Abstract:Abstract A 35-year-old nail and beauty technician presented with severe hand and finger dermatitis. She had a 5-year history of eczema on her neck and trunk, which had improved with avoidance of balsam of Peru, to which she had previously tested positive on patch testing. Unfortunately, the patient began experiencing debilitating hand symptoms 2 years ago, escalating into painful, cracked, excoriated and fissured hands. Further patch testing revealed positive reactions to acrylates, specifically 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate, and triethylene glycol diacrylate – common components in acrylic, gel and shellac nail products used daily in her profession. Advised on strict allergen avoidance, the patient hesitated, citing practicality concerns given her lack of alternative income sources and qualifications. Reluctant to undergo a period of avoidance, she grappled with accepting her occupation as a likely source of her hand dermatitis and was keen to explore alternative options. Occupational acrylate allergy poses challenges for nail technicians, with symptoms often proving difficult to control once sensitized. Rapid acrylate penetration through most glove types complicates protective measures. Nitrile gloves offer marginally longer protection compared with latex, while laminate 4H gloves provide superior defence but limit manual dexterity. A study exploring an in vivo model for glove efficacy used open chambers filled with the acrylate gels, which were applied to the back with tape, and gloves attached as a membrane between the gel and the skin [Ursberg AM, Bergendorff O, Thorsson AC, Isaksson M. Is there a good in vivo method to show whether gloves are sufficiently protective when a nail technician is exposed to (meth)acrylates? An in vivo pilot study. Contact Dermatitis 2016; 75: 62–5]. The glove materials were then tested at four exposure times. This study showed promise in ascertaining which gloves offered appropriate protection for an individual, but is limited in practicality due to its prolonged duration. Applying the results from the study to clinical practice, the patient was first treated with oral steroids to clear her hands, and was then recommended to double glove during procedures. She was advised to ensure that she spent no more than 20 min with each client, in order to reduce penetration time of the acrylate through the gloves. This, along with frequent handwashing in between clients and regular workspace cleaning, has allowed her to successfully continue her career for the last 3 years. This case underscores the importance of finding collaborative solutions with patients, even if not medically ideal, and offering practical approaches for individuals facing challenging allergens to avoid. This case also highlights the usefulness of applying basic science research to clinical practice for the benefit of patients.

Further Evidence of Severe Allergic Contact Dermatitis From Isobornyl Acrylate While Using a Continuous Glucose Monitoring System

New device, 'old' allergens. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by the Dexcom G7 glucose sensor

Allergic contact dermatitis caused by isobornyl acrylate in the Enlite glucose sensor and the Paradigm MiniMed Quick‐set insulin infusion set

Allergic contact dermatitis caused by glucose sensors and insulin pumps: A full review

Contact Dermatitis to Diabetes Medical Devices

Allergic contact dermatitis caused by isobornyl acrylate in OmniPod, an innovative tubeless insulin pump

Contact Allergy to Allergens in the Swedish Baseline Series Overrepresented in Diabetes Patients with Skin Reactions to Medical Devices – A Retrospective Study from Southern Sweden

British Society for Cutaneous AllergyOral presentationsCD01 Isobornyl acrylate in nail cosmetics

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

Isocyanates may contribute to allergic contact dermatitis from diabetes devices and wound dressings

Skin Problems Associated with Insulin Pumps and Sensors in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Study

CD03 Watch out! Allergic contact dermatitis to acrylates in a smart watch

CD12 A case of occupational acrylate allergy: a success story!

Sensitisation to the acrylate co‐polymers glyceryl acrylate/acrylic acid co‐polymer, sodium polyacrylate and acrylates/C10‐30 alkyl acrylate cross‐polymer (Carbopol®) is rare

Allergic contact dermatitis due to 1,6‐hexanediol diacrylate in ostomy patients

CD08 ‘If it’s not the hair maybe it’s in the air?’ A case of allergic contact dermatitis from airborne exposure to acrylates

Contact Dermatitis in a Child from Methlychloroisothiazolinone and Methylisothiazolinone in Moist Wipes

Evaluation of the FreeStyle® Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring System in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes

Impact in real-world of intermittent-scanned continuous glucose monitoring with alarms on hypoglycemia and its recognition in type 1 diabetes

CD05 Consort allergic contact dermatitis to occupational acrylates

Contact allergic dermatitis to skin adhesive after CIED upgrade procedure