Letters
Safe in patients with no history of blood dyscrasia
EDITOR,--Chloramphenicol, in drop or ointment form, is one of the most reliable ophthalmic preparations in existence. It has a broad spectrum of activity, is well absorbed by the ocular tissues, rarely provokes resistance in micro-organisms or damages the surface of the eye, and is both cheap and widely available. The evidence that, when delivered to the eye, it can cause aplastic anaemia remains unsubstantiated. We are therefore surprised that Marie Doona and J Bernard Walsh conclude, in the absence of new information, that the use of ophthalmic formulations of chloramphenicol should be restricted.1 We base our reservations on the following points.
Firstly, the 1982 paper by Fraunfelder et al, which resulted in a drastic reduction in the use of ophthalmic formulations of chloramphenicol in the United States, cited a patient who died of aplastic anaemia after using such preparations for five weeks.2 Yet the patient was receiving eight other drugs
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
StumbleUpon 
Technorati What's this?
Relevant Article
- Use of chloramphenicol as topical eye medication: time to cry halt?
- Marie Doona and J Bernard Walsh
BMJ 1995 310: 1217-1218.[Extract] [Full Text]
This Article
- Full text
- Respond to this article
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me when responses are posted
- Alert me when a correction is posted
Services
- Email this article to a friend
- Find similar articles in BMJ
- Add article to my folders
- Download to citation manager
- Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Related Content
-
Ophthalmology
- Infectious diseases
- Relevant Article
- Find this article in its weekly table of contents
Bookmark with
What's new
Latest blogs
Find BMJ on:
Services
Tools
Online poll
Resources
Rapid responses for this article
There are no rapid responses for this article. Print issues
