Background: Allergic contact dermatitis caused by glucose sensors has become an increasing problem. Contact allergies to isobornyl acrylate, colophonium, ethyl cyanoacrylate and N,N-dimethylacrylamide have been reported. However, there is a paucity of information regarding the prevalence of sensor-related dermatitis and detailed patient histories.Objectives: To evaluate diabetes patients who have developed allergic contact dermatitis caused by glucose sensors.Patients and methods: Seventy patients with suspected contact allergy to glucose sensors referred to university hospital dermatology clinics in southern Finland were patch tested with the baseline series, an isobornyl acrylate dilution series, and a number of other acrylates. Atopic constitution, contact allergies, the severity of the dermatitis and the ability to continue with the same or another type of sensor were recorded.Results: Positive patch test reactions to isobornyl acrylate were seen in 51 of 63 (81%) Freestyle Libre users. Colophonium or its derivatives gave positive reactions in five of seven Medtronic Enlite users. The median duration of sensor use before dermatitis was 6 months. The estimated prevalences of contact allergy to sensor adhesives were 0.7% for Freestyle Libre and 0.8% for Enlite.
Conclusions:We suggest that patients who have difficulties in finding a tolerable glucose sensor or an insulin pump should be patch tested.acrylates, adhesives, allergic contact dermatitis, CAS no. 5888-33-5, glucose sensors, isobornyl acrylate, medical device, type 1 diabetes
Epoxy resin compounds (ERC) include a large number of chemicals, such as epoxy resins (ER), reactive diluents and hardeners. Many hardeners, e.g., aliphatic polyamines, are well-known sensitizers. Another type of ER hardeners are the phthalic anhydrides, such as methylhexahydrophthalic anhydride (MHHPA) and methyltetrahydrophthalic anhydride (MTHPA), which have been reported as causing immunologically-mediated respiratory diseases and contact urticaria, but not allergic contact dermatitis. Here, we present a horizontal boring-machine worker who developed allergic contact dermatitis, as well as allergic rhinitis and an immediate contact skin reaction from MHHPA. Patch testing with a dilution series of MHHPA in pet. elicited the following results: 2%, 1% and 0.5%, +2; 0.25% and 0.125%, + (3- to 6-day readings). An immunohistochemical and electron microscopic study also indicated that the patch test reactions were conventional-delayed allergic reactions. Interleukin 8 was observed in the epidermal cells, whereas interleukin 4 immunoreactivity was detected in the dermal cells. Immunoreactivity to-interleukin 5, granulocyte/macrophage-colophony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) or eosinophil cationic protein was not seen. In conclusion, the patient developed both Type I and Type IV allergy to MHHPA. The clinical data, patch test results, immunohistochemical and electron microscopic observations indicated that the MHHPA allergy detected by the patch test reaction was a conventional delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction. The patient also had an allergic patch test reaction to para-phenylenediamine and diaminodiphenylmethane, possibly representing occupational sensitization.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.