Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2025
A Cross-Sectional Study Demonstrating a High Prevalence of Skin Rash to Diabetes Medical Devices: An Underestimated Problem.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ulriksdotter Josefin, Sukakul Thanisorn, Bruze Magnus, Hamnerius Nils, Mowitz Martin, Svedman Cecilia
Аннотация
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.
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.