{"title":"To study the incidence of contact hypersensitivity to commonly used topical antibacterials","authors":"M. Sk, Suraj Parkash Dewan, A. Singal, M. Kaur","doi":"10.5580/2743","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Use of topical antibacterial therapy forms anchor sheet of treatment in dermatology but chances of developing problems with the use of this therapy cannot be ignored. 300 individuals attending Dermatology OPD were patch tested for 13 topical antibacterials brands by using 3900 indigenously designed Finn chamber discs. Sensitivities were recorded after 48 & 96 hours. 83/3900(2.13%) patches in 53/300(17.67%) individuals tested positive. Incidence of reactivity was seen in the descending order as: Neosporin (16.67%)a Soframycin (3.33%)aFuracin (3.33%)aEnsamycin (3.33%)aSilversulfadiazine (2%)aEryacne (2%)aMetronidazole (2%)aDettol (1.33%)aBetadine(1.0%)aClindacA gel(0.67%)aMupirax ointment(0.33%)aFucidin ointment(0%). Majority of cases i.e. 32/53(60.38%) tested positive to only one antibacterial,15/53(28.30%) cases showed sensitivity to two antibacterials, 4/53(7.55%) cases showed sensitivity to three antibacterials and 1/53(1.89%) case each showed sensitivity to four & five topical antibacterials respectively. Cross sensitivity was also observed among Neosporin, Soframycin & Ensamycin. Indigenously designed Finn chamber used in this study proved to be handy , time saving, economical & ideal. Neosporin(Neomycin) was the commonest sensitiser while Fucidin (Fusidic acid) & Mupirax (Mupirocin)were least sensitizing. The last two antibacterials can be safely recommended for topical usage.","PeriodicalId":161194,"journal":{"name":"The Internet Journal of Dermatology","volume":"53 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Internet Journal of Dermatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5580/2743","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Use of topical antibacterial therapy forms anchor sheet of treatment in dermatology but chances of developing problems with the use of this therapy cannot be ignored. 300 individuals attending Dermatology OPD were patch tested for 13 topical antibacterials brands by using 3900 indigenously designed Finn chamber discs. Sensitivities were recorded after 48 & 96 hours. 83/3900(2.13%) patches in 53/300(17.67%) individuals tested positive. Incidence of reactivity was seen in the descending order as: Neosporin (16.67%)a Soframycin (3.33%)aFuracin (3.33%)aEnsamycin (3.33%)aSilversulfadiazine (2%)aEryacne (2%)aMetronidazole (2%)aDettol (1.33%)aBetadine(1.0%)aClindacA gel(0.67%)aMupirax ointment(0.33%)aFucidin ointment(0%). Majority of cases i.e. 32/53(60.38%) tested positive to only one antibacterial,15/53(28.30%) cases showed sensitivity to two antibacterials, 4/53(7.55%) cases showed sensitivity to three antibacterials and 1/53(1.89%) case each showed sensitivity to four & five topical antibacterials respectively. Cross sensitivity was also observed among Neosporin, Soframycin & Ensamycin. Indigenously designed Finn chamber used in this study proved to be handy , time saving, economical & ideal. Neosporin(Neomycin) was the commonest sensitiser while Fucidin (Fusidic acid) & Mupirax (Mupirocin)were least sensitizing. The last two antibacterials can be safely recommended for topical usage.