Healthcare workers and skin sensitization: north-eastern Italian database

Prodi, Andrea; Rui, Francesca; Fortina, Anna Belloni; Corradin, Maria Teresa; Filon, Francesca Larese

doi:10.1093/occmed/kqv139

Cited by 23 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As our previous study (using SPTs to latex) supports similar results, in this study we additionally performed more methods to get more thorough information [16]. However, dental workers with an AD history should be aware of possible harmful effects of work-related activities to their skin, as they are more prone to irritant CD due to impairment of the skin barrier [8,10,21]. Also, as irritant CD predisposes to the occurrence of allergic CD, it is also important to recognize and examine a possible delayed allergy to rubber additives.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

An Analysis of Skin Prick Tests to Latex and Patch Tests to Rubber Additives and other Causative Factors among Dental Professionals and Students with Contact Dermatoses

Japundžić¹,

Vodanović²,

Lugović-Mihić³

2018

Int Arch Allergy Immunol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Dental workers often experience unwanted allergic and nonallergic skin reactions resulting in different contact dermatoses (e.g., contact urticaria, irritant and allergic contact dermatitis) that are often attributed to rubber gloves. Objective: To examine allergic and nonallergic contact dermatoses by different methods amongst dental professionals and dental students, more specifically, reactions to natural rubber latex (NRL), rubber additives, and other causative factors. Methods: In this cross-sectional study we surveyed a total of 444 subjects (dentists, assistants, technicians, and students); 200 agreed to be tested to latex by the standard skin prick test (SPT) and prick-by-prick test, of whom 107 were patch tested to rubber additives (mercapto mix, thiuram mix, carba mix, and N-isopropyl-N-phenyl-4-phenylenediamine [IPPD]). Results: Skin lesions appeared significantly more frequently with longer work experience (p = 0.002; V = 0.181), frequent glove changes (p < 0.001; V = 0.310), and hand washing (p < 0.001; V = 0.263), and in subjects with a history of allergies (atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis, and others) (p < 0.001; V = 0.183). Positive SPTs to latex occurred in 14/200 subjects (7%), of whom 5/14 subjects (35.7%) were also positive in prick-by-prick tests. Patch tests were positive in 5/104 subjects (4.8%) (mercapto mix 1%, thiuram mix 1.9%, and carba mix 1.9%). Conclusion: Only a small number of our subjects were allergic to latex (7%) or rubber additives (4.8%). Thus, self-reported contact dermatoses (during NRL product use) in dental professionals and students are not commonly caused by allergies to latex and rubber additives, as is often assumed, but by other factors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

An Analysis of Skin Prick Tests to Latex and Patch Tests to Rubber Additives and other Causative Factors among Dental Professionals and Students with Contact Dermatoses

Japundžić¹,

Vodanović²,

Lugović-Mihić³

2018

Int Arch Allergy Immunol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although it is likely that irritant factors related to wet work are the major culprit for occupational HE among HCWs, contact allergy to rubber chemicals in gloves or chemicals in soaps and disinfectants can contribute to the increased risk of HE . However, the presence of contact allergy can only be addressed by patch testing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wet work exposure and hand eczema among healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the first part of the study, a total of 324 consecutively registered cases of CD among hairdressers, documented electronically by the NEICDG network in the Triveneto Patch Test Database, between January 1996 and December 2016, were retrospectively identified. [25][26][27] In the considered years, data on 27 381 consecutive patients with symptoms and/or signs of suspected ACD who underwent a clinical assessment and patch testing were collected. Physicians of the NEICDG network performed the medical examination of these patients and filled in a standardized questionnaire to collect information about individual characteristics, occupational history, personal and family history of atopy, nosology, and duration and site of the dermatitis, following the same procedures.…”

Section: Case-control Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Physicians of the NEICDG network performed the medical examination of these patients and filled in a standardized questionnaire to collect information about individual characteristics, occupational history, personal and family history of atopy, nosology, and duration and site of the dermatitis, following the same procedures. [25][26][27] CD was defined after detailed exploration of the disease considering the patients' history, exposures, and patch test results, clearly differentiating from atopic dermatitis. The hairdressers were matched to a control group in a 1:30 case-control ratio.…”

Section: Case-control Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics and incidence of contact dermatitis among hairdressers in north‐eastern Italy

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Hairdressers are at high risk of contact dermatitis (CD) due to skin exposure to numerous irritants and haptens in hair products in combination with frequent wet work. Objectives: To investigate the characteristics and incidence of CD among hairdressers in northeastern Italy. Methods: A total of 324 hairdressers who had been examined and patch tested in northeastern Italy from 1996 to 2016 were retrospectively identified, and compared with 9669 matched controls. Sensitization to allergens of the hairdressing series was analysed among hairdressers attending an occupational medicine clinic in Trieste, Italy. Incidence data were calculated from 1999 to 2016. Results: Sensitization to p-phenylenediamine, thiuram mix, and N-isopropyl-N'-phenylp-phenylenediamine was significantly associated with hairdressing and with hand/forearms dermatitis. Frequent sensitizers from hairdressing series were ammonium persulfate, toluene-2,5-diamine, and p-aminobenzene. The overall incidence of CD declined from 2003 (31.7 cases/10 000 workers) to 2016 (20.8 cases/10 000 workers). Conclusions: Sensitization to several haptens was significantly associated with hairdressing. The incidence of CD among hairdressers in northeastern Italy has declined in recent years, but is still high. Preventive efforts are needed to reduce the burden of CD in this professional group.

show abstract

Healthcare workers and skin sensitization: north-eastern Italian database

Abstract: Our study suggests a significant association between healthcare work, hand/forearm dermatitis and sensitization to formaldehyde and p-phenylenediamine.

Cited by 23 publications

References 8 publications

An Analysis of Skin Prick Tests to Latex and Patch Tests to Rubber Additives and other Causative Factors among Dental Professionals and Students with Contact Dermatoses

An Analysis of Skin Prick Tests to Latex and Patch Tests to Rubber Additives and other Causative Factors among Dental Professionals and Students with Contact Dermatoses

Wet work exposure and hand eczema among healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study

Characteristics and incidence of contact dermatitis among hairdressers in north‐eastern Italy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About