Search

In recent years, skin reactions secondary to the use of medical devices (MD), such as allergic contact dermatitis have increasingly been observed (e.g. to continuous blood sugar monitoring systems, insulin pumps, wound dressings, medical gloves, etc.): this is regarded as a developing epidemic. Lack of labelling of the composition of MD, as well as frequent lack of cooperation of manufacturers to disclose this relevant information, even when contacted by the clinician for the individual case of an established adverse reaction, significantly impede patient care. To advocate for full ingredient labelling in the implementation of EU regulation for MD. This position paper reviews the scientific literature, the current regulatory framework adopted for MD to date, and the likely impact, including some costs data in case of the absence of such labelling. Efforts made by several scientific teams, who are trying to identify the culprit of such adverse effects, either via asking for cooperation from companies, or using costly chemical analyses of MD, can only partly, and with considerable delay, compensate for the absence of meaningful information on the composition of MD; hence, patient management is compromised. Indeed, without knowing the chemical substances present, physicians are unable to inform patients about which substances they should avoid, and which alternative MD may be suitable/tolerated. There is an urgent need for full and accurate labelling of the chemical composition of MD in contact with the human body.

Background: In recent years, skin reactions secondary to the use of medical devices (MD), such as allergic contact dermatitis have increasingly been observed (e.g. to continuous blood sugar monitoring systems, insulin pumps, wound dressings, medical gloves, etc.): this is regarded as a developing epidemic. Lack of labelling of the composition of MD, as well as frequent lack of cooperation of manufacturers to disclose this relevant information, even when contacted by the clinician for the individual case of an established adverse reaction, significantly impede patient care. Objectives: To advocate for full ingredient labelling in the implementation of EU regulation for MD. Methods: This position paper reviews the scientific literature, the current regulatory framework adopted for MD to date, and the likely impact, including some costs data in case of the absence of such labelling. Results: Efforts made by several scientific teams, who are trying to identify the culprit of such adverse effects, either via asking for cooperation from companies, or using costly chemical analyses of MD, can only partly, and with considerable delay, compensate for the absence of meaningful information on the composition of MD; hence, patient management is compromised. Indeed, without knowing the chemical substances present, physicians are unable to inform patients about which substances they should avoid, and which alternative MD may be suitable/tolerated. Conclusion: There is an urgent need for full and accurate labelling of the chemical composition of MD in contact with the human body.

BACKGROUND: Methylisothiazolinone (MI) has caused an unprecedented epidemic of contact allergy in Europe and elsewhere. Subsequently, regulatory action has been taken, at least in Europe, aiming at reducing risk of MI sensitization.OBJECTIVE: To follow-up on the prevalence of contact allergy to MI in consecutively patch tested patients and assess the spectrum of products containing MI or methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/MI in patients positive to MI which elicited current allergic contact dermatitis.METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was performed in 2016 and 2017, including all adult patients patch tested with the baseline series (including MI 0.2% aq.) between 1 May and 31 October at 14 centres in 11 European countries. Patients with positive reactions (+ to +++) to MI were further examined regarding history, clinical characteristics and eliciting products, which were categorized into 34 types and 4 classes (leave-on, rinse-off, household, occupational). The results were compared with the reference year 2015.RESULTS: A total of 317 patients, n = 202 of 4278 tested in 2016 (4.72%) and n = 115 of 3879 tested in 2017 (2.96%), had positive reactions to MI; the previous result from 2015 was 5.97% (P < 0.0001). The share of currently relevant contact allergy among all positive reactions declined significantly as well (P = 0.0032). Concerning product classes, a relative decline of leave-on and a relative increase of rinse-off and household products was noted.CONCLUSION: The prevalence of MI contact allergy decreased by 50% from 2015 to 2017. As a consequence of regulation, the share of cosmetics products (leave-on in particular) eliciting allergic contact dermatitis is decreasing. The chosen method of analysing causative products in sensitized patients has proven useful to monitor effects of intervention.