Novel diabetic devices are being developed to help manage diabetes and improve the quality of life of patients with diabetes. Both insulin pumps and glucose monitors are becoming increasingly convenient, long-lasting, and discrete for patients, but this often requires the use of strong external cutaneous adhesives and increased contact time with the skin. As a consequence, these devices have been associated with a variety of dermatologic reactions, namely, irritant and allergic contact dermatitis. Some of these reactions can be severe, precluding the use of these devices, which puts patients' long-term health at risk. Herein, we review the history of diabetic devices and reported cutaneous reactions to diabetic devices and commonly cited allergens.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CDC. National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2020. Natl Diabetes Stat Rep, 2020; 2.
2.
UmpierrezGE, KlonoffDC. Diabetes technology update: use of insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring in the hospital. Diabetes Care, 2018; 41:1579–1589.
3.
HoogmaRP, HammondPJ, GomisR, et al.Comparison of the effects of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and NPH-based multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) on glycaemic control and quality of life: results of the 5-nations trial. Diabet Med, 2005; 23:141–147.
4.
LangendamM, LuijfY, HooftL, et al.Continuous glucose monitoring systems for type 1 diabetes mellitus [review]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2012; 1:CD008101.
5.
FullertonB, JeitlerK, SeitzM, et al.Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus [review]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2014; 2:CD009122.
6.
TanenbaumML, HanesSJ, MillerKM, et al.Diabetes device use in adults with type 1 diabetes: barriers to uptake and potential intervention targets. Diabetes Care, 2017; 40:181–187.
7.
BergAK, OlsenBS, ThyssenJP, et al.High frequencies of dermatological complications in children using insulin pumps or sensors. Pediatr Diabetes, 2018; 19(4):733–740.
8.
WongJC, FosterNC, MaahsDM, et al.Real-time continuous glucose monitoring among participants in the T1D exchange clinic registry. Diabetes Care, 2014; 37:2702–2709.
9.
HeinemannL, KamannS. Adhesives used for diabetes medical devices: a neglected risk with serious consequences?. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2016; 10(6):1211–1215.
10.
OppelE, KamannS, HeinemannL, et al.The implanted glucose monitoring system Eversense: an alternative for diabetes patients with isobornyl acrylate allergy. Contact Dermatitis, 2020; 82:101–104.
ZisserHC. The Omnipod Insulin Management System: the latest innovation in insulin pump therapy. Diabetes Ther, 2010; 1(1):10–24.
13.
RomagueraC, GrimaltF, VilaplanaJ. Nickel dermatitis from an infusion needle. Contact Dermatitis, 1985; 12:181–182.
14.
CorazzaM, MaraniniC, AleottiA, et al.Nickel contact dermatitis due to the needle of an infusion pump, confirmed by microanalysis. Contact Dermatitis, 1998; 39:144.
15.
BoomBW, van DrielLM. Allergic contact dermatitis to epoxy resin in infusion sets of an insulin pump. Contact Dermatitis, 1985; 12:280.
16.
BusschotsAM, MeulemanV, PoesenN, et al.Contact allergy to components of glue in insulin pump infusion sets. Contact Dermatitis, 1995; 33(3):205–206.
17.
Van Den HoveJ, JacobsMC, TennstedtD, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis from acrylates in insulin pump infusion sets. Contact Dermatitis, 1996; 35:108.
18.
JolankiR, KanervaL, EstlanderT, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis from phenoxyethoxy ethylacrylates in optical fiber coating, and glue in an insulin pump set. Contact Dermatitis, 2001; 45:36–37.
19.
HermanA, BaeckM, de MontjoyeL, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis caused by isobornyl acrylate in the Enlite glucose sensor and the Paradigm MiniMed Quick-set insulin infusion set. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 81:432–437.
20.
SaccabusiS, BoattoG, AsproniB, et al.Sensitization to methyl methacrylate in the plastic catheter of an insulin pump infusion set. Contact Dermatitis, 2001; 45:47–48.
21.
Raison-PeyronN, MowitzM, BonardelN, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis caused by isobornyl acrylate in Omnipod, an innovative tubeless insulin pump. Contact Dermatitis, 2018; 79:76–80.
22.
PassanisiS, LombardoF, BarbalaceA, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis and diabetes medical devices: 2 clinical cases. Contact Dermatitis, 2018; 79:115–117.
SchwensenJF, FriisUF, ZachariaeC, et al.Sensitization to cyanoacrylates caused by prolonged exposure to a glucose sensor set in a diabetic child. Contact Dermatitis, 2016; 74:124–125.
25.
AschenbeckKA, HylwaSA. A diabetic's allergy: ethyl cyanoacrylate in glucose sensor adhesive. Dermatitis, 2017; 28(4):289–291.
26.
PeetersC, HermanA, GoossensA, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis caused by 2-ethyl cyanoacrylate contained in glucose sensor sets in two diabetic adults. Contact Dermatitis, 2017; 77:426–429.
27.
HermanA, AertsO, BaeckM, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis caused by isobornyl acrylate in FreeStyle® Libre, a newly introduced glucose sensor. Contact Dermatitis, 2017; 77:367–373.
28.
KamannS, AertsO, HeinemannL. Further evidence of severe allergic contact dermatitis from isobornyl acrylate while using a continuous glucose monitoring system. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2018; 12(3):630–633.
29.
MowitzM, HermanA, BaeckM, et al.N,N-dimethylacrylamide—a new sensitizer in the FreeStyle Libre glucose sensor. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 81:27–31.
30.
AertsO, MowitzM, BruzeM, et al.Allergen of the year 2020: isobornyl acrylate. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 31(1):4–12.
31.
FotiC, RomitaP, RiganoL, et al.Isobornyl acrylate: an impurity in alkyl glucosides. Cutan Ocul Toxicol, 2016; 35(2):115–119.
32.
UterW, AbererW, Amarioi-HitaJ. Current patch test results with the European baseline series and extensions to it from the “European Surveillance System on Contact Allergy” network, 2007–2008. Contact Dermatitis, 2012; 67:9–19.
33.
HamstraAA, JacobSE. A review of colophonium. Dermatologist, 2015; 23(8).
34.
HermanA, de MontjoyeL, TrommeI, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis caused by medical devices for diabetes patients: a review. Contact Dermatitis, 2018; 79:331–335.
35.
BruzeM. The use of ultrasonic bath extracts in the diagnostics of contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis. In: Patch Testing Tips: Recommendations from the ICDRG. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer;, 2014; 79:129–142.
