Contact dermatitis from glucose sensors in Spain : A multicentric approach
(2021) In Contact Dermatitis 85(5). p.554-562- Abstract
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 (epidemiological 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 20.9 years). A total of 66.7% were children and 66.7% female. Ninety per cent used... (More)
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 (epidemiological 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 20.9 years). A total of 66.7% were children and 66.7% female. Ninety per cent used Freestyle Libre (FSL). Eight of 26 (30.8%) reacted to isobornyl acrylate (IBOA) and two of 20 (10.0%) to N,N dimethylacrylamide (DMAA). The mean latency time to develop dermatitis was 9 months. Sixteen of 29 (55.2%) patients continued using the same sensor causing the reaction. Thirteen of 29 (44.8%) patients were unable to continue using the sensor because of severe reactions. Of these, five were positive to IBOA, one to IBOA and DMAA, one to DMAA, one to colophony, and one to isopropyl alcohol wipes. In one patient, the outcome was unknown. Conclusion: The frequency of sensitisation 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 the composition of medical devices and cooperate with the investigations into contact dermatitis is urgently needed.
(Less)
- author
- organization
- publishing date
- 2021
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- acrylates, adhesives, allergic contact dermatitis, glucose sensor, glucose sensor sets, insulin pump, isobornyl acrylate (CAS 5888-33-5), medical devices, N,N dimethylacrylamide (CAS no. 2680-03-7), patch test
- in
- Contact Dermatitis
- volume
- 85
- issue
- 5
- pages
- 554 - 562
- publisher
- Wiley-Blackwell
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85113788223
- pmid:34185891
- ISSN
- 0105-1873
- DOI
- 10.1111/cod.13924
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- c4026a34-3f65-4ad5-8994-817beb08da2d
- date added to LUP
- 2021-09-27 15:52:26
- date last changed
- 2024-06-15 17:00:14
@article{c4026a34-3f65-4ad5-8994-817beb08da2d,
abstract = {{<p>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 (epidemiological 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 20.9 years). A total of 66.7% were children and 66.7% female. Ninety per cent used Freestyle Libre (FSL). Eight of 26 (30.8%) reacted to isobornyl acrylate (IBOA) and two of 20 (10.0%) to N,N dimethylacrylamide (DMAA). The mean latency time to develop dermatitis was 9 months. Sixteen of 29 (55.2%) patients continued using the same sensor causing the reaction. Thirteen of 29 (44.8%) patients were unable to continue using the sensor because of severe reactions. Of these, five were positive to IBOA, one to IBOA and DMAA, one to DMAA, one to colophony, and one to isopropyl alcohol wipes. In one patient, the outcome was unknown. Conclusion: The frequency of sensitisation 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 the composition of medical devices and cooperate with the investigations into contact dermatitis is urgently needed.</p>}},
author = {{Gatica-Ortega, María Elena and Mowitz, Martin and Pastor-Nieto, María Antonia and Navarro-Triviño, Francisco J. and Fernández-Redondo, Virginia and Hernández-Cano, Natalia and Borrego, Leopoldo and Gómez-de-la-Fuente, Enrique and Torralba, Miguel and Svedman, Cecilia and Giménez-Arnau, Ana}},
issn = {{0105-1873}},
keywords = {{acrylates; adhesives; allergic contact dermatitis; glucose sensor; glucose sensor sets; insulin pump; isobornyl acrylate (CAS 5888-33-5); medical devices; N,N dimethylacrylamide (CAS no. 2680-03-7); patch test}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{5}},
pages = {{554--562}},
publisher = {{Wiley-Blackwell}},
series = {{Contact Dermatitis}},
title = {{Contact dermatitis from glucose sensors in Spain : A multicentric approach}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cod.13924}},
doi = {{10.1111/cod.13924}},
volume = {{85}},
year = {{2021}},
}