Barrier Cream for Dermatitis

Dermatitis barrier cream

Efficacy of barrier creams against irritant contact dermatitis. A barrier cream for use in chronic hand dermatitis. Skin dermatitis (irritant, allergic or both) is the most common occupational skin disease. The barrier cream with Lipogrid technology (Ceramax) proved effective in reducing or eliminating chronic hand contact dermatitis caused by occupational exposure. Though plasticizers and topical steroids are an important part of the treatment, irritant contact dermatitis is avoidable.

Efficacy of barrier creams against irritating contact dermatitis - Full text - Dermatologie 2016, Volume 232, No. 3

Dermatological tissues in the work place, especially during work in the water, are often subjected to various irritating agents which can cause the emergence of professional dermatitis. Barrier cream (BC) is well known and its use is still the object of many research es and controversy. From 1956 to December 2014, MEDLINE, PubMed, references and current review papers covered all BC control study data for human dermal stimulants.

Thirty nine clinical trial results on the effect of a BC on human irritation were chosen. Of these, 27 were found to be study subjects in health with many different levels of B.C. and irritant substances used, their amounts, test sites, techniques and evaluation methodologies. While this report emphasizes the low level of workmanship and absence of standardisation in most clinical trial results, it appears that B.C.'s have a protecting effect against the irritant.

Vocational dermatitis (OCD) accounts for 90% of all work-related dermatitis, of which the total incident rate is 9.1-31 per year. Urgent or chronical exposition to stimulants can result in inflammatory dermatitis, which accounts for 80% of all OCDs[3]. Excessive eczema is due to a non-immunological response that can occur immediately or cumulatively over a period of years.

Injured, dehydrated and coarse epidermis enhances the permeation of substance in the stratum corneum and serves as a reserve for the penetrating substances[6]. There are two kinds of product for protecting hands among our range of dermal creams: barrier protective cream or barrier cream (BCs) and barrier cream repair[7].

They are used to avoid the irritation effect of professional exposures and are suggested for use before and during work. A few writers call them pre-work creams[8,9,10]. It has also been referred to as "invisible gloves", but the expression "skin protection creams" is more appropriate[10]. It is the aim of the BCs either to retard or to retard the cutting edge permeation of any substance which, at the moment of dermal contacts, may have adverse actions or may cause systematic actions by means of subcutaneous absorption[11].

Therefore, they are used to decrease the irritation effect of compounds and to prevent irritating dermatitis. Rejuvenating barrier lotions, also known as regenerating lotions, care lotions, softeners or moisturizers[10], are supposed to improve moisturization through the hydroscopic effect of wetting agents such as amino acides, carbamide, glycerine, milk dioxide (LA) or pyrrolidonecarboxylic acid[12] and re-establish the skin's own barrier.

In spite of controversy, the Cochrane database[14] showed that in some professions, such as metalworking, printmaking and dyeing, B.C.'s and humectants can have a protecting effect, but without the statistically significant effect obtained from their 4 chosen clinical trial projects. In order to broaden the scope to include focused clinical investigations of skin irritant agents in the BC, we have conducted a rigorous screening to see if additional efficacy information can be found.

In 39 studies (Table 1), the effect of B.C. against irritation was investigated in a group of 929 individuals (172 men, 279 females and 481 non-specified individuals) with normal cutaneous health (n = 28), Handdermatitis (n = 1), sensitised to a certain type of hypoallergen (n = 4) and 1 trial on rubber gloves allergens[6,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52].

Of these 39 documents, excess skins studies[18,24,40,41,43,46] were rejected and only those with normal and insensitive skins were maintained, which reduced the shortlist to 27 documents in Figure 1. Unprocessed skins were used for monitoring in each study. Hautlokalisationen with the test persons were the lower arms (n = 15), back (n = 8), hand (n = 3), lower arms and back (n = 1).

The Stokoderm® (n = 3), Taktosan (n = 3), Kerodex 71 (n = 2) and Arretil (n = 2) are the 4 most commonly tested crèmes. A number of papers refer only to the ingredients of the cream examined without using commercially any name. Most commonly used stimulants are caustic soda (SLS, hydrophil type, n = 16) and toluene compound (lipophil type, n = 9).

Potassium hydrogen oxide (NaOH, n = 7) and LA (n = 5) are other commonly used stimulants that are being used. Often the amount of irritant substances used is not stated. Contacting times of stimulants range from 5 seconds to 24 hours, but the most frequently occurring is 30 minutes (n = 11) and 24 hours (n = 4).

2 sketches showed elevated stimulant penetration[27,45] and 3 sketches showed an increase in irritation[26,32,50]. The protection provided by the 4 most frequently used CCs is shown in Figure 2. We can see in Figure 3, which reported the existence or non-existence of the effectiveness of the above mentioned DCs on the 4 most commonly used stimulants, that DCs appear to have protections against SLS, NaOH and LA, but not against toluene. However, the results of the study are not available.

Chart 1 shows that the trials chosen were not carried out under the same conditions: trial designs, cream, irritants used and evaluation method. It is also necessary to consider the following factors: dermal temperatures, pH, cream coating thicknesses, number of treatments, dryness before exposition, duration of treatment, duration of treatment, duration of treatment in direct physical contact with the stimulant, concentration and quantity of stimulants, regions of the human anatomy examined (back, palms or forearms), persons examined (sex and ethnicity), existence or non-existence of signs of occlusion and duration of the study[4,28,41,53].

Inter-individual variation is also a feature of anthropogenic skin[22]. At work, stimulants are often a mix of different compounds, but the studies chosen in this paper were conducted with isolates. Length of exposition, incidence and level of stimulant are 3 influencing factor of professional exposition.

Since OCD is often the result of chronical exposures, the method of repeated stimulus testing could replicate situations nearer to vocational exposures than single-contact trials. Wigger-Alberti et al. et al. 55 ] on the self-application of a protective cream also showed that certain areas of the hand were not adequately sheltered.

There is a very broad spectrum of cream amounts used. The Schliemann et al. [ 56] pointed out that the amounts of bc per dermal area used in experimentation could be far removed from those used under actual circumstances, which would lead to an overestimate of their effectiveness. Whereas work-related dermatological disorders affect the hand in more than 90% of cases[7], the most common areas of use in our chosen trials are the lower arms and back.

Overall, the trials did not consider the frictional motions that occurred in real -life settings or sweat, leading to an overestimate of BC efficacy[28,57]. Comment: The voluntary workers were evaluated only on the basis of age. These showed that the BC program (using body lotions and body creams) was as efficient as using BC alone, as opposed to moisturisers alone, but the best barrier was achieved by the combination of them.

Kuetting et al. [ 59] emphasize the contrasts with the results of an Austria perspective four-arm four-arm Randomised Control Study of 485 out of 1,006 construction (n = 198) and woodworking (n = 287) professionals conducted over a period of one year in which each subjects was evaluated by manual dermatitis classification, transsepidermal moisture losses and perceived subjectivity.

Neither of the 4 groups showed a protecting effect on the dermatitis. In the latter case, it is also proposed that bio-physical trials may yield information on changes in dermal conditions before obvious dermatologic changes occur[52], while other writers believe that occupational evaluation is more appropriate[36,60].

A number of contributors believe that the degree of trans epidermal moisture depletion is the best indicator of the change in the barrier, even if some compounds change this indicator only slightly[22,35,36,61,62]. A significant deficiency of standardisation exists in the chosen trials, as more than 20 designated commercially available bc's were differently assayed against several different stimulants (Table 1), so that it was not possible to combine the results.

Results were generally favourable to 3 of the 4 most commonly used stimulants (Table 3). Berndt et al. [ 63] found in their double-blind, randomised, screened study with 50 female doctors who compared a BC and its vehicles an improved complexion when using cream without significant difference between the two groups, which underlines a shortage of placebo-controlled, screened randomised trials.

Contrary to Wang et al. [ 64], some suggest that the BC should only be used for exposures to light stimulants (water, cleaning products, organics or cutters ) as they cannot neutralise a high dosage of stimulants[13,61]. In fact, the active ingredients secreted in the cream coat enter the epidermis after saturation[18,28] if the ingredients are not deactivated by BCS.

These explain the ability of some B cs to cause contagious dermatitis[4] and enhance irritant sensitivity of the skin[61]. Protecting against the effects of toluene is very limited, as shown in Figure 3, and will need to be enhanced in the near-term. It is only the initial protective action of the still intact complexion that can be optimally effective in preventing obsessive-compulsive disorder[63].

Similarity of tests to evaluate the effectiveness of DCs is hampered by the absence of standardisation, although a tendency towards a certain level of safety can be observed, although the cars appear to be equally effective. Repeated stimulus testing is a method nearer to real life and could be used to evaluate exposure to one or more stimulants.

The effort should be focused on randomised control trials of dermal safety programs with standardised clinic and bio-physical evaluations. Recent adoption and application of professional manual dermatitis preventative policies by 1,355 metal workers in Germany. Dermatol 2009;161:390-396. Qureshi R, Palda V, DeKoven J, Pratt M, Skotnicki-Grant S, Holness L: A systematical overview of the therapy and avoidance of dermatitis.

53:845-855. Vocational dermatitis: aetiology, previous history and resulting handicap. {\pos (192,210)}J Am Acad DoDermatol 2005;53:303-313. AIVAREZ MA, BROWN LH, Brancaccio RR: Are barrier emulsions really efficient? Workplace exposure: a major hazard driver for hand dermatitis at work. A Teichmann A, Jacobi U, Waibler E, Sterry W, Lademann J: An in vitro assessment of the effectiveness of barrier cream at the chemical penetrating layer stage.

Kontaktdermatitis 2006;54:5-13 hours. DeRosso JQ: Integration of a barrier cream in the treatment of wrist dermatitis: focusing on novel barrier treatment technologies to support an existing formula of wrist dermatitis products and on modification to help overcome barriers. Seven-40-48. Maibach HI: Barrierecremes - Cuticle protectors: Can you help protecting the epidermis?

I Cosmet dark blue 2002. 1:20-23. To the mills A, Klotz A, Allef P, Weimans S, Veeger M, Thörner B, Eichler JO: Evaluate the effect of a pre-work cream with the help of different types of skins. Probl Curr Probl 2007 Dermatol;34:19-32. The Corazza M, Minghetti S, Bianchi A, Virgili A, Borghi A: Barrierecremes: Fakten und Kontroversen. Eczema 2014;25:327-333.

The Mahmoud G, Lachapelle JM, Van Neste D: Historical appraisal of dermal lesions caused by irritants: their possible use in the valuation of a "barrier cream". Kontaktdermatitis 1984;11:179-185. Maibach HI: Protects against stimulants. Probl Curr 47-57 Skin Care product, Dermatol 2007. The Kresken J, Klotz A: Professional dermal protective agents - a critique. Farmer A, Schmitt J, Bennett C, Coenraads PJ, Elsner P, English J, Williams HC: Measures to prevent work-related cause of irritable dermatitis of the hands.

guilmin mini, murset jc, lob mini, riquez j: Easy way to measure the effectiveness of the cream for protecting the epidermis against solvents. About Lauwerys RR, Dath T, Lachapelle JM, Buchet JP, Roels H: The effect of two barrier emulsions on the human perception of m-xylene. Rystedt I: Fischer T: Protects the complexion against ionised aluminium sulfate and aluminium sulfate with barrier cream.

Kontaktdermatitis 1983;9:125-130. The Lodén M: The effect of 4 barrier lotions on the absorbtion of moisture, benzol and Formaldehyde in the body. Kontaktdermatitis 1986;14:292-296. Blank R, Nater JP, Veenhoff E: Protection of barrier and spraying cream against resin epoxies. Kontaktdermatitis 1987;16:79-83. These are two novel technologies for the assessment of barrier cream.

120:655-660. Dermatol Vénéréol 1989;116:389-398. Frog PJ, cure A, fungus B: effectiveness of barrier cream. Kontaktdermatitis 1993;29:113-118. Effectiveness of barrier cream. Repeated stimulus test (RIT) with a kit of 4 off-the-shelf stimulants. Kontaktdermatitis 1994;31:161-168. Tresffel P, Gabard B, Juch R: Assessment of barrier creams: an in vitro technology on humans skins.

Mark JG Jr, Fowler JF Jr, Sheretz EF, Rietschel RL: Prevention of toxic fire and toxic fire allergen related dermatitis by quaternium-18-Bentonit. I Am Acad Dermatol 1995;33:212-216. Schlueter-Wigger W, Elsner P: Effectiveness of 4 standard protection lotions in the RIT test. Kontaktdermatitis 1996;34:278-283. Maibach HI: Effect of barrier creams: natural ingredients of natural barrier creams: natural barrier cream for humans inivo.

Kontaktdermatitis 1996;35:92-96. Fine Olivarius F, Brinch Hansen A, Karlsmark T, Wulf HC: Water-protecting effect of barrier and moisturising creams: a new in-vivo testing technique. Kontaktdermatitis 1996;35:219-225. Baur X, Chen Z, Allmers H, Raulf-Heimsoth M: Results of the wear test with two different types of rubber glove with and without cream.

Kartoz M, Schnetz E, Diepgen TL: Characterisation of barrier changes caused by detergents - Effect of barrier cream on irritations. I Investig Digatol Symp Proc 1998. 3:121-127. Perfluoropolyether for the protection against irritating dermatitis. Skin care 1998;197:141-145. Welga-Alberti W, Rougier A, Richard A, Elsner P: Effectiveness of protection cream in a modification of repetitive stimulus test.

HI: Evaluation of dermatological protection products against exposure to abrasives and allergens. This is an in vitro screen of the basic models of humans. Contacting dermatitis 1998;38:155-158. for Patterson SE, Williams JV, Marks JG Jr: prevention of caustic soda lavalyl sulphate irritating dermatitis by Pro-Q spray emulsion dermal care products. Acad Dermatol 1999;40:783-785. A biotechnological trial on the effectiveness of a protection loop in the prevention of SLS-induced dermatitis: A biotechnological trial on the effectiveness of a protection loop in the prevention of SLS-induced dermatitis.

Hautauflösung Technol 2000;6:77-80. Dermatitis of my contacts. In-house assessment of barrier cream performances on humans using laser-induced degradation spectroscopy. 1. Kontaktdermatitis 2000;43:259-263. Wigger-Alberti W, Elsner P: Effectiveness of a new perfluoropolyether grade in the prophylaxis of inflammatory dermatitis. Whohrl S, Kriechbaumer N, Hemmer W, Focke M, Brannath W, Götz M, Jarisch R: A cream with the chelating agent DTPA (diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid) can avoid the occurrence of contact allergies on metal.

Kontaktdermatitis 2001;44:224-228. RP Chilcott, Jenner J, Hotchkiss SAM, Rice P: Rating of barrier cream against sulfur mash. In vitro clinical trials with anthropogenic skins. Haut Parmacol Appl Physiol 2002;15:225-235. Cilliers J: Effect of two barrier emulsions on the dissemination of benzo [a]pyrene through the subcutaneous tissue of humans.

Schliemann-Willers S, Klotz A, Elsner P: The test of stimulation: a new way to evaluate the preventive effect of stimulus combinations on the damaged area. Matta AM, Gougerot A: Investigation into the protection provided by a barrier cream that prevents nickle citrate from penetrating the epidermis.

<Nouv skydermatol 2004;23:208-213. for Elsner P: combined load resistance. Probl Curr Probl 2007 Dermatol;34:111-119. A, Judge H, Schanzer S, Sterry W, Lademann J: Assessment of barrier cream - Implementation and comparision of 3 in VIVo mehtods. Kontaktdermatitis 2007;56:347-354. Improvement of peripheral permeation of anailine and o-toluidine in vitro using barrier cream.

Fowler J, Slade HB, Draelos ZD, Reece BT, Cargill DI: A novel barrier cream is clinically evaluated for its effectiveness. The Lembo S, Lembo C, Lo Conte V, Gallo L, La Bella S, Martellotta D, Ayala F: In vitro assessment of a poly-2p barrier cream barrier effect. Ital Dermatol Venereol 2010;145:703-708.

Method for assessing the protection of plasticizers against climate and chemicals aggression. Res Practice 2012;2012:864734. Elsner P: Schliemann S, Kleesz A, Elsner P: Protection lotions do not inhibit solvent-related accumulative dermal aggravation - results of a randomised double-blind trial. Kontaktdermatitis 2013;69:363-371. For Schliemann S, Petri M, Elsner P: Prevention of irritating dermatitis with protection creams: Effect of the dosage.

Kontaktdermatitis 2014;70:19-26. Protecting through control of the barrier cream application: a job trial. J Dermatol 2014;171:813-818. Chilicott RP, Dalton CH, Ashley Z, Allen CE, Bradley ST, Maidment MP, Jenner J, Brown RF, Gwyther RJ, Reis P: Rating of barrier cream against sulfur mash. Effects of barrier cream.

Kontaktdermatitis 1989;21:134-140. Elsner M, Wigger-Alberti W, Maraffio B, Wernli M, Elsner P: Self use of a protecting cream. Traps of industrial safety. Bow Dermatol 1997;133:861-864. Elsner P: How much cream is actually used at the workstation? Estimation of the dosage per capillary layer for nursing staff. Kontaktdermatitis 2012;67:229-233.

Ferguglia Duca PG, Pelfini I, Ferguglia II Duca PG, Ferguglia II Settimi L, Settimi L, Pucelli C, Sevosi I, Terzaghi G: Efficacy of the use of cream barriers in the prevention of dermatological diseases in dyeing plants: results of a randomized trial. Nondisinvasive biotechnological techniques in an interview with 1,020 metallurgists: results and effects on professional dermology. Kontaktdermatitis 2010;62:272-278.

Efficacy of protective dermatological interventions for the prophylaxis of work-related skin eczema: Results of a randomised study over a follow-up time of 1 year. Dermatol 2010;162:362-370. Blinker A, Blinker B, Stolkovich S, Nikl M, Barth A, Ponocny E, Drexler H, Tappeiner G: Efficacy of protective cream in the prophylaxis of professional dermatitis: Results of a randomised study.

Paepe K, Hachem JP, Vanpee E, Goossens A, Germaux MA, Lachapelle JM, Lambert J, Matthieu L, Roseeuw D, Suys E, Van Hecke E, Rogiers V: Helpful effect of a skin-compatible moisturizer on the barrier effect in experimental irritating and hypersensitive dermatitis. Kontaktdermatitis 2001;44:337-343. Effectiveness of barrier cream.

Kontaktdermatitis 1993;28:94-100. Wigger-Alberti W, Gabard B, Elsner P: Barrier cream and its wearer's protection against professionally irritating dermatitis. Kontaktdermatitis 2000;42:77-80. Shih TS, Huang YS, Chueh MR, Chou JS, Chang HY: Assessment of the efficiency of individual protection gear against professional exposures to N,N-dimethylformamide.

Mehr zum Thema