Jacob Pontoppidan Thyssen

Background The international classification of diseases, 10th revision (ICD‐10) includes several unvalidated diagnostic codes for hand eczema (HE). Knowledge is sparse on HE patient characteristics. Objectives To validate selected HE ICD‐10 codes in the Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR) and describe disease characteristics, lifestyle factors and medication use in adult HE patients. Methods Nineteen HE ICD‐10 codes were selected and validated based on patient charts. Five cohorts were constructed based on the diagnostic code, DL30.8H (HE unspecified), in the DNPR: (i) patients with DL30.8H code ( n = 8386), (ii) patients with DL30.8H code, but without atopic dermatitis (AD) ( n = 7406), (iii) sex‐ and age‐matched general population ( n = 8386) without HE. Two additional cohorts nested in the DNPR included participants from the Danish Skin Cohort, (iv) patients with DL30.8H code but without AD ( n = 1340) and (v) general population cohort ( n = 9876). Results ICD‐10 codes revealed positive predictive values ≥90% except irritant contact dermatitis (unspecified) (79.7%) and hyperkeratotic hand and foot eczema (84.1%). HE patients were most often women, middle‐aged or older, of Danish ethnicity, had an atopic medical history and were smokers. Topical corticosteroid prescriptions were almost doubled in HE cohorts compared to general populations. Conclusion We validated several HE ICD‐10 codes and identified important HE patient characteristics.

OBJECTIVE Diabetes devices that deliver insulin and measure blood glucose levels are cornerstones in modern treatment of type 1 diabetes. However, their use is frequently associated with the development of skin problems, particularly eczema and wounds. Proper skin care may prevent skin problems, yet evidence-based information from interventional studies is missing. Providing this information is the aim of this study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This cluster-controlled intervention study tested the efficacy of a basic skin care program (including use of lipid cream, removal, and avoidance of disinfection). A total of 170 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes were included and assigned either to the intervention group (n = 112) or the control group (n = 58). Participants were seen quarterly the first year after device initiation, with clinical assessment and interview in an unblinded setting. RESULTS Eczema or wounds were observed in 33.6% of the intervention group compared with 46.6% of control participants (absolute difference, 12.9% [95% CI −28.7%, 2.9%]; P = 0.10). The adjusted odds of wound development were decreased by 71% in the intervention compared with control group (for wounds, odds ratio 0.29 [95% CI 0.12, 0.68]; P = 0.005). In total, only eight infections were seen, without a higher frequency in the intervention group, despite advice to omit disinfection. CONCLUSIONS These data indicate our basic skin care program partially prevented diabetes device–induced skin reactions. However, more preventive strategies with other adhesives, patches, and/or types of lotions are needed for optimized prevention.