Position statement: The need for EU legislation to require disclosure and labelling of the composition of medical devices

Severely compromised supply of patch test allergens in Europe hampers adequate diagnosis of occupational and non-occupational contact allergy. A European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD), European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) task forces 'Contact Dermatitis' and 'Occupational Skin Disease' position paper

Patch testing is the only clinically applicable diagnostic method for Type IV allergy. The availability of Type IV patch test (PT) allergens in Europe, however, is currently scarce. This severely compromises adequate diagnostics of contact allergy, leading to serious consequences for the affected patients. Against this background, the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD) has created a task force (TF) (i) to explore the current availability of PT substances in different member states, (ii) to highlight some of the unique characteristics of Type IV vs. other allergens and (iii) to suggest ways forward to promote and ensure availability of high-quality patch testing substances for the diagnosis of Type IV allergies throughout Europe. The suggestions of the TF on how to improve the availability of PT allergens are supported by the ESCD, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, and the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology and intend to provide potential means to resolve the present medical crisis.

Prevalence of dermatitis including allergic contact dermatitis from medical devices used by children and adults with Type 1 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and questionnaire study

Use of medical devices (MDs), that is, glucose sensors and insulin pumps, in patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) has proven an enormous advantage for disease control. Adverse skin reactions from these MDs may however hamper compliance. The objective of this study was to systematically review and analyse studies assessing the prevalence and incidence of dermatitis, including allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) related to MDs used in patients with T1D and to compare referral routes and the clinical investigation routines between clinics being part of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG). A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane databases of full-text studies reporting incidence and prevalence of dermatitis in persons with T1D using MDs was conducted until December 2021. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. The inventory performed at EECRDG clinics focused on referral routes, patient numbers and the diagnostic process. Among the 3145 screened abstracts, 39 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Sixteen studies included data on children only, 14 studies were on adults and nine studies reported data on both children and adults. Participants were exposed to a broad range of devices. Skin reactions were rarely specified. It was found that both the diagnostic process and referral routes differ in different centres. Further data on the prevalence of skin reactions related to MDs in individuals with T1D is needed and particularly studies where the skin reactions are correctly diagnosed. A correct diagnosis is delayed or hampered by the fact that, at present, the actual substances within the MDs are not declared, are changed without notice and the commercially available test materials are not adequately updated. Within Europe, routines for referral should be made more standardized to improve the diagnostic procedure when investigating patients with possible ACD from MDs.

Contact allergy to rubber accelerators in consecutively patch tested Danish eczema patients: A retrospective observational study from 1990 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Rubber accelerators are used in the production of rubber gloves and may cause contact allergy.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate long-term trend and prevalence of contact allergy to rubber accelerators for a 30-year period in Denmark, high-risk occupations, and exposures.

METHODS

Data from all patients with contact dermatitis consecutively patch tested at the department of Skin and Allergy Gentofte hospital with the rubber accelerators from the European baseline series (EBS) from 1990 to 2019, were analysed. Further, patients under suspicion of rubber accelerator contact allergy were additionally patch-tested with rubber accelerators from the specialised rubber series from 2005 to 2019 and these were additional extracted.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of contact allergy to one or more of the rubber accelerators from the EBS series was 2.7% with a significant decline in the first 12-years, followed by a stable frequency in the past 18-years. Associations with occupational contact dermatitis, hand dermatitis, and leg/foot dermatitis were found. Wet-work occupations were most often affected and gloves the most frequent exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

Contact allergy to one or more of the rubber accelerators from the EBS is frequent and has been unchanged for several decades, which calls for prevention.

First International Survey on Diabetes Providers' Assessment of Skin Reactions in Youth With Type 1 Diabetes Using Technological Devices

BACKGROUND

Advances in diabetes technological devices led to optimization of diabetes care; however, long-lasting skin exposure to devices may be accompanied by an increasing occurrence of cutaneous reactions.

METHODS

We used an open-link web-based survey to evaluate diabetes-care providers' viewpoint on prevalence, management practices, and knowledge related to skin reactions with the use of diabetes technological devices. A post hoc analysis was applied to investigate differences in the level of awareness on this topic in relation to the experience in diabetes technology.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-five responses from 39 different countries were collected. Most respondents (69%) routinely examine patients' skin at each visit. All the preventive measures are not clear and, mainly, homogenously put into clinical practice. Contact dermatitis was the most frequently reported cutaneous complication due to diabetes devices, and its most common provocative causes are not yet fully known by diabetes-care providers. Almost half of the respondents (42%) had discussed the presence of harmful allergens contained in adhesives with device manufacturers. There is general agreement on the need to strengthen knowledge on dermatological complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Although diabetes-care providers are quite aware of the chance to develop skin reactions in people with diabetes using technological devices, there are still some unmet needs. Large follow-up studies and further dissemination tools are awaited to address the gaps revealed by our survey.

A Skin Care Program to Prevent Skin Problems due to Diabetes Devices in Children and Adolescents: A Cluster-Controlled Intervention Study

OBJECTIVE

Diabetes devices that deliver insulin and measure blood glucose levels are cornerstones in modern treatment of type 1 diabetes. However, their use is frequently associated with the development of skin problems, particularly eczema and wounds. Proper skin care may prevent skin problems, yet evidence-based information from interventional studies is missing. Providing this information is the aim of this study.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This cluster-controlled intervention study tested the efficacy of a basic skin care program (including use of lipid cream, removal, and avoidance of disinfection). A total of 170 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes were included and assigned either to the intervention group (n = 112) or the control group (n = 58). Participants were seen quarterly the first year after device initiation, with clinical assessment and interview in an unblinded setting.

RESULTS

Eczema or wounds were observed in 33.6% of the intervention group compared with 46.6% of control participants (absolute difference, 12.9% [95% CI -28.7%, 2.9%]; P = 0.10). The adjusted odds of wound development were decreased by 71% in the intervention compared with control group (for wounds, odds ratio 0.29 [95% CI 0.12, 0.68]; P = 0.005). In total, only eight infections were seen, without a higher frequency in the intervention group, despite advice to omit disinfection.

CONCLUSIONS

These data indicate our basic skin care program partially prevented diabetes device-induced skin reactions. However, more preventive strategies with other adhesives, patches, and/or types of lotions are needed for optimized prevention.

The Science of Skin: Measuring Damage and Assessing Risk

Significance: Healthy skin provides a barrier to contaminants. Breaches in skin integrity are often encountered in the patient health care journey, owing to intrinsic health issues or to various procedures and medical devices used. The time has come to move clinical practice beyond mere awareness of medical adhesive-related skin injury and toward improved care and outcomes. Recent Advances: Methods developed in research settings allow quantitative assessments of skin damage based on the measurement of baseline skin properties. These properties become altered by stress and over time. Assessment methods typically used by the cosmetic industry to compare product performance could offer new possibilities to improve clinical practice by providing better information on the status of patient skin. This review summarizes available skin assessment methods as well as specific patient risks for skin damage. Critical Issues: Patients in health care settings may be at risk for skin damage owing to predisposing medical conditions, health status, medications taken, and procedures or devices used in their treatment. Skin injuries come as an additional burden to these medical circumstances and could be prevented. Technology should be leveraged to improve care, help maintain patient skin health, and better characterize functional wound closure. Future Directions: Skin testing methods developed to evaluate cosmetic products or assess damage caused by occupational exposure can provide detailed, quantitative information on the integrity of skin. Such methods have the potential to guide prevention and treatment efforts to improve the care of patients suffering from skin integrity issues while in the health care system.

Occupational contact allergy: The European perspective-Analysis of patch test data from ESSCA between 2011 and 2020

BACKGROUND

Occupational skin diseases have led the occupational disease statistics in Europe for many years. Especially occupational allergic contact dermatitis is associated with a poor prognosis and low healing rates leading to an enormous burden for the affected individual and for society.

OBJECTIVES

To present the sensitization frequencies to the most relevant allergens of the European baseline series in patients with occupational contact dermatitis (OCD) and to compare sensitization profiles of different occupations.

METHODS

The data of 16 022 patients considered having OCD after patch testing within the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA) network between January 2011 and December 2020 were evaluated. Patients (n = 46 652) in whom an occupational causation was refuted served as comparison group.

RESULTS

The highest percentages of OCD were found among patients working in agriculture, fishery and related workers, metal industry, chemical industry, followed by building and construction industry, health care, food and service industry. Sensitizations to rubber chemicals (thiurams, carbamates, benzothiazoles) and epoxy resins were associated with at least a doubled risk of OCD. After a decline from 2014 onwards, the risks to acquire an occupation-related sensitization to methyl(chloro)isothiazolinone (MCI/MI) and especially to methylisothiazolinone (MI) seem to increase again. Sensitization rates to formaldehyde were stable, and to methyldibromo glutaronitrile (MDBGN) slightly decreasing over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Among allergens in the European Baseline Series, occupational relevance is most frequently attributed to rubber accelerators, epoxy resins and preservatives.

Potential Allergens in Wound Care Products

Background: Patients with chronic wounds have an increased risk of developing allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Reports of ACD to wound care products are not uncommon. To minimize contact sensitization in patients with chronic wounds, allergenic ingredients should be avoided when possible. Objective: With more than 5000 wound care products available in the United States, it is essential to understand which products can be chosen to minimize allergen exposures. Methods: Ingredients in wound care products in 5 wound care clinics across 2 institutions were cross-referenced with the American Contact Dermatitis Society core allergen series 2020. Results: Of the 267 wound care products included, 97 (36.3%) contained at least one allergen, including 31 dressings/wraps (22.3%), 25 medications (69.4%), 12 cleaning supplies (36.3%), 16 tapes/glues (80%), 2 instruments (14.3%), 8 emollients and vehicles (61.5%), 1 ostomy product (11.1%), and 2 odor-eliminating products (66.7%). Thirty-four different allergens were identified across all products. The most common allergens present in the included items were acrylates and propylene glycol, followed by parabens, cetyl stearyl alcohol, tocopherol, fragrance, and phenoxyethanol. Conclusions: Many wound care products contain at least one contact allergen, highlighting the importance of clinician education on ACD in the context of wound care product selection.

Potential Allergens in Wound Care Products

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic wounds have an increased risk of developing allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Reports of ACD to wound care products are not uncommon. To minimize contact sensitization in patients with chronic wounds, allergenic ingredients should be avoided when possible.

OBJECTIVE

With more than 5000 wound care products available in the United States, it is essential to understand which products can be chosen to minimize allergen exposures.

METHODS

Ingredients in wound care products in 5 wound care clinics across 2 institutions were cross-referenced with the American Contact Dermatitis Society core allergen series 2020.

RESULTS

Of the 267 wound care products included, 97 (36.3%) contained at least one allergen, including 31 dressings/wraps (22.3%), 25 medications (69.4%), 12 cleaning supplies (36.3%), 16 tapes/glues (80%), 2 instruments (14.3%), 8 emollients and vehicles (61.5%), 1 ostomy product (11.1%), and 2 odor-eliminating products (66.7%). Thirty-four different allergens were identified across all products. The most common allergens present in the included items were acrylates and propylene glycol, followed by parabens, cetyl stearyl alcohol, tocopherol, fragrance, and phenoxyethanol.

CONCLUSIONS

Many wound care products contain at least one contact allergen, highlighting the importance of clinician education on ACD in the context of wound care product selection.

Novel insights into contact dermatitis

Contact dermatitis is a common disease, caused by repeated skin contact to contact allergens or irritants, resulting in allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and/or irritant contact dermatitis. Attempts have been made to identify biomarkers to distinguish irritant and allergic patch test reactions, which could aid diagnosis. Some promising candidates have recently been identified, but verification and validation in clinical cases still need to be done. New causes of ACD are constantly recognized. In this review, 10 new contact allergens from recent years, were identified, several relating to anti-age products. Frequent allergens causing considerable morbidity in the population such as the preservative methylisothiazolinone (MI) have been regulated in EU. A significant drop in cases has been seen, while high rates are still occurring in other areas such as North America. Other frequent causes are fragrance allergens especially widely used terpenes and acrylates used in medical devises for control of diabetes. These represent unsolved problems. Recent advances in immunology have opened for a better understanding of the complexity of contact dermatitis, especially ACD. The disease may be more heterogenous that previous understood with several subtypes. With the rapidly evolving molecular understanding of the disease, the potential for development of new drugs for personalized treatment of contact dermatitis is considerable.

European patch test results with audit allergens as candidates for inclusion in the European Baseline Series, 2019/20 - Joint results of the ESSCAA and the EBSB working groups of the ESCD, and the GEIDACC

BACKGROUND

In 2019, a number of allergens (haptens), henceforth, 'the audit allergens,' were considered as potential additions to the European baseline series (EBS), namely, sodium metabisulfite, 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol, diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, Compositae mix II (2.5 or 5% pet), linalool hydroperoxides (lin-OOH), limonene hydroperoxides (lim-OOH), benzisothiazolinone (BIT), octylisothiazolinone (OIT), decyl glucoside, lauryl glucoside; Evernia furfuracea (tree moss), was additionally tested by some departments, too.

OBJECTIVES

To collect further data on patch test reactivity and clinical relevance of the audit allergens in consecutive patients across Europe.

METHODS

Patch test data covering the audit allergens in 2019 and 2020 were collected by those departments of the ESSCA testing these, as well as further collaborators from the EBS working group of the ESCD, and the Spanish GEIDAC. As patch test outcome, reactions between day (D) 3 and D5 were considered.

RESULTS

Altogether n=12403 patients were tested with any of the audit allergen. Positive reactions were most common to lin-OOH 1% pet. (8.74 (8.14-9.37)), followed by lin-OOH 0.5% pet., and lim-OOH 0.3% pet (5.41 (4.95-5.89)). Beyond these terpene hydroperoxides, BIT 0.1% pet. was the second most common allergen with 4.72 (4.2-5.28), followed by sodium metabisulfite 1% pet. (3.75 (3.32-4.23)) and Compositae mix 5% pet. (2.31 (1.84-2.87). For some allergens, clinical relevance was frequently difficult to ascertain.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite many positive patch test reactions, it remains controversial whether lin- and lim-OOH should be tested routinely, while at least the two preservatives BIT and sodium metabisulfite appear suitable. The present results are a basis for further discussion among the ESCD members and ultimately decision on their implementation into routine testing. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

New regulation of medical devices in the EU: impact in dermatology

Medical device (MD) is a broad term that encompasses products ranging from, for example, examination gloves to digital dermoscopy systems; all of which are regulated by a new regulatory framework in the EU from May 2021. The new Medical Device Regulation (MDR) (Regulation EU 2017/745) will have a significant effect on suppliers of MD and will have subsequent effects also for dermatologists and other clinicians. Medical device software and apps are reclassified leading to more stringent requirements on documentation within, e.g. clinical evidence, as well as regulatory authority control. The changes will likely have positive effects on quality, to the benefit of patients. There will, however, be implications affecting the availability and support of existing devices and the introduction of new devices, as well as a likely price increase due to the higher costs for suppliers. Dermatologists, other clinicians and administrators need to be aware of the effects of MDR to ensure that existing devices and new purchases can be used as planned. Specifically, clinicians need to be aware of the following: (i) improved quality of MD and follow‐up of incidents can be expected. (ii) Only ‘non‐significant’ updates will be permitted after May 2021 to many existing systems and devices unless approved under the new MDR. (iii) Existing devices that do not achieve approval under the new regulation will no longer be manufactured after May 2024. (iv) New products and methods will take longer time to be approved and available. (v) Prices will likely increase. (vi) Suppliers of products that do not fulfil the new regulation will disappear, and the availability of consumables, spare parts or upgrades might be discontinued. (vii) A trend to oligopoly may appear in the market. It is therefore important to check with your suppliers as to how and when they will adhere to the new MDR regulation.