Dataset Information

Chlorhexidine - a commonly used but often neglected culprit of dialysis associated anaphylactic reactions (case report).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Hemodialysis-associated anaphylactic reactions are rare and frequently complex in nature due to the sheer number of possible culprit agents. Unfortunately, dialysis is often unavoidable or strictly essential for life-saving solute clearance or fluid removal in patients with end stage kidney failure and those with severe acute kidney injury. It is of utmost importance that the culprit agent is identified and avoided to allow continuation of dialysis treatment as needed.

Case presentation

We present 2 cases of hemodialysis-associated anaphylactic reactions. These patients developed anaphylactic reactions peri-dialysis and were initially suspected to have dialyser reactions. They were investigated in a controlled healthcare setting and possible culprit agents were systemically identified and eliminated. They both underwent allergy testing and were diagnosed with chlorhexidine allergy. Of note, Case 1 was an incident dialysis patient at the time of presentation and Case 2 was a prevalent dialysis patient. This suggests that the time from initial sensitization to reaction may not always be helpful in determining if a particular agent is the culprit of an anaphylactic reaction. In both cases, the patients were dialysed through a tunnelled dialysis catheter. We postulate that the presence of an exit site, which represents a compromise to the integrity of the skin's epidermal barrier, may have a significant role in the development of these reactions. As chlorhexidine is a widely used disinfectant in hemodialysis, it is imperative that we consider it as a possible culprit agent when these reactions arise. To our knowledge, there are no other reported cases of anaphylaxis secondary to chlorhexidine use in dialysis patients other than a previous report in 2017. Our report also highlights the possibility of these reactions occurring more frequently in patients with damaged epidermal barriers and in patients exposed to higher environmental concentrations of chlorhexidine. These are novel concepts that can be explored with further research.

Conclusion

Chlorhexidine associated anaphylactic reactions can occur in the peri-dialysis setting and a high index of suspicion is paramount to diagnosis.

SUBMITTER: Tan JN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8734226 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:We report a case of overlooked Subacute Thyroiditis (SAT) potentially induced by the administration of a COVID-19 vaccine. This case prompted a thorough review of the existing literature to elucidate possible mechanisms by which immune responses to the COVID-19 vaccine might precipitate thyroid damage. The primary objective is to enhance the clinical understanding and awareness of SAT among healthcare professionals. Subacute thyroiditis is a prevalent form of self-limiting thyroid disorder characterized by fever, neck pain or tenderness, and palpitations subsequent to viral infection. The development of numerous SARS-CoV-2 vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic was intended to mitigate the spread of the virus. Nevertheless, there have been documented instances of adverse reactions arising from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, such as the infrequent occurrence of subacute thyroiditis. While the majority of medical practitioners can discern classic subacute thyroiditis, not all cases exhibit typical characteristics, and not all systematic treatments yield positive responses. In this study, we present a rare case of subacute thyroiditis linked to the administration of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. A previously healthy middle-aged female developed fever and sore throat 72 h post-inoculation with the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Initially attributing these symptoms to a common cold, she self-administered ibuprofen, which normalized her body temperature but failed to alleviate persistent sore throat. Suspecting a laryngopharyngeal disorder, she sought treatment from an otolaryngologist. However, the pain persisted, accompanied by intermittent fever over several days. After an endocrinology consultation, despite the absence of typical neck pain, her examination revealed abnormal thyroid function, normal thyroid antibodies, heterogeneous echogenicity on thyroid ultrasonography, and elevated levels of Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) and C-Reactive Protein (CRP). These findings led to a consideration of the diagnosis of SAT. Initially, she was treated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for her fever, which proved effective, but her neck pain remained uncontrolled. This suggested a poor response to NSAIDs. Consequently, steroid therapy was initiated, after which her symptoms of fever and neck pain rapidly resolved.

Project description:BackgroundThis active, open observational study aimed to investigate adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with six commonly used antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in southern Chinese outpatients with epilepsy from 2003 to 2015.MethodsThe Wenzhou Epilepsy Follow-Up Registry Database (WEFURD) was established by a single epilepsy center in China in January 2003 to record AED efficacy and the associated ADRs by registered outpatients diagnosed with epilepsy. We reviewed the data of outpatients who had only taken one or more of six commonly used AEDs, namely, carbamazepine (CBZ), valproate (VPA), lamotrigine (LTG), oxcarbazepine (OXC), topiramate (TPM) and levetiracetam (LEV), and were registered in the WEFURD between 2003 and 2015. We evaluated the ADRs caused by the single or combined use of the above six specific AEDs based on the WHO-UMC scale. The data of the ADRs were categorized by age, sex, number of AEDs related to ADRs, medications, seriousness of ADRs, causality levels of the WHO-UMC scale and system organ class (SOC). The unit of analysis was one ADR.ResultsA total of 3069 epilepsy outpatients (1807 outpatients with 5049 eligible ADRs and 1262 outpatients without ADRs) were included. The overall ADR rate was 58.88% (1807/3069). An average of 2.79 ADRs (5049/1807) occurred per patient with an ADR; 53.8% of the 5049 ADRs were recorded in females, and 50.4% were caused by monotherapy. Of the ADRs, 10.6% (537/5049) were severe adverse reactions (SARs), including 34 serious adverse effects (SAEs). The SAR rates caused by one, two and three or more AEDs were 9.9, 10.0 and 19.6%, respectively (p < 0.001). Eighteen SOC categories were identified, and the top three were psychiatric disorders (1633/5049, 32.3%), neurological disorders (1222/5049, 24.2%) and gastrointestinal disorders (564/5049, 11.2%). Of the 537 SARs, skin and appendage disorders accounted for 24.4% (131/537). Among the 34 SAEs, serious allergies, fetal malformations, renal calculus and pancreatitis accounted for the majority.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that clinicians should pay attention to psychiatric ADRs and be alert for SARs, especially when three or more AEDs are used together. Moreover, active surveillance might provide another method of pharmacovigilance in China.