Diabetes management has undergone many advances over the years, including the introduction of devices that allow patients to monitor blood glucose and administer insulin. Although these devices have improved patients' quality of life, they are associated with adverse reactions.
A systematic literature search was performed up to May 2020 in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases, with no temporal restrictions. Articles were screened by title, abstract, and full text as needed. A manual search among the references of the included articles was also performed.
Two hundred sixty-five articles were identified, and 50 studies met inclusion criteria. Several cases of allergic contact dermatitis due to the use of insulin infusion systems and blood glucose monitoring have been reported. Acrylates, methacrylates, and colophonium, as well as, in particular, isobornyl acrylate, represent the main allergens responsible.
Skin reactions, in particular allergic contact dermatitis, are a very common adverse event caused by insulin pumps and glucose sensors, which may lead to discontinue the usage of these devices with serious consequences for the patients. Collaboration between specialists, specifically between dermatologists and diabetologists, with patients and manufacturers is essential for the correct management of diabetes devices and potential related skin reactions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SaeediP, PetersohnI, SalpeaP, et al.Global and regional diabetes prevalence estimates for 2019 and projections for 2030 and 2045: results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, 9th Edition. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2019; 157:107843.
2.
HermanA, de MontjoyeL, TrommeI, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis caused by medical devices for diabetes patients: a review. Contact Dermatitis, 2018; 79(6):331–335.
3.
BergAK, NørgaardK, ThyssenJP, et al.Skin problems associated with insulin pumps and sensors in adults with type 1 diabetes: a cross-sectional study. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20(7):475–482.
4.
BergAK, OlsenBS, ThyssenJP, et al.High frequencies of dermatological complications in children using insulin pumps or sensors. Pediatr Diabetes, 2018; 19(4):733–740.
5.
HeinemannL, KamannS. Adhesives used for diabetes medical devices: a neglected risk with serious consequences?. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2016; 10(6):1211–1215.
6.
BusschotsAM, MeulemanV, PoesenN, et al.Contact allergy to components of glue in insulin pump infusion sets. Contact Dermatitis, 1995; 33(3):205–206. 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1995.tb00554.x.
7.
BoomBW, Van DrielLM. Allergic contact dermatitis to epoxy resin in infusion sets of an insulin pump. Contact Dermatitis, 1985; 12:280.
8.
PassanisiS, LombardoF, BarbalaceA, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis and diabetes medical devices: 2 clinical cases. Contact Dermatitis, 2018; 79(2):115–117.
9.
OppelE, HöggC, SummerB, et al.Isobornyl acrylate contained in the insulin patch pump OmniPod as the cause of severe allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis, 2018; 79:178–180.
10.
MowitzM, FornanderL, HosseinyS, et al.Patch testing with isobornyl acrylate in 16 Swedish patients with contact dermatitis from glucose sensors and/or insulin pumps. Acta Derm Venereol, 2019; 99(13):1286–1287.
11.
Raison-PeyronN, MowitzM, BonardelN, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis caused by isobornyl acrylate in OmniPod, an innovative tubeless insulin pump. Contact Dermatitis, 2018; 79(2):76–80.
12.
UlriksdotterJ, SvedmanC, BruzeM, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis caused by dipropylene glycol diacrylate in the Omnipod® insulin pump. Br J Dermatol, 2021. 10.1111/bjd.20751.
13.
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(6):432–437.
14.
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.
15.
MineY, UrakamiT, MatsuuraD. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by isobornyl acrylate when using the FreeStyle® Libre. J Diabetes Investig, 2019; 10(5):1382–1384.
16.
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. 10.1177/1932296818762946.
17.
HermanA, MowitzM, AertsO, et al.Unexpected positive patch test reactions to sesquiterpene lactones in patients sensitized to the glucose sensor FreeStyle Libre. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 81(5):354–367.
18.
UlriksdotterJ, SvedmanC, BruzeM, et al.Contact dermatitis caused by glucose sensors—15 adult patients tested with a medical device patch test series. Contact Dermatitis, 2020; 83(4):301–309. 10.1111/cod.13649.
19.
MowitzM, HermanA, BaeckM, et al.N,N-dimethylacrylamide—a new sensitizer in the FreeStyle Libre glucose sensor. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 81(1):27–31.
20.
Ahrensbøll-FriisU, SimonsenAB, ZachariaeC, et al.Contact dermatitis caused by glucose sensors, insulin pumps, and tapes: results from a 5-year period. Contact Dermatitis, 2021; 84(2):75–81.
21.
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(6):426–429.
22.
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(2):124–125.
23.
AschenbeckKA, HylwaSA. A diabetic's allergy: ethyl cyanoacrylate in glucose sensor adhesive. Dermatitis, 2017; 28(4):289–291. 10.1097/DER.0000000000000281.
24.
SvedmanC, UlriksdotterJ, LejdingT, et al.Changes in adhesive ingredients in continuous glucose monitoring systems may induce new contact allergy pattern. Contact Dermatitis, 2021; 84(6):439–446.
25.
MowitzM, LejdingT, UlriksdotterJ, et al.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. Dermatitis, 2021. 10.1097/DER.0000000000000767.
26.
HermanA, GoossensA. The need to disclose the composition of medical devices at the European level. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 81(3):159–160.
27.
PaldusB, LeeMH, O'NealDN. Insulin pumps in general practice. Aust Prescr, 2018; 41(6):186–190.
28.
BinderE, LangeO, EdlingerM, et al.Frequency of dermatological side effects of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes, 2015; 123(4):260–264.
29.
LombardoF, SalzanoG, CrisafulliG, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes: an emerging issue. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2020; 162:108089.
30.
LombardoF, PassanisiS, CaminitiL, et al.High prevalence of skin reactions among pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes using new technologies: the alarming role of colophonium. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2020; 22(1):53–56.
31.
AertsO, HermanA, MowitzM, et al.Isobornyl acrylate. Dermatitis, 2020; 31(1):4–12.
32.
HeinemannL, WaldenmaierD, KulzerB, et al.Patch pumps: are they all the same?. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2019; 13(1):34–40.
33.
Van Den HoveJ, JacobsMC, TennstedtD, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis from acrylates in insulin pump infusion sets. Contact Dermatitis, 1996; 35:108.
34.
SaccabusiS, BoattoG, AsproniB, et al.Sensitization to methyl methacrylate in the plastic catheter of an insulin pump infusion set. Contact Dermatitis, 2001; 45(1):47–48.
35.
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(1):36–37.
36.
CorazzaM, MaraniniC, AleottiA, et al.Nickel contact dermatitis due to the needle of an infusion pump, confirmed by microanalysis. Contact Dermatitis, 1998; 39(3):144.
37.
ManciniG, BerioliMG, SantiE, et al.Flash glucose monitoring: a review of the literature with a special focus on type 1 diabetes. Nutrients, 2018; 10(8):992.
38.
SeiboldA. Minimizing adverse skin reactions to wearable continuous glucose monitoring sensors in patients with diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2021; 15(3):713–714.
39.
HyryHSI, LiippoJP, VirtanenHM. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by glucose sensors in type 1 diabetes patients. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 81:161–166.
40.
TramontanaM, HanselK, BianchiL, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis caused by a glucose monitoring system: an emerging side-effect of diabetes medical devices. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol, 2020; 34(5):e223–e225.
41.
PylJ, DendoovenE, Van EekelenI, et al.Prevalence and prevention of contact dermatitis caused by FreeStyle Libre: a monocentric experience. Diabetes Care, 2020; 43(4):918–920.
42.
HermanA, de MontjoyeL, MarotL, et al.Induction of leukoderma following allergic contact dermatitis to FreeStyle Libre. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 81(6):456–458.
43.
OppelE, KamannS, HeinemannL, et al.The implanted glucose monitoring system Eversense: an alternative for diabetes patients with isobornyl acrylate allergy. Contact Dermatitis, 2020; 82(2):101–104.
44.
ShinkawaE, WashioK, TatsuokaS, et al.A case of contact dermatitis caused by isobornyl acrylate in FreeStyle Libre: the usefulness of film-forming agents. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 81(1):56–57.
45.
KamannS, OppelE. Hydrocolloid blister plaster decreases allergic contact dermatitis caused by FreeStyle Libre and isobornyl acrylate. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 81(5):380–381.
46.
KamannS, HeinemannL, OppelE. Usage of hydrocolloid-based plasters in patients who have developed allergic contact dermatitis to isobornyl acrylate while using continuous glucose monitoring systems. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2020; 14(3):582–585.
47.
SvedmanC, BruzeM, AntelmiA, et al.Continuous glucose monitoring systems give contact dermatitis in children and adults despite efforts of providing less ‘allergy- prone’ devices: investigation and advice hampered by insufficient material for optimized patch test investigations. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol, 2021; 35(3):730–737.
48.
HermanA, de MontjoyeL, BaeckM. Adverse cutaneous reaction to diabetic glucose sensors and insulin pumps: irritant contact dermatitis or allergic contact dermatitis?. Contact Dermatitis, 2020; 83(1):25–30.
49.
MesserLH, BergetC, BeatsonC, et al.Preserving skin integrity with chronic device use in diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20(S2):S254–S264.
