Wearable Woes: Allergens in Diabetic Devices

Allergic contact dermatitis caused by glucose sensors and insulin pumps: A full review: Part 1: Sensors and pumps, adverse cutaneous reactions, allergens, and diabetes devices causing allergic contact dermatitis

During the past 8 years, a large number of reports have appeared on allergic contact dermatitis to glucose sensors and insulin pumps in paediatric and adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Isobornyl acrylate in one particular sensor sensitised many hundreds of (published) individuals, and many other allergens were discovered in a large number of sensors and pumps. Diagnostic procedures with patch tests proved very complicated, as manufacturers showed a serious lack of cooperation with dermatologists in providing information on the ingredients of their products and samples for patch testing. This two-part article provides a full and detailed review of all aspects of the subject of allergic contact dermatitis to glucose sensors and insulin pumps. Part 1 begins with a general introduction to sensors and pumps, followed by the cutaneous adverse reactions that they have caused and a full account of the allergens in the diabetes devices. In addition, an overview of the glucose sensors and insulin pumps that have caused allergic contact dermatitis is presented. Part 2 presents all published case reports and case series, clinical features of allergic contact dermatitis to sensors and pumps, patch test procedures, differentiation from irritant dermatitis, management of allergic patients and (proposed) legislation.

Contact dermatitis in children caused by diabetes devices

BACKGROUND

Insulin pump and glucose monitoring devices improve diabetes mellitus (DM) control and enhance patients' quality of life. However, a growing number of adverse cutaneous reactions related to the use of these devices has been reported.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the culprits of localized contact dermatitis in pediatric patients with diabetes caused by insulin pump and glucose monitoring devices.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 15 pediatric patients patch tested as part of a clinical investigation for skin reactions associated with insulin pump and glucose monitoring devices RESULTS: Seven patients had positive patch test reactions to isobornyl acrylate (IBOA) and five had positive reactions to benzoyl peroxide (BP). Positive patch test reactions to materials from the glucose sensor and/or insulin pump were seen in 10 of the 15 patients. Three had positive reactions to adhesive remover wipe from Smith and Nephew Remove and four had reactions to EMLA plaster.

CONCLUSION

A high share of patients showed positive reactions to IBOA and/or their medical devices (insulin pumps or glucose devices). A third of patients showed positive reactions to benzoyl peroxide. The presence of additional unidentified allergens cannot be excluded, highlighting the importance of access to a full description of the chemical composition of the devices. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Soft Bioelectronics Based on Nanomaterials

Recent advances in nanostructured materials and unconventional device designs have transformed the bioelectronics from a rigid and bulky form into a soft and ultrathin form and brought enormous advantages to the bioelectronics. For example, mechanical deformability of the soft bioelectronics and thus its conformal contact onto soft curved organs such as brain, heart, and skin have allowed researchers to measure high-quality biosignals, deliver real-time feedback treatments, and lower long-term side-effects in vivo. Here, we review various materials, fabrication methods, and device strategies for flexible and stretchable electronics, especially focusing on soft biointegrated electronics using nanomaterials and their composites. First, we summarize top-down material processing and bottom-up synthesis methods of various nanomaterials. Next, we discuss state-of-the-art technologies for intrinsically stretchable nanocomposites composed of nanostructured materials incorporated in elastomers or hydrogels. We also briefly discuss unconventional device design strategies for soft bioelectronics. Then individual device components for soft bioelectronics, such as biosensing, data storage, display, therapeutic stimulation, and power supply devices, are introduced. Afterward, representative application examples of the soft bioelectronics are described. A brief summary with a discussion on remaining challenges concludes the review.

Further Evidence of Allergic Contact Dermatitis Caused by 2,2'-Methylenebis(6-tert-Butyl-4-Methylphenol) Monoacrylate, a New Sensitizer in the Dexcom G6 Glucose Sensor

BACKGROUND

Since the spring of 2020, we have seen several patients experiencing severe allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from the Dexcom G6 glucose sensor after the composition of the sensor's adhesive patch had been changed. We have previously reported the finding of a new sensitizer, 2,2'-methylenebis(6-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol) monoacrylate, in the Dexcom G6 adhesive patch. Three patients with ACD from Dexcom G6 tested positive to this sensitizer. They were also allergic to isobornyl acrylate, a sensitizer present both in Dexcom G6 and in other medical devices previously used by these patients.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to report the first 4 cases sensitized to 2,2'-methylenebis(6-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol) monoacrylate without a simultaneous allergy to isobornyl acrylate.

METHODS

The cases were patch tested their own materials, a medical device series, and 2,2'-methylenebis(6-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol) monoacrylate in several concentrations.

RESULTS

All 4 cases tested positive to 2,2'-methylenebis(6-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol) monoacrylate at either 1.0% or 1.5% in petrolatum, whereas 20 controls tested negative to both concentrations.

CONCLUSIONS

The cases reported here provide further evidence of 2,2'-methylenebis(6-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol) monoacrylate as a relevant culprit sensitizer in patients with ACD from Dexcom G6. However, the initially used patch test concentration (0.3%) did not suffice to elicit positive reactions in these cases, which is why patch testing at 1.5% is recommended.