Allergie de contact aux antiseptiques : 75 cas analysés par le réseau Revidal de dermato-allergovigilance

Barbaud, A.; Vigan, M.; Delrous, J L; Assier, Haudrey; Avenel-Audran, M.; Collet, E.; Dehlemmes, A.; Dutartre, H.; Géraut, C.; Girardin, P.; Coz, Christophe‐J. Le; Milpied-Homsi, B; Nassif, Aude; Pons-Guiraud, A.; Raison‐Peyron, Nadia

doi:10.1016/s0151-9638(05)79557-0

Cited by 33 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, there is almost general agreement to the proposition that PVP‐I is a very rare sensitizer (1, 2), though there are some conflicting reports on the matter. Recently, a French group has reported in a multicentre study the occurrence of many cases of allergic contact dermatitis from PVP‐I (10). The conclusions of the study, based on positive patch test reactions, deserved more careful interpretation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Allergic contact dermatitis from povidone‐iodine: a re‐evaluation study

Lachapelle¹

2005

Contact Dermatitis

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

500 consecutive patients were patch tested with a 10% povidone-iodine (PVP-I) solution, diluted 10 times in water. Readings were made at 2 and 4 days. 14 of the 500 (2.8%) showed a positive test to PVP-I. The 14 positive patients to PVP-I were subjected to a repeated open application test (ROAT) with a PVP-I solution, as is; 2 of the 14 were recorded as positive. It was concluded that only 2 of the 500 patients had true allergic contact dermatitis from PVP-I (0.4%). This study emphasizes the need for more complete investigation, when testing with some allergens, when they share both irritant and allergenic properties, such as PVP-I. The approach is important to rule out false-positive patch test reactions and to assess true clinical relevance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Allergic contact dermatitis from povidone‐iodine: a re‐evaluation study

Lachapelle¹

2005

Contact Dermatitis

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…9 Moreover, other antiseptics including povidone-iodine have also been incriminated in contact dermatitis after therapyrelated or work-related exposure. 22 Bacterial resistance is another potential concern when a choice among different antiseptic solutions is being made. Because reports of primary or acquired nosocomial resistance to chlorhexidine are rare, despite widespread use for decades, [23][24][25] the effect on antimicrobial resistance is likely to be small, unless multiple-dose bottles of antiseptic are used.…”

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chlorhexidine-Based Antiseptic Solution vs Alcohol-Based Povidone-Iodine for Central Venous Catheter Care

Mimoz¹,

Villeminey²,

Ragot³

et al. 2007

Arch Intern Med

165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Although chlorhexidine-based solutions and alcohol-based povidone-iodine have been shown to be more efficient than aqueous povidone-iodine for skin disinfection at catheter insertion sites, their abilities to reduce catheter-related infection have never been compared. Methods: Consecutively scheduled central venous catheters inserted into jugular or subclavian veins were randomly assigned to be disinfected with 5% povidoneiodine in 70% ethanol or with a combination of 0.25% chlorhexidine gluconate, 0.025% benzalkonium chloride, and 4% benzylic alcohol. Solutions were used for skin disinfection before catheter insertion (2 consecutive 30-second applications separated by a period sufficiently long to allow for dryness) and then as single applications during subsequent dressing changes (every 72 hours, or earlier if soiled or wet). Results: Of 538 catheters randomized, 481 (89.4%) produced evaluable culture results. Compared with povidoneiodine, the chlorhexidine-based solution was associated with a 50% decrease in the incidence of catheter colonization (11.6% vs 22.2% [P=.002]; incidence density, 9.7 vs 18.3 per 1000 catheter-days) and with a trend toward lower rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection (1.7% vs 4.2% [P=.09]; incidence density, 1.4 vs 3.4 per 1000 catheter-days). Independent risk factors for catheter colonization were catheter insertion into the jugular vein (adjusted relative risk, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-3.24) and use of povidone-iodine (adjusted relative risk, 1.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.96). Conclusion: Chlorhexidine-based solutions should be considered as a replacement for povidone-iodine (including alcohol-based) formulations in efforts to prevent catheter-related infection.

show abstract

“…48,99,103 Isolated early reports of infant deaths in the U.S. and Europe emphasized the need for caution but remain an anomaly, caused by misuse of antimicrobials in conditions not applicable to present day uses. 104−106 Acute and chronic health effects of TCS and TCC observed in humans and animals following exposure include irritation of eyes and skin, 30,107 sensitization to aeroallergens and food, 108 immunologic reactions such as allergies, 16,108−110 developmental and reproductive toxicity, 111−113 inhibition of muscle function, 114 as well as in vivo genotoxicity. 115 While limited, the number of studies involving human subjects is increasing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Need and Speed of Regulating Triclosan and Triclocarban in the United States

Halden

2014

Environ. Sci. Technol.

267

193

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The polychlorinated aromatic antimicrobials triclosan and triclocarban are in widespread use for killing microorganisms indiscriminately, rapidly, and by nonspecific action. While their utility in healthcare settings is undisputed, benefits to users of antimicrobial personal care products are few to none. Yet, these latter, high-volume uses have caused widespread contamination of the environment, wildlife, and human populations. This feature article presents a timeline of scientific evidence and regulatory actions in the U.S. concerning persistent polychlorinated biocides, showing a potential path forward to judicious and sustainable uses of synthetic antimicrobials, including the design of greener and safer next-generation alternatives.

show abstract

Allergie de contact aux antiseptiques : 75 cas analysés par le réseau Revidal de dermato-allergovigilance

Cited by 33 publications

References 8 publications

Allergic contact dermatitis from povidone‐iodine: a re‐evaluation study

Allergic contact dermatitis from povidone‐iodine: a re‐evaluation study

Chlorhexidine-Based Antiseptic Solution vs Alcohol-Based Povidone-Iodine for Central Venous Catheter Care

On the Need and Speed of Regulating Triclosan and Triclocarban in the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About