Acrylates in Contact Dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis treatment: A comprehensive review of conventional and novel bioengineered approaches

Atopic dermatitis (AD) remains a challenging condition, with conventional treatments often leading to adverse effects and limited efficacy. This review explores the diverse landscape of AD treatments, encompassing conventional methods, novel topical and systemic therapies, and emerging bioengineered strategies. While conventional drug administration often requires high dosages or frequent administration, leading to adverse effects, targeted biologics have shown promise. Phototherapy and wet wrap therapy, while helpful, have limitations. Given these factors, the need for modern and effective therapeutic strategies for AD is pressing. Complementary or alternative therapies have garnered significant attention in recent years as a compelling treatment for AD. Among these, functionalized biomaterials and textiles with physicochemical, nanotechnology-based characteristics, or bioengineered features are some of the most common typical adjuvant therapies. The multifunctional-engineered biomaterials, as a new generation of biomedical materials, and stem cells, seem to hold tremendous promise for the treatment of dermatological diseases like AD. Biomaterials have seen great success, especially in various medical fields, due to their unique and adaptable characteristics. These materials, including collagen, PCL, and PLGA, offer unique advantages, such as biocompatibility, biodegradability, controlled drug release, and enhanced drug retention.

Is the Use of the Extended (Meth)acrylate Series - Nails Justified? Characterization of Nail Acrylate Allergy in a Tertiary Medical Centre

Methacrylate allergy is a common cause of allergic contact dermatitis, and its incidence has surged over the past decade. Consequently, the primary sensitizing agent, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, was recently added to the European Baseline Series of contact allergens. This study aimed to assess the added value of testing for allergens included in the (Meth)Acrylate Series - Nails, in addition to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, as well as to characterize patients who may benefit from more extensive testing. A retrospective analysis of medical records of patch-tested patients was conducted between June 2013 and July 2022. Among the 3,828 patients who underwent patch testing, 396 were tested with the (Meth)Acrylate Series - Nails; 153 (38.6%) of those patients tested positive for at least 1 acrylate. The most common hapten was 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (85.6%), followed by hydroxypropyl methacrylate (85.0%) and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (80.4%). In our study, 22/153 patients (14.4%) would have been missed if tested only for 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate. The analysis showed that including hydroxypropyl methacrylate and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate improved detection rate to 98%, rendering the use of the entire tray unnecessary in most cases.

Acrylates and Methacrylates Sensitization in Patients with Orthopedic and Dental Prostheses: Asymptomatic Pre-Implant and Symptomatic Post-Implant Testing

Acrylates and methacrylates are widely used in dental and orthopedic prostheses, false nails, adhesives, glues, and paints, and are strong sensitizers. The aim of our study was to assess the prevalence of acrylate sensitization in patients before the application of dental or orthopedic prostheses or after the application in case of potentially related contact dermatitis. Methods: The subjects were tested according to haptens reported in safety data sheets, including methyl methacrylate (MMA) 5%, methyl acrylate (MA) 1%, ethyl methacrylate (EMA) 2%, ethyl acrylate (EA) 1%, butylacrylate 0.1%, 2 hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) 5%, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate 2% (EGDMA), tetraethylene glycol dimethacrylate 2% (TEGDMA), and dimethyl amino ethyl methacrylate 0.2% (DAEMA). Multivariable logistic regression was used to study the factors associated with (meth)acrylate sensitization. Results: Six hundred sixty-five patients (75.4% of the total sample) without contact dermatitis before the placement of any dental or orthopedic prosthesis and 217 patients (24.6% of the total sample) with contact dermatitis potentially due to already placed prostheses were involved. In total, 37 cases of patch test positivity to at least 1 acrylate (4.2%) were found. In the pre-implant population, previous dermatitis and respiratory allergy were associated with increased sensitization to acrylates in multivariable regression analysis (odds ratio [OR] 2.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-5.39; OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.32-6.64, respectively). The prevalence of sensitization was 3.5% for EGDMA, 2.7% for EA, 1.5% for 2-HEMA, 1.4% for both MA and MMA, 1.28% for DAEMA, and 0.8% for EMA. No statistically significant difference was found in the prevalence of sensitization between the pre- and post-implant groups. Discussion: Our study found a similar profile of sensitization in pre-implant and post-implant patients, suggesting the need to better study the specificity and sensitivity of patch tests to (meth)acrylate and to define relevance considering a detailed history of exposure.

Artificial nail modelling systems in healthcare workers: An emerging risk of contact sensitization to a well-known occupational allergen in an alternative way

BACKGROUND

Artificial nail modelling systems (ANMS) pose a significant risk for nail stylists and their clients regarding acrylate sensitization, which might jeopardize the use of acrylate-containing medical devices.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the frequency of artificial nail practices among female healthcare workers (HCWs) compared with controls and assess ANMS-related side effects.

METHODS

In this comparative, cross-sectional, single-centre study, a face-to-face interview with 200 female HCWs and 200 age-matched female dermatology patients (controls) was conducted regarding the use of ANMS between March and November 2023.

RESULTS

Among 400 participants (median age: 25), 85 (21.3%) have applied ANMS at least once. The prevalence of ANMS application was significantly higher in HCWs (n = 54/200, 27%) compared with controls (n = 31/200, 15.5%) (p < 0.05). Long-lasting nail polish was the most commonly preferred technique (n = 82/85, 96.5%). ANMS were mainly performed in nail studios by nail stylists (n = 79/85, 92.9%), while three participants were using home kits. Nail brittleness was the most frequently reported side effect (n = 19/85, 22.4%). No case of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The popularity of ANMS among young female HCWs is growing. This striking trend might further put these individuals not only at risk of medical device-related adverse events but also occupational ACD.

2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) sensitization, a global epidemic at its peak in Spain?

BACKGROUND

A global epidemic of allergic contact dermatitis to (meth)acrylates has been described in relation to the widespread use of manicure products.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the frequency of sensitization to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) among consecutively patch tested patients with eczema in Spain; the percentage of current relevance; the MOAHLFA index; and, the potential sources of exposure to (meth)acrylates.

METHODS

From January 2019 to December 2022, 2-HEMA 2% pet. was prospectively patch tested in 24 REIDAC (Spanish Allergic Contact Dermatitis Registry) centres.

RESULTS

Six thousand one hundred thirty-four patients were consecutively patch tested with 2-HEMA 2% pet. 265/6134 (4.3%) were positive. Positive reactions of current relevance were identified to involve 184/265 (69%). The efficiency (number of patch tests needed to detect relevant positive patch test reactions) was 34 (6134/184). The variable 'occupational' was found to be significantly associated with a higher risk for relevant positive reactions to 2-HEMA (OR: 10.9; 95% CI: 8.1-14.9).

CONCLUSION

(Meth)acrylate sensitization is a prevalent health issue in Spain. 2-HEMA 2% pet. has been identified to be a highly effective (meth)acrylate allergy marker in the GEIDAC baseline series. The responsible authorities should implement policies guaranteeing accurate labelling of industrial, medical, and consumer materials while ensuring the enforcement of said labelling through appropriate legal means.

VenomPred 2.0: A Novel In Silico Platform for an Extended and Human Interpretable Toxicological Profiling of Small Molecules

The application of artificial intelligence and machine learning (ML) methods is becoming increasingly popular in computational toxicology and drug design; it is considered as a promising solution for assessing the safety profile of compounds, particularly in lead optimization and ADMET studies, and to meet the principles of the 3Rs, which calls for the replacement, reduction, and refinement of animal testing. In this context, we herein present the development of VenomPred 2.0 (http://www.mmvsl.it/wp/venompred2/), the new and improved version of our free of charge web tool for toxicological predictions, which now represents a powerful web-based platform for multifaceted and human-interpretable in silico toxicity profiling of chemicals. VenomPred 2.0 presents an extended set of toxicity endpoints (androgenicity, skin irritation, eye irritation, and acute oral toxicity, in addition to the already available carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, hepatotoxicity, and estrogenicity) that can be evaluated through an exhaustive consensus prediction strategy based on multiple ML models. Moreover, we also implemented a new utility based on the Shapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) method that allows human interpretable toxicological profiling of small molecules, highlighting the features that strongly contribute to the toxicological predictions in order to derive structural toxicophores.

Contact allergy caused by acrylates in nail cosmetics: A pilot study from Greece

BACKGROUND

The growing popularity of nail techniques based on acrylates has led to a higher frequency of sensitization in both nail technicians and users.

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to assess cases of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by acrylates in individuals with occupational or non-occupational exposure to nail techniques.

METHODS

A preliminary study was conducted on 30 patients with ACD caused by acrylates in nail techniques, who were patch tested from September 2022 to March 2023 at the First Department of Dermatology and Venereology of Andreas Syggros Hospital, Athens, Greece.

RESULTS

Thirty female patients with ACD to acrylates were documented (15 users and 15 nail technicians and users). The most common allergens were: 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate (HPMA) and ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), which tested positive in all 30 patients (100.0%). Twenty patients (66.7%) had been exposed to dental procedures involving acrylates, before the onset of ACD. Nail technicians exhibited extensive skin lesions, 40.0% experienced ACD within the first year of work and 13.3% during their professional practice. Three of them (20.0%) had to discontinue their work.

CONCLUSION

Acrylates have been identified as potent allergens, necessitating the implementation of safety measures for the use of these chemicals in nail techniques.

Role of acrylates in the development of contact dermatitis in diabetic patients-A Polish dermatology tertiary centre experience

BACKGROUND

In recent years, an increasing number of contact dermatitis cases triggered by acrylates contained in diabetes medical devices have been reported. Acrylates seem to play a major role in the development of irritant contact dermatitis and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in diabetic patients.

OBJECTIVES

To study a group of patients with contact dermatitis caused by diabetes medical devices with a focus on acrylates as possible allergens responsible for contact dermatitis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifteen patients with diabetes mellitus type 1 and contact dermatitis from diabetic devices were patch tested to 25 acrylate allergens.

RESULTS

Three patients (20%) reacted to the following allergens: three patients reacted to isobornyl acrylate (IBOA) and one of them additionally to 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (2-HEA); results were of clinical relevance. All three patients were using insulin pumps and glucose sensors (GS)-in one patient contact dermatitis was towards the insulin pump and the GS, in one patient only towards the insulin pump and in one patient only towards the GS. Twelve patients (80%) did not show any skin reaction towards the allergens tested.

CONCLUSION

A majority of diabetic patients showed no reactions towards any acrylate allergen tested; yet, the presence of untested allergens must be kept in mind. IBOA proved to be a cause of ACD in diabetes patients. 2-HEA might be another culprit allergen, but its presence in the devices must first be confirmed.

A Survey of Skin Reactions Associated With Acrylic Nail Cosmetics, With a Focus on Home Kits: Is There a Need for Regulation?

Background: Sensitization to (meth)acrylates, the most common nail cosmetic allergens, is rising. In recent years, home acrylic nail kits have become easily available. Objective: To investigate the characteristics of individuals reporting skin reactions associated with acrylic nail cosmetics, particularly home kits. Methods: Cross-sectional survey of Facebook nail allergy support groups. Inclusion criteria were self-reported skin reactions associated with acrylic nails and age ≥18 years. Results: There were 199 respondents, nearly all female (99%), mostly white (83%), and 25-54 years old (83%). Seventy-eight percent reported using home acrylic kits, more than half for the first time during COVID-19. They predominantly learned about kits through social media (68%) and received training through websites/online videos (74%). Most home users (83%) first developed skin reactions after starting to use home kits. Compared with nonhome users, significantly more home users reported skin reaction onset within 1 year of use, as well as nail damage (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Among online nail allergy support group members, home acrylic nail kit use was common and associated with earlier development of skin reactions and more frequent nail damage than professional acrylic manicures. These findings raise important questions about the need to regulate home acrylic nail kits.

2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA): A clinical review of contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis. Part 2. Cross- and co-sensitization, other skin reactions to HEMA, position of HEMA among (meth)acrylates, sensitivity as screening agent, presence of HEMA in commercial products and practical information on patch test procedures

This is the second part of a literature review of the clinical aspects of contact allergy to and allergic contact dermatitis from 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA). Topics include cross- and co-sensitization, atypical manifestations of contact allergy, frequency of positive patch tests to HEMA compared with other (meth)acrylates, sensitivity of HEMA as a screening agent, the presence of HEMA in commercial products, and practical information on patch testing procedures. Primary sensitization to methacrylates including HEMA may result in methacrylate and acrylate cross-sensitization. There is a strong cross-allergy between HEMA, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), and hydroxypropyl methacrylate; many reactions to EGDMA are cross-reactions to primary HEMA sensitization. Rare atypical manifestations of HEMA-allergy include lichen planus, lymphomatoid papulosis, systemic contact dermatitis, leukoderma after positive patch tests, and systemic side effects such as nausea, diarrhoea, malaise, and palpitations. The occurrence of respiratory disease caused by methacrylates such as asthma is not infrequent. HEMA is the most frequently patch test-positive methacrylate. It is a good screening agent for allergy to other (meth)acrylates. Patch test sensitization to HEMA 2% pet. is extremely rare. There are (some) indications that HEMA is frequently used in dental products and nail cosmetics.

Prognosis and sequelae of meth(acrylate) sensitization in beauticians and consumers of manicure materials

BACKGROUND

Allergic contact dermatitis from (meth)acrylic monomers (ACDMA) in manicure products is increasing.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prognosis, work performance impairment and sequelae of a cohort of beauticians and manicure consumers with ACDMA sensitized from the exposure to manicure products.

METHODS

We conducted a telephone survey with patients diagnosed with ACDMA.

RESULTS

One hundred and six patients were evaluated, including 75 (70.8%) beauticians and 31 (29.2%) consumers. All were women with a mean age of 39 (19-62). Thirty-seven of 75 beauticians (49.3%) continued to work. Twenty-seven of 106 (25.5%) patients continued to use manicure products with (meth)acrylates regularly. Seventeen of 51 (33.3%) patients who discontinued the exposure described ongoing nail/periungual changes. Nine of 58 (15.5%) patients who required dental restoration, orthodontic or occlusal splint materials recalled reactions from them; and, 25 of 96 (26%) who used sanitary napkins recalled intolerance to them starting after the diagnosis of ACDMA. Fifteen of 25 (60%) discontinued the use of sanitary napkins.

CONCLUSION

49.3% beauticians continued to work; most patients stopped wearing acrylic manicure materials; reactions from dental materials were not uncommon, however, removal of dental materials was never required; and, reactions to sanitary napkins developing after the diagnosis of ACDMA were common most leading to discontinuation of use.

2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA): A clinical review of contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis-Part 1. Introduction, epidemiology, case series and case reports

2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) has been increasingly recognised as a contact allergen and was added to the European baseline series in 2019. In this article (2 parts), the results of an extensive literature review of the clinical aspects of contact allergy/allergic contact dermatitis to HEMA are presented. In part 1, the epidemiology of HEMA contact allergy is discussed and detailed information on published case series and case reports presented. HEMA is an important cause of contact allergy/allergic contact dermatitis in North America and Europe with recent prevalences of >3% in the USA + Canada and 1.5%-3.7% in Europe. Currently, most cases are caused by nail cosmetics, both in consumers and professional nail stylists. In our literature review, we have found 24 studies presenting case series of patients with allergic contact dermatitis attributed to HEMA and 168 case reports. However, the presence of HEMA in the products causing ACD was established in only a minority. Part 2 will discuss cross- and co-sensitisation, and other skin reactions to HEMA, will assess whether HEMA is the most frequent (meth)acrylate allergen and how sensitive HEMA as a screening agent is, investigate the presence of HEMA in commercial products and provide practical information on patch testing procedures.

Contact Dermatitis to Diabetes Medical Devices

Skin adverse reactions to diabetes medical devices have been reported frequently over recent years. Adhesives attaching glucose sensors and continuous insulin infusion sets to the skin are proven to cause both allergic contact dermatitis and irritant contact dermatitis in patients with diabetes mellitus. Several allergens contained in adhesives and/or parts of medical devices are documented to cause allergic contact dermatitis, with acrylate chemicals being the most common culprit-especially isobornyl acrylate (IBOA), but also 2,2'-methylenebis(6-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol) monoacrylate or cyanoacrylates. Epoxy resin, colophonium and nickel were also identified as causative allergens. However, repetitive occlusion, maceration of the skin and resulting disruption of the skin barrier seem to have an impact on the development of skin lesions as well. The purpose of this study is to highlight the burden of contact dermatitis triggered by diabetes medical devices and to show possible mechanisms responsible for the development of contact dermatitis in a group of diabetic patients.

Severe Hypersensitivity Reaction to Dermabond Prineo After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Case Report

CASE

A 68-year-old woman underwent an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for cervical radiculopathy and subsequently developed a severe contact hypersensitivity reaction in response to Dermabond Prineo, beginning 10 days postoperatively. The Dermabond Prineo mesh was removed, and the patient was treated symptomatically with diphenhydramine, systemic steroids, and oral antibiotics, with complete resolution of her symptoms.

CONCLUSION

This is the first reported contact hypersensitivity reaction to Dermabond Prineo in the context of spine surgery. Surgeons should be able to recognize this presentation and treat this appropriately.

Contact Dermatitis in the Surgical Patient: A Focus on Wound Closure Materials

ABSTRACT

Irritant and allergic contact dermatitis from wound closure materials can occur in patients after surgical procedures. The resulting inflammation from contact dermatitis can compromise wound healing, mimic surgical site infections, and result in wound dehiscence. Components of wound closure material, such as antibiotic coatings, dyes, sterilizing compounds, or the material itself, have been implicated as contact allergens. This article provides the latest overview of the components of 3 major forms of wound closure materials-sutures, staples, and tissue adhesives-associated with contact dermatitis, discusses their cross-reactivity, and provides diagnostic and treatment guidelines.

Acrylates as a significant cause of allergic contact dermatitis: new sources of exposure

Acrylate monomers have a wide range of applications. Since the 1950s, many reports of occupational origin allergic contact dermatitis due to (meth)acrylate monomers have been published. During last decades, (meth)acrylate allergy has undergone an occupational shift from dentistry toward beauty industry and medical devices. The aim of the study was to conduct a literature review on acrylates as a cause of allergic contact dermatitis, current sources of exposure as well as identification of professional groups with an increased risk of this allergy and methods of effective prevention. Database review: Medline search (PubMed), Wiley Online Library and Web of Science base in years 1956–2019 using the following keywords: acrylates, manicurists, dentists, dental technicians, medical devices, occupational exposure, and allergic contact dermatitis. 204 346 articles containing the term ‘acrylates‘ have been found. They include 2 042 articles with the word ‘manicurists’, 169 919 – ‘dentists’, 218 236 – ‘dental technicians’, 2 427 418 – ‘medical devices’. Fifty-nine articles were chosen based on analysis of abstracts and full texts. In the past allergy to acrylates was mainly of occupational origin and dental technicians were the most often affected professional group. Since the long-lasting manicure has become popular, this problem concerns both manicurists and their customers. Moreover, the new significant trend is non-occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by medical devices especially dedicated to diabetes patients.

Potential classification of chemical immunologic response based on gene expression profiles

Occupational immune diseases are a serious public health burden and are often a result of exposure to low molecular weight (LMW) chemicals. The complete immunological mechanisms driving these responses are not fully understood which has made the classification of chemical allergens difficult. Antimicrobials are a large group of immunologically-diverse LMW agents. In these studies, mice were dermally exposed to representative antimicrobial chemicals (sensitizers: didecyldimethylammonium chloride (DDAC), ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA), irritants: benzal-konium chloride (BAC), and adjuvant: triclosan (TCS)) and the mRNA expression of cytokines and cellular mediators was evaluated using real-time qPCR in various tissues over a 7-days period. All antimicrobials caused increases in the mRNA expression of the danger signals Tslp (skin), and S100a8 (skin, blood, lung). Expression of the T_H2 cytokine Il4 peaked at different timepoints for the chemicals based on exposure duration. Unique expression profiles were identified for OPA (Il10 in lymph node, Il4 and Il13 in lung) and TCS (Tlr4 in skin). Additionally, all chemicals except OPA induced decreased expression of the cellular adhesion molecule Ecad. Overall, the results from these studies suggest that unique gene expression profiles are implicated following dermal exposure to various antimicrobial agents, warranting the need for additional studies. In order to advance the development of preventative and therapeutic strategies to combat immunological disease, underlying mechanisms of antimicrobial-induced immunomodulation must be fully understood. This understanding will aid in the development of more effective methods to screen for chemical toxicity, and may potentially lead to more effective treatment strategies for those suffering from immune diseases.

Allergic contact dermatitis: From pathophysiology to development of new preventive strategies

As the body's first line of defense, the skin is the organ most frequently exposed to chemicals present in personal hygiene products, household products, or materials used in the work environment. In this context, skin disorders account for more than 40 % of all occupational and work-related diseases, constituting a significant public health burden. Among skin disorders, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is the most prevalent occupational disease and the most common form of immunotoxicity in humans. ACD is a T-cell-mediated skin inflammation resulting from the priming and expansion of allergen-specific CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells. The clinical condition is characterized by local skin rash, itchiness, redness, swelling, and lesions, being mainly diagnosed by the patch test. Upon ACD diagnosis, avoiding the exposure to the triggering allergen is the mainstay of treatment to prevent future flares. In cases where avoidance is not possible, the use of a standard of care interim treatments such as steroid creams or ointments, barrier creams, and moisturizers are strongly recommended to alleviate symptoms. In this review, we sought to provide the reader with an overview of the pathophysiology of ACD as well as the currently available pharmacological treatment options. Furthermore, a comprehensive outline of several preventive strategies is also provided.

Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Dermabond Prineo After Elective Orthopedic Surgery

The Dermabond Prineo skin closure system (Ethicon, Somerville, New Jersey) is a wound closure device that combines a 2-octyl cyanoacrylate liquid adhesive and a self-adhesive polyester mesh. Although cyanoacrylates traditionally have been associated with low rates of sensitization, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to Dermabond products is being increasingly reported after orthopedic surgery. The authors describe the first case series of ACD to Dermabond Prineo where patch testing confirmed the diagnosis in all patients. Six patients who had suspected Dermabond Prineo ACD after lower limb orthopedic surgery were assessed. Of these patients, 5 had itching within 4 days of surgery and rash within 5 days. All 5 of these patients reported previous exposure to Dermabond products. All patients had removal of the adhesive and mesh earlier than planned and were treated with corticosteroids. In addition, 4 patients received systemic antibiotics; however, only 1 had a microbiologically confirmed superficial skin infection. In all patients, the dermatitis resolved within 2 weeks of dressing removal, with no adverse effect on the orthopedic outcome. Patch testing showed positive reactions to Dermabond Prineo glue for all patients. Orthopedic surgeons should be aware of the potential for ACD to Dermabond Prineo, especially among patients with previous exposure to Dermabond products. The authors discuss the risk factors for ACD to Dermabond Prineo in the orthopedic cohort and provide recommendations for prevention and management. [Orthopedics. 2020;43(6):e515-e522.].

A review of acrylates: Super glue, nail adhesives, and diabetic pump adhesives increasing sensitization risk in women and children

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a cutaneous type IV hypersensitivity immune reaction mounted against substances in contact with the skin to which the patient has been sensitized. ACD is common, affecting approximately 72 million Americans per year, and is more common in women. One common contact allergen group is acrylates, which are monomers that are polymerized in the making of glues, adhesives, and plastic materials. It is the monomers that are sensitizing, whereas the final polymers are inert. Acrylates were the 2012 Contact Allergen of the Year with the specific acrylate, isobornyl acrylate, being the 2020 Contact Allergen of the Year. This article reviews the history of acrylate use, epidemiology, and both known and emerging sources of acrylates resulting in ACD.

Methacrylate perspective in current dental practice

OBJECTIVE

To provide a current perspective concerning dental personnel sensitivity to methacrylate materials.

OVERVIEW

Methacrylate related sensitivity and allergies are currently beyond traditional thoughts concerning denture base resins and methyl methacrylate provisional materials. Methacrylates are now ubiquitous in current dental practice and dental personnel should be aware that dental adhesives contain potent sensitizers that may also cross-sensitize individuals to other methacrylates not experienced. The growing sensitivity to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) has been described to be epidemic in nature due to the artificial nail industry with dental patients and dental personnel may be more susceptible to dental methacrylate sensitization. While contact dermatitis remains the most prevalent methacrylate-related clinical presentation, respiratory complications and asthma are increasing associated with methacrylate exposure. While additional personal protective equipment (PPE) is thought to be first protective choice, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) considers PPE overall largely ineffective and should be considered only as a last resort.

CONCLUSION

Dental personnel need to be more aware of methacrylate sources and use workplace control measures to limit methacrylate exposures to both dental personnel and patients.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Sensitivity to methacrylate materials is a growing dental workplace major concern and dental personnel should be aware of both the methacrylate content of current materials and the products that contain ingredients with the most sensitization potential.

[Contact allergy due to insulin pumps and glucose sensor systems]

The design and development of insulin pumps and various glucose sensor systems has an enormous impact on life quality of diabetic patients. Surveillance and therapy of diabetes has improved due to the new diabetic devices, which are affixed to the patients' skin for several days. Since their introduction, irritant and allergic contact dermatitis have been frequently reported. Patients often acquire contact sensitization to isobornyl acrylate, N,N-dimethylacrylamide or formerly to 2‑ethyl-cyanoacrylate. These contact allergens were found in the patch, in the glue to affix the box on the patch or in the casing of the system itself. Development of contact allergy to substances of these systems may result in the need to abandon modern diabetic devices.

Cyanoacrylate closure for peripheral veins: Consensus document of the Australasian College of Phlebology

Background

Cyanoacrylates are fast-acting adhesives used in procedural medicine including closure of superficial wounds, embolization of truncal vessels pre-operatively, vascular anomalies, visceral false aneurysms, endoleaks, gastrointestinal varices and gastrointestinal bleeding. More recently, catheter-directed cyanoacrylate adhesive closure was introduced as an alternative to endovenous thermal ablation (ETA) to occlude superficial veins of the lower limbs.

Objectives

To formulate policies for the safe and effective delivery of cyanoacrylate adhesive closure procedures in Australasia, based on current experience and evidence.

Methods

A panel of phlebologists including vascular surgeons, interventional radiologists, dermatologists and research scientists systematically reviewed the available data on cyanoacrylate products used in medicine and shared personal experience with the procedure. The reviewed material included bibliographic and biomedical data, material safety data sheets and data requested and received from manufacturers. Results and recommendations: Cyanoacrylate adhesive closure appears to be an effective treatment for saphenous reflux with occlusion rates at 36 months of 90–95%. We recommend a maximum dose of 10 mL of cyanoacrylate per treatment session. Serious complications are rare, but significant. Hypersensitivity to acrylates is reported in 2.4% of the population and is an important absolute contraindication to cyanoacrylate adhesive closure. 1 Post-procedural inflammatory reactions, including hypersensitivity-type phlebitis, occur in 10–20% of patients. 2 In the long term, cyanoacrylate adhesive closure results in foreign-body granuloma formation within 2–12 months of the procedure. We recommend against the use of cyanoacrylate adhesive closure in patients with uncontrolled inflammatory, autoimmune or granulomatous disorders (e.g. sarcoidosis). Caution should be exercised in patients with significant active systemic disease or infection and alternative therapies such as thermal ablation and foam sclerotherapy should be considered.

Conclusions

Cyanoacrylate adhesive closure appears to be an effective endovenous procedure, with short-term closure rates comparable to ETA and therefore greater efficacy than traditional surgery for treating superficial veins of the lower limbs. Ongoing data collection is required to establish the long-term safety.

Granuloma formation following cyanoacrylate glue injection in peripheral veins and arteriovenous malformation

Background

Cyanoacrylate adhesive closure is a technically simple alternative to endothermal ablation of peripheral veins. N-butyl cyanoacrylate is delivered via catheters or by percutaneous injection resulting in occlusion of target veins. The local tissue reaction or the systemic immune response that may follow have not been characterised.

Aim

To characterise the late local tissue reaction to N-butyl cyanoacrylate glue injected in peripheral vessels.

Methods

Biopsies were obtained from two patients. In patient one, distal tributaries of the great saphenous vein were injected with VenaBlock™ glue under ultrasound guidance. Ultrasound-guided incisional biopsies were performed at one week, six weeks and 12 months. In patient two, a peripheral arterio-venous malformation was injected with Venablock™ and biopsy was performed 12 months later. Histological analysis was performed using haematoxylin and eosin and immunofixation with CD-4, CD-31, CD-34, CD-68 and D2-40.

Results

Echogenic material with a strong shadow artefact consistent with the injected N-butyl cyanoacrylate was observed on ultrasound on all follow-up occasions. Biopsies taken at one week showed intravascular glue without histiocytes. Biopsies at six weeks showed isolated foreign body histiocytes coating intravascular fibrillary glue spicules but no granuloma formation. The one-year biopsies showed extravascular changes including fibrosis, lymphoid aggregates and multiple extravascular foreign body cavitated granulomas. Some vessel lumens contained residual spicules of glue but no intravascular granulomas. The extravascular granulomas were deeply located, asymptomatic and not complicated by clinical ulceration. Histologically, there was no evidence of transepidermal elimination.

Conclusion

Extravascular foreign body cavitated granulomas containing spicules of glue with fibrosis and lymphoid aggregates occur as a delayed finding following the use of N-butyl cyanoacrylate.

Cutaneous Adverse Effects of Diabetes Mellitus Medications and Medical Devices: A Review

Diabetes mellitus is one of the most prevalent chronic diseases in the USA. If uncontrolled, diabetes can lead to devastating complications. Diabetes medications and medical devices largely contribute to the significant financial expense that the disease inflicts on affected individuals and society. Alongside significant economic burden, there are numerous cutaneous adverse effects associated with diabetes medications and medical devices. Despite the large and increasing number of individuals living with diabetes and the wide use of the related medications and medical devices, there is limited literature that comprehensively documents their cutaneous adverse effects. These cutaneous adverse effects are significant as they can worsen glycemic control, increase disease distress, and may increase risk of associated complications. Thus, it is important that providers can recognize these cutaneous adverse effects, identify the culprit agents, and can properly manage them. In this article, we provide a critical review of the cutaneous adverse effects of medications and devices used in the management of diabetes and provide insight into risk factors and prevention and an overview of therapeutic management. An emphasis is placed on clinical recognition and treatment for use of the medical providers who, regardless of practice setting, will treat patients with diabetes.

Allergenic Ingredients in Facial Wet Wipes

BACKGROUND

Allergic contact dermatitis commonly occurs on the face. Facial cleansing wipes may be an underrecognized source of allergens.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of potentially allergenic ingredients in facial wet wipes.

METHODS

Ingredient lists from name brand and generic facial wipes from 4 large retailers were analyzed.

RESULTS

In the 178 facial wipes examined, a total of 485 ingredients were identified (average, 16.7 ingredients per wipe). Excluding botanicals, the top 15 potentially allergenic ingredients were glycerin (64.0%), fragrance (63.5%), phenoxyethanol (53.9%), citric acid (51.1%), disodium EDTA (44.4%), sorbic acid derivatives (39.3%), tocopherol derivatives (38.8%), polyethylene glycol derivatives (32.6%), glyceryl stearate (31.5%), sodium citrate (29.8%), glucosides (27.5%), cetearyl alcohol (25.8%), propylene glycol (25.3%), sodium benzoate (24.2%), and ceteareth-20 (23.6%)/parabens (23.6%). Of note, methylisothiazolinone (2.2%) and methylchloroisothiazolinone (1.1%) were uncommon. The top potential allergens of botanical origin included Aloe barbadensis (41.0%), chamomile extracts (27.0%), tea extracts (21.3%), Cucumis sativus (20.2%), and Hamamelis virginiana (10.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Many potential allergens are present in facial wet wipes, including fragrances, preservatives, botanicals, glucosides, and propylene glycol.

Occupational Contact Dermatitis in North American Print Machine Operators Referred for Patch Testing: Retrospective Analysis of Cross-Sectional Data From the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 1998 to 2014

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the epidemiology of contact dermatitis (CD) in print machine operators (PMOs).

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to estimate the prevalence of CD and characterize clinically relevant and occupationally related allergens among PMOs undergoing patch testing.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group data from 1998 to 2014.

RESULTS

Of 39,332 patch-tested patients, 132 (0.3%) were PMOs. Among PMOs, most were male (75.0%) and white (92.4%). The majority were printing press operators (85.6%). The most frequent sites of dermatitis were hands (63.6%), arms (29.5%), and face/scalp (24.2%). More than half had an occupationally related skin condition (56.1%). Final diagnoses were most commonly allergic CD (58.3%) and irritant CD (33.3%). Cobalt (20.8%), carba mix (12.5%), thiuram mix (8.3%), and formaldehyde (8.3%) were the most frequent occupationally related allergens. The top allergen sources included inks (22.9%), gloves (20.8%), and coatings/dye/copy/photographic chemicals (14.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Allergic CD, irritant CD, and involvement of exposed body areas were common among PMOs. Common allergens included rubber accelerators, metals, and preservatives.

Allergic contact dermatitis caused by (meth)acrylates in long-lasting nail polish - are we facing a new epidemic in the beauty industry?

BACKGROUND

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by (meth)acrylates has been described both in occupational and in non-occupational settings.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical patterns, the most frequent allergens and the prognosis in patients sensitized to (meth)acrylates in long-lasting nail polish.

METHODS

The files of patients with ACD caused by (meth)acrylates in long-lasting nail polish diagnosed between January 2013 and June 2016 in four dermatology departments in Spain were reviewed. Patients were followed up by telephone interview.

RESULTS

Overall, 2353 patients were patch tested. Forty-three (1.82%) were diagnosed with ACD caused by (meth)acrylates in long-lasting nail polish during that period; all were female, and all had hand dermatitis. Patients were mostly less than 40 years old (72.1%), non-atopic (95.4%) and had an occupational cause of their dermatitis (93%), which developed ∼10.1 months after they had started to use this technique. The most frequent positive allergens were: 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, and tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate. Eight of the 22 interviewed patients were able to improve their working technique and used 4H® protective material (fingerstalls/gloves).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-lasting nail polishes have become widespread, and it is a matter of concern that we may be facing a new epidemic of ACD caused by these. Policies regulating their use are urgently needed.

(Meth)Acrylate Occupational Contact Dermatitis in Nail Salon Workers: A Case Series

Background:

Recently, many cases of acrylate-associated allergic contact dermatitis have appeared among nail salon workers. Common acrylate-containing products in nail salons include traditional nail polish, ultraviolet-cured shellac nail polish, ultraviolet-cured gel nails, and press-on acrylic nails.

Methods:

Nail salon technicians seen in the occupational medicine clinic in 2015 and 2016 were identified, and their patch test results and clinical features were summarized. Patch testing was done with the Chemotechnique (Meth)Acrylate nail series, and either the North American Standard series or the North American Contact Dermatitis Group screening series.

Results:

Six patients were identified, all women, ages 38 to 58. Common presentations included erythematous dermatitis of the dorsa of the hands, palms, and forearms and fissures on the fingertips. Less common sites of eruptions included the periorbital region, cheeks, posterior ears, neck, sacral area, lateral thighs, and dorsa of the feet. All patients reacted to hydroxyethyl methacrylate, and 5 patients reacted to ethyl acrylate. Each patient also reacted to (meth)acrylates that are not found on either standard series, including ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate, 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate, and 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate.

Conclusions:

The authors report 6 cases of allergic contact dermatitis to acrylates in nail technicians seen over the past year, representing a new trend in their clinic. These cases are reflective of a growing trend of nail technicians with allergic contact dermatitis associated with occupational (meth)acrylate exposure. Efforts to improve prevention are needed.