A successful use of barrier patches in the management of contact dermatitis to a continuous glucose monitoring device – a case study Opis przypadku
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Opublikowane:
cze 30, 2025
Słowa kluczowe:
opis przypadku, system ciągłego monitorowania glikemii, zapalenie skóry, alergia, cukrzyca
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstrakt
The popularity of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices rises, similar to the prevalence of CGM-related contact dermatitis. There is still a paucity of recommendations for its treatment, and here, we documented the use of barrier patches from adhesive dressing tape. A 25-year-old type I diabetic presented symptoms of contact dermatitis after a month of CGM use. A barrier patch significantly prevented its symptoms. CGM was discontinued for over a year, and after it was reintroduced, the symptoms relapsed. Barrier patches were used again, with good results. We added some data on the management of CGM-related contact dermatitis and materials suitable for barrier patches.
##plugins.generic.usageStats.downloads##
##plugins.generic.usageStats.noStats##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Jak cytować
Duda, P., Michalczyk, J., Dziedzic, B., & Chmielewska, K. (2025). A successful use of barrier patches in the management of contact dermatitis to a continuous glucose monitoring device – a case study. Alergoprofil, 21(3), 3-9. https://doi.org/10.24292/01.AP.212110925
Numer
Dział
THERAPY
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Użycie niekomercyjne 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
Copyright: ? Medical Education sp. z o.o. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0). License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Address reprint requests to: Medical Education, Marcin Kuźma (marcin.kuzma@mededu.pl)
Bibliografia
1. de Groot A, van Oers EM, Ipenburg NA et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by glucose sensors and insulin pumps: A full review Part 2. Case reports and case series, clinical features, patch test procedures, differentiation from irritant dermatitis, management of allergic patients and (proposed). Contact Dermatitis. 2025; 92(3): 164-75.
2. Podwojniak A, Flemming J, Tan IJ et al. Cutaneous Adverse Effects From Diabetes Devices in Pediatric Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review. JMIR Dermatol. 2024; 7: e59824.
3. Svedman C, Bruze M, Antelmi A et al. 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. J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol. 2021; 35(3): 730-7.
4. Berg AK, Thorsen SU, Thyssen JP et al. Cost of Treating Skin Problems in Patients with Diabetes Who Use Insulin Pumps and/or Glucose Sensors. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020; 22(9): 658-65.
5. Dexcom.com. How to avoid irritated/sensitive skin from sensor adhesive?.
6. Riley DS, Barber MS, Kienle GS et al. CARE guidelines for case reports: explanation and elaboration document. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 89: 218-35.
7. Kruszewski J, Kowalski ML, Kulus M et al. Standardy w alergologii wydanie III. Stanowiska panelów eksperckich Polskiego Towarzystwa Alergologicznego. Termedia Wydawnictwa Medyczne, Poznań 2019.
8. Nowicki R, Czarnecka-Operacz M, Grubska-Suchanek E et al. Position statement of the Polish Society of Allergology and Polish Dermatological Society regarding the limited accessibility of materials necessary for patch testing. Part I: Technological and legal barriers. Alergol Pol - Polish J Allergol. 2024; 11(3): 195-210.
9. Zarys.com. Catalogs.
10. Freckmann G, Buck S, Waldenmaier D et al. Skin Reaction Report Form: Development and Design of a Standardized Report Form for Skin Reactions Due to Medical Devices for Diabetes Management. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2020; 15(4): 801-6.
11. Paret M, Barash G, Rachmiel M. ?Out of the box? solution for skin problems due to glucose-monitoring technology in youth with type 1 diabetes: real-life experience with fluticasone spray. Acta Diabetol. 2020; 57(4): 419-24.
12. Cichoń M, Sokołowska-Wojdyło M, Trzeciak M. Allergic contact dermatitis elicited by insulin infusion sets: First case reported in Poland. Contact Dermatitis. 2023; 88(5): 404-6.
13. YpsoPump with mylife Loop ? mylife Polska (pl-PL).
14. YpsoPump with mylife Loop ? mylife Diabetescare ? International.
15. Kamann S, Heinemann L, Oppel E. Usage of Hydrocolloid- Based Plasters in Patients Who Have Developed Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Isobornyl Acrylate While Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2020; 14(3): 582-5.
16. de Groot A, van Oers EM, Ipenburg NA et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by glucose sensors and insulin pumps: A full review: Part 1: Sensors and pumps, adverse cutaneous reactions, allergens, and diabetes devices causing allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2025; 92(2): 87-112.
17. Oppel E, Kamann S, Heinemann L et al. The implanted glucose monitoring system Eversense: An alternative for diabetes patients with isobornyl acrylate allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2020; 82(2): 101-4.
18. Aerts O, Herman A, Mowitz M et al. Isobornyl Acrylate. Dermatitis. 2020; 31(1): 4-12.
19. Cichoń M, Myśliwiec M, Trzeciak M. Role of acrylates in the development of contact dermatitis in diabetic patients ? A Polish dermatology tertiary centre experience. Contact Dermatitis. 2024; 90(2): 126-33.
20. Cichoń M, Trzeciak M, Sokołowska-Wojdyło M et al. Contact Dermatitis to Diabetes Medical Devices. Int J Mol Sci. 2023; 24(13): 10697.
21. Svedman C, Ulriksdotter J, Lejding T et al. Changes in adhesive ingredients in continuous glucose monitoring systems may induce new contact allergy pattern. Contact Dermatitis. 2021; 84(6): 439-46.
22. Ahrensb?ll-Friis U, Simonsen AB, Zachariae C et al. Contact dermatitis caused by glucose sensors, insulin pumps, and tapes: Results from a 5-year period. Contact Dermatitis. 2021; 84(2): 75-81.
23. Ulriksdotter J, Sukakul T, Bruze M et al. Contact Allergy to Allergens in the Swedish Baseline Series Over-represented in Diabetes Patients with Skin Reactions to Medical Devices: A Retrospective Study from Southern Sweden. Acta Derm Venereol. 2024; 104: adv19676.
24. Alves da Silva C, Bregnh?j A, Mowitz M et al. Contact dermatitis in children caused by diabetes devices. Contact Dermatitis. 2022; 87(5): 406-13.
25. Oppel E, Högg C, Oschmann A et al. Contact allergy to the Dexcom G6 glucose monitoring system ? Role of 2,2?-methylenebis( 6-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol) monoacrylate in the new adhesive. Contact Dermatitis. 2022; 87(3): 258-64.
2. Podwojniak A, Flemming J, Tan IJ et al. Cutaneous Adverse Effects From Diabetes Devices in Pediatric Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review. JMIR Dermatol. 2024; 7: e59824.
3. Svedman C, Bruze M, Antelmi A et al. 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. J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol. 2021; 35(3): 730-7.
4. Berg AK, Thorsen SU, Thyssen JP et al. Cost of Treating Skin Problems in Patients with Diabetes Who Use Insulin Pumps and/or Glucose Sensors. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020; 22(9): 658-65.
5. Dexcom.com. How to avoid irritated/sensitive skin from sensor adhesive?.
6. Riley DS, Barber MS, Kienle GS et al. CARE guidelines for case reports: explanation and elaboration document. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 89: 218-35.
7. Kruszewski J, Kowalski ML, Kulus M et al. Standardy w alergologii wydanie III. Stanowiska panelów eksperckich Polskiego Towarzystwa Alergologicznego. Termedia Wydawnictwa Medyczne, Poznań 2019.
8. Nowicki R, Czarnecka-Operacz M, Grubska-Suchanek E et al. Position statement of the Polish Society of Allergology and Polish Dermatological Society regarding the limited accessibility of materials necessary for patch testing. Part I: Technological and legal barriers. Alergol Pol - Polish J Allergol. 2024; 11(3): 195-210.
9. Zarys.com. Catalogs.
10. Freckmann G, Buck S, Waldenmaier D et al. Skin Reaction Report Form: Development and Design of a Standardized Report Form for Skin Reactions Due to Medical Devices for Diabetes Management. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2020; 15(4): 801-6.
11. Paret M, Barash G, Rachmiel M. ?Out of the box? solution for skin problems due to glucose-monitoring technology in youth with type 1 diabetes: real-life experience with fluticasone spray. Acta Diabetol. 2020; 57(4): 419-24.
12. Cichoń M, Sokołowska-Wojdyło M, Trzeciak M. Allergic contact dermatitis elicited by insulin infusion sets: First case reported in Poland. Contact Dermatitis. 2023; 88(5): 404-6.
13. YpsoPump with mylife Loop ? mylife Polska (pl-PL).
14. YpsoPump with mylife Loop ? mylife Diabetescare ? International.
15. Kamann S, Heinemann L, Oppel E. Usage of Hydrocolloid- Based Plasters in Patients Who Have Developed Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Isobornyl Acrylate While Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2020; 14(3): 582-5.
16. de Groot A, van Oers EM, Ipenburg NA et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by glucose sensors and insulin pumps: A full review: Part 1: Sensors and pumps, adverse cutaneous reactions, allergens, and diabetes devices causing allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2025; 92(2): 87-112.
17. Oppel E, Kamann S, Heinemann L et al. The implanted glucose monitoring system Eversense: An alternative for diabetes patients with isobornyl acrylate allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2020; 82(2): 101-4.
18. Aerts O, Herman A, Mowitz M et al. Isobornyl Acrylate. Dermatitis. 2020; 31(1): 4-12.
19. Cichoń M, Myśliwiec M, Trzeciak M. Role of acrylates in the development of contact dermatitis in diabetic patients ? A Polish dermatology tertiary centre experience. Contact Dermatitis. 2024; 90(2): 126-33.
20. Cichoń M, Trzeciak M, Sokołowska-Wojdyło M et al. Contact Dermatitis to Diabetes Medical Devices. Int J Mol Sci. 2023; 24(13): 10697.
21. Svedman C, Ulriksdotter J, Lejding T et al. Changes in adhesive ingredients in continuous glucose monitoring systems may induce new contact allergy pattern. Contact Dermatitis. 2021; 84(6): 439-46.
22. Ahrensb?ll-Friis U, Simonsen AB, Zachariae C et al. Contact dermatitis caused by glucose sensors, insulin pumps, and tapes: Results from a 5-year period. Contact Dermatitis. 2021; 84(2): 75-81.
23. Ulriksdotter J, Sukakul T, Bruze M et al. Contact Allergy to Allergens in the Swedish Baseline Series Over-represented in Diabetes Patients with Skin Reactions to Medical Devices: A Retrospective Study from Southern Sweden. Acta Derm Venereol. 2024; 104: adv19676.
24. Alves da Silva C, Bregnh?j A, Mowitz M et al. Contact dermatitis in children caused by diabetes devices. Contact Dermatitis. 2022; 87(5): 406-13.
25. Oppel E, Högg C, Oschmann A et al. Contact allergy to the Dexcom G6 glucose monitoring system ? Role of 2,2?-methylenebis( 6-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol) monoacrylate in the new adhesive. Contact Dermatitis. 2022; 87(3): 258-64.