Advertisement

“Out of the box” solution for skin problems due to glucose-monitoring technology in youth with type 1 diabetes: real-life experience with fluticasone spray

  • Michal Paret
  • Galia Barash
  • Marianna RachmielEmail author
Original Article
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Use of a continuous glucose-monitoring system (CGMS) in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) may cause local skin irritation.

Objective

To examine the effects of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal solution (nsFP), sprayed topically prior to CGMS insertion among youth with T1D.

Methods

This is a case series observational report, including real-life 6-month follow-up data from one pediatric diabetes center. All patients suffering from local skin irritation due to CGMS adhesives were offered prevention form skin irritation by spraying 2 puffs of nsFP on the skin area prior to adhesion of CGMS. Data were collected from their charts after 6 months. Outcome measures included the difference in degree of skin irritation, number of days of CGMS use, BMI SDS, mean glucose, and HbA1c, prior to use and during 6 months after use.

Results

Twelve patients used nsFP prior to CGMS insertion, mean age 8.6 ± 4.9 years and 66.7% males. Ten patients, median age 6.1 years (5.3–9.5) and 56% males, continued using nsFP for a mean of 0.56 ± 0.11 years, with no recurrence of local irritation nor dermatitis to same adhesive material. No differences were found before and after use of nsFP in CGMS mean glucose 180 mg/dl (153–202) versus 165 mg/dl (150–192). BMI SDS was slightly higher 0.44 (− 0.9–1.2) versus 0.25 (− 0.47–1.06), P = 0.05.

Conclusions

This small-scale, single-site description of a simple intervention by nsFP and favorable outcome provides valuable insight for a simple solution for skin irritation and dermatitis in the pediatric population with T1D.

Keywords

Nasal spray Children Erythema Skin hypersensitivity 

Abbreviations

CGMS

Continuous glucose-monitoring system

T1D

Type 1 diabetes

nsFP

Fluticasone propionate nasal spray

CSII

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion

HbA1c

Hemoglobin A1c, glycated hemoglobin

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Itzik Ortasi, the father of one of our patients, who first introduced us to the option of using nsFP, Dr Tomer Ziv for the statistical analysis and Camille Vainstein for English-language editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was conducted according to the Ethical tandards of care according to Helsinki and Human rights.

Informed consent

Informed consent procedure was performed according to institutional ethical review board of the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Craig ME, Jefferies C, Dabelea D, Balde N, Seth A, Donaghue KC (2014) Definition, epidemiology and classification of diabetes in children and adolescents. Pediatr Diabetes 15(suppl. 20):4–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tamborlane WV, Beck RW, Bode BW et al (2008) Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 359:1464–1476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rachmiel M, Landau Z, Boaz M et al (2015) The use of continuous glucose monitoring systems in a pediatric population with type 1 diabetes mellitus in real-life settings: the AWeSoMe Study Group experience. Acta Diabetol 52(2):323–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Danne T, Nimri R, Battelino T et al (2017) International consensus on use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care 40(12):1631–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirecNet) Study Group (2007) Continuous glucose monitoring in children with type 1 diabetes. J Pediatr. 151(4):388–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoeks LB, Greven WL, de Valk HW (2011) Real time continuous glucose monitroring system for treatment of diabetes: a systematic review. Diabet Med 28(4):386–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mauras N, Beck R, Xing D et al (2012) A randomized clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in the management of type 1 diabetes in young children aged 4 to < 10 years. Diabetes Care 35(2):204–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heinemann L, Kamann S (2016) Adhesives used for diabetes medical devices: a neglected risk with serious consequences? J Diabetes Sci Technol 10:1211–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schwensen JF, Friis UF, Zachariae C, Johansen JD (2016) Sensitization to cyanoacrylates caused by prolonged exposure to a glucose sensor set in a diabetic child. Contact Dermatitis 74:124–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Herman A, Aerts O, Baeck M et al (2017) Allergic contact dermatitis caused by isobornyl acrylate in Freestyle(R) Libre, a newly introduced glucose sensor. Contact Dermatitis 77:367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Christensen MO, Berg AK, Rytter K, Hommel E, Thyssen JP, Svensson J, Nogaard K (2019) Skin problems due to treatment with technology are associated with increased disease burden among adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 21(4):215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Asarani NAM, Reynolds AN, Boucher SE, de Bock M, Wheeler BJ (2019) Cutaneous complications with continuous or flash glucose monitoring use: systematic review of trials and observational studies. J Diabetes Sci Technol 27:1932296819870849Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Messer LH, Berget C, Beatson C, Polsky S, Forlenza GP (2018) Preserving skin integrity with chronic device use in diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 20(2):54–64Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marshall WA (1969) Growth and maturity. Dev Med Child Neurol 11(4):517–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marshall WA (1970) Sex differences at puberty. J Biosoc Sci Suppl 2:31–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Draize JH, Woodward G, Calvary HO (1944) Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 82:377–390Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McNichol L, Lund C, Rosen T, Gray M (2013) Medical adhesives and patient safety: State of the science: consensus statements for the assessment, prevention, and treatment of adhesive related skin injuries. J Wound Ostomy Cont Nurs 40:365–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Englert K, Ruedy K, Coffey J et al (2014) Adhesive issues with continuous glucose monitors: a sticky situation. J Diabetes Sci Technol 8(4):745–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Korting HC, Schöllmann C (2012) Topical fluticasone propionate: intervention and maintenance treatment options of atopic dermatitis based on a high therapeutic index. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 26(2):133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heickman WLK, Ghajar DL, Conaway M, Rogol AD (2018) Evaluation of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression following cutaneous use of topical corticosteroids in children: a meta-analysis. Horm Res Paediatr 89(6):389–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pediatric Endocrinology UnitAssaf Harofeh Medical CenterZerifinIsrael
  2. 2.Sackler School of MedicineTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations