Advertisement

Prävention des Handekzems

  • R. BransEmail author
  • C. Skudlik
Leitthema
  • 15 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Handekzeme können neben anlagebedingtem Ursprung auch Ausdruck eines beruflich oder außerberuflich bedingten irritativen oder allergischen Kontaktekzems sein. Dies bietet Ansatzpunkte für sich ergänzende Maßnahmen auf der Ebene der primären, sekundären und tertiären Prävention. Im Vordergrund steht dabei die Identifikation des/der Auslöser(s) mit nachfolgender Reduktion oder Elimination der entsprechenden Exposition. Wichtige Präventionsansätze sind gesetzliche Regelungen, technische und organisatorische Maßnahmen sowie die korrekte Verwendung einer adäquaten persönlichen Schutzausrüstung (z. B. Schutzhandschuhe). Gesundheitspädagogische Interventionen können dabei das individuelle Hautschutzverhalten verbessern. Auch wenn die Evidenz zur Effektivität von Präventionsansätzen beim Handekzem begrenzt ist, haben diese besonders bei beruflicher Verursachung eine große Bedeutung, da dadurch die Entstehung einer Berufskrankheit (BK-Nr. 5101) verhindert bzw. deren Folgen gemindert werden können. In Deutschland wurde daher ein komplexes, abgestuftes Präventionskonzept für Berufsdermatosen etabliert. In den letzten Jahren konnte gezeigt werden, dass insbesondere die daran beteiligten Maßnahmen der sekundären und tertiären Individualprävention einen hohen Stellenwert haben.

Schlüsselwörter

Kontaktekzem Hautschutz Gesundheitserziehung Berufskrankheit Berufsdermatosen  

Prevention of hand eczema

Abstract

Apart from endogenous factors, hand eczema is often caused by irritant or allergic contact dermatitis related to occupational or non-occupational exposure to skin hazards. This enables several complementary approaches on the level of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention. A high priority is set on identification and subsequent reduction or elimination of causative exposures. Important preventive approaches include legal regulations, technical and organizational measures as well as correct use of adequate personal protective equipment (e.g. protective gloves). Interventions based on health education are conducted to improve individual protective behaviour. Even though evidence-based proof of effectiveness is limited, preventive measures are considered of particular importance for avoidance of occupational hand eczema and its adverse sequelae. Therefore, a complex, step-wise approach to occupational skin diseases has been established in Germany. In recent years, the positive impact of secondary and tertiary preventive measures of this approach has been demonstrated.

Keywords

Contact dermatitis Skin protection Health education Occupational diseases Occupational dermatoses 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

R. Brans und C. Skudlik geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Agner T, Held E (2002) Skin protection programmes. Contact Dermatitis 47:253–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allmers H, Schmengler J, John SM (2004) Decreasing incidence of occupational contact urticaria caused by natural rubber latex allergy in German health care workers. J Allergy Clin Immunol 114:347–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Apfelbacher CJ, Soder S, Diepgen TL et al (2009) The impact of measures for secondary individual prevention of work-related skin diseases in health care workers: 1‑year follow-up study. Contact Dermatitis 60:144–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bauer A, Ronsch H, Elsner P et al (2018) Interventions for preventing occupational irritant hand dermatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004414.pub3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brandenburg S, Woltjen M (2018) Präventionsbegriffe in der Berufsdermatologie und der gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung. Dermatol Beruf Umwelt 3:126–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brans R, Skudlik C, Weisshaar E et al (2016) Multicentre cohort study ‘Rehabilitation of Occupational Skin Diseases – Optimization and Quality Assurance of Inpatient Management (ROQ)’: results from a 3-year follow-up. Contact Dermatitis 75(4):205–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brasch J, Becker D, Aberer W et al (2014) Guideline contact dermatitis: S1-Guidelines of the German Contact Allergy Group (DKG) of the German Dermatology Society (DDG), the Information Network of Dermatological Clinics (IVDK), the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the Working Group for Occupational and Environmental Dermatology (ABD) of the DDG, the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the Professional Association of German Dermatologists (BVDD) and the DDG. Allergo J Int 23:126–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bregnhoj A, Menne T, Johansen JD et al (2012) Prevention of hand eczema among Danish hairdressing apprentices: an intervention study. Occup Environ Med 69:310–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Diepgen TL, Elsner P, Schliemann S et al (2009) Guideline on the management of hand eczema ICD-10 Code: L20. L23. L24. L25. L30. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 7(Suppl 3):1–16Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Diepgen TL (2012) Occupational skin diseases. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 10:297–313 (quiz 314–295)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Diepgen TL, Andersen KE, Chosidow O et al (2015) Guidelines for diagnosis, prevention and treatment of hand eczema. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 13:e1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dulon M, Pohrt U, Skudlik C et al (2009) Prevention of occupational skin disease: a workplace intervention study in geriatric nurses. Br J Dermatol 161:337–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fartasch M, Taeger D, Broding HC et al (2012) Evidence of increased skin irritation after wet work: impact of water exposure and occlusion. Contact Dermatitis 67:217–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fartasch M, Diepgen TL, Drexler H et al (2015) S1 guideline on occupational skin products: protective creams, skin cleansers, skin care products (ICD 10: L23, L24)—short version. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 13:594–606PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Geier J, Krautheim A, Uter W et al (2011) Occupational contact allergy in the building trade in Germany: influence of preventive measures and changing exposure. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 84:403–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Geier J, Lessmann H, Mahler V et al (2012) Occupational contact allergy caused by rubber gloves—nothing has changed. Contact Dermatitis 67:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Geier J, Lessmann H, Bauer A et al (2016) Auswirkung einer arbeitsbedingten Kontaktallergie gegen Chrom(VI)-Verbindungen bei der BK 5101. Derm Beruf Umw 64:175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hamnerius N, Svedman C, Bergendorff O et al (2018) Wet work exposure and hand eczema among healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study. Br J Dermatol 178:452–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ibler KS, Jemec GB, Diepgen TL et al (2012) Skin care education and individual counselling versus treatment as usual in healthcare workers with hand eczema: randomised clinical trial. BMJ 345.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e7822 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ibler KS, Jemec GB, Flyvholm MA et al (2012) Hand eczema: prevalence and risk factors of hand eczema in a population of 2274 healthcare workers. Contact Dermatitis 67:200–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kresken J, Klotz A (2003) Occupational skin-protection products—a review. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 76:355–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kütting B, Baumeister T, Weistenhofer W et al (2010) Effectiveness of skin protection measures in prevention of occupational hand eczema: results of a prospective randomized controlled trial over a follow-up period of 1 year. Br J Dermatol 162:362–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Löffler H, Kampf G, Schmermund D et al (2007) How irritant is alcohol? Br J Dermatol 157:74–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nicholson PJ, Llewellyn D, English JS (2010) Evidence-based guidelines for the prevention, identification and management of occupational contact dermatitis and urticaria. Contact Dermatitis 63:177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pedersen LK, Held E, Johansen JD et al (2005) Less skin irritation from alcohol-based disinfectant than from detergent used for hand disinfection. Br J Dermatol 153:1142–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Saary J, Qureshi R, Palda V et al (2005) A systematic review of contact dermatitis treatment and prevention. J Am Acad Dermatol 53:845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schliemann S, Kleesz P, Elsner P (2013) Protective creams fail to prevent solvent-induced cumulative skin irritation—results of a randomized double-blind study. Contact Dermatitis 69:363–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schliemann S, Petri M, Elsner P (2014) Preventing irritant contact dermatitis with protective creams: influence of the application dose. Contact Dermatitis 70:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Skudlik C, Weisshaar E, Scheidt R et al (2009) Multicenter study “Medical-Occupational Rehabilitation Procedure Skin—optimizing and quality assurance of inpatient-management (ROQ)”. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 7:122–126PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Skudlik C, Weisshaar E, Scheidt R et al (2012) First results from the multicentre study rehabilitation of occupational skin diseases—optimization and quality assurance of inpatient management (ROQ). Contact Dermatitis 66:140–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Skudlik C, Weisshaar E (2015) Individual in-patient and out-patient prevention in occupational skin diseases. Hautarzt 66:160–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Skudlik C, John SM (2017) Berufliche Hauterkrankungen: Verursachung, Klinik und Verfahrensabläufe. Dtsch Dermatol 65:924–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Skudlik C, Weisshaar E, Ofenloch RF et al. (2017) DGUV Forum 1.2. 51–59Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Linneberg A et al (2010) The epidemiology of hand eczema in the general population—prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis 62:75–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tiedemann D, Clausen ML, John SM et al (2015) Effect of glove occlusion on the skin barrier. Contact Dermatitis 74:2–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Uter W, Geier J, Schnuch A (2000) Downward trend of sensitization to glyceryl monothioglycolate in German hairdressers. IVDK study group. Information Network of Departments of Dermatology. Dermatology 200:132–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Uter W, Gefeller O, John SM et al (2014) Contact allergy to ingredients of hair cosmetics—a comparison of female hairdressers and clients based on IVDK 2007–2012 data. Contact Dermatitis 71:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    van Gils RF, Boot CR, van Gils PF et al (2011) Effectiveness of prevention programmes for hand dermatitis: a systematic review of the literature. Contact Dermatitis 64:63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Visser MJ, Verberk MM, van Dijk FJ et al (2014) Wet work and hand eczema in apprentice nurses; part I of a prospective cohort study. Contact Dermatitis 70:44–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Weisshaar E, Skudlik C, Scheidt R et al (2013) Multicentre study ‘rehabilitation of occupational skin diseases -optimization and quality assurance of inpatient management (ROQ)’-results from 12-month follow-up. Contact Dermatitis 68:169–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wilke A, Gediga G, Schlesinger T et al (2012) Sustainability of interdisciplinary secondary prevention in patients with occupational hand eczema: a 5-year follow-up survey. Contact Dermatitis 67:208–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wilke A, Gediga K, Weinhoppel U et al (2012) Long-term effectiveness of secondary prevention in geriatric nurses with occupational hand eczema: the challenge of a controlled study design. Contact Dermatitis 66:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wilke A, Gediga K, John SM et al (2014) Evaluation of structured patient education in occupational skin diseases: a systematic assessment of the disease-specific knowledge. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 87:861–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wilke A, Gediga G, Goergens A et al (2018) Interdisciplinary and multiprofessional outpatient secondary individual prevention of work-related skin diseases in the metalworking industry: 1‑year follow-up of a patient cohort. Bmc Dermatol 18:12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wilke A, Skudlik C, Sonsmann FK (2018) Individual prevention of occupational contact dermatitis: protective gloves and skin protection recommendations as part of the patient management scheme by the public statutory employers’ liability insurance. Hautarzt 69:449–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wulfhorst B, Bock M, Gediga G et al (2010) Sustainability of an interdisciplinary secondary prevention program for hairdressers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 83:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für interdisziplinäre Dermatologische Prävention und Rehabilitation (iDerm)Universität OsnabrückOsnabrückDeutschland

Personalised recommendations