Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2021
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.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Svedman C, Bruze M, Antelmi A, Hamnerius N, Hauksson I, Ulriksdotter J, Mowitz M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Medical devices are increasingly being reported to cause contact allergic dermatitis reactions.
OBJECTIVE: Review of patients with diabetes type I referred for suspected allergic contact dermatitis to insulin pump or glucose sensor systems.
METHOD: We have reviewed 11 referred diabetes mellitus patients investigated for allergic contact dermatitis reactions to medical devices and specifically Dexcom G6® . Extracts from the medical devices were analysed.
RESULTS: The majority of patients was children, the majority had relevant allergies and particularly allergy to isobornyl acrylate which was also found in the glucose sensor system Dexcom G6® .
CONCLUSIONS: The following case reports bring in focus the fact that patients sensitized through use of one medical device and being advised the use of another, or find another product for a while useful, are not by necessity free from future episodes of allergic contact dermatitis. The case reports emphasize the need for collaboration since it is impossible for even well-equipped laboratories to properly investigate the medical devices when information on the substances used in production is not uniform and complete and material to investigate are scarce. The importance of adequate patch test series and testing with own material and furthermore the importance to re-analyse medical devices and re-analyse test data are emphasized.
OBJECTIVE: Review of patients with diabetes type I referred for suspected allergic contact dermatitis to insulin pump or glucose sensor systems.
METHOD: We have reviewed 11 referred diabetes mellitus patients investigated for allergic contact dermatitis reactions to medical devices and specifically Dexcom G6® . Extracts from the medical devices were analysed.
RESULTS: The majority of patients was children, the majority had relevant allergies and particularly allergy to isobornyl acrylate which was also found in the glucose sensor system Dexcom G6® .
CONCLUSIONS: The following case reports bring in focus the fact that patients sensitized through use of one medical device and being advised the use of another, or find another product for a while useful, are not by necessity free from future episodes of allergic contact dermatitis. The case reports emphasize the need for collaboration since it is impossible for even well-equipped laboratories to properly investigate the medical devices when information on the substances used in production is not uniform and complete and material to investigate are scarce. The importance of adequate patch test series and testing with own material and furthermore the importance to re-analyse medical devices and re-analyse test data are emphasized.