Bullous fixed drug eruption: A potential diagnostic pitfall: a study of 18 cases

The role of eosinophils in the differential diagnosis of inflammatory skin diseases

Eosinophils are known to be present in inflammatory skin diseases, but their diagnostic utility is not well established. Upon review of the published status of lesional eosinophils, several categories were identified. 1) Lesional eosinophils highly characteristic such that, in their absence, the pathologist may question the diagnosis. These include arthropod bite reactions and scabies, urticarial dermatitis, and other eosinophilic dermatoses. 2) Lesional eosinophils rare or absent, such that, in their presence, the pathologist may question the diagnosis. These include pityriasis lichenoides, graft versus host disease, and connective tissue disorders. 3) Lesional eosinophils variable and, while in some cases expected, are not required for diagnosis. These include drug reactions, atopic dermatitis and allergic contact dermatitis. 4) Lesional eosinophils variable and not expected but may be seen to a limited extent. These include lichen planus and psoriasis.

Case report: Generalized bullous fixed drug eruption mimicking epidermal necrolysis

Generalized bullous fixed drug eruption (GBFDE) is the most severe form of fixed drug eruption and can be misdiagnosed as epidermal necrolysis (EN). We report the case of a 42-year-old male patient presenting with more than 50% skin detachment without defined areas of exanthema or erythema and a history of one prior event of EN caused by acetaminophen (paracetamol), allopurinol, or amoxicillin 1.5 years ago. The initial diagnosis was GBFDE or EN. The histology of a skin biopsy was unable to distinguish between the two diseases. The course of the disease, the later clinical presentation, and the medical and medication history, however, were in favor of a diagnosis of GBFDE with two potentially culprit drugs: metamizole and ibuprofen. Moxifloxacin, enoxaparin sodium, hydromorphone, and insulin human were administered concomitantly, which makes them suspicious as well. Unfortunately, the patient received an additional dose of metamizole, one of the possible causative drugs, and he developed another bullous reaction within 1 month. This led to the diagnosis of GBFDE due to metamizole. This report highlights the challenges of distinguishing two rare diseases and elucidates the importance of distinct clinical presentation and detailed medication history.

The Role of Sex and Gender in Dermatology - From Pathogenesis to Clinical Implications

BACKGROUND

Sex and gender have increasingly been recognized as significant risk factors for many diseases, including dermatological conditions. Historically, sex and gender have often been grouped together as a single risk factor in the scientific literature. However, both may have a distinct impact on disease incidence, prevalence, clinical presentation, severity, therapeutic response, and associated psychological distress.

OBJECTIVES AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The mechanisms that underlie differences in skin diseases between males, females, men, and women remain largely unknown. The specific objectives of this review paper are:To highlight the biological differences between males and females (sex), as well as the sociocultural differences between men and women (gender) and how they impact the integumentary system.To perform a literature review to identify important sex- and gender-related epidemiological and clinical differences for various skin conditions belonging to a range of disease categories and to discuss possible biological and sociocultural factors that could explain the observed differences.To discuss dermatological skin conditions and gender-affirming treatments within the transgender community, a population of individuals who have a gender identity which is different than the gender identity they were assigned at birth.

FUTURE IMPACT

With the rising number of individuals that identify as non-binary or transgender within our increasingly diverse communities, it is imperative to recognize gender identity, gender, and sex as distinct entities. By doing so, clinicians will be able to better risk-stratify their patients and select treatments that are most aligned with their values. To our knowledge, very few studies have separated sex and gender as two distinct risk factors within the dermatology literature. Our article also has the potential to help guide future prevention strategies that are patient-tailored rather than using a universal approach.

Oral fixed drug eruption: Analyses of reported cases in the literature

BACKGROUND

This analytic study aimed to summarize the data regarding OFDEs manifestations and characteristics available up to date.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched online databases for relevant articles and summarized their data regarding age, gender, Main drug classification and name, additional drugs, dosages, primary disorders, OFDE presentation and location, extra-oral presentation and location, follow-up, and treatment.

RESULTS

The mean age of OFDE-affected patients was 38.9. Most of the reported cases were between 30 and 60 years of age. The female/male ratio was 1.12/1. Three drug classifications, which were mainly associated with OFDEs, were analgesics (27.8%), antibiotics (22.2%), and antifungals (11.1%). The most common additional drugs were oral contraceptives and corticosteroids. The three most prevalent disorders or conditions were infectious disease (23.7%), pain (13.2%) and auto-immune disease (10.5%). Erythematous lesions without blister (38.9%), lichenoid drug eruptions (16.7%), blisters/vesicles (13.9%) and ulcers (13.9%) were the most common manifestations of OFDEs. The rarest manifestation of OFDE was pigmentation. Lips, tongue, buccal mucosa, palate and gingiva were the sites in which OFDEs occurred in the included studies. Similar to OFDEs, erythematous lesions without blisters and lichenoid drug eruptions were the most prevalent extra-oral manifestations. The most common time for OFDE manifestations was one to three days after taking the drug.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the similarities between the reported cases of OFDEs, clinicians should familiarize themselves with OFDE cases in order to screen suspected patients effectively.

Hypopigmented penile fixed drug eruption

Fixed drug eruptions (FDE) are typically associated with residual hyperpigmentation or non-pigmenting lesions. There is no distinctive histopathological feature; though, drug provocation tests (DPT) can be confirmatory within 7 days. We describe a patient with penile FDE associated with residual hypopigmentation, a prolonged refractory period to DPT and recurrent meatal stenosis.

A Review of Fixed Drug Eruption with a Special Focus on Generalized Bullous Fixed Drug Eruption

Fixed drug eruption (FDE) is a cutaneous adverse drug reaction characterized by the onset of rash at a fixed location on the body each time a specific medication is ingested. With each recurrence, the eruption can involve additional sites. Lesions can have overlying vesicles and/or bullae, and when they cover a significant percentage of body surface area, the eruption is referred to as generalized bullous fixed drug eruption (GBFDE). Due to the widespread skin denudation that can be seen in this condition, GBFDE may be confused clinically with Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN). While treatments described for GBFDE include supportive care, topical and/or systemic steroids, and, recently, cyclosporine, the mainstay of management involves identifying and discontinuing the causative drug. This review article will provide an overview of FDE with an emphasis on its generalized bullous variant.

Fixed Drug Eruptions: An Update, Emphasizing the Potentially Lethal Generalized Bullous Fixed Drug Eruption

A fixed drug eruption (FDE) is a relatively common reaction associated with more than 100 medications. It is defined as a same-site recurrence with exposure to a particular medication. The primary approach and treatment for all types of FDEs are to identify and remove the causative agent, often accomplished by a thorough history of medication and other chemical exposures, and possibly prior episodes. The most common category of FDE, localized FDE, whether bullous or non-bullous, is self-limited. Although one can confirm the causative agent using oral challenge testing, it is not recommended due to the risk of severe exacerbation or possible generalization; patch testing is now preferred. Bullous FDE may resemble erythema multiforme. Treatment of localized FDE includes medication removal, patient counseling, and symptomatic relief. Failure to remove the causative agent in localized FDE can lead to recurrence, which is associated with increased inflammation, hyperpigmentation, and risk of a potentially lethal generalized bullous FDE (GBFDE), which may resemble Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) or toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). Distinguishing GBFDE from SJS and TEN is salient and will be stressed: GBFDE has more rapid onset in 1-24 h rather than in weeks, less or no mucosal involvement, less or no systemic involvement, and a tendency for a more favorable prognosis; however, recent experience suggests it may be just as life-threatening. This review will provide a comprehensive update and approach to diagnosis and management.

Loss of tolerance 5 days after discontinuing sulphonamide introduced via desensitization in delayed reaction

The fixed drug eruption is a non-immediate hypersensitivity reaction to drug, characterized by recurrent erythematous or violaceous, rounded, well-defined border plaques, which always appear in the same location every time the culprit drug is administered. The usual practice is to avoid the drug involved and to use a structurally different drug. However, there are situations in which there is no safe and effective therapy. In such situations, desensitization is the only option. We describe the case of a patient who presented fixed eruption due to sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim, who underwent successful desensitization, but required a repeat procedure twice due to relapse after inadvertent full-dose reintroduction. In non-immediate hypersensitivity reaction to drug, the indication is controversial and there is no technical standardization. Furthermore, the time at which such tolerance is lost after discontinuing the drug involved is unknown. In severe non-immediate reactions of types II and III, desensitization is contraindicated. The patient underwent desensitisation to sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim three times − the first with recurrence of lesions and the second and third without manifestations, all concluded successfully and with no premedication.