New device, 'old' allergens. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by the Dexcom G7 glucose sensor.

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) has been reported as an adverse effect from the use of several glucose sensors and insulin pumps from different manufacturers. Isobornyl acrylate (IBOA) has been identified as a major culprit sensitizer, but also other acrylates and (modified) colophonium have been reported as causes of ACD. OBJECTIVES: To report the two first cases diagnosed with ACD caused by the Dexcom G7 (DG7) glucose sensor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two children with suspected ACD from DG7 were patch tested with our medical device series with an addition of selected test preparations including two variants of modified colophonium - methyl hydrogenated rosinate (MHR) and glyceryl hydrogenated rosinate (GHR). Both patients were also tested with acetone extracts made from different parts of the DG7 sensor. The extracts were analysed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). RESULTS: Both patients tested positive to IBOA, hydroabietyl alcohol and GHR. In addition, patient 1 had a positive reaction to MHR and patient 2 had a positive reaction to colophonium. The GC-MS analyses showed the presence of IBOA and colophonium-related substances in the DG7 extracts. CONCLUSIONS: Both patients were diagnosed with contact allergy to well-known medical device-related sensitizers. The presence of IBOA and (modified) colophonium in a newly introduced (on the Swedish market in 2023) glucose sensor is remarkable and indicates an inadequate toxicological assessment of the materials used in the sensor.

Allergic contact dermatitis due to 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate in ostomy patients.

BACKGROUND: Many people live with ostomies after life-saving surgery. Ostomy patients often suffer from peristomal dermatitis. Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) has been reported, mostly due to contact allergy (CA) to topical agents. OBJECTIVES: We present three patients with therapy resistant peristomal dermatitis, suggesting ACD caused by different stoma products. METHODS: Patch testing was performed with baseline series, additional series, and selected allergens. They were also tested with their own ostomy products as is and separate extracts of the products. Extracts were analysed using Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS). RESULTS: In all three patients we diagnosed CA to 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate (HDDA), +++ in case (C) 1 and 3, ++ in C 2. HDDA was detected in C 2's ostomy pouch adhesive and in C 1's and 3's flange extenders used to improve the adhesion of the ostomy pouches. CONCLUSION: Therapy resistant peristomal dermatitis should always be suspected of ACD and patch testing, especially with the patient's own products, should be performed.

[Translated article] Medical Devices in Patients With Diabetes and Contact Dermatitis.

The development and commercialization of glucose sensors and insulin pumps has revolutionized the management of diabetes. These devices have been linked to multiple cases of contact dermatitis in recent years, however, giving rise to a growing interest in identifying the sensitizing allergens. Isobornyl acrylate was clearly identified as one of the main allergens responsible for contact dermatitis among users of the FreeStyle glucose sensor and was subsequently removed from the product ingredients. Remarkably, however, it is still used in most other sensors on the market. The common adhesive ingredients colophony and abietic acid derivatives have also been shown to be sensitizing agents. New components under study, such as dipropylene glycol diacrylate, N,N-dimethylacrylamide, and triethylene glycol methacrylate have recently been identified as allergens, though they are not commercially available for clinical testing. The benefits offered by glucose sensors and insulin pumps may be offset by sensitization to product ingredients, in some cases forcing discontinuation and diminishing quality of life. Dermatologists should play a role in this clinical and research scenario, offering case-by-case guidance to endocrinologists on skin care and possible alternatives for patients with glucose sensors and insulin pumps who develop contact dermatitis. They should also collaborate with the manufacturers developing these devices.

Contact allergy caused by acrylates in nail cosmetics: A pilot study from Greece.

BACKGROUND: The growing popularity of nail techniques based on acrylates has led to a higher frequency of sensitization in both nail technicians and users. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to assess cases of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by acrylates in individuals with occupational or non-occupational exposure to nail techniques. METHODS: A preliminary study was conducted on 30 patients with ACD caused by acrylates in nail techniques, who were patch tested from September 2022 to March 2023 at the First Department of Dermatology and Venereology of Andreas Syggros Hospital, Athens, Greece. RESULTS: Thirty female patients with ACD to acrylates were documented (15 users and 15 nail technicians and users). The most common allergens were: 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate (HPMA) and ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), which tested positive in all 30 patients (100.0%). Twenty patients (66.7%) had been exposed to dental procedures involving acrylates, before the onset of ACD. Nail technicians exhibited extensive skin lesions, 40.0% experienced ACD within the first year of work and 13.3% during their professional practice. Three of them (20.0%) had to discontinue their work. CONCLUSION: Acrylates have been identified as potent allergens, necessitating the implementation of safety measures for the use of these chemicals in nail techniques.

Acrylates in artificial nails-Results of product analyses and glove penetration studies.

BACKGROUND: Artificial nail materials are mixtures that are prone to contain several sensitizing (meth)acrylates. It is not known whether the listing of (meth)acrylates is correct in these products' packages. Protective gloves suited for nail work are needed. OBJECTIVES: To analyse (meth)acrylates in gel nail and acrylic nail products chemically and to compare the results with the information in the product labels, and to study penetration of artificial nail materials through selected disposable gloves. METHODS: We analysed 31 gel nail products and 6 acrylic nail products for their (meth)acrylate content by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). We tested the penetration of two nail products through three disposable gloves: nitrile rubber, neoprene rubber and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). RESULTS: Altogether 32/37 products contained (meth)acrylates. In all of them, there was discrepancy between the listed (meth)acrylates and those discovered in the analysis. The commonest (meth)acrylates were hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA, 20/37 samples) and hydroxypropyl methacrylate (HPMA, 9/37 samples), but many of the product packages failed to declare them. Isobornyl acrylate (IBA) was discovered in nine gel nail products. The neoprene glove could withstand nail gel for 20 min and thin nitrile glove and PVC glove for 5 min. Acrylic nail liquid penetrated through disposable gloves quickly. CONCLUSIONS: Labelling of artificial nail products was notably incorrect on most products. Requirements for product labelling must be updated so that the risk of sensitization associated with artificial nail products is clearly indicated. Disposable gloves can probably be used short-term in gel nail work, whereas disposable gloves do not protect the user from acrylic nail liquids.

Contact allergy to acrylate-containing nail cosmetics: A retrospective 8-year study.

BACKGROUND: Over the last 10 years, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from acrylate-containing nail cosmetics (acrylic nails, gel nails, gel nail polish) has been reported repeatedly. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the frequency and clinical features of ACD in nail cosmetics in a university hospital in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study in patients diagnosed with ACD from acrylate-containing nail cosmetics at the Amsterdam University Medical Centers between January 2015 and August 2023. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients, all women, were diagnosed with ACD from nail cosmetics, representing 1.6% of all individuals and 2.3% of all women patch tested in this period. Sixty-five of sixty-seven (97%) subjects had a positive patch test to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA). Forty-nine patients (73%) were consumers and 18 (27%) were professional nail stylists. The sites most frequently affected with dermatitis were the fingers (79%), hands (40%) and the head and/or neck. Avoidance of contact with acrylate-containing products resulted in complete clearing of dermatitis in 80% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: ACD from acrylate-containing nail cosmetics is frequent in women patch tested in Amsterdam. Nearly all were identified by a positive patch test to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate in the (meth)acrylate series or the European baseline series.

Role of acrylates in the development of contact dermatitis in diabetic patients-A Polish dermatology tertiary centre experience.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, an increasing number of contact dermatitis cases triggered by acrylates contained in diabetes medical devices have been reported. Acrylates seem to play a major role in the development of irritant contact dermatitis and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in diabetic patients. OBJECTIVES: To study a group of patients with contact dermatitis caused by diabetes medical devices with a focus on acrylates as possible allergens responsible for contact dermatitis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients with diabetes mellitus type 1 and contact dermatitis from diabetic devices were patch tested to 25 acrylate allergens. RESULTS: Three patients (20%) reacted to the following allergens: three patients reacted to isobornyl acrylate (IBOA) and one of them additionally to 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (2-HEA); results were of clinical relevance. All three patients were using insulin pumps and glucose sensors (GS)-in one patient contact dermatitis was towards the insulin pump and the GS, in one patient only towards the insulin pump and in one patient only towards the GS. Twelve patients (80%) did not show any skin reaction towards the allergens tested. CONCLUSION: A majority of diabetic patients showed no reactions towards any acrylate allergen tested; yet, the presence of untested allergens must be kept in mind. IBOA proved to be a cause of ACD in diabetes patients. 2-HEA might be another culprit allergen, but its presence in the devices must first be confirmed.

A Survey of Skin Reactions Associated With Acrylic Nail Cosmetics, With a Focus on Home Kits: Is There a Need for Regulation?

Background: Sensitization to (meth)acrylates, the most common nail cosmetic allergens, is rising. In recent years, home acrylic nail kits have become easily available. Objective: To investigate the characteristics of individuals reporting skin reactions associated with acrylic nail cosmetics, particularly home kits. Methods: Cross-sectional survey of Facebook nail allergy support groups. Inclusion criteria were self-reported skin reactions associated with acrylic nails and age ≥18 years. Results: There were 199 respondents, nearly all female (99%), mostly white (83%), and 25-54 years old (83%). Seventy-eight percent reported using home acrylic kits, more than half for the first time during COVID-19. They predominantly learned about kits through social media (68%) and received training through websites/online videos (74%). Most home users (83%) first developed skin reactions after starting to use home kits. Compared with nonhome users, significantly more home users reported skin reaction onset within 1 year of use, as well as nail damage (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Among online nail allergy support group members, home acrylic nail kit use was common and associated with earlier development of skin reactions and more frequent nail damage than professional acrylic manicures. These findings raise important questions about the need to regulate home acrylic nail kits.

Results of patch testing 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) in the European baseline series: A 4-year retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) was added to the European baseline series (EBS) in 2019. Few recent data are available on the frequency and relevance of positive reactions to this hapten. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the frequency and relevance of positive patch tests to HEMA in the EBS in a university hospital in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective study in patients with positive patch tests to HEMA investigated between June 2019 and August 2023. RESULTS: Of 2927 consecutive patients, 88 (79 women and 9 men; 3.0%) had a positive reaction to HEMA. The prevalence in women was 3.9%, in men 1.0%. Forty-three (49%) reactions were judged to be of current clinical relevance and 21 (24%) of past relevance. In this group of 64 patients with relevant reactions, 18 (28%) had occupational contact with (meth)acrylate-containing products, of who 11 (61%) were nail stylists. In 46 patients with non-occupational allergic contact dermatitis, 31 (67%) had allergic reactions to nail cosmetics. Glues and glue-containing products accounted for 22% of the materials causing allergic contact dermatitis and dental products for 8%. CONCLUSIONS: Allergic reactions to HEMA are very frequent in women investigated in Amsterdam. Nearly two thirds of cases were caused by nail cosmetics.

2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA): A clinical review of contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis. Part 2. Cross- and co-sensitization, other skin reactions to HEMA, position of HEMA among (meth)acrylates, sensitivity as screening agent, presence of HEMA in commercial products and practical information on patch test procedures.

This is the second part of a literature review of the clinical aspects of contact allergy to and allergic contact dermatitis from 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA). Topics include cross- and co-sensitization, atypical manifestations of contact allergy, frequency of positive patch tests to HEMA compared with other (meth)acrylates, sensitivity of HEMA as a screening agent, the presence of HEMA in commercial products, and practical information on patch testing procedures. Primary sensitization to methacrylates including HEMA may result in methacrylate and acrylate cross-sensitization. There is a strong cross-allergy between HEMA, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), and hydroxypropyl methacrylate; many reactions to EGDMA are cross-reactions to primary HEMA sensitization. Rare atypical manifestations of HEMA-allergy include lichen planus, lymphomatoid papulosis, systemic contact dermatitis, leukoderma after positive patch tests, and systemic side effects such as nausea, diarrhoea, malaise, and palpitations. The occurrence of respiratory disease caused by methacrylates such as asthma is not infrequent. HEMA is the most frequently patch test-positive methacrylate. It is a good screening agent for allergy to other (meth)acrylates. Patch test sensitization to HEMA 2% pet. is extremely rare. There are (some) indications that HEMA is frequently used in dental products and nail cosmetics.

Presence of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) and other (meth)acrylates in nail cosmetics, and compliance with EU legislation: An online market survey.

BACKGROUND: During the last 15-20 years, allergic contact dermatitis from acrylates-containing nail cosmetics (acrylic nails, gel nails, gel nail polish) has been increasingly reported. 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) is considered to be the major allergenic culprit; few data on its presence in nail cosmetics are available. OBJECTIVES: To investigate (1) the frequency in which HEMA and di-HEMA trimethylhexyl dicarbamate are present in nail cosmetics; (2) whether nail cosmetics comply with EU regulations; (3) which other (meth)acrylates are present in nail cosmetics and how often. METHODS: One-line market survey. RESULTS: HEMA was present in nearly 60% of 394 cosmetic nail products and di-HEMA trimethylhexyl dicarbamate in 34%. Mandatory warnings on the packages of products containing HEMA were absent in 35% ('For professional use only') resp. 55% ('Can cause an allergic reaction'). Forty-five other (meth)acrylates were identified, of which the most frequent were hydroxypropyl methacrylate (25%), isobornyl methacrylate (16%) and trimethylolpropane triacrylate (12%). Some ingredient lists mentioned non-INCI names or non-specific names. CONCLUSIONS: HEMA was by far the most common ingredient of nail cosmetics, being present in nearly 60% of the products. Violations of EU legislation occurred in >30% (mandatory warnings missing) resp. 10% (mislabelling) of nail cosmetics.

Increased Rates of Gold and Acrylate Allergy in Individuals with Fibromyalgia Tested with an Extended Dental Patch Test Series.

Fibromyalgia is a common chronic pain condition. Rates of contact allergy in individuals with fibromyalgia have not been widely studied. Systemic contact allergy can present with muscle and joint pain and general malaise. The aim of this study is to investigate contact allergy rates in individuals with fibromyalgia to the sensitizers in an extended dental series and compare with control groups. Contact allergy to gold was significantly more common in the fibromyalgia group than the dermatitis control group. When corrected for patch test system, contact allergy to gold was significantly more common in the fibromyalgia group than the dental control group. Contact allergy to hydroxyethyl methacrylate and grouped acrylates and methacrylates was significantly more common in the fibromyalgia group than the dental control group. In conclusion, individuals with fibromyalgia may have a propensity to sensitization to gold, either via an increased exposure or an alteration in the oral environment. Gold is also implicated in systemic contact dermatitis and may be a factor in elicitation of symptoms in individuals with fibromyalgia. Acrylate allergy is also common in the fibromyalgia population and may be a consequence of occupational exposure or dental treatment.

Prognosis and sequelae of meth(acrylate) sensitization in beauticians and consumers of manicure materials.

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis from (meth)acrylic monomers (ACDMA) in manicure products is increasing. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prognosis, work performance impairment and sequelae of a cohort of beauticians and manicure consumers with ACDMA sensitized from the exposure to manicure products. METHODS: We conducted a telephone survey with patients diagnosed with ACDMA. RESULTS: One hundred and six patients were evaluated, including 75 (70.8%) beauticians and 31 (29.2%) consumers. All were women with a mean age of 39 (19-62). Thirty-seven of 75 beauticians (49.3%) continued to work. Twenty-seven of 106 (25.5%) patients continued to use manicure products with (meth)acrylates regularly. Seventeen of 51 (33.3%) patients who discontinued the exposure described ongoing nail/periungual changes. Nine of 58 (15.5%) patients who required dental restoration, orthodontic or occlusal splint materials recalled reactions from them; and, 25 of 96 (26%) who used sanitary napkins recalled intolerance to them starting after the diagnosis of ACDMA. Fifteen of 25 (60%) discontinued the use of sanitary napkins. CONCLUSION: 49.3% beauticians continued to work; most patients stopped wearing acrylic manicure materials; reactions from dental materials were not uncommon, however, removal of dental materials was never required; and, reactions to sanitary napkins developing after the diagnosis of ACDMA were common most leading to discontinuation of use.

Contact Dermatitis to Diabetes Medical Devices.

Skin adverse reactions to diabetes medical devices have been reported frequently over recent years. Adhesives attaching glucose sensors and continuous insulin infusion sets to the skin are proven to cause both allergic contact dermatitis and irritant contact dermatitis in patients with diabetes mellitus. Several allergens contained in adhesives and/or parts of medical devices are documented to cause allergic contact dermatitis, with acrylate chemicals being the most common culprit-especially isobornyl acrylate (IBOA), but also 2,2'-methylenebis(6-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol) monoacrylate or cyanoacrylates. Epoxy resin, colophonium and nickel were also identified as causative allergens. However, repetitive occlusion, maceration of the skin and resulting disruption of the skin barrier seem to have an impact on the development of skin lesions as well. The purpose of this study is to highlight the burden of contact dermatitis triggered by diabetes medical devices and to show possible mechanisms responsible for the development of contact dermatitis in a group of diabetic patients.