BackgroundIn Germany, work-related skin diseases are predominant within the spectrum of reported occupational diseases. Metal workers are among the high-risk professions. Offering effective prevention programs to affected patients is of utmost importance to avoid deterioration of the disease and job loss. We conducted a 1-year follow-up in patients who participated in a multidisciplinary, complex outpatient prevention program representing a standard procedure of patient care by the respective statutory accident insurance.MethodsThe multi-component prevention program consists of multiprofessional individual patient counseling, a structured skin protection seminar in a group, as well as workplace visits and on-site counseling in terms of appropriate skin protection (e.g. gloves). An observational study with a 1-year follow-up and four measurements (T1-T4, longitudinal pre/post-test design) including dermatological examinations and standardized written questionnaires was conducted between 2013 and 2016 to assess changes over time regarding job loss and disease severity.ResultsData from 94 patients (87 male, mean age: 45.4 years) were included in the analysis. One year after the skin protection seminar (T4), 83 patients (88.3%) remained in their original professional metalworking activity and four patients (4.3%) had given up their profession because of their skin disease. At baseline (T1), irritant contact dermatitis of the hands was the most frequent diagnosis (80.7%). Methods for self-reported disease severity showed good correlation with the clinical gold standard at T1 and T2 (dermatological examination with the Osnabrück Hand Eczema Severity Index / OHSI), and a significant decrease of the self-reported disease severity was found over time from T1 to T4 (p < 0.001). Further results indicate an improved self-perceived disease control and an overall satisfaction with the prevention program.ConclusionsThe results of this observational study demonstrate that the comprehensive prevention program positively influences the course of work-related skin diseases, increases the possibility to continue working in a “high-risk” profession and improves the disease management of metal workers. In the long term, the prevention program may lead to cost savings by preventing high therapy costs or professional retraining.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12895-018-0080-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Protective gloves are an elementary component of personal protective equipment in many occupations and are intended to protect the hands from various hazards (e.g., wetness, chemicals, mechanical forces, or thermal stress). This is particularly important when other occupational safety measures (e.g., technical-organizational measures) cannot be implemented or are insufficient. However, it is not uncommon for protective gloves themselves to become a problem, as some of their ingredients (e.g., rubber accelerators) can cause allergic reactions. Accelerators in rubber gloves include thiurams, dithiocarbamates, thiazoles, guanidines, and thioureas. If no alternative means of protection are available, this may even result in abandoning the profession. This article is about rubber accelerators, which are often contained in protective gloves made of different rubber materials (e.g., natural rubber (latex) and nitrile rubber) and may cause delayed-type allergies, as well as related challenges, problems, and solutions for occupational skin protection.

Background: Studies on patch testing with workplace materials and evaluation of current occupational relevance of positive patch test reactions are scarce in patients with occupational dermatitis (OD). Objectives: To identify frequent sensitizations with occupational relevance and to determine the value of patch testing with workplace materials in OD patients. Patients and Methods: Results and clinical data of 654 patients with suspected OD patch tested between 2013 and 2017 were analysed. Results: Occupational allergic contact dermatitis was diagnosed in 113 (17.3%) patients. Mechanics had the widest range of occupational sensitizations. Sensitization to epoxy resin was rated occupationally relevant in almost all handicraft trades. Among positive patch test reactions to workplace products, those to water-based metal working fluids and leave-on cosmetic products were most frequent. Despite frequent testing, protective gloves only rarely elicited positive reactions. Preservatives and rubber compounds were most frequently identified as currently occupationally relevant. Conclusions: Rubber allergy is occupationally relevant especially in healthcare workers and cleaners. Generally, preservatives including formaldehyde releasers are important allergens in OD patients. Leave-on cosmetic products must not be forgotten as allergen sources. Patch testing both workplace materials and standardized test

BackgroundMetalworkers occupationally exposed to metals, tools, metalworking fluids (MWFs), technical oils, gloves, skin care products etc. frequently suffer from occupational dermatitis (OD).ObjectivesTo investigate occupational exposure and to identify relevant occupational sensitizers in metalworkers with OD, and to evaluate suitability of current German patch test recommendations for this occupational group.Patients and methodsAs part of the OCCUDERM project, occupational exposure of 230 metalworkers with suspected OD patch tested in the departments of dermatology in Göttingen and Osnabrück (both Lower Saxony, Germany) in 2012–2017 was recorded by questionnaire. These data, as well as results, of patch testing with standardized allergens and with workplace material were analysed.ResultsMetalworking fluids and skin care products were the most important exposures. Among MWF allergens, most frequently sensitizations to formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers, colophony/abietic acid and monoethanolamine were observed. Sensitization to methylisothiazolinone (MI) was frequent, probably as part of the general European epidemic of contact allergy to MI in leave‐on cosmetics. Sensitization to glove ingredients only played a minor role.ConclusionsThe known occupational allergen spectrum could largely be confirmed. In order not to miss relevant sensitizations, patch testing with material from the patients’ workplaces in parallel to baseline and MWF series is recommended. Sensitizations diagnosed could not always be linked to particular occupational exposures.