Nitrofurazona Bağlı Alerjik Kontakt Dermatit: 22 Olgudan Oluşan Bir Çalışma

Yıl 2021, , 18 - 22, 28.02.2021

Sinan Özçelik

https://doi.org/10.33716/bmedj.853118

Cited By: 2

Öz

Amaç: Topikal nitrofurazon kullanımına alerjik bağlı kontakt dermatit olgularının klinik ve demografik özelliklerininin araştırılması amaçlandı.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Hastanemiz dermatoloji servisinde yatarak tedavi edilmiş ve diğer bölümlerden dermatolojiye konsülte edilmiş hastalardan topikal nitrofurazon kullanımına bağlı alerjik kontakt dermatiti olanlar retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Dermatoloji servisine yatan 6, diğer bölümlerden dermatolojiye konsülte edilen 16 olmak üzere toplam 22 hasta çalışmaya dâhil edildi.
Bulgular: Çalışmadaki 22 olgunun 9’u kadın (%40,9), 13’ü erkekti (%59,1). Yaş ortalaması 54,86±18 idi. Kontakt dermatit lezyonlarının lokalizasyonları; 6 olguda jeneralize tutulum, 4 olguda gövde, 4 olguda alt ekstremite, 3 olguda baş-boyun, 3 olguda üst ekstremite, 2 olguda anogenital bölge şeklindeydi. Üç olguda nitrofurazona bağlı pozitif yama testi vardı. Toplam 15 olguda eozinofili (%68,1) saptandı. Dermatoloji servisindeki olguların ortalama yatış süresi 8,33±3,50 gündü. En çok saptanan konsültasyonlar; genel cerrahi (%31,3), ortopedi (%31,3) ve plastik cerrahi (%18,7) bölümlerindendi.
Sonuç: Nitrofurazon, topikal ilaçlara bağlı gelişen alerjik kontakt dermatitin önemli bir sebebidir. Ülkemizde hala önemli sayıda insan topikal nitrofurazona bağlı alerjik kontakt dermatit geliştirmektedir. Bu bakımdan, topikal nitrofurazon reçete ederken alerjik kontakt dermatit yapma potansiyeli göz önünde bulundurulmalı, güncel kullanımı sorgulanmalı, farmakovijilans uygulamalarına önem verilmeli ve topikal nitrofurazona bağlı alerjik kontakt dermatitle ilgili geniş ölçekli çalışmalar yapılmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

nitrofurazon, polietilen glikol, Alerjik kontakt dermatit

Allergic Contact Dermatitis due to Nitrofurazone: A Study of 22 Cases

Öz

Aim: It was aimed to investigate the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with allergic contact dermatitis caused by topical nitrofurazone.
Materials and Methods: In patients that were treated for allergic contact dermatitis caused by topical nitrofurazone in dermatology clinic and in other clinics, which were consulted to dermatology, were retrospectively examined. Twenty-two (6 in dermatology clinic, 16 were consults) patients were included in the study.
Results: Nine of all patients were female (40.9%) and thirteen were male (59.1%). The mean age of the patients was 54,86±18. Out of all patients, 6 patients had generalized involvement, 4 had lesions on trunk, 4 had lesions on lower extremity, 3 had lesions on head and neck, 3 had lesions on upper extremity, 2 had lesions on anogenital region. Only 3 patients showed positive patch test reactions to nitrofurazone. Out of the patients, only 15 patients had eosinophilia (68.1%). The mean duration of hospital stay in the dermatology clinic was 8.33 ± 3.50 days. The most common referrals were from the general surgery (31.3%), followed by orthopedics (31.3%) and plastic surgery (18.7%).
Conclusion: Nitrofurazone is an important cause of allergic contact dermatitis due to topical drugs. In our country, a significant number of people still develop allergic contact dermatitis caused by topical nitrofurazone. In this respect, it should be considered the risk for allergic contact dermatitis when prescribing topical nitrofurazone, should be questioned the usage of nitrofurazone, should be given attention to good pharmacovigilance practices, and should be conducted large-scale studies on topical nitrofurazone-induced allergic contact dermatitis.

Anahtar Kelimeler

nitrofurazone, polyethylene glycol, Allergic contact dermatitis

Kaynakça

• 1. Kligman AM. The identification of contact allergens by human assay. 3. The maximization test: a procedure for screening and rating contact sensitizers. The Journal of investigative dermatology 1966; 47(5): 393-409.
• 2. Bajaj AK, Saraswat A, Mukhija G, Rastogi S, Yadav S. Patch testing experience with 1000 patients. Indian journal of dermatology, venereology and leprology 2007; 73(5): 313-318.
• 3. Downing JG, Brecker FW. Further studies in the use of furacin in dermatology. The New England journal of medicine 1948; 239(23): 862-864.
• 4. Bordere A, Stockman A, Boone B, Franki AS, Coppens MJ, Lapeere H, et al. A case of anaphylaxis caused by macrogol 3350 after injection of a corticosteroid. Contact dermatitis 2012; 67(6): 376-378.
• 5. Stenveld HJ, Langendijk PN, Bruynzeel DP. Contact sensitivity to polyethylene glycols. Contact dermatitis 1994; 30(3): 184-185.
• 6. Braun W. [Contact allergies to polyethylene glycols]. Zeitschrift fur Haut- und Geschlechtskrankheiten 1969; 44(11): 385-389.
• 7. Bajaj AK, Gupta SC, Chatterjee AK, Singh KG. Contact sensitivity to polyethylene glycols. Contact dermatitis 1990; 22(5): 291-292.
• 8. Ozkaya E, Kilic S. Polyethylene glycol as marker for nitrofurazone allergy: 20 years of experience from Turkey. Contact dermatitis 2018; 78(3): 211-215.
• 9. Guijarro SC, Sanchez-Perez J, Garcia-Diez A. Allergic contact dermatitis to polyethylene glycol and nitrofurazone. American journal of contact dermatitis : official journal of the American Contact Dermatitis Society 1999; 10(4): 226-227.
• 10. Prieto A, Baeza ML, Herrero T, Barranco R, De Castro FJ, Ruiz J, et al. Contact dermatitis to Furacin. Contact dermatitis 2006; 54(2): 126.
• 11. Saap L, Fahim S, Arsenault E, Pratt M, Pierscianowski T, Falanga V, et al. Contact sensitivity in patients with leg ulcerations: a North American study. Archives of dermatology 2004; 140(10): 1241-1246.
• 12. Erfurt-Berge C, Geier J, Mahler V. The current spectrum of contact sensitization in patients with chronic leg ulcers or stasis dermatitis - new data from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK). Contact dermatitis 2017; 77(3): 151-158.
• 13. Ozkaya E, Polat Ekinci A. Foot contact dermatitis: nitrofurazone as the main cause in a retrospective, cross-sectional study over a 16-year period from Turkey. International journal of dermatology 2016; 55(12): 1345-1350.