Allergic contact dermatitis caused by 2-ethyl cyanoacrylate contained in glucose sensor sets in two diabetic adults

Allergic contact dermatitis caused by glucose sensors and insulin pumps: A full review: Part 2. Case reports and case series, clinical features, patch test procedures, differentiation from irritant dermatitis, management of allergic patients and (proposed) legislation

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 provided a general introduction to sensors and pumps, a survey of the cutaneous adverse reactions that they have caused, a full account of the allergens in the diabetes devices and an overview of the glucose sensors and insulin pumps that have caused allergic contact dermatitis. This part 2 presents all published case reports and case series, clinical features of allergic contact dermatitis, patch test procedures, differentiation from irritant dermatitis, management of allergic patients and (proposed) legislation.

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 Allergy to Allergens in the Swedish Baseline Series Overrepresented in Diabetes Patients with Skin Reactions to Medical Devices - A Retrospective Study from Southern Sweden

Allergic contact dermatitis is reported among individuals using continuous glucose monitoring systems and insulin pumps. The aim of this study was to describe contact allergy patterns for allergens in the Swedish baseline series and medical device-related allergens among users. Contact allergy to baseline series allergens and isobornyl acrylate was compared between diabetes patients and dermatitis patients patch-tested at the Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology during 2017 to 2020. Fifty- four diabetes patients and 2,567 dermatitis patients were included. The prevalence of contact allergy to fragrance mix II and sesquiterpene lactone mix was significantly higher in diabetes patients compared with dermatitis patients. Of the diabetes patients 13.0% and of the dermatitis patients 0.5% tested positive to sesquiterpene lactone mix (p < 0.001). Of the diabetes patients 7.4% and of the dermatitis patients 2.3% tested positive to fragrance mix II (p = 0.041). Of the diabetes patients 70.4% tested positive to medical device-related allergens. Of the diabetes patients 63.0% and of the dermatitis patients 0.2% were allergic to isobornyl acrylate (p < 0.001). In conclusion, not only medical device-related contact allergies, but also contact allergy to baseline series allergens (fragrance mix II and sesquiterpene lactone mix), is overrepresented in diabetes patients who use medical devices.

[Translated article] Medical Devices in Patients With Diabetes and Contact Dermatitis

The development and commercialization of glucose sensors and insulin pumps has revolutionized the management of diabetes. These devices have been linked to multiple cases of contact dermatitis in recent years, however, giving rise to a growing interest in identifying the sensitizing allergens. Isobornyl acrylate was clearly identified as one of the main allergens responsible for contact dermatitis among users of the FreeStyle glucose sensor and was subsequently removed from the product ingredients. Remarkably, however, it is still used in most other sensors on the market. The common adhesive ingredients colophony and abietic acid derivatives have also been shown to be sensitizing agents. New components under study, such as dipropylene glycol diacrylate, N,N-dimethylacrylamide, and triethylene glycol methacrylate have recently been identified as allergens, though they are not commercially available for clinical testing. The benefits offered by glucose sensors and insulin pumps may be offset by sensitization to product ingredients, in some cases forcing discontinuation and diminishing quality of life. Dermatologists should play a role in this clinical and research scenario, offering case-by-case guidance to endocrinologists on skin care and possible alternatives for patients with glucose sensors and insulin pumps who develop contact dermatitis. They should also collaborate with the manufacturers developing these devices.

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.

Medical Devices in Patients With Diabetes and Contact Dermatitis

The development and commercialization of glucose sensors and insulin pumps has revolutionized the management of diabetes. These devices have been linked to multiple cases of contact dermatitis in recent years, however, giving rise to a growing interest in identifying the sensitizing allergens. Isobornyl acrylate (IBOA) was clearly identified as one of the main allergens responsible for contact dermatitis among users of the FreeStyle glucose sensor and was subsequently removed from the product ingredients. Remarkably, however, it is still used in most other sensors on the market. The common adhesive ingredients colophony and abietic acid derivatives have also been shown to be sensitizing agents. New components under study, such as dipropylene glycol diacrylate, N,N-dimethylacrylamide, and triethylene glycol methacrylate have recently been identified as allergens, though they are not commercially available for clinical testing. The benefits offered by glucose sensors and insulin pumps may be offset by sensitization to product ingredients, in some cases forcing discontinuation and diminishing quality of life. Dermatologists should play a role in this clinical and research scenario, offering case-by-case guidance to endocrinologists on skin care and possible alternatives for patients with glucose sensors and insulin pumps who develop contact dermatitis. They should also collaborate with the manufacturers developing these devices.

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.

Allergic Contact Dermatitis, an Important Skin Reaction in Diabetes Device Users: A Systematic Review

ABSTRACT

Diabetes management has undergone many advances over the years, including the introduction of devices that allow patients to monitor blood glucose and administer insulin. Although these devices have improved patients' quality of life, they are associated with adverse reactions.A systematic literature search was performed up to May 2020 in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases, with no temporal restrictions. Articles were screened by title, abstract, and full text as needed. A manual search among the references of the included articles was also performed.Two hundred sixty-five articles were identified, and 50 studies met inclusion criteria. Several cases of allergic contact dermatitis due to the use of insulin infusion systems and blood glucose monitoring have been reported. Acrylates, methacrylates, and colophonium, as well as, in particular, isobornyl acrylate, represent the main allergens responsible.Skin reactions, in particular allergic contact dermatitis, are a very common adverse event caused by insulin pumps and glucose sensors, which may lead to discontinue the usage of these devices with serious consequences for the patients. Collaboration between specialists, specifically between dermatologists and diabetologists, with patients and manufacturers is essential for the correct management of diabetes devices and potential related skin reactions.

Allergic contact dermatitis caused by dipropylene glycol diacrylate in the Omnipod® insulin pump

BACKGROUND

Cases of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by isobornyl acrylate (IBOA) in the Omnipod® insulin pump have previously been reported.

OBJECTIVES

To present three cases of patients with ACD caused by a new allergen in the pump, and results from chemical analyses.

METHODS

Omnipod pumps from different batches were analysed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Aimed testing, with the department's medical device (MD) series and substances identified in the pump including dipropylene glycol diacrylate (DPGDA) at 0·01% and 0·1% in petrolatum (pet.), was performed. Patch testing also included extracts from the device, the adhesive patch as is, and allergens from baseline series.

RESULTS

All patients tested positive to 0·1% DPGDA in pet., and two patients additionally to a 0·01% concentration. DPGDA was found in extracts of the Omnipod pumps brought by the patients. An Omnipod pump from an earlier batch contained tripropylene glycol diacrylate, IBOA, N,N-dimethylacrylamide, di(ethylene glycol)ethyl ether acrylate (DEGEA) but no DPGDA. One of the patients reacted positively to all of these allergens except DEGEA, which was not tested.

CONCLUSIONS

When suspecting ACD to MDs, DPGDA at 0·1% in pet. should be tested. The contents of Omnipod have changed over time. Patch testing with updated test series and relevance assessment of positive reactions is a delicate task. Children, with lifelong use of MDs, risk contracting many allergies with potential cross-allergies. A question should be raised as to whether these low molecular weight acrylates should be used at all in devices constantly worn on the skin.

Contact Dermatitis: Overcoming Challenges of Specific Patients, Deciphering the Results and Reaching a Correct Diagnosis

Skin lesions caused by allergic contact dermatitis are an important occupational and environmental disease. Patch testing is the gold-standard procedure used to diagnose allergic contact dermatitis.The present chapter summarizes aspects of patch testing for the diagnosis of contact allergy: important working definitions, relevance of treating contact dermatitis, materials, technique, test result and interpretation, and special consideration regarding individual factors which influence the patch test outcome or necessitate special attention.Performing and interpreting patch tests requires know-how. Knowing how to perform them and the particularities of specific cases is essential to correctly interpret the results. A correct evaluation and diagnosis will significantly impact the natural history of the disease and significantly improve the quality of life of the patient.

Extraction With Sweat-Sebum Emulsion as a New Test Method for Leachables in Patch-Based Medical Devices, Illustrated by Assessment of Isobornylacrylate (IBOA) in Diabetes Products

BACKGROUND

The increasing offering of patch-based medical devices is accompanied by growing numbers of reported adverse skin reactions. Procedures for testing leachables according to ISO 10993 may not be optimal for lipophilic substances that can be mobilized on skin by sweat and sebum. We propose an improved extraction method for targeted analysis of leachables using low volumes of a sweat-sebum emulsion. The approach is illustrated by the analysis of isobornylacrylate (IBOA), a compound found in some devices and suspected for allergenic potential.

METHOD

Three patch-based products were tested: an implantable device for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), an intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) device, and a micro-insulin pump. Quantification of IBOA was performed by gas chromatography and allergenic potential of IBOA levels was assessed by the KeratinoSens cell assay. Different combinations were used for extraction solvent (isopropanol, 5% ethanol-water solution, and sweat-sebum emulsion), extraction volumes (complete immersion vs partial immersion in 2 mm of solvent), and extraction time (3, 5, and 14 days).

RESULTS

Isobornylacrylate was only found in the isCGM device. About 20 mg/L IBOA were eluted after 3 days in isopropanol but only about 1 mg/L in ethanol-water. Sweat-sebum emulsion dissolves IBOA better and gives a more stable solution than ethanol-water. Decomposition of IBOA solutions requires adjusted extraction timing or correction of results. In the sweat-sebum extract, IBOA levels were about 20 mg/L after 3 days and about 30 mg/L after 5 days, clearly above the threshold found in the KerationSens assay for keratinocyte activation (10 mg/L).

CONCLUSION

Extraction by low volumes of sweat-sebum emulsion can be a superior alternative for the targeted simulating-use assessment of leachables in patch-based medical devices.

Cutaneous Reactions to Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Devices in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) are the standard of care for type 1 diabetes in children. There is little reported on device-related skin complications and treatment options. This study documents cutaneous reactions to CGM and CSII devices in children and young adults with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty-one subjects (3-25 years) with type 1 diabetes and CGM and/or CSII use were recruited over a three-month period from the Naomi Berrie Diabetes Center at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. A five-question survey was completed for each subject detailing demographic data, diabetes management, and device-related skin complications.

RESULTS

Sixty percent of subjects reported skin complications related to CGM and/or CSII use. Terms most frequently used to describe cutaneous reactions were "red," "itchy," "painful," and "rash." Subjects who used both CGM and CSII were more likely to report skin problems than those who used only CSII (odds ratio 2.9, [95% confidence interval: 1.2-6.7]; P = .015). There were no associations between skin complications and sex or race/ethnicity. Twenty-two percent of subjects with adverse skin event(s) discontinued use of a device due to their skin problem. Seven percent were evaluated by a dermatologist. Eighty-one percent used a range of products to treat their symptoms, with variable perceived clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Skin complications related to CSII or CGM devices are commonly reported in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes and may lead to interruption or discontinuation of device use. Future studies are needed to elucidate the causes of these reactions and determine the best methods for prevention.

Contact Dermatitis From Glucose Sensors In Spain: A Multicentric Approach

BACKGROUND

Allergic contact dermatitis from glucose sensors may interfere with their ongoing application.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a series of Spanish patients with contact dermatitis to glucose sensors regarding former sources of contact allergens, patch test results and outcomes from the ongoing use of the device.

METHODS

A series of patients with contact dermatitis from glucose sensors was investigated in eight dermatology departments across Spain epidemiologic features, brands, latency time to develop dermatitis, the ability to continue using the devices as well as the patch test results.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were evaluated mean age: ²⁰ .⁹³ years. ⁶⁶ .⁷ % were children and ⁶⁶ .⁷ % female. ⁹⁰ .⁰ % used Freestyle Libre FSL. ⁸ /^{26 30} .⁸ % reacted to isobornyl acrylate IBOA and ² /^{20 10} .⁰ % to N,N dimethylacrylamide DMAA. The mean latency time to develop dermatitis was ⁹ months. ¹⁶ /^{29 55} .² % patients continued using the same sensor causing the reaction. ¹³ /^{29 44} .⁸ % were unable to continue using the sensor due to severe reactions. Of them, ⁵ were positive to IBOA, one to IBOA and DMAA; one to DMAA; one to colophony and ¹ to isopropyl alcohol wipes. In one patient the outcome was unknown.

CONCLUSION

The frequency of sensitization to IBOA and DMAA, was lower than in other European series, but similar to a previously published Spanish article. Legislation requiring manufacturers to provide information regarding medical devices composition and cooperate with the investigation of contact dermatitis is urgently needed. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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.

Position statement: The need for EU legislation to require disclosure and labelling of the composition of medical devices

BACKGROUND

In recent years, skin reactions secondary to the use of medical devices (MD), such as allergic contact dermatitis have increasingly been observed (e.g. to continuous blood sugar monitoring systems, insulin pumps, wound dressings, medical gloves, etc.): this is regarded as a developing epidemic. Lack of labelling of the composition of MD, as well as frequent lack of cooperation of manufacturers to disclose this relevant information, even when contacted by the clinician for the individual case of an established adverse reaction, significantly impede patient care.

OBJECTIVES

To advocate for full ingredient labelling in the implementation of EU regulation for MD.

METHODS

This position paper reviews the scientific literature, the current regulatory framework adopted for MD to date, and the likely impact, including some costs data in case of the absence of such labelling.

RESULTS

Efforts made by several scientific teams, who are trying to identify the culprit of such adverse effects, either via asking for cooperation from companies, or using costly chemical analyses of MD, can only partly, and with considerable delay, compensate for the absence of meaningful information on the composition of MD; hence, patient management is compromised. Indeed, without knowing the chemical substances present, physicians are unable to inform patients about which substances they should avoid, and which alternative MD may be suitable/tolerated.

CONCLUSION

There is an urgent need for full and accurate labelling of the chemical composition of MD in contact with the human body.

Wearable Woes: Allergens in Diabetic Devices

Novel diabetic devices are being developed to help manage diabetes and improve the quality of life of patients with diabetes. Both insulin pumps and glucose monitors are becoming increasingly convenient, long-lasting, and discrete for patients, but this often requires the use of strong external cutaneous adhesives and increased contact time with the skin. As a consequence, these devices have been associated with a variety of dermatologic reactions, namely, irritant and allergic contact dermatitis. Some of these reactions can be severe, precluding the use of these devices, which puts patients' long-term health at risk. Herein, we review the history of diabetic devices and reported cutaneous reactions to diabetic devices and commonly cited allergens.

The use of non-surgical glue to repair perineal first-degree lacerations in normal birth: A non-inferiority randomised trial

BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM

Surgical glue has been indicated for uncomplicated operatory wounds; however, it has a considerable cost. Non-surgical glue, a commercially available and cheaper product, has not been studied for repairing postpartum lacerations.

AIM

To compare non-surgical glue to traditional sutures on perineal first-degree lacerations after normal birth.

METHODS

In a prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial, we selected childbearing women who were admitted for normal term births and in whom skin lacerations occurred. They were assigned to laceration repair using either non-surgical glue (ethyl 2-cyanoacrylate; Glue group) or catgut sutures (Suture group). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of dehiscence >3mm. Secondary endpoints were procedure runtime, pain score, satisfaction level, and aspects of perineal repair by the REEDA score (hyperaemia, oedema, ecchymosis, exudation, and coaptation) immediately (T0), 24-48h (T1), and 7-10 days (T2) after childbirth.

FINDINGS

We included 126 women, 63 in each group, and found a non-inferiority dehiscence rate in the Glue Group compared to the Control group (T1=1.6% vs. 1.6%, P=0.999 and P<0.001 for non-inferiority; and T2=2.2% vs. 4.3%, P=0.557). In the Glue Group, the procedure runtime was shorter, pain score was lower, and women's satisfaction was greater. No women had any allergic reaction in the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-surgical glue was not inferior to traditional sutures to repair postpartum first-degree lacerations. In addition, non-surgical glue was associated with less pain and greater satisfaction. Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-5Z8MKC).

Patch Testing Ingredients of Dermabond and Other Cyanoacrylate-Containing Adhesives

BACKGROUND

Cyanoacrylates are strong adhesives used for a variety of medical, industrial, and cosmetic applications and have been implicated as a cause of allergic contact dermatitis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to review our experience in patch testing with cyanoacrylates.

METHODS

We reviewed patch test results of 38 patients with a clinical history of contact dermatitis due to a cyanoacrylate-containing adhesive (mostly Dermabond). Testing used cyanoacrylates of >99% purity diluted to 10% to 30% in petrolatum (pet.), undiluted octyl cyanoacrylate, and/or Dermabond Mini or Advanced "as is." Patch tests were also performed with methacrylates, formaldehyde (a cyanoacrylate impurity), benzalkonium chloride, and cyanoacrylate polymerization inhibitors. Three patients were also tested with Dermabond Mini on abraded skin.

RESULTS

Commercial cyanoacrylate patch testing material (ethyl cyanoacrylate 10% pet.) detected 29% of Dermabond-allergic patients, whereas patch testing with octyl cyanoacrylate 10% pet. increased detection to 50%. Testing with higher concentrations and/or on abraded skin further increased yield. Thirteen (37%) of our 35 cyanoacrylate-allergic patients were also allergic to methacrylates or acrylates.

CONCLUSIONS

Octyl cyanoacrylate is the usual allergenic ingredient in Dermabond. Patch testing with high concentrations is often required. Testing Dermabond on abraded skin further improves diagnostic sensitivity by more closely simulating clinical use.

[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.

High Prevalence of Skin Reactions Among Pediatric Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Using New Technologies: The Alarming Role of Colophonium

In the past few years, the increasing use of devices for diabetes treatment, such as continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pumps, flash glucose monitoring, continuous glucose monitoring systems, sensor-augmented pumps, and automated insulin delivery devices, has resulted in important improvements in disease management. Meanwhile, the longer a patient uses a device, the greater the likelihood of developing a skin reaction. Allergic contact dermatitis is the most frequently described skin side effect caused by adhesive tapes contained in the insulin infusion sets or glucose sensor sets and used to connect these devices to the body. We describe 18 patients, followed up at our Pediatric Diabetes Centre, who experienced dermatological complications due to diabetes device use from January 2018 to December 2018. All the patients were patch tested with allergens from a "standard" series and from a "plastics and glues" series. Patch tests resulted positive in 66.7% of patients. Colophonium was the most frequently isolated sensitizing allergen (41.1% of cases). It is a complex mixture of >100 compounds derived from pine trees. Colophonium is commonly used, in both unmodified and modified forms, as a fast-acting adhesive for industrial, medical, or other commercial uses. Its presence in the adhesive of the insulin sets and glucose sensors was confirmed by the manufacturer of some devices brand. On the basis of our results, we stress the importance of contacting manufacturers for product information. We also highlight that there should be stricter legal restrictions to label medical adhesives, even if only small amounts of colophonium are used.

Evaluation of Isobornyl Acrylate Content in Medical Devices for Diabetes Treatment

Background: Along with increased usage of continuous glucose monitors, flash glucose monitors, and patch pumps by patients with diabetes, the frequency of skin reactions has also increased. Skin irritation and itching can be annoying to users. However, more serious contact allergies to one or more components of the adhesives or plastic material of the housing of the devices can become lifelong. Redness and itchiness are so strong that patients can no longer use a particular system. In August 2017, a major culprit allergen, isobornyl acrylate (IBOA), was identified for these more serious reactions. Objectives: Our objective was to evaluate IBOA content in different medical products. Methods: The plastic material used for the housing of the Freestyle Libre (n = 3), Dexcom G6 (n = 3), and Enlite (n = 4) was analyzed for IBOA content by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Adhesives of the different systems were also analyzed. Results: IBOA was found in the housings of Freestyle Libre and Enlite sensor, but not in the Dexcom G6. Conclusions: Patients with an IBOA allergy should consider switching to a medical product without IBOA. Furthermore, removal of IBOA from devices that contact the skin is encouraged.

Persistent type IV hypersensitivity after cyanoacrylate closure of the great saphenous vein

The VenaSeal (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn) cyanoacrylate closure system is a nonthermal technique for ablating saphenous veins using a proprietary n-butyl cyanoacrylate. One possible side effect is an allergic reaction to cyanoacrylate. We report the case of a 49-year-old woman treated with cyanoacrylate closure who developed a persistent type IV hypersensitivity reaction. The patient elected to have the vein excised, and the histologic features were consistent with a type IV hypersensitivity reaction.

Contact Allergy: A Review of Current Problems from a Clinical Perspective

Contact allergy is common, affecting 27% of the general population in Europe. Original publications, including case reports, published since 2016 (inclusive) were identified with the aim of collating a full review of current problems in the field. To this end, a literature search employing methods of systematic reviewing was performed in the Medline^® and Web of Science™ databases on 28 January 2018, using the search terms (“contact sensitization” or “contact allergy”). Of 446 non-duplicate publications identified by above search, 147 were excluded based on scrutiny of title, abstract and key words. Of the remaining 299 examined in full text, 291 were deemed appropriate for inclusion, and main findings were summarised in topic sections. In conclusion, diverse sources of exposures to chemicals of widely-differing types and structures, continue to induce sensitisation in man and may result in allergic contact dermatitis. Many of the chemicals are “evergreen” but others are “newcomers”. Vigilance and proper investigation (patch testing) are required to detect and inform of the presence of these haptens to which our populations remain exposed.