Contact dermatitis · 2026
Patch Testing in Individuals With Diabetes Using Medical Devices. Part 2-Contact Allergy to Medical Device Allergens and New Patch Test Recommendations.
СтатьяНазвание 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, Mowitz Martin, Sukakul Thanisorn, Bruze Magnus, Hamnerius Nils, Svedman Cecilia
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Previous studies on contact allergy to diabetes medical devices (MDs) are based on patients referred for patch testing due to suspected allergic contact dermatitis.
OBJECTIVES: To present real-world data on contact allergy to MD allergens among diabetes MD users. To suggest a MD patch test series.
METHODS: Adults with type 1 diabetes using diabetes MDs followed up at two endocrinology departments were invited to be patch tested with a novel MD patch test series.
RESULTS: Of the 204 participants (114 with skin rash to diabetes MDs, 90 without), 16.2% were positive to allergens found in diabetes MDs. The prevalence was significantly higher in those with skin rash to diabetes MDs versus without (28.1% vs. 1.1%; adjusted p-value < 0.001). For allergens found in diabetes MDs, the highest contact allergy rates were seen to isobornyl acrylate (10.3%), N,N-dimethylacrylamide (4.9%), 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (3.4%), and dicyclohexylmethane-4,4'-diisocyanate (2.9%).
CONCLUSIONS: Among diabetes MD users, the prevalence of contact allergy to MD allergens was remarkably high. 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate has not previously been reported as a culprit allergen in diabetes MDs, which underlines the importance of repeated chemical analyses and continuous update of the MD series. A better prevention of MD-related contact allergies is called for.
OBJECTIVES: To present real-world data on contact allergy to MD allergens among diabetes MD users. To suggest a MD patch test series.
METHODS: Adults with type 1 diabetes using diabetes MDs followed up at two endocrinology departments were invited to be patch tested with a novel MD patch test series.
RESULTS: Of the 204 participants (114 with skin rash to diabetes MDs, 90 without), 16.2% were positive to allergens found in diabetes MDs. The prevalence was significantly higher in those with skin rash to diabetes MDs versus without (28.1% vs. 1.1%; adjusted p-value < 0.001). For allergens found in diabetes MDs, the highest contact allergy rates were seen to isobornyl acrylate (10.3%), N,N-dimethylacrylamide (4.9%), 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (3.4%), and dicyclohexylmethane-4,4'-diisocyanate (2.9%).
CONCLUSIONS: Among diabetes MD users, the prevalence of contact allergy to MD allergens was remarkably high. 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate has not previously been reported as a culprit allergen in diabetes MDs, which underlines the importance of repeated chemical analyses and continuous update of the MD series. A better prevention of MD-related contact allergies is called for.