Freestyle libre 2: The new isobornyl acrylate free generation

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.

Deriving a point of departure for assessing the skin sensitization risk of wearable device constituents with in vitro methods

Wearable devices are in contact with the skin for extended periods. As such, the device constituents should be evaluated for their skin sensitization potential, and a Point of Departure (PoD) should be derived to conduct a proper risk assessment. Without historical in vivo data, the PoD must be derived with New Approach Methods (NAMs). To accomplish this, regression models trained on LLNA data that use data inputs from OECD-validated in vitro tests were used to derive a predicted EC3 value, the LLNA value used to classify skin sensitization potency, for three adhesive monomers (Isobornyl acrylate (IBOA), N, N- Dimethylacrylamide (NNDMA), and Acryloylmorpholine (ACMO) and one dye (Solvent Orange 60 (SO60)). These chemicals can be used as constituents of wearable devices and have been associated with causing allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Using kinetic DPRA and KeratinoSens™ data, the PoDs obtained with the regression model were 180, 215, 1535, and 8325 μg/cm2 for IBOA, SO60, ACMO, and NNDMA, respectively. The PoDs derived with the regression model using NAMs data will enable a proper skin sensitization risk assessment without using animals.

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.

Advances in screening and diagnostic lab-on-chip tools for gynaecological cancers - a review

Gynaecological cancers are a major global health concern due to the lack of effective screening programmes for ovarian and endometrial cancer, for example, and variable access to vaccination and screening tests for cervical cancer in many countries. Recent research on portable and cost-effective lab-on-a-chip (LoC) technologies show promise for mass screening and diagnostic procedures for gynaecological cancers. However, most LoCs for gynaecological cancer are still in development, with a need to establish and clinically validate factors such as the type of biomarker, sample and method of detection, before patient use. Multiplex approaches, detecting a panel of gynaecological biomarkers in a single LoC, offer potential for more reliable diagnosis. This review highlights the current research on LoCs for gynaecological cancer screening and diagnosis, emphasizing the need for further research and validation prior to their widespread adoption in clinical practice.

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.

High incidence of skin reactions secondary to the use of adhesives in glucose sensors or insulin pumps for the treatment of children with type 1 diabetes

AIMS

To evaluate the incidence of the skin reactions secondary to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) or continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), sensors and the characteristics of affected children with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

An observational, retrospective, single-centre study included 198 children with type 1 diabetes, (46% girls, mean age 11.75 years). A standardised questionnaire was completed with the patient during current care to evaluate the skin reactions (mean and percentage), the type of reaction, their impact and the treatment) and the characteristics of affected children with univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven children (33.8%) reported active skin reactions: 45 children with CSII (30.4%) and 46 with CGM (23.5%). Children with skin reactions were younger (mean age 10.6 yo versus 12.34 yo, p < 0.05), with a younger age at the diagnosis of diabetes (5.59 yo versus 7.08 yo, p < 0.05). Atopy was more frequent in the group with skin reactions (76.1% versus 54.1% p < 0.05). On multivariate analysis, only the personal history of atopy was associated with skin reactions: OR 2.56 [1.16-5.97] (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the high incidence of skin reactions to adhesive devices used in the treatment of type 1 diabetes in children.

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.

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 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.

What We Have Learned–Milestones in Pediatric Contact Dermatitis

Purpose of Review

This review highlights recent developments in the field of pediatric allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and patch testing. We will review updates on the pathophysiology of contact dermatitis, discuss new contact allergens, explore the impact of dupilumab on patch testing, and provide pearls for the diagnosis and management of ACD in children.

Recent Findings

ACD is not a single immunologic phenomenon but rather has contributions from multiple inflammatory pathways. Emerging contact allergens include ingredients found in “slime” toys, glucose monitors and insulin pumps, and electronic equipment. Data thus far suggests that patch testing results are generally reliable in the face of concurrent dupilumab use.

Summary

ACD is likely underrecognized and underdiagnosed in pediatric patients, including infants and young children. Providers should keep patient-specific factors and emerging trends in mind when addressing suspected ACD, consider contact dermatitis when they encounter challenging cases of atypical, refractory, or chronic dermatitis, and feel comfortable performing patch testing in children.

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.

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.