Despite the clinical value of medical devices, there is a potential for these products to cause adverse skin reactions in some patients. Findings from a European retrospective study, published in the European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, show that nearly one quarter of patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis were referred for patch testing for contact allergies associated with medical devices, highlighting the possibility of a high prevalence of contact allergens in these devices.
“We found it important to publish these findings, because up until now no clear figures have been reported regarding this particular clinical problem,” said study author Olivier Aerts, tricor pravachol MD, a researcher in the contact allergy unit at the University Hospital Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium, in an interview with Medscape Medical News.
For the study, Aerts and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis of medical device users with suspected allergic contact dermatitis. All patients had been patch tested at a tertiary European clinic between 2018 and 2020.
The cohort included patients who experienced suspected contact allergy from medical adhesives (n = 57), gloves (n = 38), topical and surface medical devices (n = 38), glucose sensors and insulin pumps (n=74), and prostheses (n = 75). Other medical products associated with contact allergy in another 44 patients included surgical glues, face masks, compression stockings, condoms, and suture materials.
Overall, 326 patients had been patch-tested during the 30-month study period. Approximately 25.8% of all patients — including 299 adults and 27 children — were referred for contact allergy associated with medical devices.
Acrylates were the most frequently encountered contact allergens and were found in diabetes devices and medical adhesives. Potential skin sensitizers included colophonium-related substances, D-limonene, isothiazolinone derivatives, salicylates, and sulphites, all of which were identified across most products.
According to the investigators, many of the labels for the medical devices made no mention of the potential skin sensitizers, except in the cases of some topical and surface disinfectants. And many topical products are often marketed as medical devices rather than cosmetics, further complicating labeling issues, according to Aerts.
“What should be done to help any patient suffering from allergic contact due to medical devices is that these devices should be labeled with all their components, or at the very least with the potential skin sensitizers these may contain,” Aerts explained. He added that manufacturers should “establish more cooperation with physicians/dermatologists who evaluate such patients,” a cooperation that often exists with cosmetic companies.
Aerts noted that while it’s important for patch testers and dermatologists to be aware of the prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis in medical device users, companies producing these devices should also be aware of these potential issues. “Additionally, legislators/regulators should perhaps focus some more on the cutaneous side effects these products may provoke,” he said, “as this awareness may hopefully also serve as a stimulant to perform more clinical allergy research in this field.”
Leonard Bielory, MD, an allergist at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital in Rahway, New Jersey, told Medscape Medical News that the findings are “alarming” and should heighten clinicians’ awareness of the possibility of allergic contact dermatitis among medical device users.
Bielory, who wasn’t involved in the research, noted that the findings from this study may not be entirely generalizable to the US, given the study was performed in Europe. “In contrast to other countries, the US is very conscientious about allergic responses to items being used in hospitals,” he added, “or such that the issue here is that many of these things would be an adverse reaction, which you have to report.” He suggested that further research in this field is needed to determine the prevalence of possible skin sensitizers in products specifically developed and marketed in the US.
The study had no specific funding. Aerts and Bielory have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2021;148:164-72.e9. Full text
Brandon May is a freelance medical journalist who has written more than 1800 articles for medical publications in the United States and the UK. He resides in New York City. Twitter: @brandonmilesmay
For more news, follow Medscape on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn
Source: Read Full Article