PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Contact Dermatitis· 2026Q1

High Diagnostic Yield of Testing With a Diabetes Device Screening Series in Patients With Suspected Allergic Reactions to Glucose Sensors, Insulin Patch Pumps and Insulin Infusion Sets

Norbertus Anton Ipenburg, Emma M. van Oers, Anton C. de Groot, Mounir Yaâkoubi et al.

Short summary

A dedicated diabetes device screening series, supplemented with patient-own device adhesives, identified relevant contact allergies in 71% of patients with suspected reactions to glucose sensors, insulin pumps, or infusion sets.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • A dedicated diabetes device screening series identified relevant contact allergies in 71% of 100 patients with suspected reactions.
  • Testing with patients' own device adhesives frequently identified allergies missed by the screening series alone.
  • Colophonium, abietic acid, hydroabietyl alcohol, isobornyl acrylate, dicyclohexylmethane‐4,4′‐diisocyanate, and N,N ‐dimethylacrylamide were the most frequent relevant allergens.
  • A supplementary (meth)acrylate series offered no clear additional diagnostic value.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Patch testing in patients with dermatitis from diabetes devices is challenging because device composition is nearly always undisclosed, relevant allergens are incompletely known, and many suspected allergens are not commercially available. Objectives To evaluate the diagnostic yield of a dedicated diabetes device screening series, supplemented with a (meth)acrylate series and testing of patients' own device adhesives and adhesive extracts, in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis to glucose sensors, insulin patch pumps, or infusion sets. Materials and Methods We performed a retrospective patch test study of 100 patients referred to a tertiary referral centre for suspected allergic reactions to diabetes devices. Results Seventy‐one patients reacted to one or more allergens in the diabetes device screening series; in 50 (70.4%), at least one reaction was clinically relevant. The most frequent relevant allergens were colophonium and its related substances abietic acid and hydroabietyl alcohol, isobornyl acrylate, dicyclohexylmethane‐4,4′‐diisocyanate, and N,N ‐dimethylacrylamide. The (meth)acrylate series had no clear additional diagnostic value. Testing with patients' own device adhesives and extracts frequently identified allergic reactions to devices not recognised by the results of the screening series alone. Conclusion The combined approach identified relevant contact allergies in most patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis to diabetes devices.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Contact Dermatitis, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Dermatology

DermatologyMedicine