A case of allergic contact dermatitis caused by Olanedine solution-A diagnostic patch-testing method involving dried filter paper

Delayed-onset contact dermatitis caused by olanexidine gluconate antiseptic solution: effect of wiping off the remaining drug solution in two cases

BACKGROUND

Olanexidine glucuronide (Olanedine®), an antiseptic solution may cause skin dermatitis around one week after disinfection. Although removal after the procedure is recommended to avoid skin dermatitis, whether it is effective for preventing skin dermatitis has not been documented in detail in the literature.

CASE PRESENTATION

We encountered two cases of delayed-onset contact dermatitis by Olanedine®. In both cases, the patient's back was disinfected with Olanedine® and was covered with a surgical drape for epidural catheterization. After catheterization and removal of the surgical drape, the insertion site of the catheter was covered with a film dressing, then the epidural catheter was taped to the back. On the third postoperative day, the epidural catheter was removed. On the seventh postoperative day, the patients reported pruritus on the back, where an erythematous papule rash was observed. However, it was not observed at the site covered by the tape to secure the epidural catheter or by the tape of the surgical drape. Symptoms were relieved with oral or topical steroids by the time of discharge.

CONCLUSION

Wiping off the remaining Olanedine® even a few days after disinfection may be helpful not only for reducing symptoms but also for preventing the development of contact dermatitis.

Clinical application of skin antisepsis using aqueous olanexidine: a scoping review

Surgical site infections (SSIs) and catheter‐related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) caused by bacteria from surfaces poorly disinfected with chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) and povidone‐iodine (PVP‐I) are increasing. Olanexidine gluconate (OLG) was developed in 2015 in Japan to prevent SSI and CRBSI caused by bacteria resistant to CHG and PVP‐I. This scoping review aimed to identify the knowledge gap between what is known and what is not known about the disinfection efficacy of OLG. We searched MEDLINE through PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Web‐based database of Japanese medical articles for works published to July 18, 2021. Manual reference searches were also carried out. A total of 131 studies were screened. Forty‐seven studies were included in this review and classified into two major categories: studies on pharmacological effects and spectrum (n = 29) and studies on clinical and adverse effects (n = 18). Olanexidine gluconate showed bactericidal activity against methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin‐resistant enterococci, in addition to common Gram‐positive and Gram‐negative bacteria. In clinical settings, although there is limited evidence on SSI prevention, 1.5% OLG might be more effective than 10% PVP‐I and 1% CHG in preventing SSI. However, the clinical usefulness of OLG is unclear due to the limited number of clinical studies. Also, clinical research is limited to studies targeting SSI prevention, and there are no clinical studies on CRBSI. Further clinical studies are needed on SSI and CRBSI prevention.

Examination of the efficacy of olanexidine gluconate for surgical site infections in colorectal cancer elective surgery

INTRODUCTION

The preoperative skin antiseptic, olanexidine gluconate (OLG), which has been available in Japan since 2015, is also known to be effective against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. This study attempted to clarify OLG efficacy against surgical site infections and antiseptic-related adverse events as compared to conventionally used povidone iodine (PVP-I).

METHODS

Propensity score matching was performed on 307 patients who underwent surgery for colorectal tumors at our hospital. All 116 cases (58 PVP-I cases, 58 OLG cases) who were diagnosed with colorectal cancer were included. We examined surgical site infection rate after disinfection using PVP-I and OLG, length of hospitalization stay (days) after surgery, adverse events associated with antiseptics, and additional medical costs associated with adverse events caused by antiseptics.

RESULTS

The surgical site infection rate was 8.6% in both the PVP-I and OLG groups, with no significant difference observed. The number of postoperative hospitalization days in the PVP-I group was 12.9 (±6.9) days and 16.4 (±14.6) days in the OLG group, which exhibited no significant difference (p = 0.10). Although no complications due to antiseptics were observed in the PVP-I group, skin-related side effects were observed in 8 patients (13.8%) in the OLG group. The median additional medical cost was 730 [120-1823] yen.

CONCLUSIONS

OLG was as effective as the conventional PVP-I for surgical site infections during colorectal cancer elective surgery. However, significantly higher skin disorders occurred in OLG, thereby making it necessary to evaluate antiseptic use in conjunction with patient burden.

Allergic Contact Dermatitis From Topical Drugs: An Overview

ABSTRACT

Allergic contact dermatitis from topical drugs is frequent and is seen in 10% to 17% of patients patch tested for suspected contact dermatitis. More than 360 drugs have been implicated as contact allergens, of which-generally-antibiotics, corticosteroids, local anesthetics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the most frequent culprits. This article provides an overview of allergic contact dermatitis to topical drugs, discussing their prevalence of sensitization, predisposing factors, clinical manifestations (both typical and atypical), the drugs described as allergens, cross-reactivity and coreactivity, and diagnostic procedures.