Isobornyl acrylate contained in the insulin patch pump OmniPod as the cause of severe allergic contact dermatitis

First International Survey on Diabetes Providers' Assessment of Skin Reactions in Youth With Type 1 Diabetes Using Technological Devices

BACKGROUND

Advances in diabetes technological devices led to optimization of diabetes care; however, long-lasting skin exposure to devices may be accompanied by an increasing occurrence of cutaneous reactions.

METHODS

We used an open-link web-based survey to evaluate diabetes-care providers' viewpoint on prevalence, management practices, and knowledge related to skin reactions with the use of diabetes technological devices. A post hoc analysis was applied to investigate differences in the level of awareness on this topic in relation to the experience in diabetes technology.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-five responses from 39 different countries were collected. Most respondents (69%) routinely examine patients' skin at each visit. All the preventive measures are not clear and, mainly, homogenously put into clinical practice. Contact dermatitis was the most frequently reported cutaneous complication due to diabetes devices, and its most common provocative causes are not yet fully known by diabetes-care providers. Almost half of the respondents (42%) had discussed the presence of harmful allergens contained in adhesives with device manufacturers. There is general agreement on the need to strengthen knowledge on dermatological complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Although diabetes-care providers are quite aware of the chance to develop skin reactions in people with diabetes using technological devices, there are still some unmet needs. Large follow-up studies and further dissemination tools are awaited to address the gaps revealed by our survey.

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.

[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.

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.

Prevalence and Description of the Skin Reactions Associated with Adhesives in Diabetes Technology Devices in an Adult Population: Results of the CUTADIAB Study

Objective: The use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) devices adhering to the skin can lead to skin reactions. The objective was to determine the prevalence and consequences of skin reactions at CGM or CSII sites in a large unbiased population. Research Design and Methods: This is a cross-sectional multicenter study. All adult patients with diabetes seen in consultation over a period of 7 months and using or having used a system with skin adhesives (in the last 10 years) were included and filled out a self-assessment questionnaire. Results: Among 851 patients, skin reaction was reported in 28% with CGM and 29% with CSII. Patients reporting reactions were more frequently women using CGM and CSII, and CGM users had type 1 more often than type 2 diabetes (P < 0.001). Manifestations were similar for reactions to CGM and CSII: redness and pruritus in 70%-75% of patients with reactions, pain in 20%-25%, and vesicles and desquamation in 12%-15%. Manifestations occurred within the first 24 h of first use in 22%-24% of patients with reactions to CGM and CSII, but after more than 6 months in 38% and 47% of patients with reactions to CGM and CSII, respectively. Device use was definitively stopped in 12% of patients with reactions to CGM (3.2% of all users) and 7% with reactions to CSII (2.1% of all users). Conclusions: Skin reactions were common, with similar presentations in CGM and CSII users. Manifestations suggested skin irritation rather than allergies. These reactions rarely led to the definitive discontinuation of the use of the device.

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.

Contact allergy to the Dexcom G6 glucose monitoring system -role of 2,2'-methylenebis(6-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol) monoacrylate in the new adhesive

BACKGROUND

Skin reactions to the glucose monitoring systems Dexcom G5 and G6 have been rare. In 2019, the components of the adhesive were exchanged for better skin fixation. Since then, more and more patients experienced severe skin reactions. A few months ago, 2,2'-methylenebis(6-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol) monoacrylate (MBPA) was identified as a new component in the adhesive of the G6 model. Furthermore, it was suspected that isobornylacrylate (IBOA) was also a component of the exchanged adhesive.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to investigate if MBPA plays a major role in the increasing skin problems of patients without a history of IBOA-sensitization. Furthermore, our aim was to examine whether IBOA is contained in the newer model adhesive and may also contribute to allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Five patients with a newly occurred ACD caused by the glucose monitoring system Dexcom G6 were investigated. Patch testing including MBPA in 3 different concentrations, as well as IBOA were performed. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry of the newer system Dexcom G6 was carried out.

RESULTS

All patients were shown to be sensitized to MBPA, while MBPA 0,5% showed the strongest reaction. On the other hand, IBOA was tested negative.

CONCLUSION

In our study group MBPA was observed to be the triggering allergen of the recently changed adhesive.

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.

Technologies for Type 1 Diabetes and Contact Dermatitis: Therapeutic Tools and Clinical Outcomes in a Cohort of Pediatric Patients

The increasing use of technological devices for the management of diabetes is related to the prolonged exposure of patients' skin to chemical and mechanical agents and, consequently, to the increased risk of developing dermatological complications. Among these, contact dermatitis is the most insidious skin disorder. Despite the magnitude of the issue, no universally accepted recommendations on the management of this common complication are currently available. Our observational study aimed to describe all the solutions adopted by patients and their caregivers to treat and prevent the appearance of contact dermatitis and to describe the clinical impact of this cutaneous complication. Twenty-one pediatric patients (mean age 12.1 ± 3.7 years) with type 1 diabetes were recruited in the study. The most common treatment used to treat acute skin lesions was the application of topical corticosteroids, sometimes associated with topical antibiotics (9.5%). In order to prevent the further appearance of dermatitis, the most frequently adopted measure was the use of hydrocolloid and/or silicone-based adhesives, followed by the application of protective barrier films. One patient reported benefit from the off-label use of fluticasone propionate nasal spray. However, only 52.4% of the study participants achieved a definitive resolution of the skin issue, and 38.1% of patients were forced to discontinue insulin pump therapy and/or continuous glucose monitoring. No differences were observed in glycated hemoglobin values between the period before and after the onset of contact dermatitis. Our study confirms the severity of this dermatological complication that may hinder the spread of new technologies for the management of diabetes. Finally, our findings highlight the importance of establishing close collaboration both with pediatric allergy specialists to prescribe the most suitable treatment and with manufacturing companies to ensure that adhesives of technological devices are free of harmful well-known sensitizers.

Modern diabetes devices for continuous blood sugar measuring: Limitations due to contact allergies

During the past years, diabetes diseases have increased significantly worldwide. However, new technologies such as continuous glucose measurement using a subcutaneous sensor are developing just as rapidly. A continuous improvement in insulin pump therapy is also contributing to an improved quality of life. A common feature of these modern devices for diabetes therapy is that they remain fixed in place on the skin for several days. In recent years, skin reactions, in particular pronounced contact dermatitis due to the devices and their adhesives have been increasingly reported. In particular, isobornyl acrylate, which used to be included in a glucose measurement sensor set, was identified as a main allergen. Development of contact allergy can result both in a necessity to quit the measuring system and in allergic cross-reactions to other systems.

Impact of OMNIPOD® on the quality of life of adolescents with type 1 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Several pediatric studies have demonstrated that therapy using a conventional insulin pump improves glycemic control and quality of life. At the beginning of this study, a new tubeless insulin pump, Omnipod®, had recently been marketed in France.

OBJECTIVES

Analyze the response of adolescents treated with multiple injections to the proposal to use this new medical device and compare both the quality of life and the glycemic control of adolescents according to their choice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a prospective, observational study of adolescents aged 10-17 years who had type 1 diabetes for more than 1 year, all treated with multi-injection insulin delivery according to a basal-bolus regimen. They were separated into three groups: group A choosing to use the Omnipod® system, group B taking the time to think before making a decision, and group C choosing to keep their multi-injection therapy. The three groups were compared according to their quality of life with validated tools and glycemic control.

RESULTS

Groups were formed with 30 (25%) patients in group A, 55 patients (45%) in group B, and 36 patients (30%) in group C. As to the WHO Well-Being Index, no significant difference appeared in the study for the patients in the three groups. An increased treatment satisfaction score was found, evolving from 3.79 ± 0.68 to 4.36 ± 0.56, p = 0.002 (group A) and from 3.87 ± 0.7 to 4.16 ± 0.7, p = 0.032 (group B), with no significant change for group C (from 4.39 ± 0.6 to 4.31 ± 0.62, p = 0.582). The wish to change treatment score improved for group A (from 4.14 ± 0.88 to 1.68 ± 0.9; p < 0.001) and group B (from 3.51 ± 1.05 to 1.84 ± 1; p < 0.001), with no significant change for group C (from 1.81 ± 0 0.98 to 1.61 ± 0.8; p = 0.432). There was no significant difference regarding HbA1c rates in the three groups.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in quality-of-life scores between adolescents who chose to switch from multiple injection to the tubeless patch pump and those who retained multi-injection treatment, but increased satisfaction was observed in the former group.

High Frequency of Dermatological Complications in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: A Web-Based Survey

INTRODUCTION

Despite advances in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D), there is an increasing incidence of skin reactions related to diabetes devices such as patch pumps and glucose sensors. Aim of the present study was to assess the prevalence of dermatological complications in pediatric patients with T1D using technological devices.

METHODS

Online survey regarding skin reactions related to the use of patch pumps and/or glucose sensors was administered to families of children and adolescents (0-17 years) with T1D. Data were collected on demographic characteristics, duration of diabetes, and clinical features of dermatological complications if present.

RESULTS

Our study population consisted of 139 patients (female 51.8%) aged 11.1 ± 3.3 years. More than half (51.1%) experienced skin reactions due to patch pumps or glucose sensors. Dermatological complications were mainly caused by continuous glucose monitoring (56.3% of total). Timing of appearance of dermatological reactions varied from a few days to several months after the introduction of the device. The application of hypoallergenic barrier bandages was the most frequently adopted measure to solve the issue.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirmed high frequency of dermatological complications among pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes. Well-designed studies are awaited to provide clear recommendations to minimize the burden of skin issues related to technological devices.

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.

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.

Contact dermatitis caused by glucose sensors, insulin pumps, and tapes: Results from a 5-year period

BACKGROUND

The number of patients with contact dermatitis from glucose sensors and insulin infusion sets is increasing. Patch testing is challenging because of a lack of information concerning the constituent materials of medical devices.

OBJECTIVES

To report on products and causes of allergic reactions to glucose sensors or insulin infusion sets over a 5-year period and suggest a short screening series.

METHODS

Analysis of patch test data from consecutive patients suspected of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to glucose sensors and/or insulin infusion sets from 2015-2019.

RESULTS

Patient numbers increased from 4 to 15 per year; 30/38 (78.9%) were children. In 29 (76.3%), a diagnosis of allergic/probable ACD was established, mostly due to the tapes of the device or allergens in these tapes (n = 23) followed by allergens in the device housing (n = 10). Isobornyl acrylate, abitol, and colophonium were the most common allergens. Information from manufacturers was often difficult to obtain and, if accessible, inadequate. For this reason, the diagnosis was delayed for more than 1.5 years in 12 (31%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The increasing number of patients, mostly children, with ACD from devices used in treatment of type 1 diabetes demonstrates the importance of this problem. Allergies can easily be overlooked, due to the lack of mandatory labeling of the constituent materials of the devices.

Usage of Hydrocolloid-Based Plasters in Patients Who Have Developed Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Isobornyl Acrylate While Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems

BACKGROUND

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems replace more and more capillary self-monitoring of blood glucose by patients with diabetes. However, at least a subset of patients experience adverse skin reactions such as severe allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) after prolonged usage of CGM systems. A major allergen isobornyl acrylate (IBOA) has been identified recently.

OBJECTIVES

After developing an ACD, patients have difficulties in continuing the usage of their CGM system (and also of, eg, certain patch pumps). Most of such patients look for possibilities to continue the usage of, eg, a CGM system that requires intermittent scanning (iscCGM, Freestyle Libre).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eight patients with a known ACD were supplied with different hydrocolloid-based plasters (n = 5 with Hansaplast blister plaster, n = 2 with Cutimed Hydro B from BSN, and n = 1 with Stomahesive baseplate from Convatec). They attached these plasters to their skin underneath their iscCGM system.

RESULTS

All patients were able to continue the usage of this iscCGM system when using such plasters.

CONCLUSION

Patients with ACD benefit from the usage of such plasters; however, some limitations have to be acknowledged.

Contact Allergy-Emerging Allergens and Public Health Impact

Contact allergy (sensitisation) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) resulting from it have a considerable public health impact. For the present review, all pertinent articles were systematically searched via Medline and Web of Science™; additionally, all available issues of the journals "Contact Dermatitis" and "Dermatitis" were manually searched, covering the years 2018-2019, thereby extending and re-focusing a previous similar review. New allergens, or previously described allergens found in a new exposure context or of other current importance, are described in sections according to substance classes, e.g., metals, preservatives, fragrances. As a common finding in many investigations, a lack of information on product composition has been noted, for instance, regarding a newly described allergen in canvas shoes (dimethylthiocarbamylbenzothiazole sulfide) and, most notably, absence of co-operation from manufacturers of glucose-monitoring devices and insulin pumps, respectively. These latter devices have been shown to cause severe ACD in a considerable number of diabetic patients caused by the liberation of isobornyl acrylate and N,N'-dimethylacrylamide, respectively, as demonstrated by an international collaboration between dermatologists and chemists. Improved and complete ingredient labelling for all types of products, and not just cosmetics, must be put on the legislative agenda.

[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.

Allergic contact dermatitis caused by isobornyl acrylate when using the FreeStyle® Libre

We present the case of an 8-year-old girl with type 1 diabetes who developed severe allergic contact dermatitis by using FreeStyle® Libre. A patch test was carried out using a piece of the adhesive part of the sensor of the FreeStyle® Libre, and subsequently by using the potential contact allergens in the sensor, isobornyl acrylate. She reacted positively to the adhesive part of the sensor, and also reacted positively to isobornyl acrylate with three different concentrations, 0.1%, 0.05% and 0.01%, over 48-h, 72-h and 7-day periods. The FreeStyle® Libre is a useful and less invasive device that can be used for continuous glucose monitoring in patients with diabetes. In contrast to the remarkable advantages, allergic contact dermatitis caused by isobornyl acrylate in the adhesive part of FreeStyle® Libre is one of the potential adverse events.

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.