicone
Studies are variable in demonstrating any benefit from barrier creams when compared to regular emollients
At least recommend moisturizing
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Prevention
Barrier creams
Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis
At high dose of application (2-20x actual application) can help prevent ICD
Schliemann et al., Contact dermatitis 70, 19-26.
Cotton liners under gloves
Adisesh et al., Br J Dermatol 2013.
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Appropriate gloves
Match task with glove
“Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing” by Forsberg and Mansdorf
ACDS website lists glove manufacturers
Treating Dermatitis- Step 2 (Maintenance)
Calcineurin inhibitors
Tacrolimus 0.1%
Pimecrolimus 0.1%
Therapeutic moisturizers
Shea butter
Aquaphor
Petrolatum
Lower potency steroids for hands:
Triamcinolone 0.1%
Fluticasone cream or lotion
Hydrocortisone butyrate lipid cream
Clocortolone cream
Treating Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Hand psoralen- ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA)
Narrow-band UV B therapy (NBUVB)
Often used for recalcitrant body dermatitis
Excimer laser
308 nm
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Methotrexate
Mycophenolate mofetil
2-3g/day recommended for control
Acitretin
Best for psoriasiform hand dermatitis
2-4 month course
Cyclosporine
2.5-5 mg/kg daily
Azathioprine
1-3 mg/kg daily
Biologics are not helpful overall (yet!)
Treatment
Multidisciplinary teams aid in successful return to work
German model included inpatient and outpatient care
87% remained in workforce
Weisshaar et al., Contact Dermatitis 2013;68:169-174.
Netherlands included a dermatologist, education nurse, occupational medicine physician
Van Gils et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012 66(4) and 66(5).
Canadian model
Gomez et al., Dermatitis 2011;22(3).
Prevention
Evidence-based intervention
1 hour voluntary hand protective behavior lecture/ intervention
Full-time hospital cleaners
At 3 months post-intervention
Decreased hand cleansing
Better knowledge of hand preservation
Improved hand dermatitis
Clemmensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 47-54.
Occupational Dermatitis Resources
Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing by Forsberg and Mansdorf
Contact and Occupational Dermatology by Marks, Elsner, DeLeo
ACDS website
OSHA, NIOSH
Article December 2011 The Dermatologist
Summary
Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish
We are constantly being exposed to new allergens, often earlier in life
Occupational contact dermatitis is underreported
Patch testing for ACD is the gold standard
Can try TRUE test, consider referral for comprehensive panels
Novel allergens in the workplace
Summary
Think outside the box
Try a stepwise approach
Elimination
Treatment
Escalate treatment
Will be chronic if exposure continues
You can make a huge difference in patient’s quality of life
References
Marks et al., 2002. Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact and Occupational Dermatology, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby, 2002.
Nelson and Yiannias, 2009. Nelson S.A., Yiannias J.A.: Relevance and avoidance of skin-care product allergens: Pearls and pitfalls. Dermatol Clin 2009; 27(3):329-336.
Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test. Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test) : Available at:[accessed 03.07.11] http://www.truetest.com/PatientPDF/File18.pdf
Zug et al., 2009. Zug K.A., Warshaw E.M., Fowler J.F., et al: Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 2009; 20:149-160.
Emmett EA. Occupational contact dermatitis I. Incidence and return to work pressures. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2002;13:30–4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. [Bulletin 2512]. Washington (DC): US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1999.
Lushniak BD. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin1995; 13:671–9.
Skoet R, Olsen J, Mathiesen B, et al. A survey of occupational hand eczema in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51(4):159–66.
Staton I, Ma R, Evans N, et al. Dermal nickel exposure associated with coin handling and in various occupational settings: assessment using a newly developed finger immersion method. Br J Dermatol 2006;154(4):658–64.
Veien NK, Menne T. Treatment of hand eczema. Skin Therapy Lett 2003;8(5):4–7. 137.
Warshaw E. Therapeutic options for chronic hand dermatitis. Dermatol Ther2004;4:17240–50.
Schalock PC, Zug KA, Carter JC, et al. Efficacy and patient perception of Grenz ray therapy in the treatment of dermatoses refractory to other medical therapy. Dermatitis 2008;19(2):90–4.
Abramovits W, Granowski P. Innovative management of severe hand dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 28 (2010) 453-65.
Blanciforti, L. Economic burden of dermatitis in US workers. JOEM 52. (11):1045-54. 2010.
References
Sprigle AM, Marks JG Jr, Anderson BE. Prevention of nickel release with barrier coatings. Dermatitis. 2008,19(1):28-31.
Diepgen T.L., Coenraads P.J.: The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72. (8): 496-506.1999.
Keil J.E., Shmunes E.: The epidemiology of work-related skin disease in South Carolina. Arch Dermatol 119. (8): 650-654.1983.
Mathias C.G.: Occupational dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol 19. (6): 1107-1114.1988.
Goh C.L.: An epidemiological comparison between occupational and non-occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 120. (1): 77-82.1989.
Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact & occupational dermatology. 3rd ed Mosby St. Louis, (MO)2002.
Holness D.L.: Characteristic features of occupational dermatitis: epidemiologic studies of occupational skin disease reported by contact dermatitis clinics. Occup Med 9. (1): 45-52.1994.
Belsito D.V.: Occupational contact dermatitis: etiology, prevalence, and resultant impairment/disability. J Am Acad Dermatol 53. (2): 303-313.2005.
Kanerva L., Estlander T., Jolanki R.: Occupational skin disease in Finland. An analysis of 10 years of statistics from an occupational dermatology clinic. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60. (2): 89-94.1988.
Sertoli A., Gola M., Martinelli C., et al: Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Semin Dermatol 8. (2): 120-126.1989.
Rietschel R.L., Mathias C.G., Fowler , Jr. , Jr.J.F., et al: Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermatitis 13. (4): 170-176.2002.
Nethercott J.R., Holness D.L.: Disease outcome in workers with occupational skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 30. (4): 569-574.1994.
Mathias C.G., Morrison J.H.: Occupational skin diseases, United States. Results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 1973 through 1984. Arch Dermatol 124. (10): 1519-1524.1988.
Koch P.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol 2. (6): 353-365.2001.
Bureau of Labor Statistics : Occupational Injuries and illnesses in the United States. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif
Lushniak B.D.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 17. (3): 272-277.2004.
Mathias C.G.: The cost of ccupational skin disease. Arch Dermatol 121. (3): 332-334.1985.
Cvetkovski R.S., Rothman K.J., Olsen J., et al: Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave, and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 152. (1): 93-98.2005.
Thank you!
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
23
1
2
24
25
1
2
26
27
1
2
28
1
2
29
30
1
2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1
2
70
71
72
73
74
1
2
75
76
1
2
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
1
2
84
85
1
2
86
1
2
87
88
89
1
2
90
1
2
91
92
93
94
1
2
95
96
97
98
1
2
3
4
99
100
101
102
103
1
2
104
1
2
105
106
107
108
1
2
109
110
1
2
111
112
113
114
1
2
115
1
2
116
117
118
3/27/2015
17
Occupational DermatologyPearls
Heather P. Lampel, MD, MPH, FAAD, FACOEM
Duke University
Assistant Professor of Dermatology and
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
May 3, 2015
Disclosures
I have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
I will be discussing off-label use of patch testing and off-label treatment of contact dermatitis
I will mention companies
Objectives
Discuss the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in the occupational setting
Differentiate irritant from allergic contact dermatitis
Understand the role of patch testing in diagnosis
Highlight recently described allergens in the workplace
Review the trends in the occupational dermatitis literature 2014- present
Explore pitfalls and misconceptions in the workplace
Why should we care?
Occupational skin disease is a “hot” topic
Healthy People 2020
“Reduce occupational skin diseases or disorders among full-time workers”
ACOEM Core Competencies- Clinical Dermatology
OEM physicians can provide early recognition, diagnosis, and management …
Diagnose primary irritant-induced dermatoses
Differentiate occupational skin disorders…
Diagnose and determine the cause of allergic contact dermatitis …
Manage occupational and environmental skin injuries and dermatoses
Treat and prevent recurrence of contact dermatitis
Epidemiology of Occupational Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis
Contact dermatitis (CD) is reported to account for up to 30% of all occupational disease in industrialized nations
CD is the most common occupational skin disorder
About 90-95% of all cases of occupational skin diseases
Occupational CD Epidemiology United States
Incidence rate of 0.5-1.9 cases per 1000 full-time workers per year
US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004 estimated 48,800 cases of Occupational CD
1 year prevalence estimate of 20%
21-22% in healthcare workers
Ibler et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012;67:200-207.
Luk et al., Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:329-335.
Occupational CD Epidemiology Denmark
Occupational CD
95% of all occupational skin cases
Irritant CD 70% of these Occupational CD
68% due to wet work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
True epidemiologic data are lacking
Likely underestimated due to underreporting
Mild cases specifically
Bureau of Labor Statistics has rigorous criteria for inclusion
May not be obviously work-related (delayed-onset)
Self-treated
Only requiring first aid excluded
Underestimated by 85-88%
Luckhaupt et al., Am J Ind Med 2012.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Survey of established cases of Occupational CD reported that over one year:
19.9% reported prolonged sick leave
23% reported job loss
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
1985 Mathias estimated annual costs of Occupational CD to be between $222 million and $1 billion
2004 NIOSH estimates $1.2 billion
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Hands are usually involved
80-90% of cases
Great impact on quality of life
What percent of all contact dermatitis is allergic versus irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis accounts for 60-80% of all CD
Allergic contact dermatitis accounts for remaining 20-40%
Overlap common
Contact Dermatitis Overview
ACD is a SPECIFIC immunologic reaction, requiring prior sensitization
Elliott G and Das PK. Using p-Phenylenediamine: A Gateway to Chemical Immunology. Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2010) 130, 641–643.
Immunology of Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis Overview
90% of the population can be sensitized to certain antigens such as dinitrochlorobenzene
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis is NONSPECIFIC
Requires no prior sensitization
Clinically can be difficult to distinguish ICD from ACD
Common Occupational Irritants
Alkalis
Soaps
Detergents
Cleansers
Acids
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum
Oils
Solvents
Common Occupational Irritants
Frictional Dermatitis
Repetitive handling of objects or materials
Likely underappreciated
Examples
Fabric
Paper
Metal objects
Driving
Common Occupational Irritants
Gloves
Prolonged contact with skin affects the epidermal barrier
May be irritant itself
May make epidermal barrier more susceptible to allergens or other irritants
Irritants- Recent Literature
Wet work
Irritant chemicals
Solvents
Food
Detergents
Gloves
Mechanical trauma
Air (warm, dry)
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations
Occupations at High-Risk for Hand Dermatitis
Hairdressers
Musicians
Food Industry workers
Agricultural workers
Factory workers
Electronics workers
Cleaners/Washers
Housekeepers
Printers
Builders
Medical and Dental workers
Occupations at Risk for ICD
Hairdressers
Nursing
Doctors
Mechanics
Cooks
Cleaners
Painters
Plumbers
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations at Risk for CD- Denmark
Healthcare
Cleaning
Kitchen work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Epidemiology by Occupation
Shoe manufacturer
Indonesia
29% OCD point prevalence
Febriana et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2014; 87.
Poultry processing and manual laborers
1 year prevalence 23% skin symptoms
Quandt et al., Am J Indust Medicine 2014; 57.
Construction Industry
25.4% point prevalence of hand skin symptoms
Timmerman et al., Am J Ind Med 2014; 57.
Healthcare workers
Dutch apprentice nurses followed prospectively
1 year period prevalence of hand eczema
23% in first year
25% in second year
31% in third year
Frequent hand washing at work, at home, and outside wet work job all risk factors
Visser et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 44-55.
ACD vs ICD
Photo Quiz
Allergic or Irritant Contact Dermatitis?
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic and Irritant
Debunking the myths…
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
FALSE
Allergy can develop after years of using the same product
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
FALSE
There are many cross-reactants in other products, it is best to have NO exposures to topicals/cross-reactors when clearing a rash
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
NOT NECESSARILY
Common misconception held by MDs
There are many aspects affecting end-product eruption
Can be patchy!
CD Misconceptions
Adult onset “eczema”
If no history of eczema or atopy, more likely ACD
Especially if on hands, face, neck
90% of eczema has onset by age 5
“The greatest abuse of patch testing is failure to use the test.”
Coleman, 1982
Epicutaneous Patch testing
Intended to detect allergens relevant to eruption
Is at least a week-long process
Detects Type IV allergic reaction (delayed-type hypersensitivity)
Requires at least 2-3 visits to clinic for complete testing
T.R.U.E. Test
Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test
Allerderm product
Only FDA-approved patch testing product
36 allergens
Comes pre-filled
May not detect all relevant allergens
Patch testing
Step 1: Take extensive exposure history
Include home exposures, work tasks and exposures, implants, intermittent exposures, MSDS if appropriate
Patch testing
Step 2: Determine allergen panel
Would be pre-determined if only TRUE Test is available
Patch testing
Step 3: Prepare allergen tray as appropriate
TRUE test is pre-prepared
Patch testing
Step 4: Apply patches to back
Back must be clear of rash
Patches are marked
Securing paper tape is used
Patch testing
Step 5: Patches removed in 48 hours
Variability in how this is done
Areas remarked
Reactions noted- Irritant
Patch testing
Step 6: Patches read at 3-7 days after application
Our clinic reads at 4 days
Consider delayed read for late reactors
Patch testing
Step 7: Determine clinical relevance
Consider the Mathias Criteria for Occupational cases
Excellent tool for ascertaining occupational causation
Keep in mind that irritant CD remains a diagnosis of exclusion, and dermatitis may be both ICD and ACD, multifactorial, etc.
Patch testing
Step 8: Instruct in avoidance of allergen(s) and cross-reactors
If in topical medicaments, cosmetics, etc. it is best to print out the CAMP “safe list”
On American Contact Dermatitis Society member webpage
Mayo Clinic also has a database
Also consider all objects that may contain allergen
Information (written) and verbal counseling of patient is KEY
May include modified work, increased or alternative PPE, modified environment-both home and work
Mathias Criteria
1. Is the clinical appearance consistent with contact dermatitis?
2. Are there workplace exposures to potential cutaneous irritants or allergens?
3. Is the anatomic distribution of the dermatitis consistent with cutaneous exposure in relation to work tasks?
4. Is there a temporal association between onset of dermatitis and exposure consistent with contact dermatitis?
Mathias Criteria
5. Are non-occupational exposures excluded as probable causes?
6. Does dermatitis improve away from work exposure to the suspected allergen or irritant?
7. Do patch or provocation tests identify a probable causal agent?
Mathias Criteria
Answer of “yes” to 4 or more of the 7 criteria yields a greater than 50% probability of occupational cause
Provides a “reasonable degree of medical certainty”
Allergens
Top 10 Allergens in North America
Nickel sulfate
Balsam of Peru
Fragrance mix I
Quaternium-15
Neomycin
Bacitracin
Formaldehyde
Cobalt chloride
Fragrance mix II
p-Phenylenediamine
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Formaldehyde-Releasers
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Quaternium-15
Imidazolidinyl urea (Germall 115)
Diazolidinyl urea (Germall II)
DMDM hydantoin (Glydant)
2-Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (Bronopol)
Sodium hydroxymethyl glycinate
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Workplace Allergens- Canada
Epoxy resin
Thiuram Mix
Carba Mix
Nickel sulfate
Cobalt chloride
Potassium dichromate
Glyceryl thioglycolate
P-phenylenediamine
Formaldehyde
Glutaraldehyde
Arrandale et al Am J Ind Med 2012; 55:353-60.
Top Workplace Allergens-Denmark
Rubber allergens
Epoxy (windmill workers)
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
What’s new in Occupational Contact Allergens?
Coconut derivatives
Capryldiethanolamine in metalworking fluids
May not react to:
Monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, methyldiethanolamine, and cocamide DEA
Not in MSDS
Suuronen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 120-121.
Coconut derivatives
Sodium cocoamphopropionate
Surfactant
Derivative of coconut fatty acids condensed with amino-ethyl ethanolamines
Soaps, shampoos, conditioners
Sweden, fast-food workers
Hagvall et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 122-124.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide MEA
AKA tall oil fatty acids monoethanolamide
In metal working fluid
Aalto-Korte et al. Contact Dermatitis, 69,316-7.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA)
Surfactant
Industrial, household and cosmetic products
Finland 19/25 positives were occupational, most in metal industry
Soaps (hand, dish), metalworking fluids, barrier cream
Noted concomitant reactions
Monoethanolamine
Diethanolamine- impurity of cocamide DEA
Aalto-Korte et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 169-174.
Airborne medications
Benzodiazepines
Airborne contact from crushing pills for patients
2 nurses, 1 pharmacy tech, one relative
Consider in facial dermatitis
Swinnen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 227-232.
Sevofluorane
Systemic allergic contact- airborne
Required ROAT (negative to routine patch testing)
Surgeon
Burches et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 62-63.
Medications- Nonairborne
Omeprazole
Horse trainer
Handled paste for horse’s stomach ulcers
Al-Falah et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 377-378.
“Head lad” caring for race horses
Dispensed omeprazole paste via syringe
Alwan et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 376.
Fragrance
Citral
Hands and arms
9 beauticians in high-end spa
DeMozzi and Johnston, Contact Dermatitis 70, 377-378.
D- limonene
Machine cleaners, hand soaps, moisturizers, surface cleanser, dishwashing soaps
Pesonen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 273-279.
Isothiazolinones (Denmark)
Occupations
Painting
Welding (blacksmiths)
Machine operating
Cosmetology
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 295-302.
Sources
Paints and varnishes
Cleaners
Polishing liquids
Some in high concentrations
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 65-74.
Methylisothiazolinone
Ultrasound gel in ultrasonographer
Madsen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 312-313.
Water cooling tower technicians
Maor et al., Dermatitis 26, 62-64.
Allergens
Tricresyl phosphate
Cleaning occupation
In vinyl gloves
Plasticizer
Also in sheer strips (Band Aids)
Crepy et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 325-328.
Blue Collar Workers
Compared to controls patch-tested, BCW higher hand eczema, lower atopic dermatitis
Epoxy resins
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile
2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
Potassium dichromate
Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/ methylisothiazolinone (MI)
Allergen: Occupation
Epoxy: construction
MCI/MI: Painting
Potassium dichromate: tile setting/terrazzo work
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 348-355.
Blue Collar Workers
Case report of a cement worker with poor PPE
Sweden
Legislation in Europe to decrease hexavalent chromium in cement
Addition of ferrous sulfate
Chromium allergy persists
Hedberg et al, Contact dermatitis 70, 321-323.
Hairdressers- Denmark
Hairdressers 2002-2011
Compared to patch tested controls, hairdressers more significantly had Occupational CD and hand eczema, lower AD
Allergens significantly associated:
p-phenylenediamine, thiuram mix, benzocaine
Frequent sensitizers from the hairdressing series:
ammonium persulfate, toluene-2,5-diamine, 3-aminophenol, and 4-aminophenol
New sensitizers:
Cysteamine hydrochloride- substitute for glycerol monothioglycolate (restricted in Germany)
Chloroacetamide- preservative
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 233-237.
Hairdressers- Germany
German contact allergy database 2007-2012
Compared hairdressers to clients
Allergens significantly associated with hairdressers > clients:
Ammonium persulfate
Glyceryl monothioglycolate
Demonstrated concern as young hairdressers still with some positive reaction, despite legislation
Uter et al, Contact Dermatitis 71, 13-20.
Food Industry
Cobalt in a baker
Bregnbak et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 118-119.
Food Industry
Pizza makers
Diallyl disulfide and
Ammonium persulfate
Lembo et al., Dermatitis 25, 194-196.
Wine maker
Potassium metabisulfite
Ortiz et al., Dermatitis 25, 150-151.
Heathcare workers
Chlorhexidine
Australian study
2% relevant ACD in healthcare workers
Higher than other studies, keep on radar
Toholka et al., Australiasian J Derm 54, 303-306.
Preferred Approach to Occupational Exposure
1. Elimination
2. Substitution
3. Isolation
4. Engineering controls
5. Safe work practices
6. Personal protection
Material Safety Data Sheets
Mandated
Hazardous chemical name
Chemical properties
Physical hazards
Route of entry
Known exposure limits
Carcinogenicity
Clean-up practices
Control measures
Contact information
Not required
If proprietary
Specific name often avoided (general category used)
Irritants and sensitizers if <1% concentration
Often do not address prevention of sensitization and irritancy
Diagnosis- MSDS
Diagnosis- MSDS
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
AVOIDANCE!
Allergens
Irritants
Treatment/Prevention
Avoidance
Harder with omnipresent allergens (epoxy versus rubber allergens)
Contact urticaria more problematic than ACD
Clemmensen et al., Br J Dermatol 2014;170.
Personal protective equipment
Legislation
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Recommended short-term high-potency topical steroids for hands:
Clobetasol propionate
Ointment
Halcinonide ointment
No propylene glycol, no sensitizers
For body:
Short-term hydrocortisone 2.5% bid for face, neck, axillae, groin, intertriginousareas
Short-term triamcinolone 0.1% bid for body
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Avoid more than a few weeks of potent steroid use topically
Can thin the skin making hands more susceptible to allergen/irritant!
Consider calcineurin inhibitors topically
Consider IM steroids x 1
Oral steroids with SLOW taper
Doxycycline for anti-inflammatory effects
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Barrier creams- Repair versus Protect
Repair creams with ceramides
Barrier creams with dimethicone
Studies are variable in demonstrating any benefit from barrier creams when compared to regular emollients
At least recommend moisturizing
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Prevention
Barrier creams
Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis
At high dose of application (2-20x actual application) can help prevent ICD
Schliemann et al., Contact dermatitis 70, 19-26.
Cotton liners under gloves
Adisesh et al., Br J Dermatol 2013.
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Appropriate gloves
Match task with glove
“Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing” by Forsberg and Mansdorf
ACDS website lists glove manufacturers
Treating Dermatitis- Step 2 (Maintenance)
Calcineurin inhibitors
Tacrolimus 0.1%
Pimecrolimus 0.1%
Therapeutic moisturizers
Shea butter
Aquaphor
Petrolatum
Lower potency steroids for hands:
Triamcinolone 0.1%
Fluticasone cream or lotion
Hydrocortisone butyrate lipid cream
Clocortolone cream
Treating Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Hand psoralen- ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA)
Narrow-band UV B therapy (NBUVB)
Often used for recalcitrant body dermatitis
Excimer laser
308 nm
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Methotrexate
Mycophenolate mofetil
2-3g/day recommended for control
Acitretin
Best for psoriasiform hand dermatitis
2-4 month course
Cyclosporine
2.5-5 mg/kg daily
Azathioprine
1-3 mg/kg daily
Biologics are not helpful overall (yet!)
Treatment
Multidisciplinary teams aid in successful return to work
German model included inpatient and outpatient care
87% remained in workforce
Weisshaar et al., Contact Dermatitis 2013;68:169-174.
Netherlands included a dermatologist, education nurse, occupational medicine physician
Van Gils et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012 66(4) and 66(5).
Canadian model
Gomez et al., Dermatitis 2011;22(3).
Prevention
Evidence-based intervention
1 hour voluntary hand protective behavior lecture/ intervention
Full-time hospital cleaners
At 3 months post-intervention
Decreased hand cleansing
Better knowledge of hand preservation
Improved hand dermatitis
Clemmensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 47-54.
Occupational Dermatitis Resources
Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing by Forsberg and Mansdorf
Contact and Occupational Dermatology by Marks, Elsner, DeLeo
ACDS website
OSHA, NIOSH
Article December 2011 The Dermatologist
Summary
Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish
We are constantly being exposed to new allergens, often earlier in life
Occupational contact dermatitis is underreported
Patch testing for ACD is the gold standard
Can try TRUE test, consider referral for comprehensive panels
Novel allergens in the workplace
Summary
Think outside the box
Try a stepwise approach
Elimination
Treatment
Escalate treatment
Will be chronic if exposure continues
You can make a huge difference in patient’s quality of life
References
Marks et al., 2002. Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact and Occupational Dermatology, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby, 2002.
Nelson and Yiannias, 2009. Nelson S.A., Yiannias J.A.: Relevance and avoidance of skin-care product allergens: Pearls and pitfalls. Dermatol Clin 2009; 27(3):329-336.
Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test. Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test) : Available at:[accessed 03.07.11] http://www.truetest.com/PatientPDF/File18.pdf
Zug et al., 2009. Zug K.A., Warshaw E.M., Fowler J.F., et al: Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 2009; 20:149-160.
Emmett EA. Occupational contact dermatitis I. Incidence and return to work pressures. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2002;13:30–4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. [Bulletin 2512]. Washington (DC): US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1999.
Lushniak BD. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin1995; 13:671–9.
Skoet R, Olsen J, Mathiesen B, et al. A survey of occupational hand eczema in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51(4):159–66.
Staton I, Ma R, Evans N, et al. Dermal nickel exposure associated with coin handling and in various occupational settings: assessment using a newly developed finger immersion method. Br J Dermatol 2006;154(4):658–64.
Veien NK, Menne T. Treatment of hand eczema. Skin Therapy Lett 2003;8(5):4–7. 137.
Warshaw E. Therapeutic options for chronic hand dermatitis. Dermatol Ther2004;4:17240–50.
Schalock PC, Zug KA, Carter JC, et al. Efficacy and patient perception of Grenz ray therapy in the treatment of dermatoses refractory to other medical therapy. Dermatitis 2008;19(2):90–4.
Abramovits W, Granowski P. Innovative management of severe hand dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 28 (2010) 453-65.
Blanciforti, L. Economic burden of dermatitis in US workers. JOEM 52. (11):1045-54. 2010.
References
Sprigle AM, Marks JG Jr, Anderson BE. Prevention of nickel release with barrier coatings. Dermatitis. 2008,19(1):28-31.
Diepgen T.L., Coenraads P.J.: The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72. (8): 496-506.1999.
Keil J.E., Shmunes E.: The epidemiology of work-related skin disease in South Carolina. Arch Dermatol 119. (8): 650-654.1983.
Mathias C.G.: Occupational dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol 19. (6): 1107-1114.1988.
Goh C.L.: An epidemiological comparison between occupational and non-occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 120. (1): 77-82.1989.
Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact & occupational dermatology. 3rd ed Mosby St. Louis, (MO)2002.
Holness D.L.: Characteristic features of occupational dermatitis: epidemiologic studies of occupational skin disease reported by contact dermatitis clinics. Occup Med 9. (1): 45-52.1994.
Belsito D.V.: Occupational contact dermatitis: etiology, prevalence, and resultant impairment/disability. J Am Acad Dermatol 53. (2): 303-313.2005.
Kanerva L., Estlander T., Jolanki R.: Occupational skin disease in Finland. An analysis of 10 years of statistics from an occupational dermatology clinic. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60. (2): 89-94.1988.
Sertoli A., Gola M., Martinelli C., et al: Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Semin Dermatol 8. (2): 120-126.1989.
Rietschel R.L., Mathias C.G., Fowler , Jr. , Jr.J.F., et al: Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermatitis 13. (4): 170-176.2002.
Nethercott J.R., Holness D.L.: Disease outcome in workers with occupational skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 30. (4): 569-574.1994.
Mathias C.G., Morrison J.H.: Occupational skin diseases, United States. Results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 1973 through 1984. Arch Dermatol 124. (10): 1519-1524.1988.
Koch P.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol 2. (6): 353-365.2001.
Bureau of Labor Statistics : Occupational Injuries and illnesses in the United States. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif
Lushniak B.D.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 17. (3): 272-277.2004.
Mathias C.G.: The cost of ccupational skin disease. Arch Dermatol 121. (3): 332-334.1985.
Cvetkovski R.S., Rothman K.J., Olsen J., et al: Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave, and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 152. (1): 93-98.2005.
Thank you!
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
23
1
2
24
25
1
2
26
27
1
2
28
1
2
29
30
1
2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1
2
70
71
72
73
74
1
2
75
76
1
2
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
1
2
84
85
1
2
86
1
2
87
88
89
1
2
90
1
2
91
92
93
94
1
2
95
96
97
98
1
2
3
4
99
100
101
102
103
1
2
104
1
2
105
106
107
108
1
2
109
110
1
2
111
112
113
114
1
2
115
1
2
116
117
118
3/27/2015
18
Occupational DermatologyPearls
Heather P. Lampel, MD, MPH, FAAD, FACOEM
Duke University
Assistant Professor of Dermatology and
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
May 3, 2015
Disclosures
I have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
I will be discussing off-label use of patch testing and off-label treatment of contact dermatitis
I will mention companies
Objectives
Discuss the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in the occupational setting
Differentiate irritant from allergic contact dermatitis
Understand the role of patch testing in diagnosis
Highlight recently described allergens in the workplace
Review the trends in the occupational dermatitis literature 2014- present
Explore pitfalls and misconceptions in the workplace
Why should we care?
Occupational skin disease is a “hot” topic
Healthy People 2020
“Reduce occupational skin diseases or disorders among full-time workers”
ACOEM Core Competencies- Clinical Dermatology
OEM physicians can provide early recognition, diagnosis, and management …
Diagnose primary irritant-induced dermatoses
Differentiate occupational skin disorders…
Diagnose and determine the cause of allergic contact dermatitis …
Manage occupational and environmental skin injuries and dermatoses
Treat and prevent recurrence of contact dermatitis
Epidemiology of Occupational Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis
Contact dermatitis (CD) is reported to account for up to 30% of all occupational disease in industrialized nations
CD is the most common occupational skin disorder
About 90-95% of all cases of occupational skin diseases
Occupational CD Epidemiology United States
Incidence rate of 0.5-1.9 cases per 1000 full-time workers per year
US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004 estimated 48,800 cases of Occupational CD
1 year prevalence estimate of 20%
21-22% in healthcare workers
Ibler et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012;67:200-207.
Luk et al., Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:329-335.
Occupational CD Epidemiology Denmark
Occupational CD
95% of all occupational skin cases
Irritant CD 70% of these Occupational CD
68% due to wet work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
True epidemiologic data are lacking
Likely underestimated due to underreporting
Mild cases specifically
Bureau of Labor Statistics has rigorous criteria for inclusion
May not be obviously work-related (delayed-onset)
Self-treated
Only requiring first aid excluded
Underestimated by 85-88%
Luckhaupt et al., Am J Ind Med 2012.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Survey of established cases of Occupational CD reported that over one year:
19.9% reported prolonged sick leave
23% reported job loss
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
1985 Mathias estimated annual costs of Occupational CD to be between $222 million and $1 billion
2004 NIOSH estimates $1.2 billion
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Hands are usually involved
80-90% of cases
Great impact on quality of life
What percent of all contact dermatitis is allergic versus irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis accounts for 60-80% of all CD
Allergic contact dermatitis accounts for remaining 20-40%
Overlap common
Contact Dermatitis Overview
ACD is a SPECIFIC immunologic reaction, requiring prior sensitization
Elliott G and Das PK. Using p-Phenylenediamine: A Gateway to Chemical Immunology. Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2010) 130, 641–643.
Immunology of Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis Overview
90% of the population can be sensitized to certain antigens such as dinitrochlorobenzene
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis is NONSPECIFIC
Requires no prior sensitization
Clinically can be difficult to distinguish ICD from ACD
Common Occupational Irritants
Alkalis
Soaps
Detergents
Cleansers
Acids
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum
Oils
Solvents
Common Occupational Irritants
Frictional Dermatitis
Repetitive handling of objects or materials
Likely underappreciated
Examples
Fabric
Paper
Metal objects
Driving
Common Occupational Irritants
Gloves
Prolonged contact with skin affects the epidermal barrier
May be irritant itself
May make epidermal barrier more susceptible to allergens or other irritants
Irritants- Recent Literature
Wet work
Irritant chemicals
Solvents
Food
Detergents
Gloves
Mechanical trauma
Air (warm, dry)
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations
Occupations at High-Risk for Hand Dermatitis
Hairdressers
Musicians
Food Industry workers
Agricultural workers
Factory workers
Electronics workers
Cleaners/Washers
Housekeepers
Printers
Builders
Medical and Dental workers
Occupations at Risk for ICD
Hairdressers
Nursing
Doctors
Mechanics
Cooks
Cleaners
Painters
Plumbers
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations at Risk for CD- Denmark
Healthcare
Cleaning
Kitchen work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Epidemiology by Occupation
Shoe manufacturer
Indonesia
29% OCD point prevalence
Febriana et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2014; 87.
Poultry processing and manual laborers
1 year prevalence 23% skin symptoms
Quandt et al., Am J Indust Medicine 2014; 57.
Construction Industry
25.4% point prevalence of hand skin symptoms
Timmerman et al., Am J Ind Med 2014; 57.
Healthcare workers
Dutch apprentice nurses followed prospectively
1 year period prevalence of hand eczema
23% in first year
25% in second year
31% in third year
Frequent hand washing at work, at home, and outside wet work job all risk factors
Visser et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 44-55.
ACD vs ICD
Photo Quiz
Allergic or Irritant Contact Dermatitis?
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic and Irritant
Debunking the myths…
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
FALSE
Allergy can develop after years of using the same product
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
FALSE
There are many cross-reactants in other products, it is best to have NO exposures to topicals/cross-reactors when clearing a rash
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
NOT NECESSARILY
Common misconception held by MDs
There are many aspects affecting end-product eruption
Can be patchy!
CD Misconceptions
Adult onset “eczema”
If no history of eczema or atopy, more likely ACD
Especially if on hands, face, neck
90% of eczema has onset by age 5
“The greatest abuse of patch testing is failure to use the test.”
Coleman, 1982
Epicutaneous Patch testing
Intended to detect allergens relevant to eruption
Is at least a week-long process
Detects Type IV allergic reaction (delayed-type hypersensitivity)
Requires at least 2-3 visits to clinic for complete testing
T.R.U.E. Test
Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test
Allerderm product
Only FDA-approved patch testing product
36 allergens
Comes pre-filled
May not detect all relevant allergens
Patch testing
Step 1: Take extensive exposure history
Include home exposures, work tasks and exposures, implants, intermittent exposures, MSDS if appropriate
Patch testing
Step 2: Determine allergen panel
Would be pre-determined if only TRUE Test is available
Patch testing
Step 3: Prepare allergen tray as appropriate
TRUE test is pre-prepared
Patch testing
Step 4: Apply patches to back
Back must be clear of rash
Patches are marked
Securing paper tape is used
Patch testing
Step 5: Patches removed in 48 hours
Variability in how this is done
Areas remarked
Reactions noted- Irritant
Patch testing
Step 6: Patches read at 3-7 days after application
Our clinic reads at 4 days
Consider delayed read for late reactors
Patch testing
Step 7: Determine clinical relevance
Consider the Mathias Criteria for Occupational cases
Excellent tool for ascertaining occupational causation
Keep in mind that irritant CD remains a diagnosis of exclusion, and dermatitis may be both ICD and ACD, multifactorial, etc.
Patch testing
Step 8: Instruct in avoidance of allergen(s) and cross-reactors
If in topical medicaments, cosmetics, etc. it is best to print out the CAMP “safe list”
On American Contact Dermatitis Society member webpage
Mayo Clinic also has a database
Also consider all objects that may contain allergen
Information (written) and verbal counseling of patient is KEY
May include modified work, increased or alternative PPE, modified environment-both home and work
Mathias Criteria
1. Is the clinical appearance consistent with contact dermatitis?
2. Are there workplace exposures to potential cutaneous irritants or allergens?
3. Is the anatomic distribution of the dermatitis consistent with cutaneous exposure in relation to work tasks?
4. Is there a temporal association between onset of dermatitis and exposure consistent with contact dermatitis?
Mathias Criteria
5. Are non-occupational exposures excluded as probable causes?
6. Does dermatitis improve away from work exposure to the suspected allergen or irritant?
7. Do patch or provocation tests identify a probable causal agent?
Mathias Criteria
Answer of “yes” to 4 or more of the 7 criteria yields a greater than 50% probability of occupational cause
Provides a “reasonable degree of medical certainty”
Allergens
Top 10 Allergens in North America
Nickel sulfate
Balsam of Peru
Fragrance mix I
Quaternium-15
Neomycin
Bacitracin
Formaldehyde
Cobalt chloride
Fragrance mix II
p-Phenylenediamine
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Formaldehyde-Releasers
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Quaternium-15
Imidazolidinyl urea (Germall 115)
Diazolidinyl urea (Germall II)
DMDM hydantoin (Glydant)
2-Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (Bronopol)
Sodium hydroxymethyl glycinate
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Workplace Allergens- Canada
Epoxy resin
Thiuram Mix
Carba Mix
Nickel sulfate
Cobalt chloride
Potassium dichromate
Glyceryl thioglycolate
P-phenylenediamine
Formaldehyde
Glutaraldehyde
Arrandale et al Am J Ind Med 2012; 55:353-60.
Top Workplace Allergens-Denmark
Rubber allergens
Epoxy (windmill workers)
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
What’s new in Occupational Contact Allergens?
Coconut derivatives
Capryldiethanolamine in metalworking fluids
May not react to:
Monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, methyldiethanolamine, and cocamide DEA
Not in MSDS
Suuronen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 120-121.
Coconut derivatives
Sodium cocoamphopropionate
Surfactant
Derivative of coconut fatty acids condensed with amino-ethyl ethanolamines
Soaps, shampoos, conditioners
Sweden, fast-food workers
Hagvall et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 122-124.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide MEA
AKA tall oil fatty acids monoethanolamide
In metal working fluid
Aalto-Korte et al. Contact Dermatitis, 69,316-7.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA)
Surfactant
Industrial, household and cosmetic products
Finland 19/25 positives were occupational, most in metal industry
Soaps (hand, dish), metalworking fluids, barrier cream
Noted concomitant reactions
Monoethanolamine
Diethanolamine- impurity of cocamide DEA
Aalto-Korte et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 169-174.
Airborne medications
Benzodiazepines
Airborne contact from crushing pills for patients
2 nurses, 1 pharmacy tech, one relative
Consider in facial dermatitis
Swinnen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 227-232.
Sevofluorane
Systemic allergic contact- airborne
Required ROAT (negative to routine patch testing)
Surgeon
Burches et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 62-63.
Medications- Nonairborne
Omeprazole
Horse trainer
Handled paste for horse’s stomach ulcers
Al-Falah et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 377-378.
“Head lad” caring for race horses
Dispensed omeprazole paste via syringe
Alwan et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 376.
Fragrance
Citral
Hands and arms
9 beauticians in high-end spa
DeMozzi and Johnston, Contact Dermatitis 70, 377-378.
D- limonene
Machine cleaners, hand soaps, moisturizers, surface cleanser, dishwashing soaps
Pesonen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 273-279.
Isothiazolinones (Denmark)
Occupations
Painting
Welding (blacksmiths)
Machine operating
Cosmetology
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 295-302.
Sources
Paints and varnishes
Cleaners
Polishing liquids
Some in high concentrations
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 65-74.
Methylisothiazolinone
Ultrasound gel in ultrasonographer
Madsen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 312-313.
Water cooling tower technicians
Maor et al., Dermatitis 26, 62-64.
Allergens
Tricresyl phosphate
Cleaning occupation
In vinyl gloves
Plasticizer
Also in sheer strips (Band Aids)
Crepy et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 325-328.
Blue Collar Workers
Compared to controls patch-tested, BCW higher hand eczema, lower atopic dermatitis
Epoxy resins
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile
2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
Potassium dichromate
Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/ methylisothiazolinone (MI)
Allergen: Occupation
Epoxy: construction
MCI/MI: Painting
Potassium dichromate: tile setting/terrazzo work
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 348-355.
Blue Collar Workers
Case report of a cement worker with poor PPE
Sweden
Legislation in Europe to decrease hexavalent chromium in cement
Addition of ferrous sulfate
Chromium allergy persists
Hedberg et al, Contact dermatitis 70, 321-323.
Hairdressers- Denmark
Hairdressers 2002-2011
Compared to patch tested controls, hairdressers more significantly had Occupational CD and hand eczema, lower AD
Allergens significantly associated:
p-phenylenediamine, thiuram mix, benzocaine
Frequent sensitizers from the hairdressing series:
ammonium persulfate, toluene-2,5-diamine, 3-aminophenol, and 4-aminophenol
New sensitizers:
Cysteamine hydrochloride- substitute for glycerol monothioglycolate (restricted in Germany)
Chloroacetamide- preservative
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 233-237.
Hairdressers- Germany
German contact allergy database 2007-2012
Compared hairdressers to clients
Allergens significantly associated with hairdressers > clients:
Ammonium persulfate
Glyceryl monothioglycolate
Demonstrated concern as young hairdressers still with some positive reaction, despite legislation
Uter et al, Contact Dermatitis 71, 13-20.
Food Industry
Cobalt in a baker
Bregnbak et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 118-119.
Food Industry
Pizza makers
Diallyl disulfide and
Ammonium persulfate
Lembo et al., Dermatitis 25, 194-196.
Wine maker
Potassium metabisulfite
Ortiz et al., Dermatitis 25, 150-151.
Heathcare workers
Chlorhexidine
Australian study
2% relevant ACD in healthcare workers
Higher than other studies, keep on radar
Toholka et al., Australiasian J Derm 54, 303-306.
Preferred Approach to Occupational Exposure
1. Elimination
2. Substitution
3. Isolation
4. Engineering controls
5. Safe work practices
6. Personal protection
Material Safety Data Sheets
Mandated
Hazardous chemical name
Chemical properties
Physical hazards
Route of entry
Known exposure limits
Carcinogenicity
Clean-up practices
Control measures
Contact information
Not required
If proprietary
Specific name often avoided (general category used)
Irritants and sensitizers if <1% concentration
Often do not address prevention of sensitization and irritancy
Diagnosis- MSDS
Diagnosis- MSDS
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
AVOIDANCE!
Allergens
Irritants
Treatment/Prevention
Avoidance
Harder with omnipresent allergens (epoxy versus rubber allergens)
Contact urticaria more problematic than ACD
Clemmensen et al., Br J Dermatol 2014;170.
Personal protective equipment
Legislation
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Recommended short-term high-potency topical steroids for hands:
Clobetasol propionate
Ointment
Halcinonide ointment
No propylene glycol, no sensitizers
For body:
Short-term hydrocortisone 2.5% bid for face, neck, axillae, groin, intertriginousareas
Short-term triamcinolone 0.1% bid for body
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Avoid more than a few weeks of potent steroid use topically
Can thin the skin making hands more susceptible to allergen/irritant!
Consider calcineurin inhibitors topically
Consider IM steroids x 1
Oral steroids with SLOW taper
Doxycycline for anti-inflammatory effects
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Barrier creams- Repair versus Protect
Repair creams with ceramides
Barrier creams with dimethicone
Studies are variable in demonstrating any benefit from barrier creams when compared to regular emollients
At least recommend moisturizing
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Prevention
Barrier creams
Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis
At high dose of application (2-20x actual application) can help prevent ICD
Schliemann et al., Contact dermatitis 70, 19-26.
Cotton liners under gloves
Adisesh et al., Br J Dermatol 2013.
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Appropriate gloves
Match task with glove
“Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing” by Forsberg and Mansdorf
ACDS website lists glove manufacturers
Treating Dermatitis- Step 2 (Maintenance)
Calcineurin inhibitors
Tacrolimus 0.1%
Pimecrolimus 0.1%
Therapeutic moisturizers
Shea butter
Aquaphor
Petrolatum
Lower potency steroids for hands:
Triamcinolone 0.1%
Fluticasone cream or lotion
Hydrocortisone butyrate lipid cream
Clocortolone cream
Treating Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Hand psoralen- ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA)
Narrow-band UV B therapy (NBUVB)
Often used for recalcitrant body dermatitis
Excimer laser
308 nm
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Methotrexate
Mycophenolate mofetil
2-3g/day recommended for control
Acitretin
Best for psoriasiform hand dermatitis
2-4 month course
Cyclosporine
2.5-5 mg/kg daily
Azathioprine
1-3 mg/kg daily
Biologics are not helpful overall (yet!)
Treatment
Multidisciplinary teams aid in successful return to work
German model included inpatient and outpatient care
87% remained in workforce
Weisshaar et al., Contact Dermatitis 2013;68:169-174.
Netherlands included a dermatologist, education nurse, occupational medicine physician
Van Gils et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012 66(4) and 66(5).
Canadian model
Gomez et al., Dermatitis 2011;22(3).
Prevention
Evidence-based intervention
1 hour voluntary hand protective behavior lecture/ intervention
Full-time hospital cleaners
At 3 months post-intervention
Decreased hand cleansing
Better knowledge of hand preservation
Improved hand dermatitis
Clemmensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 47-54.
Occupational Dermatitis Resources
Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing by Forsberg and Mansdorf
Contact and Occupational Dermatology by Marks, Elsner, DeLeo
ACDS website
OSHA, NIOSH
Article December 2011 The Dermatologist
Summary
Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish
We are constantly being exposed to new allergens, often earlier in life
Occupational contact dermatitis is underreported
Patch testing for ACD is the gold standard
Can try TRUE test, consider referral for comprehensive panels
Novel allergens in the workplace
Summary
Think outside the box
Try a stepwise approach
Elimination
Treatment
Escalate treatment
Will be chronic if exposure continues
You can make a huge difference in patient’s quality of life
References
Marks et al., 2002. Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact and Occupational Dermatology, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby, 2002.
Nelson and Yiannias, 2009. Nelson S.A., Yiannias J.A.: Relevance and avoidance of skin-care product allergens: Pearls and pitfalls. Dermatol Clin 2009; 27(3):329-336.
Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test. Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test) : Available at:[accessed 03.07.11] http://www.truetest.com/PatientPDF/File18.pdf
Zug et al., 2009. Zug K.A., Warshaw E.M., Fowler J.F., et al: Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 2009; 20:149-160.
Emmett EA. Occupational contact dermatitis I. Incidence and return to work pressures. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2002;13:30–4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. [Bulletin 2512]. Washington (DC): US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1999.
Lushniak BD. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin1995; 13:671–9.
Skoet R, Olsen J, Mathiesen B, et al. A survey of occupational hand eczema in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51(4):159–66.
Staton I, Ma R, Evans N, et al. Dermal nickel exposure associated with coin handling and in various occupational settings: assessment using a newly developed finger immersion method. Br J Dermatol 2006;154(4):658–64.
Veien NK, Menne T. Treatment of hand eczema. Skin Therapy Lett 2003;8(5):4–7. 137.
Warshaw E. Therapeutic options for chronic hand dermatitis. Dermatol Ther2004;4:17240–50.
Schalock PC, Zug KA, Carter JC, et al. Efficacy and patient perception of Grenz ray therapy in the treatment of dermatoses refractory to other medical therapy. Dermatitis 2008;19(2):90–4.
Abramovits W, Granowski P. Innovative management of severe hand dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 28 (2010) 453-65.
Blanciforti, L. Economic burden of dermatitis in US workers. JOEM 52. (11):1045-54. 2010.
References
Sprigle AM, Marks JG Jr, Anderson BE. Prevention of nickel release with barrier coatings. Dermatitis. 2008,19(1):28-31.
Diepgen T.L., Coenraads P.J.: The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72. (8): 496-506.1999.
Keil J.E., Shmunes E.: The epidemiology of work-related skin disease in South Carolina. Arch Dermatol 119. (8): 650-654.1983.
Mathias C.G.: Occupational dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol 19. (6): 1107-1114.1988.
Goh C.L.: An epidemiological comparison between occupational and non-occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 120. (1): 77-82.1989.
Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact & occupational dermatology. 3rd ed Mosby St. Louis, (MO)2002.
Holness D.L.: Characteristic features of occupational dermatitis: epidemiologic studies of occupational skin disease reported by contact dermatitis clinics. Occup Med 9. (1): 45-52.1994.
Belsito D.V.: Occupational contact dermatitis: etiology, prevalence, and resultant impairment/disability. J Am Acad Dermatol 53. (2): 303-313.2005.
Kanerva L., Estlander T., Jolanki R.: Occupational skin disease in Finland. An analysis of 10 years of statistics from an occupational dermatology clinic. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60. (2): 89-94.1988.
Sertoli A., Gola M., Martinelli C., et al: Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Semin Dermatol 8. (2): 120-126.1989.
Rietschel R.L., Mathias C.G., Fowler , Jr. , Jr.J.F., et al: Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermatitis 13. (4): 170-176.2002.
Nethercott J.R., Holness D.L.: Disease outcome in workers with occupational skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 30. (4): 569-574.1994.
Mathias C.G., Morrison J.H.: Occupational skin diseases, United States. Results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 1973 through 1984. Arch Dermatol 124. (10): 1519-1524.1988.
Koch P.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol 2. (6): 353-365.2001.
Bureau of Labor Statistics : Occupational Injuries and illnesses in the United States. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif
Lushniak B.D.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 17. (3): 272-277.2004.
Mathias C.G.: The cost of ccupational skin disease. Arch Dermatol 121. (3): 332-334.1985.
Cvetkovski R.S., Rothman K.J., Olsen J., et al: Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave, and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 152. (1): 93-98.2005.
Thank you!
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
23
1
2
24
25
1
2
26
27
1
2
28
1
2
29
30
1
2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1
2
70
71
72
73
74
1
2
75
76
1
2
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
1
2
84
85
1
2
86
1
2
87
88
89
1
2
90
1
2
91
92
93
94
1
2
95
96
97
98
1
2
3
4
99
100
101
102
103
1
2
104
1
2
105
106
107
108
1
2
109
110
1
2
111
112
113
114
1
2
115
1
2
116
117
118
3/27/2015
19
Occupational DermatologyPearls
Heather P. Lampel, MD, MPH, FAAD, FACOEM
Duke University
Assistant Professor of Dermatology and
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
May 3, 2015
Disclosures
I have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
I will be discussing off-label use of patch testing and off-label treatment of contact dermatitis
I will mention companies
Objectives
Discuss the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in the occupational setting
Differentiate irritant from allergic contact dermatitis
Understand the role of patch testing in diagnosis
Highlight recently described allergens in the workplace
Review the trends in the occupational dermatitis literature 2014- present
Explore pitfalls and misconceptions in the workplace
Why should we care?
Occupational skin disease is a “hot” topic
Healthy People 2020
“Reduce occupational skin diseases or disorders among full-time workers”
ACOEM Core Competencies- Clinical Dermatology
OEM physicians can provide early recognition, diagnosis, and management …
Diagnose primary irritant-induced dermatoses
Differentiate occupational skin disorders…
Diagnose and determine the cause of allergic contact dermatitis …
Manage occupational and environmental skin injuries and dermatoses
Treat and prevent recurrence of contact dermatitis
Epidemiology of Occupational Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis
Contact dermatitis (CD) is reported to account for up to 30% of all occupational disease in industrialized nations
CD is the most common occupational skin disorder
About 90-95% of all cases of occupational skin diseases
Occupational CD Epidemiology United States
Incidence rate of 0.5-1.9 cases per 1000 full-time workers per year
US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004 estimated 48,800 cases of Occupational CD
1 year prevalence estimate of 20%
21-22% in healthcare workers
Ibler et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012;67:200-207.
Luk et al., Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:329-335.
Occupational CD Epidemiology Denmark
Occupational CD
95% of all occupational skin cases
Irritant CD 70% of these Occupational CD
68% due to wet work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
True epidemiologic data are lacking
Likely underestimated due to underreporting
Mild cases specifically
Bureau of Labor Statistics has rigorous criteria for inclusion
May not be obviously work-related (delayed-onset)
Self-treated
Only requiring first aid excluded
Underestimated by 85-88%
Luckhaupt et al., Am J Ind Med 2012.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Survey of established cases of Occupational CD reported that over one year:
19.9% reported prolonged sick leave
23% reported job loss
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
1985 Mathias estimated annual costs of Occupational CD to be between $222 million and $1 billion
2004 NIOSH estimates $1.2 billion
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Hands are usually involved
80-90% of cases
Great impact on quality of life
What percent of all contact dermatitis is allergic versus irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis accounts for 60-80% of all CD
Allergic contact dermatitis accounts for remaining 20-40%
Overlap common
Contact Dermatitis Overview
ACD is a SPECIFIC immunologic reaction, requiring prior sensitization
Elliott G and Das PK. Using p-Phenylenediamine: A Gateway to Chemical Immunology. Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2010) 130, 641–643.
Immunology of Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis Overview
90% of the population can be sensitized to certain antigens such as dinitrochlorobenzene
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis is NONSPECIFIC
Requires no prior sensitization
Clinically can be difficult to distinguish ICD from ACD
Common Occupational Irritants
Alkalis
Soaps
Detergents
Cleansers
Acids
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum
Oils
Solvents
Common Occupational Irritants
Frictional Dermatitis
Repetitive handling of objects or materials
Likely underappreciated
Examples
Fabric
Paper
Metal objects
Driving
Common Occupational Irritants
Gloves
Prolonged contact with skin affects the epidermal barrier
May be irritant itself
May make epidermal barrier more susceptible to allergens or other irritants
Irritants- Recent Literature
Wet work
Irritant chemicals
Solvents
Food
Detergents
Gloves
Mechanical trauma
Air (warm, dry)
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations
Occupations at High-Risk for Hand Dermatitis
Hairdressers
Musicians
Food Industry workers
Agricultural workers
Factory workers
Electronics workers
Cleaners/Washers
Housekeepers
Printers
Builders
Medical and Dental workers
Occupations at Risk for ICD
Hairdressers
Nursing
Doctors
Mechanics
Cooks
Cleaners
Painters
Plumbers
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations at Risk for CD- Denmark
Healthcare
Cleaning
Kitchen work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Epidemiology by Occupation
Shoe manufacturer
Indonesia
29% OCD point prevalence
Febriana et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2014; 87.
Poultry processing and manual laborers
1 year prevalence 23% skin symptoms
Quandt et al., Am J Indust Medicine 2014; 57.
Construction Industry
25.4% point prevalence of hand skin symptoms
Timmerman et al., Am J Ind Med 2014; 57.
Healthcare workers
Dutch apprentice nurses followed prospectively
1 year period prevalence of hand eczema
23% in first year
25% in second year
31% in third year
Frequent hand washing at work, at home, and outside wet work job all risk factors
Visser et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 44-55.
ACD vs ICD
Photo Quiz
Allergic or Irritant Contact Dermatitis?
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic and Irritant
Debunking the myths…
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
FALSE
Allergy can develop after years of using the same product
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
FALSE
There are many cross-reactants in other products, it is best to have NO exposures to topicals/cross-reactors when clearing a rash
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
NOT NECESSARILY
Common misconception held by MDs
There are many aspects affecting end-product eruption
Can be patchy!
CD Misconceptions
Adult onset “eczema”
If no history of eczema or atopy, more likely ACD
Especially if on hands, face, neck
90% of eczema has onset by age 5
“The greatest abuse of patch testing is failure to use the test.”
Coleman, 1982
Epicutaneous Patch testing
Intended to detect allergens relevant to eruption
Is at least a week-long process
Detects Type IV allergic reaction (delayed-type hypersensitivity)
Requires at least 2-3 visits to clinic for complete testing
T.R.U.E. Test
Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test
Allerderm product
Only FDA-approved patch testing product
36 allergens
Comes pre-filled
May not detect all relevant allergens
Patch testing
Step 1: Take extensive exposure history
Include home exposures, work tasks and exposures, implants, intermittent exposures, MSDS if appropriate
Patch testing
Step 2: Determine allergen panel
Would be pre-determined if only TRUE Test is available
Patch testing
Step 3: Prepare allergen tray as appropriate
TRUE test is pre-prepared
Patch testing
Step 4: Apply patches to back
Back must be clear of rash
Patches are marked
Securing paper tape is used
Patch testing
Step 5: Patches removed in 48 hours
Variability in how this is done
Areas remarked
Reactions noted- Irritant
Patch testing
Step 6: Patches read at 3-7 days after application
Our clinic reads at 4 days
Consider delayed read for late reactors
Patch testing
Step 7: Determine clinical relevance
Consider the Mathias Criteria for Occupational cases
Excellent tool for ascertaining occupational causation
Keep in mind that irritant CD remains a diagnosis of exclusion, and dermatitis may be both ICD and ACD, multifactorial, etc.
Patch testing
Step 8: Instruct in avoidance of allergen(s) and cross-reactors
If in topical medicaments, cosmetics, etc. it is best to print out the CAMP “safe list”
On American Contact Dermatitis Society member webpage
Mayo Clinic also has a database
Also consider all objects that may contain allergen
Information (written) and verbal counseling of patient is KEY
May include modified work, increased or alternative PPE, modified environment-both home and work
Mathias Criteria
1. Is the clinical appearance consistent with contact dermatitis?
2. Are there workplace exposures to potential cutaneous irritants or allergens?
3. Is the anatomic distribution of the dermatitis consistent with cutaneous exposure in relation to work tasks?
4. Is there a temporal association between onset of dermatitis and exposure consistent with contact dermatitis?
Mathias Criteria
5. Are non-occupational exposures excluded as probable causes?
6. Does dermatitis improve away from work exposure to the suspected allergen or irritant?
7. Do patch or provocation tests identify a probable causal agent?
Mathias Criteria
Answer of “yes” to 4 or more of the 7 criteria yields a greater than 50% probability of occupational cause
Provides a “reasonable degree of medical certainty”
Allergens
Top 10 Allergens in North America
Nickel sulfate
Balsam of Peru
Fragrance mix I
Quaternium-15
Neomycin
Bacitracin
Formaldehyde
Cobalt chloride
Fragrance mix II
p-Phenylenediamine
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Formaldehyde-Releasers
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Quaternium-15
Imidazolidinyl urea (Germall 115)
Diazolidinyl urea (Germall II)
DMDM hydantoin (Glydant)
2-Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (Bronopol)
Sodium hydroxymethyl glycinate
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Workplace Allergens- Canada
Epoxy resin
Thiuram Mix
Carba Mix
Nickel sulfate
Cobalt chloride
Potassium dichromate
Glyceryl thioglycolate
P-phenylenediamine
Formaldehyde
Glutaraldehyde
Arrandale et al Am J Ind Med 2012; 55:353-60.
Top Workplace Allergens-Denmark
Rubber allergens
Epoxy (windmill workers)
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
What’s new in Occupational Contact Allergens?
Coconut derivatives
Capryldiethanolamine in metalworking fluids
May not react to:
Monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, methyldiethanolamine, and cocamide DEA
Not in MSDS
Suuronen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 120-121.
Coconut derivatives
Sodium cocoamphopropionate
Surfactant
Derivative of coconut fatty acids condensed with amino-ethyl ethanolamines
Soaps, shampoos, conditioners
Sweden, fast-food workers
Hagvall et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 122-124.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide MEA
AKA tall oil fatty acids monoethanolamide
In metal working fluid
Aalto-Korte et al. Contact Dermatitis, 69,316-7.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA)
Surfactant
Industrial, household and cosmetic products
Finland 19/25 positives were occupational, most in metal industry
Soaps (hand, dish), metalworking fluids, barrier cream
Noted concomitant reactions
Monoethanolamine
Diethanolamine- impurity of cocamide DEA
Aalto-Korte et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 169-174.
Airborne medications
Benzodiazepines
Airborne contact from crushing pills for patients
2 nurses, 1 pharmacy tech, one relative
Consider in facial dermatitis
Swinnen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 227-232.
Sevofluorane
Systemic allergic contact- airborne
Required ROAT (negative to routine patch testing)
Surgeon
Burches et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 62-63.
Medications- Nonairborne
Omeprazole
Horse trainer
Handled paste for horse’s stomach ulcers
Al-Falah et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 377-378.
“Head lad” caring for race horses
Dispensed omeprazole paste via syringe
Alwan et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 376.
Fragrance
Citral
Hands and arms
9 beauticians in high-end spa
DeMozzi and Johnston, Contact Dermatitis 70, 377-378.
D- limonene
Machine cleaners, hand soaps, moisturizers, surface cleanser, dishwashing soaps
Pesonen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 273-279.
Isothiazolinones (Denmark)
Occupations
Painting
Welding (blacksmiths)
Machine operating
Cosmetology
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 295-302.
Sources
Paints and varnishes
Cleaners
Polishing liquids
Some in high concentrations
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 65-74.
Methylisothiazolinone
Ultrasound gel in ultrasonographer
Madsen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 312-313.
Water cooling tower technicians
Maor et al., Dermatitis 26, 62-64.
Allergens
Tricresyl phosphate
Cleaning occupation
In vinyl gloves
Plasticizer
Also in sheer strips (Band Aids)
Crepy et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 325-328.
Blue Collar Workers
Compared to controls patch-tested, BCW higher hand eczema, lower atopic dermatitis
Epoxy resins
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile
2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
Potassium dichromate
Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/ methylisothiazolinone (MI)
Allergen: Occupation
Epoxy: construction
MCI/MI: Painting
Potassium dichromate: tile setting/terrazzo work
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 348-355.
Blue Collar Workers
Case report of a cement worker with poor PPE
Sweden
Legislation in Europe to decrease hexavalent chromium in cement
Addition of ferrous sulfate
Chromium allergy persists
Hedberg et al, Contact dermatitis 70, 321-323.
Hairdressers- Denmark
Hairdressers 2002-2011
Compared to patch tested controls, hairdressers more significantly had Occupational CD and hand eczema, lower AD
Allergens significantly associated:
p-phenylenediamine, thiuram mix, benzocaine
Frequent sensitizers from the hairdressing series:
ammonium persulfate, toluene-2,5-diamine, 3-aminophenol, and 4-aminophenol
New sensitizers:
Cysteamine hydrochloride- substitute for glycerol monothioglycolate (restricted in Germany)
Chloroacetamide- preservative
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 233-237.
Hairdressers- Germany
German contact allergy database 2007-2012
Compared hairdressers to clients
Allergens significantly associated with hairdressers > clients:
Ammonium persulfate
Glyceryl monothioglycolate
Demonstrated concern as young hairdressers still with some positive reaction, despite legislation
Uter et al, Contact Dermatitis 71, 13-20.
Food Industry
Cobalt in a baker
Bregnbak et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 118-119.
Food Industry
Pizza makers
Diallyl disulfide and
Ammonium persulfate
Lembo et al., Dermatitis 25, 194-196.
Wine maker
Potassium metabisulfite
Ortiz et al., Dermatitis 25, 150-151.
Heathcare workers
Chlorhexidine
Australian study
2% relevant ACD in healthcare workers
Higher than other studies, keep on radar
Toholka et al., Australiasian J Derm 54, 303-306.
Preferred Approach to Occupational Exposure
1. Elimination
2. Substitution
3. Isolation
4. Engineering controls
5. Safe work practices
6. Personal protection
Material Safety Data Sheets
Mandated
Hazardous chemical name
Chemical properties
Physical hazards
Route of entry
Known exposure limits
Carcinogenicity
Clean-up practices
Control measures
Contact information
Not required
If proprietary
Specific name often avoided (general category used)
Irritants and sensitizers if <1% concentration
Often do not address prevention of sensitization and irritancy
Diagnosis- MSDS
Diagnosis- MSDS
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
AVOIDANCE!
Allergens
Irritants
Treatment/Prevention
Avoidance
Harder with omnipresent allergens (epoxy versus rubber allergens)
Contact urticaria more problematic than ACD
Clemmensen et al., Br J Dermatol 2014;170.
Personal protective equipment
Legislation
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Recommended short-term high-potency topical steroids for hands:
Clobetasol propionate
Ointment
Halcinonide ointment
No propylene glycol, no sensitizers
For body:
Short-term hydrocortisone 2.5% bid for face, neck, axillae, groin, intertriginousareas
Short-term triamcinolone 0.1% bid for body
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Avoid more than a few weeks of potent steroid use topically
Can thin the skin making hands more susceptible to allergen/irritant!
Consider calcineurin inhibitors topically
Consider IM steroids x 1
Oral steroids with SLOW taper
Doxycycline for anti-inflammatory effects
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Barrier creams- Repair versus Protect
Repair creams with ceramides
Barrier creams with dimethicone
Studies are variable in demonstrating any benefit from barrier creams when compared to regular emollients
At least recommend moisturizing
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Prevention
Barrier creams
Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis
At high dose of application (2-20x actual application) can help prevent ICD
Schliemann et al., Contact dermatitis 70, 19-26.
Cotton liners under gloves
Adisesh et al., Br J Dermatol 2013.
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Appropriate gloves
Match task with glove
“Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing” by Forsberg and Mansdorf
ACDS website lists glove manufacturers
Treating Dermatitis- Step 2 (Maintenance)
Calcineurin inhibitors
Tacrolimus 0.1%
Pimecrolimus 0.1%
Therapeutic moisturizers
Shea butter
Aquaphor
Petrolatum
Lower potency steroids for hands:
Triamcinolone 0.1%
Fluticasone cream or lotion
Hydrocortisone butyrate lipid cream
Clocortolone cream
Treating Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Hand psoralen- ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA)
Narrow-band UV B therapy (NBUVB)
Often used for recalcitrant body dermatitis
Excimer laser
308 nm
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Methotrexate
Mycophenolate mofetil
2-3g/day recommended for control
Acitretin
Best for psoriasiform hand dermatitis
2-4 month course
Cyclosporine
2.5-5 mg/kg daily
Azathioprine
1-3 mg/kg daily
Biologics are not helpful overall (yet!)
Treatment
Multidisciplinary teams aid in successful return to work
German model included inpatient and outpatient care
87% remained in workforce
Weisshaar et al., Contact Dermatitis 2013;68:169-174.
Netherlands included a dermatologist, education nurse, occupational medicine physician
Van Gils et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012 66(4) and 66(5).
Canadian model
Gomez et al., Dermatitis 2011;22(3).
Prevention
Evidence-based intervention
1 hour voluntary hand protective behavior lecture/ intervention
Full-time hospital cleaners
At 3 months post-intervention
Decreased hand cleansing
Better knowledge of hand preservation
Improved hand dermatitis
Clemmensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 47-54.
Occupational Dermatitis Resources
Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing by Forsberg and Mansdorf
Contact and Occupational Dermatology by Marks, Elsner, DeLeo
ACDS website
OSHA, NIOSH
Article December 2011 The Dermatologist
Summary
Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish
We are constantly being exposed to new allergens, often earlier in life
Occupational contact dermatitis is underreported
Patch testing for ACD is the gold standard
Can try TRUE test, consider referral for comprehensive panels
Novel allergens in the workplace
Summary
Think outside the box
Try a stepwise approach
Elimination
Treatment
Escalate treatment
Will be chronic if exposure continues
You can make a huge difference in patient’s quality of life
References
Marks et al., 2002. Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact and Occupational Dermatology, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby, 2002.
Nelson and Yiannias, 2009. Nelson S.A., Yiannias J.A.: Relevance and avoidance of skin-care product allergens: Pearls and pitfalls. Dermatol Clin 2009; 27(3):329-336.
Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test. Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test) : Available at:[accessed 03.07.11] http://www.truetest.com/PatientPDF/File18.pdf
Zug et al., 2009. Zug K.A., Warshaw E.M., Fowler J.F., et al: Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 2009; 20:149-160.
Emmett EA. Occupational contact dermatitis I. Incidence and return to work pressures. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2002;13:30–4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. [Bulletin 2512]. Washington (DC): US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1999.
Lushniak BD. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin1995; 13:671–9.
Skoet R, Olsen J, Mathiesen B, et al. A survey of occupational hand eczema in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51(4):159–66.
Staton I, Ma R, Evans N, et al. Dermal nickel exposure associated with coin handling and in various occupational settings: assessment using a newly developed finger immersion method. Br J Dermatol 2006;154(4):658–64.
Veien NK, Menne T. Treatment of hand eczema. Skin Therapy Lett 2003;8(5):4–7. 137.
Warshaw E. Therapeutic options for chronic hand dermatitis. Dermatol Ther2004;4:17240–50.
Schalock PC, Zug KA, Carter JC, et al. Efficacy and patient perception of Grenz ray therapy in the treatment of dermatoses refractory to other medical therapy. Dermatitis 2008;19(2):90–4.
Abramovits W, Granowski P. Innovative management of severe hand dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 28 (2010) 453-65.
Blanciforti, L. Economic burden of dermatitis in US workers. JOEM 52. (11):1045-54. 2010.
References
Sprigle AM, Marks JG Jr, Anderson BE. Prevention of nickel release with barrier coatings. Dermatitis. 2008,19(1):28-31.
Diepgen T.L., Coenraads P.J.: The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72. (8): 496-506.1999.
Keil J.E., Shmunes E.: The epidemiology of work-related skin disease in South Carolina. Arch Dermatol 119. (8): 650-654.1983.
Mathias C.G.: Occupational dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol 19. (6): 1107-1114.1988.
Goh C.L.: An epidemiological comparison between occupational and non-occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 120. (1): 77-82.1989.
Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact & occupational dermatology. 3rd ed Mosby St. Louis, (MO)2002.
Holness D.L.: Characteristic features of occupational dermatitis: epidemiologic studies of occupational skin disease reported by contact dermatitis clinics. Occup Med 9. (1): 45-52.1994.
Belsito D.V.: Occupational contact dermatitis: etiology, prevalence, and resultant impairment/disability. J Am Acad Dermatol 53. (2): 303-313.2005.
Kanerva L., Estlander T., Jolanki R.: Occupational skin disease in Finland. An analysis of 10 years of statistics from an occupational dermatology clinic. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60. (2): 89-94.1988.
Sertoli A., Gola M., Martinelli C., et al: Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Semin Dermatol 8. (2): 120-126.1989.
Rietschel R.L., Mathias C.G., Fowler , Jr. , Jr.J.F., et al: Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermatitis 13. (4): 170-176.2002.
Nethercott J.R., Holness D.L.: Disease outcome in workers with occupational skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 30. (4): 569-574.1994.
Mathias C.G., Morrison J.H.: Occupational skin diseases, United States. Results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 1973 through 1984. Arch Dermatol 124. (10): 1519-1524.1988.
Koch P.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol 2. (6): 353-365.2001.
Bureau of Labor Statistics : Occupational Injuries and illnesses in the United States. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif
Lushniak B.D.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 17. (3): 272-277.2004.
Mathias C.G.: The cost of ccupational skin disease. Arch Dermatol 121. (3): 332-334.1985.
Cvetkovski R.S., Rothman K.J., Olsen J., et al: Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave, and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 152. (1): 93-98.2005.
Thank you!
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
23
1
2
24
25
1
2
26
27
1
2
28
1
2
29
30
1
2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1
2
70
71
72
73
74
1
2
75
76
1
2
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
1
2
84
85
1
2
86
1
2
87
88
89
1
2
90
1
2
91
92
93
94
1
2
95
96
97
98
1
2
3
4
99
100
101
102
103
1
2
104
1
2
105
106
107
108
1
2
109
110
1
2
111
112
113
114
1
2
115
1
2
116
117
118
3/27/2015
20
Occupational DermatologyPearls
Heather P. Lampel, MD, MPH, FAAD, FACOEM
Duke University
Assistant Professor of Dermatology and
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
May 3, 2015
Disclosures
I have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
I will be discussing off-label use of patch testing and off-label treatment of contact dermatitis
I will mention companies
Objectives
Discuss the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in the occupational setting
Differentiate irritant from allergic contact dermatitis
Understand the role of patch testing in diagnosis
Highlight recently described allergens in the workplace
Review the trends in the occupational dermatitis literature 2014- present
Explore pitfalls and misconceptions in the workplace
Why should we care?
Occupational skin disease is a “hot” topic
Healthy People 2020
“Reduce occupational skin diseases or disorders among full-time workers”
ACOEM Core Competencies- Clinical Dermatology
OEM physicians can provide early recognition, diagnosis, and management …
Diagnose primary irritant-induced dermatoses
Differentiate occupational skin disorders…
Diagnose and determine the cause of allergic contact dermatitis …
Manage occupational and environmental skin injuries and dermatoses
Treat and prevent recurrence of contact dermatitis
Epidemiology of Occupational Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis
Contact dermatitis (CD) is reported to account for up to 30% of all occupational disease in industrialized nations
CD is the most common occupational skin disorder
About 90-95% of all cases of occupational skin diseases
Occupational CD Epidemiology United States
Incidence rate of 0.5-1.9 cases per 1000 full-time workers per year
US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004 estimated 48,800 cases of Occupational CD
1 year prevalence estimate of 20%
21-22% in healthcare workers
Ibler et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012;67:200-207.
Luk et al., Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:329-335.
Occupational CD Epidemiology Denmark
Occupational CD
95% of all occupational skin cases
Irritant CD 70% of these Occupational CD
68% due to wet work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
True epidemiologic data are lacking
Likely underestimated due to underreporting
Mild cases specifically
Bureau of Labor Statistics has rigorous criteria for inclusion
May not be obviously work-related (delayed-onset)
Self-treated
Only requiring first aid excluded
Underestimated by 85-88%
Luckhaupt et al., Am J Ind Med 2012.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Survey of established cases of Occupational CD reported that over one year:
19.9% reported prolonged sick leave
23% reported job loss
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
1985 Mathias estimated annual costs of Occupational CD to be between $222 million and $1 billion
2004 NIOSH estimates $1.2 billion
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Hands are usually involved
80-90% of cases
Great impact on quality of life
What percent of all contact dermatitis is allergic versus irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis accounts for 60-80% of all CD
Allergic contact dermatitis accounts for remaining 20-40%
Overlap common
Contact Dermatitis Overview
ACD is a SPECIFIC immunologic reaction, requiring prior sensitization
Elliott G and Das PK. Using p-Phenylenediamine: A Gateway to Chemical Immunology. Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2010) 130, 641–643.
Immunology of Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis Overview
90% of the population can be sensitized to certain antigens such as dinitrochlorobenzene
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis is NONSPECIFIC
Requires no prior sensitization
Clinically can be difficult to distinguish ICD from ACD
Common Occupational Irritants
Alkalis
Soaps
Detergents
Cleansers
Acids
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum
Oils
Solvents
Common Occupational Irritants
Frictional Dermatitis
Repetitive handling of objects or materials
Likely underappreciated
Examples
Fabric
Paper
Metal objects
Driving
Common Occupational Irritants
Gloves
Prolonged contact with skin affects the epidermal barrier
May be irritant itself
May make epidermal barrier more susceptible to allergens or other irritants
Irritants- Recent Literature
Wet work
Irritant chemicals
Solvents
Food
Detergents
Gloves
Mechanical trauma
Air (warm, dry)
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations
Occupations at High-Risk for Hand Dermatitis
Hairdressers
Musicians
Food Industry workers
Agricultural workers
Factory workers
Electronics workers
Cleaners/Washers
Housekeepers
Printers
Builders
Medical and Dental workers
Occupations at Risk for ICD
Hairdressers
Nursing
Doctors
Mechanics
Cooks
Cleaners
Painters
Plumbers
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations at Risk for CD- Denmark
Healthcare
Cleaning
Kitchen work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Epidemiology by Occupation
Shoe manufacturer
Indonesia
29% OCD point prevalence
Febriana et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2014; 87.
Poultry processing and manual laborers
1 year prevalence 23% skin symptoms
Quandt et al., Am J Indust Medicine 2014; 57.
Construction Industry
25.4% point prevalence of hand skin symptoms
Timmerman et al., Am J Ind Med 2014; 57.
Healthcare workers
Dutch apprentice nurses followed prospectively
1 year period prevalence of hand eczema
23% in first year
25% in second year
31% in third year
Frequent hand washing at work, at home, and outside wet work job all risk factors
Visser et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 44-55.
ACD vs ICD
Photo Quiz
Allergic or Irritant Contact Dermatitis?
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic and Irritant
Debunking the myths…
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
FALSE
Allergy can develop after years of using the same product
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
FALSE
There are many cross-reactants in other products, it is best to have NO exposures to topicals/cross-reactors when clearing a rash
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
NOT NECESSARILY
Common misconception held by MDs
There are many aspects affecting end-product eruption
Can be patchy!
CD Misconceptions
Adult onset “eczema”
If no history of eczema or atopy, more likely ACD
Especially if on hands, face, neck
90% of eczema has onset by age 5
“The greatest abuse of patch testing is failure to use the test.”
Coleman, 1982
Epicutaneous Patch testing
Intended to detect allergens relevant to eruption
Is at least a week-long process
Detects Type IV allergic reaction (delayed-type hypersensitivity)
Requires at least 2-3 visits to clinic for complete testing
T.R.U.E. Test
Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test
Allerderm product
Only FDA-approved patch testing product
36 allergens
Comes pre-filled
May not detect all relevant allergens
Patch testing
Step 1: Take extensive exposure history
Include home exposures, work tasks and exposures, implants, intermittent exposures, MSDS if appropriate
Patch testing
Step 2: Determine allergen panel
Would be pre-determined if only TRUE Test is available
Patch testing
Step 3: Prepare allergen tray as appropriate
TRUE test is pre-prepared
Patch testing
Step 4: Apply patches to back
Back must be clear of rash
Patches are marked
Securing paper tape is used
Patch testing
Step 5: Patches removed in 48 hours
Variability in how this is done
Areas remarked
Reactions noted- Irritant
Patch testing
Step 6: Patches read at 3-7 days after application
Our clinic reads at 4 days
Consider delayed read for late reactors
Patch testing
Step 7: Determine clinical relevance
Consider the Mathias Criteria for Occupational cases
Excellent tool for ascertaining occupational causation
Keep in mind that irritant CD remains a diagnosis of exclusion, and dermatitis may be both ICD and ACD, multifactorial, etc.
Patch testing
Step 8: Instruct in avoidance of allergen(s) and cross-reactors
If in topical medicaments, cosmetics, etc. it is best to print out the CAMP “safe list”
On American Contact Dermatitis Society member webpage
Mayo Clinic also has a database
Also consider all objects that may contain allergen
Information (written) and verbal counseling of patient is KEY
May include modified work, increased or alternative PPE, modified environment-both home and work
Mathias Criteria
1. Is the clinical appearance consistent with contact dermatitis?
2. Are there workplace exposures to potential cutaneous irritants or allergens?
3. Is the anatomic distribution of the dermatitis consistent with cutaneous exposure in relation to work tasks?
4. Is there a temporal association between onset of dermatitis and exposure consistent with contact dermatitis?
Mathias Criteria
5. Are non-occupational exposures excluded as probable causes?
6. Does dermatitis improve away from work exposure to the suspected allergen or irritant?
7. Do patch or provocation tests identify a probable causal agent?
Mathias Criteria
Answer of “yes” to 4 or more of the 7 criteria yields a greater than 50% probability of occupational cause
Provides a “reasonable degree of medical certainty”
Allergens
Top 10 Allergens in North America
Nickel sulfate
Balsam of Peru
Fragrance mix I
Quaternium-15
Neomycin
Bacitracin
Formaldehyde
Cobalt chloride
Fragrance mix II
p-Phenylenediamine
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Formaldehyde-Releasers
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Quaternium-15
Imidazolidinyl urea (Germall 115)
Diazolidinyl urea (Germall II)
DMDM hydantoin (Glydant)
2-Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (Bronopol)
Sodium hydroxymethyl glycinate
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Workplace Allergens- Canada
Epoxy resin
Thiuram Mix
Carba Mix
Nickel sulfate
Cobalt chloride
Potassium dichromate
Glyceryl thioglycolate
P-phenylenediamine
Formaldehyde
Glutaraldehyde
Arrandale et al Am J Ind Med 2012; 55:353-60.
Top Workplace Allergens-Denmark
Rubber allergens
Epoxy (windmill workers)
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
What’s new in Occupational Contact Allergens?
Coconut derivatives
Capryldiethanolamine in metalworking fluids
May not react to:
Monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, methyldiethanolamine, and cocamide DEA
Not in MSDS
Suuronen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 120-121.
Coconut derivatives
Sodium cocoamphopropionate
Surfactant
Derivative of coconut fatty acids condensed with amino-ethyl ethanolamines
Soaps, shampoos, conditioners
Sweden, fast-food workers
Hagvall et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 122-124.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide MEA
AKA tall oil fatty acids monoethanolamide
In metal working fluid
Aalto-Korte et al. Contact Dermatitis, 69,316-7.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA)
Surfactant
Industrial, household and cosmetic products
Finland 19/25 positives were occupational, most in metal industry
Soaps (hand, dish), metalworking fluids, barrier cream
Noted concomitant reactions
Monoethanolamine
Diethanolamine- impurity of cocamide DEA
Aalto-Korte et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 169-174.
Airborne medications
Benzodiazepines
Airborne contact from crushing pills for patients
2 nurses, 1 pharmacy tech, one relative
Consider in facial dermatitis
Swinnen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 227-232.
Sevofluorane
Systemic allergic contact- airborne
Required ROAT (negative to routine patch testing)
Surgeon
Burches et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 62-63.
Medications- Nonairborne
Omeprazole
Horse trainer
Handled paste for horse’s stomach ulcers
Al-Falah et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 377-378.
“Head lad” caring for race horses
Dispensed omeprazole paste via syringe
Alwan et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 376.
Fragrance
Citral
Hands and arms
9 beauticians in high-end spa
DeMozzi and Johnston, Contact Dermatitis 70, 377-378.
D- limonene
Machine cleaners, hand soaps, moisturizers, surface cleanser, dishwashing soaps
Pesonen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 273-279.
Isothiazolinones (Denmark)
Occupations
Painting
Welding (blacksmiths)
Machine operating
Cosmetology
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 295-302.
Sources
Paints and varnishes
Cleaners
Polishing liquids
Some in high concentrations
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 65-74.
Methylisothiazolinone
Ultrasound gel in ultrasonographer
Madsen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 312-313.
Water cooling tower technicians
Maor et al., Dermatitis 26, 62-64.
Allergens
Tricresyl phosphate
Cleaning occupation
In vinyl gloves
Plasticizer
Also in sheer strips (Band Aids)
Crepy et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 325-328.
Blue Collar Workers
Compared to controls patch-tested, BCW higher hand eczema, lower atopic dermatitis
Epoxy resins
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile
2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
Potassium dichromate
Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/ methylisothiazolinone (MI)
Allergen: Occupation
Epoxy: construction
MCI/MI: Painting
Potassium dichromate: tile setting/terrazzo work
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 348-355.
Blue Collar Workers
Case report of a cement worker with poor PPE
Sweden
Legislation in Europe to decrease hexavalent chromium in cement
Addition of ferrous sulfate
Chromium allergy persists
Hedberg et al, Contact dermatitis 70, 321-323.
Hairdressers- Denmark
Hairdressers 2002-2011
Compared to patch tested controls, hairdressers more significantly had Occupational CD and hand eczema, lower AD
Allergens significantly associated:
p-phenylenediamine, thiuram mix, benzocaine
Frequent sensitizers from the hairdressing series:
ammonium persulfate, toluene-2,5-diamine, 3-aminophenol, and 4-aminophenol
New sensitizers:
Cysteamine hydrochloride- substitute for glycerol monothioglycolate (restricted in Germany)
Chloroacetamide- preservative
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 233-237.
Hairdressers- Germany
German contact allergy database 2007-2012
Compared hairdressers to clients
Allergens significantly associated with hairdressers > clients:
Ammonium persulfate
Glyceryl monothioglycolate
Demonstrated concern as young hairdressers still with some positive reaction, despite legislation
Uter et al, Contact Dermatitis 71, 13-20.
Food Industry
Cobalt in a baker
Bregnbak et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 118-119.
Food Industry
Pizza makers
Diallyl disulfide and
Ammonium persulfate
Lembo et al., Dermatitis 25, 194-196.
Wine maker
Potassium metabisulfite
Ortiz et al., Dermatitis 25, 150-151.
Heathcare workers
Chlorhexidine
Australian study
2% relevant ACD in healthcare workers
Higher than other studies, keep on radar
Toholka et al., Australiasian J Derm 54, 303-306.
Preferred Approach to Occupational Exposure
1. Elimination
2. Substitution
3. Isolation
4. Engineering controls
5. Safe work practices
6. Personal protection
Material Safety Data Sheets
Mandated
Hazardous chemical name
Chemical properties
Physical hazards
Route of entry
Known exposure limits
Carcinogenicity
Clean-up practices
Control measures
Contact information
Not required
If proprietary
Specific name often avoided (general category used)
Irritants and sensitizers if <1% concentration
Often do not address prevention of sensitization and irritancy
Diagnosis- MSDS
Diagnosis- MSDS
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
AVOIDANCE!
Allergens
Irritants
Treatment/Prevention
Avoidance
Harder with omnipresent allergens (epoxy versus rubber allergens)
Contact urticaria more problematic than ACD
Clemmensen et al., Br J Dermatol 2014;170.
Personal protective equipment
Legislation
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Recommended short-term high-potency topical steroids for hands:
Clobetasol propionate
Ointment
Halcinonide ointment
No propylene glycol, no sensitizers
For body:
Short-term hydrocortisone 2.5% bid for face, neck, axillae, groin, intertriginousareas
Short-term triamcinolone 0.1% bid for body
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Avoid more than a few weeks of potent steroid use topically
Can thin the skin making hands more susceptible to allergen/irritant!
Consider calcineurin inhibitors topically
Consider IM steroids x 1
Oral steroids with SLOW taper
Doxycycline for anti-inflammatory effects
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Barrier creams- Repair versus Protect
Repair creams with ceramides
Barrier creams with dimethicone
Studies are variable in demonstrating any benefit from barrier creams when compared to regular emollients
At least recommend moisturizing
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Prevention
Barrier creams
Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis
At high dose of application (2-20x actual application) can help prevent ICD
Schliemann et al., Contact dermatitis 70, 19-26.
Cotton liners under gloves
Adisesh et al., Br J Dermatol 2013.
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Appropriate gloves
Match task with glove
“Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing” by Forsberg and Mansdorf
ACDS website lists glove manufacturers
Treating Dermatitis- Step 2 (Maintenance)
Calcineurin inhibitors
Tacrolimus 0.1%
Pimecrolimus 0.1%
Therapeutic moisturizers
Shea butter
Aquaphor
Petrolatum
Lower potency steroids for hands:
Triamcinolone 0.1%
Fluticasone cream or lotion
Hydrocortisone butyrate lipid cream
Clocortolone cream
Treating Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Hand psoralen- ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA)
Narrow-band UV B therapy (NBUVB)
Often used for recalcitrant body dermatitis
Excimer laser
308 nm
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Methotrexate
Mycophenolate mofetil
2-3g/day recommended for control
Acitretin
Best for psoriasiform hand dermatitis
2-4 month course
Cyclosporine
2.5-5 mg/kg daily
Azathioprine
1-3 mg/kg daily
Biologics are not helpful overall (yet!)
Treatment
Multidisciplinary teams aid in successful return to work
German model included inpatient and outpatient care
87% remained in workforce
Weisshaar et al., Contact Dermatitis 2013;68:169-174.
Netherlands included a dermatologist, education nurse, occupational medicine physician
Van Gils et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012 66(4) and 66(5).
Canadian model
Gomez et al., Dermatitis 2011;22(3).
Prevention
Evidence-based intervention
1 hour voluntary hand protective behavior lecture/ intervention
Full-time hospital cleaners
At 3 months post-intervention
Decreased hand cleansing
Better knowledge of hand preservation
Improved hand dermatitis
Clemmensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 47-54.
Occupational Dermatitis Resources
Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing by Forsberg and Mansdorf
Contact and Occupational Dermatology by Marks, Elsner, DeLeo
ACDS website
OSHA, NIOSH
Article December 2011 The Dermatologist
Summary
Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish
We are constantly being exposed to new allergens, often earlier in life
Occupational contact dermatitis is underreported
Patch testing for ACD is the gold standard
Can try TRUE test, consider referral for comprehensive panels
Novel allergens in the workplace
Summary
Think outside the box
Try a stepwise approach
Elimination
Treatment
Escalate treatment
Will be chronic if exposure continues
You can make a huge difference in patient’s quality of life
References
Marks et al., 2002. Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact and Occupational Dermatology, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby, 2002.
Nelson and Yiannias, 2009. Nelson S.A., Yiannias J.A.: Relevance and avoidance of skin-care product allergens: Pearls and pitfalls. Dermatol Clin 2009; 27(3):329-336.
Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test. Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test) : Available at:[accessed 03.07.11] http://www.truetest.com/PatientPDF/File18.pdf
Zug et al., 2009. Zug K.A., Warshaw E.M., Fowler J.F., et al: Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 2009; 20:149-160.
Emmett EA. Occupational contact dermatitis I. Incidence and return to work pressures. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2002;13:30–4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. [Bulletin 2512]. Washington (DC): US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1999.
Lushniak BD. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin1995; 13:671–9.
Skoet R, Olsen J, Mathiesen B, et al. A survey of occupational hand eczema in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51(4):159–66.
Staton I, Ma R, Evans N, et al. Dermal nickel exposure associated with coin handling and in various occupational settings: assessment using a newly developed finger immersion method. Br J Dermatol 2006;154(4):658–64.
Veien NK, Menne T. Treatment of hand eczema. Skin Therapy Lett 2003;8(5):4–7. 137.
Warshaw E. Therapeutic options for chronic hand dermatitis. Dermatol Ther2004;4:17240–50.
Schalock PC, Zug KA, Carter JC, et al. Efficacy and patient perception of Grenz ray therapy in the treatment of dermatoses refractory to other medical therapy. Dermatitis 2008;19(2):90–4.
Abramovits W, Granowski P. Innovative management of severe hand dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 28 (2010) 453-65.
Blanciforti, L. Economic burden of dermatitis in US workers. JOEM 52. (11):1045-54. 2010.
References
Sprigle AM, Marks JG Jr, Anderson BE. Prevention of nickel release with barrier coatings. Dermatitis. 2008,19(1):28-31.
Diepgen T.L., Coenraads P.J.: The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72. (8): 496-506.1999.
Keil J.E., Shmunes E.: The epidemiology of work-related skin disease in South Carolina. Arch Dermatol 119. (8): 650-654.1983.
Mathias C.G.: Occupational dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol 19. (6): 1107-1114.1988.
Goh C.L.: An epidemiological comparison between occupational and non-occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 120. (1): 77-82.1989.
Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact & occupational dermatology. 3rd ed Mosby St. Louis, (MO)2002.
Holness D.L.: Characteristic features of occupational dermatitis: epidemiologic studies of occupational skin disease reported by contact dermatitis clinics. Occup Med 9. (1): 45-52.1994.
Belsito D.V.: Occupational contact dermatitis: etiology, prevalence, and resultant impairment/disability. J Am Acad Dermatol 53. (2): 303-313.2005.
Kanerva L., Estlander T., Jolanki R.: Occupational skin disease in Finland. An analysis of 10 years of statistics from an occupational dermatology clinic. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60. (2): 89-94.1988.
Sertoli A., Gola M., Martinelli C., et al: Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Semin Dermatol 8. (2): 120-126.1989.
Rietschel R.L., Mathias C.G., Fowler , Jr. , Jr.J.F., et al: Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermatitis 13. (4): 170-176.2002.
Nethercott J.R., Holness D.L.: Disease outcome in workers with occupational skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 30. (4): 569-574.1994.
Mathias C.G., Morrison J.H.: Occupational skin diseases, United States. Results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 1973 through 1984. Arch Dermatol 124. (10): 1519-1524.1988.
Koch P.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol 2. (6): 353-365.2001.
Bureau of Labor Statistics : Occupational Injuries and illnesses in the United States. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif
Lushniak B.D.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 17. (3): 272-277.2004.
Mathias C.G.: The cost of ccupational skin disease. Arch Dermatol 121. (3): 332-334.1985.
Cvetkovski R.S., Rothman K.J., Olsen J., et al: Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave, and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 152. (1): 93-98.2005.
Thank you!
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
23
1
2
24
25
1
2
26
27
1
2
28
1
2
29
30
1
2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1
2
70
71
72
73
74
1
2
75
76
1
2
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
1
2
84
85
1
2
86
1
2
87
88
89
1
2
90
1
2
91
92
93
94
1
2
95
96
97
98
1
2
3
4
99
100
101
102
103
1
2
104
1
2
105
106
107
108
1
2
109
110
1
2
111
112
113
114
1
2
115
1
2
116
117
118
3/27/2015
21
Occupational DermatologyPearls
Heather P. Lampel, MD, MPH, FAAD, FACOEM
Duke University
Assistant Professor of Dermatology and
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
May 3, 2015
Disclosures
I have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
I will be discussing off-label use of patch testing and off-label treatment of contact dermatitis
I will mention companies
Objectives
Discuss the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in the occupational setting
Differentiate irritant from allergic contact dermatitis
Understand the role of patch testing in diagnosis
Highlight recently described allergens in the workplace
Review the trends in the occupational dermatitis literature 2014- present
Explore pitfalls and misconceptions in the workplace
Why should we care?
Occupational skin disease is a “hot” topic
Healthy People 2020
“Reduce occupational skin diseases or disorders among full-time workers”
ACOEM Core Competencies- Clinical Dermatology
OEM physicians can provide early recognition, diagnosis, and management …
Diagnose primary irritant-induced dermatoses
Differentiate occupational skin disorders…
Diagnose and determine the cause of allergic contact dermatitis …
Manage occupational and environmental skin injuries and dermatoses
Treat and prevent recurrence of contact dermatitis
Epidemiology of Occupational Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis
Contact dermatitis (CD) is reported to account for up to 30% of all occupational disease in industrialized nations
CD is the most common occupational skin disorder
About 90-95% of all cases of occupational skin diseases
Occupational CD Epidemiology United States
Incidence rate of 0.5-1.9 cases per 1000 full-time workers per year
US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004 estimated 48,800 cases of Occupational CD
1 year prevalence estimate of 20%
21-22% in healthcare workers
Ibler et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012;67:200-207.
Luk et al., Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:329-335.
Occupational CD Epidemiology Denmark
Occupational CD
95% of all occupational skin cases
Irritant CD 70% of these Occupational CD
68% due to wet work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
True epidemiologic data are lacking
Likely underestimated due to underreporting
Mild cases specifically
Bureau of Labor Statistics has rigorous criteria for inclusion
May not be obviously work-related (delayed-onset)
Self-treated
Only requiring first aid excluded
Underestimated by 85-88%
Luckhaupt et al., Am J Ind Med 2012.
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Survey of established cases of Occupational CD reported that over one year:
19.9% reported prolonged sick leave
23% reported job loss
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
1985 Mathias estimated annual costs of Occupational CD to be between $222 million and $1 billion
2004 NIOSH estimates $1.2 billion
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Epidemiology
Hands are usually involved
80-90% of cases
Great impact on quality of life
What percent of all contact dermatitis is allergic versus irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis accounts for 60-80% of all CD
Allergic contact dermatitis accounts for remaining 20-40%
Overlap common
Contact Dermatitis Overview
ACD is a SPECIFIC immunologic reaction, requiring prior sensitization
Elliott G and Das PK. Using p-Phenylenediamine: A Gateway to Chemical Immunology. Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2010) 130, 641–643.
Immunology of Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis Overview
90% of the population can be sensitized to certain antigens such as dinitrochlorobenzene
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Irritant contact dermatitis is NONSPECIFIC
Requires no prior sensitization
Clinically can be difficult to distinguish ICD from ACD
Common Occupational Irritants
Alkalis
Soaps
Detergents
Cleansers
Acids
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum
Oils
Solvents
Common Occupational Irritants
Frictional Dermatitis
Repetitive handling of objects or materials
Likely underappreciated
Examples
Fabric
Paper
Metal objects
Driving
Common Occupational Irritants
Gloves
Prolonged contact with skin affects the epidermal barrier
May be irritant itself
May make epidermal barrier more susceptible to allergens or other irritants
Irritants- Recent Literature
Wet work
Irritant chemicals
Solvents
Food
Detergents
Gloves
Mechanical trauma
Air (warm, dry)
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations
Occupations at High-Risk for Hand Dermatitis
Hairdressers
Musicians
Food Industry workers
Agricultural workers
Factory workers
Electronics workers
Cleaners/Washers
Housekeepers
Printers
Builders
Medical and Dental workers
Occupations at Risk for ICD
Hairdressers
Nursing
Doctors
Mechanics
Cooks
Cleaners
Painters
Plumbers
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 364-370.
Occupations at Risk for CD- Denmark
Healthcare
Cleaning
Kitchen work
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
Epidemiology by Occupation
Shoe manufacturer
Indonesia
29% OCD point prevalence
Febriana et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2014; 87.
Poultry processing and manual laborers
1 year prevalence 23% skin symptoms
Quandt et al., Am J Indust Medicine 2014; 57.
Construction Industry
25.4% point prevalence of hand skin symptoms
Timmerman et al., Am J Ind Med 2014; 57.
Healthcare workers
Dutch apprentice nurses followed prospectively
1 year period prevalence of hand eczema
23% in first year
25% in second year
31% in third year
Frequent hand washing at work, at home, and outside wet work job all risk factors
Visser et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 44-55.
ACD vs ICD
Photo Quiz
Allergic or Irritant Contact Dermatitis?
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Contact Dermatitis Overview
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Irritant
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic
Allergic or Irritant?
Allergic and Irritant
Debunking the myths…
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
CD Misconceptions
Allergy only develops to new exposures/products
FALSE
Allergy can develop after years of using the same product
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
CD Misconceptions
If a change in chemical/product exposure does not clear the rash, that product is not etiologic
FALSE
There are many cross-reactants in other products, it is best to have NO exposures to topicals/cross-reactors when clearing a rash
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
CD Misconceptions
If product exposure is bilateral, the eruption should be bilateral
NOT NECESSARILY
Common misconception held by MDs
There are many aspects affecting end-product eruption
Can be patchy!
CD Misconceptions
Adult onset “eczema”
If no history of eczema or atopy, more likely ACD
Especially if on hands, face, neck
90% of eczema has onset by age 5
“The greatest abuse of patch testing is failure to use the test.”
Coleman, 1982
Epicutaneous Patch testing
Intended to detect allergens relevant to eruption
Is at least a week-long process
Detects Type IV allergic reaction (delayed-type hypersensitivity)
Requires at least 2-3 visits to clinic for complete testing
T.R.U.E. Test
Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test
Allerderm product
Only FDA-approved patch testing product
36 allergens
Comes pre-filled
May not detect all relevant allergens
Patch testing
Step 1: Take extensive exposure history
Include home exposures, work tasks and exposures, implants, intermittent exposures, MSDS if appropriate
Patch testing
Step 2: Determine allergen panel
Would be pre-determined if only TRUE Test is available
Patch testing
Step 3: Prepare allergen tray as appropriate
TRUE test is pre-prepared
Patch testing
Step 4: Apply patches to back
Back must be clear of rash
Patches are marked
Securing paper tape is used
Patch testing
Step 5: Patches removed in 48 hours
Variability in how this is done
Areas remarked
Reactions noted- Irritant
Patch testing
Step 6: Patches read at 3-7 days after application
Our clinic reads at 4 days
Consider delayed read for late reactors
Patch testing
Step 7: Determine clinical relevance
Consider the Mathias Criteria for Occupational cases
Excellent tool for ascertaining occupational causation
Keep in mind that irritant CD remains a diagnosis of exclusion, and dermatitis may be both ICD and ACD, multifactorial, etc.
Patch testing
Step 8: Instruct in avoidance of allergen(s) and cross-reactors
If in topical medicaments, cosmetics, etc. it is best to print out the CAMP “safe list”
On American Contact Dermatitis Society member webpage
Mayo Clinic also has a database
Also consider all objects that may contain allergen
Information (written) and verbal counseling of patient is KEY
May include modified work, increased or alternative PPE, modified environment-both home and work
Mathias Criteria
1. Is the clinical appearance consistent with contact dermatitis?
2. Are there workplace exposures to potential cutaneous irritants or allergens?
3. Is the anatomic distribution of the dermatitis consistent with cutaneous exposure in relation to work tasks?
4. Is there a temporal association between onset of dermatitis and exposure consistent with contact dermatitis?
Mathias Criteria
5. Are non-occupational exposures excluded as probable causes?
6. Does dermatitis improve away from work exposure to the suspected allergen or irritant?
7. Do patch or provocation tests identify a probable causal agent?
Mathias Criteria
Answer of “yes” to 4 or more of the 7 criteria yields a greater than 50% probability of occupational cause
Provides a “reasonable degree of medical certainty”
Allergens
Top 10 Allergens in North America
Nickel sulfate
Balsam of Peru
Fragrance mix I
Quaternium-15
Neomycin
Bacitracin
Formaldehyde
Cobalt chloride
Fragrance mix II
p-Phenylenediamine
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Formaldehyde-Releasers
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Quaternium-15
Imidazolidinyl urea (Germall 115)
Diazolidinyl urea (Germall II)
DMDM hydantoin (Glydant)
2-Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (Bronopol)
Sodium hydroxymethyl glycinate
Top Allergens in the Workplace
Carba Mix
Thiuram Mix
Epoxy Resin
Formaldehyde
Nickel
Top Workplace Allergens- Canada
Epoxy resin
Thiuram Mix
Carba Mix
Nickel sulfate
Cobalt chloride
Potassium dichromate
Glyceryl thioglycolate
P-phenylenediamine
Formaldehyde
Glutaraldehyde
Arrandale et al Am J Ind Med 2012; 55:353-60.
Top Workplace Allergens-Denmark
Rubber allergens
Epoxy (windmill workers)
Caroe et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 56-62.
What’s new in Occupational Contact Allergens?
Coconut derivatives
Capryldiethanolamine in metalworking fluids
May not react to:
Monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, methyldiethanolamine, and cocamide DEA
Not in MSDS
Suuronen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 120-121.
Coconut derivatives
Sodium cocoamphopropionate
Surfactant
Derivative of coconut fatty acids condensed with amino-ethyl ethanolamines
Soaps, shampoos, conditioners
Sweden, fast-food workers
Hagvall et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 122-124.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide MEA
AKA tall oil fatty acids monoethanolamide
In metal working fluid
Aalto-Korte et al. Contact Dermatitis, 69,316-7.
Coconut derivatives
Cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA)
Surfactant
Industrial, household and cosmetic products
Finland 19/25 positives were occupational, most in metal industry
Soaps (hand, dish), metalworking fluids, barrier cream
Noted concomitant reactions
Monoethanolamine
Diethanolamine- impurity of cocamide DEA
Aalto-Korte et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 169-174.
Airborne medications
Benzodiazepines
Airborne contact from crushing pills for patients
2 nurses, 1 pharmacy tech, one relative
Consider in facial dermatitis
Swinnen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 227-232.
Sevofluorane
Systemic allergic contact- airborne
Required ROAT (negative to routine patch testing)
Surgeon
Burches et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 62-63.
Medications- Nonairborne
Omeprazole
Horse trainer
Handled paste for horse’s stomach ulcers
Al-Falah et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 377-378.
“Head lad” caring for race horses
Dispensed omeprazole paste via syringe
Alwan et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 376.
Fragrance
Citral
Hands and arms
9 beauticians in high-end spa
DeMozzi and Johnston, Contact Dermatitis 70, 377-378.
D- limonene
Machine cleaners, hand soaps, moisturizers, surface cleanser, dishwashing soaps
Pesonen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 273-279.
Isothiazolinones (Denmark)
Occupations
Painting
Welding (blacksmiths)
Machine operating
Cosmetology
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 295-302.
Sources
Paints and varnishes
Cleaners
Polishing liquids
Some in high concentrations
Friis et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 65-74.
Methylisothiazolinone
Ultrasound gel in ultrasonographer
Madsen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 312-313.
Water cooling tower technicians
Maor et al., Dermatitis 26, 62-64.
Allergens
Tricresyl phosphate
Cleaning occupation
In vinyl gloves
Plasticizer
Also in sheer strips (Band Aids)
Crepy et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 325-328.
Blue Collar Workers
Compared to controls patch-tested, BCW higher hand eczema, lower atopic dermatitis
Epoxy resins
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile
2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
Potassium dichromate
Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/ methylisothiazolinone (MI)
Allergen: Occupation
Epoxy: construction
MCI/MI: Painting
Potassium dichromate: tile setting/terrazzo work
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 71, 348-355.
Blue Collar Workers
Case report of a cement worker with poor PPE
Sweden
Legislation in Europe to decrease hexavalent chromium in cement
Addition of ferrous sulfate
Chromium allergy persists
Hedberg et al, Contact dermatitis 70, 321-323.
Hairdressers- Denmark
Hairdressers 2002-2011
Compared to patch tested controls, hairdressers more significantly had Occupational CD and hand eczema, lower AD
Allergens significantly associated:
p-phenylenediamine, thiuram mix, benzocaine
Frequent sensitizers from the hairdressing series:
ammonium persulfate, toluene-2,5-diamine, 3-aminophenol, and 4-aminophenol
New sensitizers:
Cysteamine hydrochloride- substitute for glycerol monothioglycolate (restricted in Germany)
Chloroacetamide- preservative
Schwensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 70, 233-237.
Hairdressers- Germany
German contact allergy database 2007-2012
Compared hairdressers to clients
Allergens significantly associated with hairdressers > clients:
Ammonium persulfate
Glyceryl monothioglycolate
Demonstrated concern as young hairdressers still with some positive reaction, despite legislation
Uter et al, Contact Dermatitis 71, 13-20.
Food Industry
Cobalt in a baker
Bregnbak et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 118-119.
Food Industry
Pizza makers
Diallyl disulfide and
Ammonium persulfate
Lembo et al., Dermatitis 25, 194-196.
Wine maker
Potassium metabisulfite
Ortiz et al., Dermatitis 25, 150-151.
Heathcare workers
Chlorhexidine
Australian study
2% relevant ACD in healthcare workers
Higher than other studies, keep on radar
Toholka et al., Australiasian J Derm 54, 303-306.
Preferred Approach to Occupational Exposure
1. Elimination
2. Substitution
3. Isolation
4. Engineering controls
5. Safe work practices
6. Personal protection
Material Safety Data Sheets
Mandated
Hazardous chemical name
Chemical properties
Physical hazards
Route of entry
Known exposure limits
Carcinogenicity
Clean-up practices
Control measures
Contact information
Not required
If proprietary
Specific name often avoided (general category used)
Irritants and sensitizers if <1% concentration
Often do not address prevention of sensitization and irritancy
Diagnosis- MSDS
Diagnosis- MSDS
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
AVOIDANCE!
Allergens
Irritants
Treatment/Prevention
Avoidance
Harder with omnipresent allergens (epoxy versus rubber allergens)
Contact urticaria more problematic than ACD
Clemmensen et al., Br J Dermatol 2014;170.
Personal protective equipment
Legislation
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Recommended short-term high-potency topical steroids for hands:
Clobetasol propionate
Ointment
Halcinonide ointment
No propylene glycol, no sensitizers
For body:
Short-term hydrocortisone 2.5% bid for face, neck, axillae, groin, intertriginousareas
Short-term triamcinolone 0.1% bid for body
Treating Dermatitis- Step 1
Avoid more than a few weeks of potent steroid use topically
Can thin the skin making hands more susceptible to allergen/irritant!
Consider calcineurin inhibitors topically
Consider IM steroids x 1
Oral steroids with SLOW taper
Doxycycline for anti-inflammatory effects
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Barrier creams- Repair versus Protect
Repair creams with ceramides
Barrier creams with dimethicone
Studies are variable in demonstrating any benefit from barrier creams when compared to regular emollients
At least recommend moisturizing
Occupational Contact Dermatitis Prevention
Barrier creams
Prevention of irritant contact dermatitis
At high dose of application (2-20x actual application) can help prevent ICD
Schliemann et al., Contact dermatitis 70, 19-26.
Cotton liners under gloves
Adisesh et al., Br J Dermatol 2013.
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 1
Appropriate gloves
Match task with glove
“Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing” by Forsberg and Mansdorf
ACDS website lists glove manufacturers
Treating Dermatitis- Step 2 (Maintenance)
Calcineurin inhibitors
Tacrolimus 0.1%
Pimecrolimus 0.1%
Therapeutic moisturizers
Shea butter
Aquaphor
Petrolatum
Lower potency steroids for hands:
Triamcinolone 0.1%
Fluticasone cream or lotion
Hydrocortisone butyrate lipid cream
Clocortolone cream
Treating Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Hand psoralen- ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA)
Narrow-band UV B therapy (NBUVB)
Often used for recalcitrant body dermatitis
Excimer laser
308 nm
Treating Hand Dermatitis- Step 3 (Recalcitrant)
Methotrexate
Mycophenolate mofetil
2-3g/day recommended for control
Acitretin
Best for psoriasiform hand dermatitis
2-4 month course
Cyclosporine
2.5-5 mg/kg daily
Azathioprine
1-3 mg/kg daily
Biologics are not helpful overall (yet!)
Treatment
Multidisciplinary teams aid in successful return to work
German model included inpatient and outpatient care
87% remained in workforce
Weisshaar et al., Contact Dermatitis 2013;68:169-174.
Netherlands included a dermatologist, education nurse, occupational medicine physician
Van Gils et al., Contact Dermatitis 2012 66(4) and 66(5).
Canadian model
Gomez et al., Dermatitis 2011;22(3).
Prevention
Evidence-based intervention
1 hour voluntary hand protective behavior lecture/ intervention
Full-time hospital cleaners
At 3 months post-intervention
Decreased hand cleansing
Better knowledge of hand preservation
Improved hand dermatitis
Clemmensen et al., Contact Dermatitis 72, 47-54.
Occupational Dermatitis Resources
Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing by Forsberg and Mansdorf
Contact and Occupational Dermatology by Marks, Elsner, DeLeo
ACDS website
OSHA, NIOSH
Article December 2011 The Dermatologist
Summary
Allergic and irritant contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish
We are constantly being exposed to new allergens, often earlier in life
Occupational contact dermatitis is underreported
Patch testing for ACD is the gold standard
Can try TRUE test, consider referral for comprehensive panels
Novel allergens in the workplace
Summary
Think outside the box
Try a stepwise approach
Elimination
Treatment
Escalate treatment
Will be chronic if exposure continues
You can make a huge difference in patient’s quality of life
References
Marks et al., 2002. Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact and Occupational Dermatology, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby, 2002.
Nelson and Yiannias, 2009. Nelson S.A., Yiannias J.A.: Relevance and avoidance of skin-care product allergens: Pearls and pitfalls. Dermatol Clin 2009; 27(3):329-336.
Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test. Thin-layer rapid-use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test) : Available at:[accessed 03.07.11] http://www.truetest.com/PatientPDF/File18.pdf
Zug et al., 2009. Zug K.A., Warshaw E.M., Fowler J.F., et al: Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 2009; 20:149-160.
Emmett EA. Occupational contact dermatitis I. Incidence and return to work pressures. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2002;13:30–4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. [Bulletin 2512]. Washington (DC): US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1999.
Lushniak BD. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin1995; 13:671–9.
Skoet R, Olsen J, Mathiesen B, et al. A survey of occupational hand eczema in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51(4):159–66.
Staton I, Ma R, Evans N, et al. Dermal nickel exposure associated with coin handling and in various occupational settings: assessment using a newly developed finger immersion method. Br J Dermatol 2006;154(4):658–64.
Veien NK, Menne T. Treatment of hand eczema. Skin Therapy Lett 2003;8(5):4–7. 137.
Warshaw E. Therapeutic options for chronic hand dermatitis. Dermatol Ther2004;4:17240–50.
Schalock PC, Zug KA, Carter JC, et al. Efficacy and patient perception of Grenz ray therapy in the treatment of dermatoses refractory to other medical therapy. Dermatitis 2008;19(2):90–4.
Abramovits W, Granowski P. Innovative management of severe hand dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 28 (2010) 453-65.
Blanciforti, L. Economic burden of dermatitis in US workers. JOEM 52. (11):1045-54. 2010.
References
Sprigle AM, Marks JG Jr, Anderson BE. Prevention of nickel release with barrier coatings. Dermatitis. 2008,19(1):28-31.
Diepgen T.L., Coenraads P.J.: The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72. (8): 496-506.1999.
Keil J.E., Shmunes E.: The epidemiology of work-related skin disease in South Carolina. Arch Dermatol 119. (8): 650-654.1983.
Mathias C.G.: Occupational dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol 19. (6): 1107-1114.1988.
Goh C.L.: An epidemiological comparison between occupational and non-occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 120. (1): 77-82.1989.
Marks J.G., Elsner P., DeLeo V.A.: Contact & occupational dermatology. 3rd ed Mosby St. Louis, (MO)2002.
Holness D.L.: Characteristic features of occupational dermatitis: epidemiologic studies of occupational skin disease reported by contact dermatitis clinics. Occup Med 9. (1): 45-52.1994.
Belsito D.V.: Occupational contact dermatitis: etiology, prevalence, and resultant impairment/disability. J Am Acad Dermatol 53. (2): 303-313.2005.
Kanerva L., Estlander T., Jolanki R.: Occupational skin disease in Finland. An analysis of 10 years of statistics from an occupational dermatology clinic. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60. (2): 89-94.1988.
Sertoli A., Gola M., Martinelli C., et al: Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Semin Dermatol 8. (2): 120-126.1989.
Rietschel R.L., Mathias C.G., Fowler , Jr. , Jr.J.F., et al: Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermatitis 13. (4): 170-176.2002.
Nethercott J.R., Holness D.L.: Disease outcome in workers with occupational skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 30. (4): 569-574.1994.
Mathias C.G., Morrison J.H.: Occupational skin diseases, United States. Results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 1973 through 1984. Arch Dermatol 124. (10): 1519-1524.1988.
Koch P.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol 2. (6): 353-365.2001.
Bureau of Labor Statistics : Occupational Injuries and illnesses in the United States. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif
Lushniak B.D.: Occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther 17. (3): 272-277.2004.
Mathias C.G.: The cost of ccupational skin disease. Arch Dermatol 121. (3): 332-334.1985.
Cvetkovski R.S., Rothman K.J., Olsen J., et al: Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave, and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 152. (1): 93-98.2005.
Thank you!
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
23
1
2
24
25
1
2
26
27
1
2
28
1
2
29
30
1
2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1
2
70
71
72
73
74
1
2
75
76
1
2
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
1
2
84
85
1
2
86
1
2
87
88
89
1
2
90
1
2
91
92
93
94
1
2
95
96
97
98
1
2
3
4
99
100
101
102
103
1
2
104
1
2
105
106
107
108
1
2
109
110
1
2
111
112
113
114
1
2
115
1
2
116
117
118