Endogenous and exogenous factors contribute to the development of HD in bakers' and confectioners' apprentices.

Baker and confectioner apprentices have been included in a prospective follow-up study in the region of East Thuringia, to evaluate risk factors for the development of hand dermatitis. Starting in August 1996, the apprentices have been interviewed and examined in a standardized way right at the beginning (n=91) of their vocational training, 6 (n=79) and 12 months (n=63) later. To gain objective data, TEWL score was also assessed at 3 standardized sites on the hands. In their case histories, 3.3% (n=3) of the apprentices reported hand dermatitis. The 1st assessment after 2 to 4 weeks vocational training revealed hand eczema in 17.5% (n=16) of the individuals. At the follow-up after 6 months of training 29.1% (n=23), and after 12 month of training 27.0% (n=17), of the apprentices had hand dermatitis of mild to moderate severity. Within 6 months, the TEWL score rose significantly (p<0.001) from 11.9 g m(-2) h(-1) (-/+5.4) to 16.8 g m(-2) h(-1) (-/+9.5). After 12 months, the TEWL score was 14.9 g m(-2) h(-1) (-/+4.6). For the atopic skin diathesis (>10 points of Diepgen's atopy score), there was a significant tendency to be a predictive factor for the development of occupational hand dermatitis. TEWL score failed to correlate with the development of skin damage in our study. The same was true for respiratory atopy and metal sensitization.

Skin protection measures - barrier creams, protective gloves - and skin care are widely recommended for the prevention of occupational hand dermatitis (HD) in skin risk professions, but there is hardly anything known about uptake levels of the measures. The objective of this controlled intervention study was to quantify the uptake and maintenance of skin protection and skin care measures in first-year bakers' apprentices. A total of 94 first-year bakers' apprentices were included in the study in September 2000. The apprentices were assigned to the skin protection and control group class-wise to reduce contamination. The skin protection group comprised 39 apprentices who were trained in skin protection measures at the beginning and after 4 weeks of training. 55 apprentices were assigned to the control group representing no skin protection intervention. Standardized interviews took place at the beginning of the training and at 4 monthly follow-ups (FU). The uptake of skin protection measures differed significantly between the groups (barrier cream p < 0.0001, protective gloves p = 0.046, skin care p = 0.025). Barrier cream use in the skin protection group was incorporated in the daily routine very well from the start and reached 100% at the end of the examination period (4th FU). At this time, only 3.2% of the controls used barrier creams. The level of acceptance of protective gloves (4th FU: skin protection group 43.3%; controls 32.3%) was considerably lower than that of barrier creams. The initial level of regular skin care was high in both groups (skin protection group 67.6%, controls 61.7%). After the intervention the acceptance of skin care rose to 88.9% in the skin protection group compared to 68.1% in the controls (4th FU). The present study has shown that skin protection and skin care measures can be introduced successfully in the daily routine of a skin risk occupation and high uptake and maintenance rates can be achieved.

This study provided evidence, based on significant differences in TEWL levels, that general SP measures may be more effective than UV light hardening of the skin, which in turn was more effective than no intervention. This trend was supported by the frequency of development of clinical hand dermatitis, although differences did not reach statistical significance. A multi-centre trial is recommended to confirm the efficacy of SP measures in a larger randomised study.

No abstract