Allergic contact dermatitis to chlorhexidine in a very young child

Allergic contact dermatitis to chlorhexidine in children

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitivity to chlorhexidine is rare in children. The usefulness of different diagnostic tests for allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to describe a case series of children with hypersensitivity to chlorhexidine and to compare the results of different diagnostic tests.

PATIENTS

Nine children with hypersensitivity to chlorhexidine were included. Only six of these children and their parents consented to a comprehensive allergy assessment, which included the prick test, intradermal test, patch test, and repeated open application test (ROAT).

RESULTS

Seven children (78%) presented symptoms of chlorhexidine hypersensitivity within the first 5 years of life; two of them before the age of 1 year. In four children, the dermatitis lesions were suggestive of wound superinfection. All six children who participated in the comprehensive diagnostic evaluation had negative results on the prick test. The immediate-reading intradermal test was positive in one case and uncertain in two cases. The patch test was positive in five cases, and the ROAT was positive in all six cases when using 2% chlorhexidine alcohol solution.

CONCLUSION

ACD to chlorhexidine in children appears to be rare and can be difficult to detect. Clinicians should consider this diagnosis when wounds worsen with chlorhexidine. Although the patch test is the most standardized method for detecting ACD, the ROAT with 2% chlorhexidine alcohol solution was the most sensitive test in our patients.

Patch Testing to Chlorhexidine Digluconate, 1% Aqueous: North American Contact Dermatitis Group Experience, 2015-2020

Background: Chlorhexidine is an antiseptic that may cause allergic contact dermatitis. Objectives: To describe the epidemiology of chlorhexidine allergy and characterize positive patch test reactions. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients patch tested to chlorhexidine digluconate 1% aqueous by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2015-2020. Results: Of 14,731 patients tested to chlorhexidine digluconate, 107 (0.7%) had an allergic reaction; of these, 56 (52.3%) reactions were currently clinically relevant. Most (59%) reactions were mild (+), followed by strong (++, 18.7%) and very strong (+++, 6.5%). Common primary dermatitis anatomic sites in chlorhexidine-positive patients were hands (26.4%), face (24.5%), and scattered/generalized distribution (17.9%). Compared with negative patients, chlorhexidine-positive patients were significantly more likely to have dermatitis involving the trunk (11.3% vs 5.1%; P = 0.0036). The most commonly identified source category was skin/health care products (n = 41, 38.3%). Only 11 (10.3%) chlorhexidine reactions were occupationally related; of these, 81.8% were in health care workers. Conclusions: Chlorhexidine digluconate allergy is uncommon, but often clinically relevant. Involvement of the hands, face, and scattered generalized patterns was frequent. Occupationally related reactions were found predominantly in health care workers.

102 cases of sensitization to an antiseptic containing chlorhexidine digluconate/benzalkonium chloride/benzyl alcohol with different profiles of sensitization in adults and children

BACKGROUND

An aqueous antiseptic containing "chlorhexidine digluconate /benzalkonium chloride /benzyl alcohol" (CBB) is widely used in France. The only previous documented study dealing with allergic contact dermatitis to this antiseptic is one small case series in children. The French Vigilance Network for Dermatology and Allergy (REVIDAL-GERDA) has collected many cases in the last few years.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical and sensitization profiles of patients diagnosed with allergic contact dermatitis to CBB.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of patients with contact dermatitis to CBB and positive tests to CBB and/or at least one of its components. All patients had to be tested with all components of CBB.

RESULTS

Seventy-one adults and thirty-one children were included. The lesions were extensive in 63 % of patients and 55% had delayed time to diagnosis. CBB patch tests were positive in 93.8% of cases. The allergen was identified in 97% of patients, mainly benzyl alcohol in adults (81.7%), and chlorhexidine digluconate in children (54.8%). 32.4% of the patients were sensitized to several components.

CONCLUSION

CBB is a cause of allergic contact dermatitis at all ages. The antiseptic's components should be tested. The sensitization profile seems to be different between adults and children. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Review of allergic reactions from use of chlorhexidine on medical products in clinical settings over 40 years: Risks and mitigations

Chlorhexidine is an antimicrobial agent widely used for infection prevention in medical settings. Nevertheless, allergic reactions ranging from mild to severe have been reported following its use. In this review, we analyzed all case reports published between the introduction of chlorhexidine and the end of 2019 for allergic responses associated with the use of medical devices and or other medical products containing chlorhexidine (CHX) to ascertain the prevalence of severe CHX allergic reactions and what practices might best mitigate those risks.In total, 77 publications containing 124 reported cases of allergic reactions were grouped into 3 product categories, catheters, semisolids, and fluid products. The country, type of reaction, route of sensitization, allergy confirmation, and intervention or mitigation was extracted for each case. Overall, 30 cases were associated with catheters, 46 cases were associated with semisolid products, and 48 cases were associated with the use of other medical products. Severe cases were managed with intravenous fluids, steroids, and epinephrine (adrenaline). None of the reported cases were fatal. The allergy risks can be mitigated by better warning and training clinicians and by recording and screening patient histories for CHX presensitization from prior exposure. For patients undergoing pre-use blood tests, IgE antibody screens can also be performed. Finally, as a precaution in the event a rare severe allergic reaction occurs, procedure carts and rooms can be prestocked with injectable epinephrine and other rapidly acting anti-inflammatory medications.

Allergens in Medical Hand Skin Cleansers

Health care workers may be at risk of occupational allergic contact dermatitis because of their frequent exposure to medical hand skin cleansers. We identified American Contact Dermatitis Society Core 80 Allergens found in medical hand skin cleansers (waterless skin soaps, water-needed skin soaps, and skin disinfectants) in the United States and developed a list of "low-allergen" medical hand skin cleansers. Waterless skin soaps most commonly contained fragrance, tocopherol, and sodium benzoate. Top allergens in water-needed skin soaps included fragrance, chloroxylenol, propylene glycol, and cocamidopropyl betaine. The most common allergens identified in skin disinfectants were chlorhexidine, cocamide diethanolamine, and fragrance. We identified 11 waterless skin soaps that were free of American Contact Dermatitis Society Core 80 Allergens. Low-allergen products were also identified for water-needed skin soaps (2 products) and skin disinfectants (4 products). This information is accurate as of the date of publication; product availability and ingredients may change over time.

Allergic contact dermatitis to chlorhexidine in pediatric patients

Chlorhexidine is one of the most widely used antiseptics in our environment. Allergic contact dermatitis to chlorhexidine is common in adults, but is quite rare in the pediatric population. Its diagnosis is important because it can mimic other dermatoses common during childhood, and it can also lead to acute immediate hypersensitivity reactions following successive exposures.

Chlorhexidine and hypersensitivity reactions in dentistry

Immunological reactions to chlorhexidine, including allergy (Type I hypersensitivity) and allergic contact dermatitis/stomatitis (Type IV hypersensitivity), have been recognised for many years. This potential safety issue, however, is not well known within dentistry. The purpose of this paper is to alert dentists and dental care professionals to the potential of chlorhexidine in causing hypersensitivity reactions and to consider this possibility if unexplained hypersensitivity reactions occur.