[Does hypersensitivity to multiple drugs really exist?]

Delayed Skin Testing for Systemic Medications: Helpful or Not?

Cutaneous adverse drug reactions collectively are delayed drug reactions such as morbilliform drug eruption and severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs). Morbilliform drug eruption may wane over time, be the result of drug viral interactions, and be amenable to slow reintroduction or rechallenge, whereas SCARs are HLA class I restricted, T-cell-mediated reactions that demonstrate durable immunity and warrant lifelong avoidance. SCARs such as drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, and generalized bullous fixed drug eruption often occur in the setting of multiple drugs dosed together. Collectively, they lead to significant morbidity, mortality, and drug safety concerns that could severely limit future treatment options. Currently, no single or combination of diagnostic tests for SCARs such as ex vivo or in vitro testing, in vivo (skin) testing, or other adjunctive tests such as HLA typing have 100% negative predictive value. In this "Controversies in Allergy Review" article, we review the current literature on delayed skin testing (patch and delayed prick/intradermal test) and critically assess the evidence base of its utility across different drugs and clinical phenotypes of delayed hypersensitivity reactions.

Cross-reactivity among and between macrolides, lincosamides, and streptogramins: Study on the French pharmacovigilance database

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) are reported for the macrolides, lincosamides, and streptogramins (MLS) antibiotic family. Data about cross-reactivity among and between MLS remain scarce or controversial.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to provide an overview of hypersensitivity cross-reactions among MLSs based on data extracted from the French National Pharmacovigilance Database (FPVD).

METHODS

Cases of HSR to MLSs reported between January 1985 and December 2019 were extracted from the FPVD using standardized MedDRA queries (SMQ). Cases including an allergological test involving multiple MLSs and giving at least one positive result were included.

RESULTS

Of the 8394 cases reviewed, 149 were included. HSR mainly involved pristinamycin (n = 83; 53.2%) and spiramycin (n = 31; 19.9%). HSR to MLS was immediate in 54 cases and delayed in 94 cases. Skin tests represented the majority of the allergological tests performed (n = 728; 84.7%), followed by reintroduction tests (n = 79; 9.2%). Eighty-six cross-reactivities among MLS were identified in 62 cases (41.6%). All the 25 explorations performed for streptogramins showed cross-reactivities, but only 30/253 among macrolides (11.9%). Cross-reactivities between the three MLS were observed in 31/322 (9.6%) of the allergological explorations.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the possibility of cross-reactivity among and between MLSs. Dermatologists and allergologists managing patients with HSR to MLSs should be aware of a risk of cross-reactivity among the macrolides and between the different classes of MLS and to perform MLSs allergological testing before recommending an alternative antibiotic, especially in severe drug hypersensitivity from the MLS family.

Characterization, epidemiology and risk factors of multiple drug allergy syndrome and multiple drug intolerance syndrome: A systematic review

Background

Multiple drug allergy and multiple drug intolerance syndrome (MDAS/MDIS) labels are an impediment to clinical care and knowledge regarding these conditions is limited. This systematic review investigated the characterization, epidemiology, risk factors, clinical impact and pharmaco-economics of MDAS and MDIS.

Methods

Systematic literature search across 11 databases (01 January 2000-06 November 2020) for MDIS, MDAS and related terminology. Studies were reviewed for quality of evidence and risk of bias by employing Critical Appraisal Skills Programme cohort study checklist. A narrative synthesis approach facilitated by systematic textual descriptions, tabulation and thematic analysis was adopted.

Results

There was heterogeneity in terminology and methodology. Few studies applied standard drug allergy diagnostic methods. There is some evidence to suggest that multiple drug hypersensitivity syndrome (MDHS; i.e., confirmed allergies in MDAS) is a distinct clinical entity. Prevalence of MDIS and MDAS labels in unselected & selected populations varied between 2.1%-6.4% & 4.9%-90% and 1.2% & 0%-36% respectively. Reported risk factors included female gender, increasing age, body mass index, anxiety, depression, co-morbidities, concurrent allergies and increased healthcare utilization. Drugs commonly implicated were antibiotics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. No studies relating to clinical impact and pharmaco-economics were found.

Conclusion

There is considerable burden of MDAS and MDIS labels. Data needs cautious interpretation as majority of studies described involved unverified labels. Despite this limitation and heterogeneity of studies, there is some evidence to suggest that MDHS is a distinct clinical entity. Well-designed multi-centre studies applying standardized terminology and diagnostic methodology are needed to gain further insight into these conditions.

Patch testing in Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS): a literature review

The literature on positive patch test results in drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is reviewed. 105 drugs were identified that have together caused 536 positive patch tests in 437 patients suffering from DRESS. By far most reactions (n=145) were caused by carbamazepine, followed by amoxicillin, isoniazid, phenytoin, ethambutol, fluindione, phenobarbital, rifampicin, and ceftriaxone; 43 drugs each caused a single case only. The drug classes causing the highest number of reactions are anticonvulsants (39%), beta-lactam antibiotics (20%), antituberculosis agents (11%), non-beta-lactam antibiotics (6%) and iodinated contrast media (5%). The sensitivity of patch testing (percentage of positive reactions) is high for anticonvulsants (notably carbamazepine), beta-lactam antibiotics (notably amoxicillin) and possibly iodinated contrast media. Allopurinol and sulfasalazine frequently cause DRESS, but never give positive patch tests. Patch testing in DRESS appears to be safe, although mild recurrence of DRESS symptoms, mostly skin reactions, may not be rare. Multiple drug hypersensitivity was found to occur in 16% of all patients, but it is argued that the true frequency is (far) higher. Clinical aspects of DRESS, including diagnosing the disease and identifying culprit drugs (patch tests, intradermal tests, in vitro tests, challenge tests) are also provided, emphasizing the role of patch testing. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Tackling the Patient with Multiple Drug "Allergies": Multiple Drug Intolerance Syndrome

As populations age, the prevalence of reported drug "allergy" increases, often leading to suboptimal care and increased morbidity because of unnecessary avoidance of safe and effective medications. Evaluation by a drug allergy specialist is often warranted when a patient has more than 2 unrelated drug "allergies" listed in the medical record. In this commentary, we clarify and propose standard terminology to use when evaluating patients with multiple drug allergy labels including and more specifically when diagnosing multiple drug intolerance syndrome and the much rarer multiple drug hypersensitivity syndrome. We review epidemiology and key features of multiple drug intolerance syndrome and multiple drug hypersensitivity syndrome. We summarize the methodologic and practical diagnostic workup and management of individuals with MDIS to assist with the accurate delabeling of drug "allergies" in the electronic health record.

DRESS and AGEP Reactions to Iodinated Contrast Media: A French Case Series

BACKGROUND

Drug reactions with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESSs) and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) are potentially severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the clinical findings and sensitization profiles of DRESS and AGEP patients who had been administered iodinated contrast media (ICM).

METHODS

All adult patients in the dermatologist's French Investigators for Skin Adverse Reactions to Drugs (FISARD) network diagnosed with a DRESS or AGEP highly suspected to have been caused by an ICM were included retrospectively.

RESULTS

Thirteen DRESS patients and 19 AGEP patients who had been administered ICM were included, and the median delay in DRESS and AGEP occurrence after ICM administration was short, 4 and 1 days, respectively. Five AGEP patients had systemic involvement. A high cosensitization rate (46%) was observed among the DRESS patients, mainly with beta-lactam antibiotics. Overall, 77% of our patients were sensitized to several ICM. Patch tests identified the suspected ICM for 21 cases (72%). The retrospective nature, the limited number of subjects, the absence of a control group of healthy individuals, and the lack of detailed information on previous exposure to sensitizing drugs are limitations of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

We report a large series of DRESSs and AGEPs related to ICM administration. Skin tests appear useful for diagnosis and potentially to identify alternative ICM.

Hypersensitivity reactions to multiple anti-tuberculosis drugs

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate hypersensitivity reactions to anti-tuberculosis (TB) drugs.

Methods

We retrospectively compared the clinical manifestations and treatment outcomes of single and multiple drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs).

Results

Twenty-eight patients were diagnosed with anti-TB DHRs using oral drug provocation tests. Of these 28 patients, 17 patients (60.7%) had DHRs to a single drug and 11 (39.3%) had multiple DHRs. The median age of patients was 57.5 years (interquartile range [IQR], 39.2–73.2). Of the total patients, 18 patients (64.3%) were men. The median number of anti-TB drugs causing multiple DHRs was 2.0 (IQR 2.0–3.0). Rifampin was the most common drug that caused DHRs in both the single and multiple DHR groups (n = 8 [47.1%] and n = 9 [52.9%], respectively). The treatment success rate was lower in the multiple DHR group than in the single DHR group; however, the difference was not statistically significant (81.8% vs. 94.1%; P = 0.543).

Conclusions

Multiple anti-TB DHRs were common in all patients who experienced DHRs, and rifampin was the most common causative drug. The treatment outcomes appeared to be poorer in patients with multiple DHRs than in those with single DHRs.

Role of in vivo and in vitro Tests in the Diagnosis of Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions (SCAR) to Drug

Severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCAR) are life-threatening conditions including acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). Diagnosis of causative underlying drug hypersensitivity (DH) is mandatory due to the high morbidity and mortality upon re-exposure with the incriminated drug. If an underlying DH is suspected, in vivo test, including patch tests (PTs), delayed-reading intradermal tests (IDTs) and in vitro tests can be performed in selected patients for which the suspected culprit drug is mandatory, or in order to find a safe alternative treatment. Positivity of in vivo and in vitro tests in SCAR to drug varies depending on the type of reaction and the incriminated drugs. Due to the severe nature of these reactions, drug provocation test (DPT) is highly contraindicated in patients who experienced SCAR. Thus, sensitivity is based on positive test results in patients with a suggestive clinical history. Patch tests still remain the first-line diagnostic tests in the majority of patients with SCAR, followed, in case of negative results, by delayed-reading IDTs, with the exception of patients with bullous diseases where IDTs are still contra-indicated. In vitro tests have shown promising results in the diagnosis of SCAR to drug. Positivity is particularly high when the lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) is combined with cytokines and cytotoxic markers measurement (cyto-LTT), but this still has to be confirmed with larger studies. Due to the rarity of SCAR, large multi-center collaborative studies are needed to better study the sensitivity and specificity of in vivo and in vitro tests.

The role of drug, dose, and the tolerance/intolerance of new drugs in multiple drug hypersensitivity syndrome

BACKGROUND

Multiple drug hypersensitivity syndrome (MDH) is used to describe persons with a drug hypersensitivity reaction (DHR) to at least two chemically unrelated drugs, confirmed by skin test or in vitro assay.

METHODS

Medical records of 25 patients with MDH, tested and confirmed at our allergy division, were retrospectively evaluated in terms of clinical course, involved drugs, daily drug dose, latency periods, test results of skin test and cellular assays, and tolerated drugs in subsequent pharmacological treatments.

RESULTS

Multiple drug hypersensitivity syndrome almost exclusively appeared as a delayed, often severe DHR and started in 14/25 with a drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). Penicillins (13/25, 52.0%) and cephalosporins (6/25, 24.0%), typical high-dose drugs, were most often identified as elicitors of MDH, especially at the first DHR, followed by aromatic antiepileptics (7/25, 28.0%), vancomycin (4/25, 16.0%), and antibiotic sulfonamides (4/25, 16.0%). Cephalosporins, clindamycin, and radio contrast media (RCM) were mainly involved in subsequent DHR. The median daily drug dose of all drug trigger was 1875.0 mg (662.5; 2100.0) at the first DHR and 600.0 mg (300.0; 1300.0) at subsequent DHR, P = .0420.

CONCLUSION

High-dose drugs, especially beta-lactam antibiotics, RCM and clindamycin, are common elicitors of subsequent DHR in patients with MDH. Macrolides, quinolones, doxycycline, nonaromatic antiepileptics, and paracetamol were often tolerated. As the same drugs elicited both flare-up reactions and real DHR, drug-induced flare-up reactions may be precursors of a possible second DHR and MDH. The administration of highly dosed drugs should be avoided in patients at risk for MDH.

Multiple drug intolerance syndrome and multiple drug allergy syndrome: Epidemiology and associations with anxiety and depression

BACKGROUND

The epidemiology of multiple drug intolerance syndrome (MDIS) and multiple drug allergy syndrome (MDAS) is poorly characterized. We used electronic health record (EHR) data to describe prevalences of MDIS and MDAS and to examine associations with anxiety and depression.

METHODS

Patients with ≥3 outpatient encounters at Partners HealthCare System from 2008 to 2015 were included. Patients with MDIS had intolerances to ≥3 drug classes, and patients with MDAS had hypersensitivities to ≥2 drug classes. Psychiatric conditions and comorbidities were defined from the EHR and used in multivariable logistic regression models to assess the relation between anxiety/depression and MDIS/MDAS.

RESULTS

Of 746 888 patients, 47 634 (6.4%) had MDIS and 8615 (1.2%) had MDAS; 3171 (0.4%) had both. Anxiety (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.72 [1.65, 1.80]), depression (aOR 1.46 [1.41, 1.52]), and both anxiety and depression (aOR 1.97 [1.86, 2.08]) were associated with increased odds of MDIS. Depression was associated with increased odds of MDAS (aOR 1.41 [1.28, 1.56]), but there were no clear associations with anxiety (aOR 1.13 [0.99, 1.30]) nor both depression and anxiety (aOR 1.13 [0.92, 1.38]).

CONCLUSION

While 6% of patients had MDIS, only 1% had MDAS. MDIS was associated with both anxiety and depression; patients with both anxiety and depression had an almost twofold increased odds of MDIS. MDAS was associated with a 40% increased odds of depression, but there was no significant association with anxiety. Psychological assessments may be useful in the evaluation and treatment of patients with MDIS and MDAS; physiologic causes for MDAS warrant further investigation.

Proven immunologically-mediated drug hypersensitivity in children with a history of multiple drug intolerances

BACKGROUND

Children may be referred to pediatric allergy clinics for reactions to multiple drugs. Multiple drug hypersensitivity (MDH) is defined as immunologically-mediated hypersensitivity to 2 or more chemically different drugs.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to report the allergy workup results of children who had a history of potential hypersensitivity reactions to 2 or more unrelated drugs.

METHODS

This study was conducted in the Pediatric Allergy and Immunology department of our hospital. Children who described hypersensitivity reactions to 2 or more drugs were included and were evaluated by allergy workup (skin and/or provocation tests) between January 2011 and July 2016.

RESULTS

During the study period, 886 children were evaluated for a history of drug intolerance. Of these children, 73 (8.2%) had a history of drug reactions to 2 or more chemically different drugs. The median age of the children who had a history of reactions to 2 or more drugs was 7.8 (min-max: 2.5-16.4) years, and 59% (n = 43) were male. Among the suspected drugs, antibiotics (65.9%) ranked first, and nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs (34.1%) were the second. All 73 children were evaluated with skin or provocation tests with the suspected drugs, and MDH was confirmed in only 2 (2.7%) children.

CONCLUSION

Multiple drug hypersensitivity is uncommon in children. The incidence and prevalence of MDH may vary with the specific population studied. Evaluating children with a history of MDH, by performing drug hypersensitivity testing, will help avoid the morbidity associated with unnecessary drug avoidance.

Multiple Drug Hypersensitivity

Multiple drug hypersensitivity (MDH) is a syndrome that develops as a consequence of massive T-cell stimulations and is characterized by long-lasting drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) to different drugs. The initial symptoms are mostly severe exanthems or drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). Subsequent symptoms due to another drug often appear in the following weeks, overlapping with the first DHR, or months to years later after resolution of the initial presentation. The second DHR includes exanthema, erythroderma, DRESS, Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN), hepatitis, and agranulocytosis. The eliciting drugs can be identified by positive skin or in vitro tests. The drugs involved in starting the MDH are the same as for DRESS, and they are usually given in rather high doses. Fixed drug combination therapies like sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim or piperacillin/tazobactam are frequently involved in MDH, and 30-40% of patients with severe DHR to combination therapy show T-cell reactions to both components. The drug-induced T-cell stimulation appears to be due to the p-i mechanism. Importantly, a permanent T-cell activation characterized by PD-1+/CD38+ expression on CD4+/CD25low T cells can be found in the circulation of patients with MDH for many years. In conclusion, MDH is a drug-elicited syndrome characterized by a long-lasting hyperresponsiveness to multiple, structurally unrelated drugs with clinically diverse symptoms.

Skin testing and patch testing in non-IgE-mediated drug allergy

Drug skin tests can reproduce delayed hypersensitivity to drugs and entail a moderate reexposure of patients to offending drugs. Drug patch tests (DPTs) and prick tests can be done with any commercialized form of a drug. In non-severe delayed non-IgE-mediated reactions to drugs, intradermal tests (IDT) with delayed readings have a greater value, but their techniques lack standardization. A negative drug skin test does not exclude the responsibility of a drug, and the drug must be rechallenged in non-severe cases. DPTs are useful in maculopapular rashes, flexural exanthemas, and if done in situ, also in fixed drug eruption. Their best indication is in acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis or drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). They should be carried out cautiously, following strict guidelines. Prick tests have a low value but they can sometimes be positive on delayed readings. In non-severe delayed reactions to drugs, intradermal tests with delayed readings are the most sensitive skin tests especially for beta-lactam antibiotics, radiocontrast media, heparins but also some biological agents. The value of patch testing varies according to the implicated drug and the non-immediate adverse drug reaction. In DRESS, DPTs have a good value in testing carbamazepine or proton pump inhibitors but remain negative in testing with allopurinol or salazopyrin. In toxic epidermal necrolysis, DPTs are safe but positive in only 9 to 23 % of the reported cases.

Clinical presentations of severe cutaneous drug reactions in HIV-infected Africans

Sub-Saharan Africa is the epicenter of the HIV pandemic and HIV-infected people are more susceptible to inflammatory dermatoses, infections, and drug eruptions. Many of the drugs used for HIV-associated opportunistic infections are associated with a higher incidence of drug-related toxicities and drug interactions. This article discusses the epidemiology, pharmacogenetics, and clinical features of idiosyncratic drug reactions in HIV-infected Africans. Special considerations in this population, including immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome, multiple drug hypersensitivity syndrome, drug reactions in pregnancy, drug rechallenge in lichenoid drug eruptions, and anxiety/depression after cutaneous adverse drug reactions, are also briefly discussed.

A multicentre study to determine the value and safety of drug patch tests for the three main classes of severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions

BACKGROUND

Drug patch tests (PTs) can reproduce delayed hypersensitivity to drugs and entail a moderate re-exposure of patients to offending drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the value of PTs for identifying the responsible drug in severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions (SCARs) such as acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) and Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN).

METHODS

In a multicentre study, PTs were conducted on patients referred for DRESS, AGEP or SJS/TEN within 1 year of their SCAR. All drugs administered in the 2 months prior to and the week following the onset of the SCAR were tested.

RESULTS

Among the 134 patients included (48 male, 86 female; mean age 51·7 years), positive drug PTs were obtained for 24 different drugs. These included positive tests for 64% (46/72) of patients with DRESS, 58% (26/45) of those with AGEP and 24% (4/17) of those with SJS/TEN, with only one relapse of AGEP. The value of PTs depended on the type of drug and the type of SCAR (e.g. carbamazepine was positive in 11/13 DRESS cases but none of the five SJS/TEN cases). PTs were frequently positive for beta lactams (22 cases), pristinamycin (11 cases) and in DRESS with pump proton inhibitors (five cases), but were usually negative for allopurinol and salazopyrin. Of 18 patients with DRESS, eight had virus reactivation and positive PTs. In DRESS, multiple drug reactivity was frequent (18% of cases), with patients remaining sensitized many years later.

CONCLUSIONS

PTs are useful and safe for identifying agents inducing SCAR.