Contact sensitization to modern dressings: a multicentre study on 354 patients with chronic leg ulcers

Summary Background Modern dressings (MDs) may have a low sensitization rate, but there is a lack of prospective studies in patients with chronic leg ulcers (CLUs) to evaluate this. Objectives To determine the rate of sensitization (contact allergy) to MDs and substances present in dressings. Patient...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Contact dermatitis 2015-02, Vol.72 (2), p.90-96
Main Authors: Valois, Aude, Waton, Julie, Avenel-Audran, Martine, Truchetet, François, Collet, Evelyne, Raison-Peyron, Nadia, Cuny, Jean Francois, Bethune, Benjamin, Schmutz, Jean Luc, Barbaud, Annick
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aged
Bandages - adverse effects
Chronic Disease
chronic leg ulcer
contact allergy
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - etiology
Female
Humans
Leg Ulcer - therapy
Male
medical devices
modern dressings
Patch Tests
Prospective Studies
Quality of life
Ulcers
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Summary Background Modern dressings (MDs) may have a low sensitization rate, but there is a lack of prospective studies in patients with chronic leg ulcers (CLUs) to evaluate this. Objectives To determine the rate of sensitization (contact allergy) to MDs and substances present in dressings. Patients and methods A prospective multicentre study was carried out in patients with CLUs at five French dermatology departments; patch tests were performed with the European baseline series and with an additional 27 individual allergens and 10 MDs. Results Among 354 patients (226 women and 128 men) with CLUs, 59.6% had at least one positive patch test reaction to an MD and 19% had at least one sensitization to an MD. The number of positive test reactions per patient was correlated with the duration of ulcerative disease, but not with ulcer duration, the cause of the ulcer, or the presence of surrounding eczematous lesions. For 11 of 45 patients sensitized to Ialuset cream®, more detailed information could be obtained with sensitization to sodium dehydroacetate (5 cases) or Lanette SX® (3 cases). Conclusions Sensitization to MDs is not rare. It is absolutely necessary to label all components of MDs on their packaging and to avoid some sensitizing molecules, such as colophonium derivatives or any strong sensitizers.
ISSN:0105-1873
1600-0536
DOI:10.1111/cod.12307