Allergic contact dermatitis caused by acrylic‐based medical dressings and adhesives

• Published in: Contact dermatitis Vol. 79; no. 2; pp. 81 - 84
• Main Authors: Mestach, Lien, Huygens, Sara, Goossens, An, Gilissen, Liesbeth
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01-08-2018; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: acrylates; Acrylates - adverse effects; adhesive; Adhesives; Adhesives - adverse effects; Adult; Allergens; allergic contact dermatitis; Allergies; Bandages - adverse effects; Bisphenol A; Contact dermatitis; Cosmetics; Dental restorative materials; Dermatitis; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - diagnosis; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - etiology; Eczema; Erythritol; Ethyl carbamate; Female; Humans; Labeling; Male; medical device; Medical dressings; Medical equipment; methacrylates; Middle Aged; Monomers; Patch Tests; Skin; wound dressings; methacrylates; monomers; allergic contact dermatitis; acrylates; wound dressings; adhesive; medical device
• ISSN: 0105-1873; 1600-0536
• DOI: 10.1111/cod.13044

Background
Acrylates and methacrylates are acrylic resin monomers that are known to induce skin sensitization as a result of their presence in different materials, such as nail cosmetics, dental materials, printing inks, and adhesives. Allergic contact dermatitis resulting from the use of modern wound dressings containing them has only rarely been reported.
Objectives
To describe 2 patients who developed allergic contact dermatitis caused by acrylic‐based modern medical dressings and/or adhesives.
Methods
The medical charts of patients consulting since 1990 were retrospectively reviewed for (meth)acrylate allergy resulting from contact with such materials, and their demographic characteristics and patch test results were analysed.
Results
Two patients were observed in 2014 and 2016 who had presented with positive patch test reactions to several acrylic‐based dressings and/or adhesive materials, and to several (meth)acrylates, that is, hydroxyethyl acrylate, hydroxyethyl methacrylate, ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate, bisphenol A‐glycidyl methacrylate/epoxy‐acrylate, urethane diacrylate, and/or penta‐erythritol acrylate.
Conclusions
Allergic contact dermatitis needs to be considered in patients with eczematous reactions or delayed healing following the use of acrylic‐based modern dressings or adhesives. However, identification of the culprit allergen is hampered by poor cooperation from the producers, so adequate labelling of medical devices is an urgent necessity.