Investigations allergologiques dans les érythèmes pigmentés fixes. Méthode recommandée par le groupe FISARD de la SFD

Cutaneous adverse drug reactions

Cutaneous adverse drug reactions (ADRs) represent a heterogeneous field including various clinical patterns without specific features suggesting drug causality. Maculopapular exanthema and urticaria are the most common types of cutaneous ADR. Serious cutaneous ADRs, which may cause permanent sequelae or have fatal outcome, may represent 2% of all cutaneous ADR and must be quickly identified to guide their management. These serious reactions include bullous manifestations (epidermal necrolysis i.e. Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP). Some risk factors for developing cutaneous ADRs have been identified, including immunosuppression, autoimmunity or genetic variants. All drugs can cause cutaneous ADRs, the most commonly implicated being antibiotics (especially aminopenicillins and sulfonamides), anticonvulsants, allopurinol, antineoplastic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and iodinated contrast media. Pathophysiology is related to immediate or delayed "idiosyncratic" immunologic mechanisms, i.e., usually not related to dose, and pharmacologic/toxic mechanisms, commonly dose-dependent and/or time-dependent. If an immuno-allergic mechanism is suspected, allergological explorations (including epicutaneous patch testing and/or intradermal test) are often possible to clarify drug causality, however these have a variable sensitivity according to the drug and to the ADR type. No in vivo or in vitro test can consistently confirm the drug causality. To determine the origin of a rash, a logical approach based on clinical characteristics, chronologic factors and elimination of differential diagnosis (especially infectious etiologies) is required, completed with a literature search. Reporting to pharmacovigilance system is therefore essential both to analyze drug causality at individual level, and to contribute to knowledge of the drug at population level, especially for serious cutaneous ADRs or in cases involving newly marketed drugs.

In Situ Patch Test and Repeated Open Application Test for Fixed Drug Eruption: A Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated allergy workup in fixed drug eruption (FDE) in a large population.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the sensitivity of a standardized allergy workup for diagnosing the cause of FDE, with a focus on in situ repeated open application tests (ROATs).

METHODS

In a retrospective multicenter study, we analyzed the practice of conducting a complete allergy workup for the etiological diagnosis of FDE. It consisted of 3 steps: in situ patch tests (PTs) for all cases except pure mucosal involvement, followed by in situ ROAT if in situ PT results were negative, and finally a drug challenge (DC). The in situ ROAT involved daily application of the suspected drug on a previously affected FDE site for 7 days.

RESULTS

Of 98 suspected FDE cases, 61 patients (median age 61 y; male-to-female ratio 1.8) with a complete allergy workup were included. In 4 cases, even the DC yielded negative results. Among the remaining 57 patients with a positive workup, implicated drugs included paracetamol (12 cases), β-lactams (11 cases), imidazoles (9 cases, including 5 with metronidazole), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (8 cases), iodinated contrast media (4 cases), cotrimoxazole (3 cases), and various other drugs in 10 patients. The diagnosis was confirmed by in situ PT in 17 of 54 cases (31.5%), in situ ROAT in 14 of 40 cases (35%) (with 4 cases showing remote reactivation of FDE sites), and DC in 26 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The sequential allergy workup involving successively in situ PT, in situ ROAT, and DC is a reliable and safe method for diagnosing the cause of FDE. In situ tests exhibited a sensitivity of over 50%.