Intense skin reaction to a new glucose monitoring and insulin pump system

A Cross-Sectional Study Demonstrating a High Prevalence of Skin Rash to Diabetes Medical Devices: An Underestimated Problem

BACKGROUND

Adverse skin reactions to continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and devices for continuous subcutaneous insulin infusions (CSIIs) ("diabetes medical devices" (MDs)) are well known. However, epidemiological studies on prevalence and skin rash details are lacking. The objective of this study was to describe the prevalence and details of skin rash to diabetes MDs in adults with type 1 diabetes.

METHOD

All adult individuals (≥18 years) with type 1 diabetes attending outpatient diabetes clinics at two hospitals in southern Sweden were invited to participate (n = 1943) in a questionnaire study.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by 667. Of the respondents 95.1% had used CGM and 36.7% had used CSII. Skin rash to the devices was reported by 42.1% of CGM users and 44.9% of CSII users. Skin rash was reported with use of all types of diabetes MDs. For diabetes MDs with ≥50 users, 18.0% to 56.5% of the participants with skin rash had to change the device more often than recommended and 4.0% to 18.0% had to stop using the device due to skin rash. In multivariable analyses, the odds for skin rash to diabetes MDs were higher among younger individuals and individuals with childhood atopic dermatitis. Odds increased with use of higher numbers of devices. Of the participants with skin rash, 13 of the 289 (4.5%) had been investigated for contact allergy.

CONCLUSIONS

Skin rash to diabetes MDs is common. The problem is underdiagnosed in clinical practice. With use of diabetes MDs expected to increase, an increasing prevalence of skin rash is to be expected.

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.

The DERMIS Study: Methodologies, Results, and Implications for the Future

Ongoing innovation in diabetes technologies has led to the development of advanced tools such as automated insulin delivery (AID) systems that adjust insulin delivery in response to current and predicted glucose levels, residual insulin action, and other inputs (eg, meal and exercise announcements). However, infusion sets continue to be the "Achilles heel" of accurate and precise insulin delivery and continued device use. A recent study by Kalus et al (DERMIS Study) revealed higher vessel density and signals of inflammation by optical coherence tomography (OCT), in addition to increased inflammation, fat necrosis, fibrosis, and eosinophilic infiltration by histopathology. Although the study provided a comprehensive description of what was happening, the results raise important questions that require additional research. On February 29, 2024, the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust sponsored a conference to begin addressing these issues. This article summarizes the DERMIS study findings and testing methodologies discussed at the conference and proposes the next steps for developing insulin infusion sets that reduce the variability in insulin delivery and extend wear.

Insulin Pump Therapy and Adverse Skin Reactions With Focus on Allergic Contact Dermatitis in Individuals Living With Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Clinical-Based Update

BACKGROUND

The use of insulin pumps (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]) in individuals living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) improves disease control. However, adverse skin reactions may hamper compliance. We aimed to assess the relationship of insulin pumps, particularly that of infusion set therapy, used in children and adults with T1D and dermatitis including allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, and EMBASE, of full-text studies reporting dermatitis in persons with diabetes using a CSII was conducted from 2020 to 2023. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. The inventory performed at the Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, Malmö, Sweden (YMDA) was also performed highlighting the diagnostic process.

RESULTS

Among the 391 screened abstracts, 21 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Seven studies included data on children only, four studies were on adults, and nine studies reported data on both children and adults. Participants were exposed to a broad range of pumps. Dermatitis was rarely specified. Up to 60% of those referred to a university hospital due to skin reactions possibly related to insulin pumps had an ACD.

CONCLUSIONS

The review and our findings indicate that there is not sufficient focus on contact allergy in the primary toxicological evaluations of substances used also for insulin pump therapy products and that possible adverse skin reactions are not correctly followed up in the clinical setting.

Prevalence of dermatitis including allergic contact dermatitis from medical devices used by children and adults with Type 1 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and questionnaire study

Use of medical devices (MDs), that is, glucose sensors and insulin pumps, in patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) has proven an enormous advantage for disease control. Adverse skin reactions from these MDs may however hamper compliance. The objective of this study was to systematically review and analyse studies assessing the prevalence and incidence of dermatitis, including allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) related to MDs used in patients with T1D and to compare referral routes and the clinical investigation routines between clinics being part of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG). A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane databases of full-text studies reporting incidence and prevalence of dermatitis in persons with T1D using MDs was conducted until December 2021. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. The inventory performed at EECRDG clinics focused on referral routes, patient numbers and the diagnostic process. Among the 3145 screened abstracts, 39 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Sixteen studies included data on children only, 14 studies were on adults and nine studies reported data on both children and adults. Participants were exposed to a broad range of devices. Skin reactions were rarely specified. It was found that both the diagnostic process and referral routes differ in different centres. Further data on the prevalence of skin reactions related to MDs in individuals with T1D is needed and particularly studies where the skin reactions are correctly diagnosed. A correct diagnosis is delayed or hampered by the fact that, at present, the actual substances within the MDs are not declared, are changed without notice and the commercially available test materials are not adequately updated. Within Europe, routines for referral should be made more standardized to improve the diagnostic procedure when investigating patients with possible ACD from MDs.

2-Cyanoethyl dimethyldithiocarbamate, a new contact allergen found in accelerator-free nitrile gloves

BACKGROUND

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from rubber glove usage is usually caused by rubber additives such as the accelerators. However, in analyses of the suspected gloves, ordinary rubber allergens are not always found. Accelerator-free rubber gloves are available, but some patients with accelerator allergy do not tolerate them and might also be patch test positive to them.

OBJECTIVES

To identify and chemically characterize a new allergen, 2-cyanoethyl dimethyldithiocarbamate (CEDMC), in rubber gloves. We describe two patient cases: patient 1 that led us to the identification of CEDMC and patient 2 with occupational ACD caused by CEDMC.

METHODS

The patients were examined with patch testing including baseline and rubber series, and their own rubber gloves. High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) was used for chemical analysis of rubber gloves. The allergen was synthesized and identified by nuclear magnetic resonance, mass spectrometry and infrared spectrometry, and tested on patient 2.

RESULTS

CEDMC was identified by HPLC in a nitrile glove associated with hand eczema in patient 1. Patient 2 whose nitrile gloves contained CEDMC was patch test positive to CEDMC.

CONCLUSIONS

CEDMC is a new contact allergen in nitrile gloves and probably forms during vulcanization from residual monomer acrylonitrile and rubber additives.

New device, 'old' allergens. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by the Dexcom G7 glucose sensor

BACKGROUND

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) has been reported as an adverse effect from the use of several glucose sensors and insulin pumps from different manufacturers. Isobornyl acrylate (IBOA) has been identified as a major culprit sensitizer, but also other acrylates and (modified) colophonium have been reported as causes of ACD.

OBJECTIVES

To report the two first cases diagnosed with ACD caused by the Dexcom G7 (DG7) glucose sensor.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two children with suspected ACD from DG7 were patch tested with our medical device series with an addition of selected test preparations including two variants of modified colophonium - methyl hydrogenated rosinate (MHR) and glyceryl hydrogenated rosinate (GHR). Both patients were also tested with acetone extracts made from different parts of the DG7 sensor. The extracts were analysed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS).

RESULTS

Both patients tested positive to IBOA, hydroabietyl alcohol and GHR. In addition, patient 1 had a positive reaction to MHR and patient 2 had a positive reaction to colophonium. The GC-MS analyses showed the presence of IBOA and colophonium-related substances in the DG7 extracts.

CONCLUSIONS

Both patients were diagnosed with contact allergy to well-known medical device-related sensitizers. The presence of IBOA and (modified) colophonium in a newly introduced (on the Swedish market in 2023) glucose sensor is remarkable and indicates an inadequate toxicological assessment of the materials used in the sensor.

Allergic contact dermatitis due to 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate in ostomy patients

BACKGROUND

Many people live with ostomies after life-saving surgery. Ostomy patients often suffer from peristomal dermatitis. Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) has been reported, mostly due to contact allergy (CA) to topical agents.

OBJECTIVES

We present three patients with therapy resistant peristomal dermatitis, suggesting ACD caused by different stoma products.

METHODS

Patch testing was performed with baseline series, additional series, and selected allergens. They were also tested with their own ostomy products as is and separate extracts of the products. Extracts were analysed using Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS).

RESULTS

In all three patients we diagnosed CA to 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate (HDDA), +++ in case (C) 1 and 3, ++ in C 2. HDDA was detected in C 2's ostomy pouch adhesive and in C 1's and 3's flange extenders used to improve the adhesion of the ostomy pouches.

CONCLUSION

Therapy resistant peristomal dermatitis should always be suspected of ACD and patch testing, especially with the patient's own products, should be performed.

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.

Colophonium-related Allergic Contact Dermatitis Caused by Medical Adhesive Tape Used to Prevent Skin Lesions in Soldiers

Medical adhesive tapes are commonly recommended for the prevention of friction blisters during hiking and military marches. The aim of this paper is to report on the results of investigations into an outbreak of tape-related foot dermatitis in 26 military conscripts following continuous use of medical adhesive tapes for several days during a field exercise. Patch tests were performed using baseline series and aimed testing was performed with colophonium-related substances and different medical adhesive tapes. Contact allergy to the adhesive tapes used was found in 20 (77%) subjects, and contact allergy to colophonium in 16 (61%). Chemical analysis detected colophonium-related substances in the culprit tapes. Compared with consecutive dermatitis patients investigated at our Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology in the previous 10 years, conscripts with colophonium allergy had increased odds ratios for concomitant contact allergy to phenol formaldehyde resins and fragrance substances including hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool. The results show that prolonged use of medical adhesive tapes on intact skin carries a high risk for allergic contact dermatitis. Prior to their introduction on the market, medical devices should be assessed for possible side-effects.

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.

Bio-acceptability of wearable sensors: a mechanistic study towards evaluating ionic leaching induced cellular inflammation

The recent need for remote health wellness monitoring has led to the extensive use of wearable sensors. Owing to their increased use, these sensors are required to exhibit both functionality and safety to the user. A major component in the fabrication of these sensors and their associated circuitry is the use of metallic/organic conductive inks. However, very less is known about the interfacial and molecular interactions of these inks with biological matter as they can result in an inflammatory reaction to the user. Significant efforts are thus needed to explore and improve the bio-acceptability of such conductive ink-based wearable sensors. The present study investigates the biocompatibility of encapsulated and non-encapsulated wearable electrochemical sensors used for sensing uric acid as a biomarker for wound healing fabricated using screen-printing technique. Ionic release of metallic ions was investigated first to understand the susceptibility of the conductive inks towards ionic leaching when in contact with a fluid. Time-lapse investigation using ICPS (inductive couple plasma spectroscopy) shows a high concentration (607.31 ppb) of leached silver (Ag⁺) ions from the non-encapsulated sensors. The cell viability data suggests a 2.5-fold improvement in the sensor biocompatibility for an encapsulated sensor. While the carbon ink shows negligible effect on cell viability, the silver ink elicits significant decrease (< 50%) in cell viability at concentrations higher than 2 mg ml^-1. The toxicity pathway of these sensors was further determined to be through the generation of reactive oxygen species resulting in over 20% apoptotic cell death. Our results show that the lower biocompatibility of the non-encapsulated sensor attributes to the higher leaching of Ag⁺ ions from the printed inks which elicits several different inflammatory pathways. This work highlights the importance biocompatibility evaluation of the material used in sensor fabrication to develop safe and sustainable sensors for long-term applications.

Outbreak of Occupational Allergic Contact Dermatitis from a Smartphone Screen Protector Glue

Background

Sensitization to acrylates is a concern in the occupational/environmental dermatology field.

Objective

To describe an occupational allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) outbreak from a smartphone screen protector glue.

Methods

Thirteen affected workers of a chain store selling phone screen protectors were investigated in five Spanish dermatology departments. The glue datasheet and label were assessed. A chemical analysis of the glue was performed. Based on this, some patients underwent additional testing.

Results

All patients (all female, mean age: 25) had severe fingertip dermatitis.

The datasheet/label indicated that the glue contained isobornyl acrylate (IBOA), a “photoinitiator” and polyurethane oligomer. The company informed us that the ingredients were polyurethane acrylate, “methacrylate” (unspecified), acrylic acid, hydroxyethyl methacrylate, propylmethoxy siloxane, and photoinitiator 184. Isobornyl acrylate (or IBOA) and N,N‐dimethylacrylamide (DMAA) were patch tested in eight and two cases, respectively, with negative results.

A chemical analysis revealed 4‐acryloylmorpholine (ACMO); isobornyl methacrylate (IBMA), and lauryl acrylate in one glue sample. Seven patients were patch tested with dilutions of the identified substances and six of seven were positive for ACMO 0.5% pet.

Conclusion

An outbreak of occupational ACD, likely from ACMO in a glue is described. Further investigations are needed to corroborate the role played by each compound identified in the chemical analyses.

A new case of photoallergic contact dermatitis caused by benzophenones in magazine covers

BACKGROUND

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD) to benzophenone present in printing ink have been reported. However, precise chemical analyses and extended photo-patch tests have not been performed in these cases.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which component present in a magazine cover are responsible for a patient's skin reaction, determine the primary sensitiser and precisely diagnose ACD and PACD PATIENT AND METHODS: After initial photopatch tests were performed on a patient with a history of reaction to magazine covers after sun exposure, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and high-performance liquid chromatography analyses of the magazine covers and additional photopatch tests were performed.

RESULTS

The first photopatch test results confirmed PACD to ketoprofen and fenofibrate, and evoked PACD to the magazine covers. 4-methyl benzophenone (4-MBP) and 1-hydroxy-cyclohexyl-phenyl-ketone (1-HCPK) were found in the magazine cover. Additional photopatch tests confirmed PACD to 1-HCPK and to benzophenone, and photo-aggravated ACD to 4-MBP. The primary sensitiser was ketoprofen.

CONCLUSIONS

Benzophenones are present in a wide variety of products, without always being listed on the packaging. Patients previously sensitised to other ketones, such as ketoprofen, may react to benzophenones without being able to avoid contact with these molecules. New regulations may be needed for more efficient eviction advice. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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.

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.

Changes in adhesive ingredients in continuous glucose monitoring systems may induce new contact allergy pattern

BACKGROUND

Medical devices (MD) in close skin-contact for a prolonged time, such as glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, are a risk factor for contact allergy, and there has been an increase in patients using these. Correct diagnosis demands targetted testing.

OBJECTIVES

We report a new allergen in a continuous CGM system in which the adhesive was changed. The allergy pattern of the patients diagnosed is reported.

METHODS

The three patients reported were patch tested with an MD series, own material, and possible allergens found through analysis with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, comparing analysis from the CGM system before and after change.

RESULTS

The patients were sensitized to isobornyl acrylate (IBOA), found in previously used devices and the present CGM. Apart from IBOA, the culprit allergen was found to be 2,2'-methylenebis(6-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol) monoacrylate.

CONCLUSION

Allergic contact dermatitis due to CGM systems and insulin pumps are difficult to investigate and require chemical analysis. Because of the lack of information on substances used in the production, and when changes with MDs are initiated, it is difficult to advise patients, especially since they risk sensitization to several allergens. The use of MDs has increased and, thus, the need for collaboration between manufacturers, clinicians, and patient organizations.