ArticleThe journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global2026
A 20-year FAERS analysis of hypersensitivity reports to chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine (2004-2024).
Article in The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perioperative hypersensitivity reactions: a retrospective study (2018-2023) in a Lebanese tertiary clinic.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Topical antiseptics, chlorhexidine (CHX) and povidone-iodine, are widely used to prevent surgical-site infections and are potential culprits for perioperative hypersensitivity. Objectives: We sought to evaluate 20-year trends in reports related to CHX and povidone-iodine using data from the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Methods: We analyzed FAERS reports from 2004 to 2024 for CHX and povidone-iodine derivatives with 100 or more reported adverse events. Data collected included reaction types (anaphylaxis, urticaria, and dermatitis) and patient demographics. Poisson regression was used to assess longitudinal reporting trends. Incidence rate ratios quantified the average annual increase in reports. The instantaneous rate of change provided insight into the pace of reporting trends. Results: Of 26.9 million FAERS reports, 12,682 involved CHX and 3,033 involved povidone-iodine. For CHX, 5989 (47%) dermatitis, 2845 (22%) urticaria, and 450 (3.5%) anaphylaxis cases were reported. Povidone-iodine displayed a similar distribution. Women accounted for a disproportionate number of reports compared with men for all reaction types. CHX-related hypersensitivity reports increased sharply, with urticaria accelerating most rapidly. In contrast, povidone-iodine reports increased more steadily, with an incidence rate ratio of 10% to 13% across all reactions. Conclusions: Hypersensitivity reports to CHX, particularly dermatitis and urticaria, are rising rapidly. Although povidone-iodine hypersensitivity reports remain lower, their steady rise warrants continued surveillance and clinical awareness. Improving patient safety surrounding these events requires greater clinical awareness, routine assessment for previous sensitivities, thorough evaluation following suspected reactions, and development of accurate diagnostic tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.