Elevated serum levels of interleukins 5, 6, and 10 in a patient with drug-induced exanthem caused by systemic corticosteroids

Drug hypersensitivity and eosinophilia: The decisive role of p-i stimulation

Eosinophilia is a common finding in drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR). Its cause is unclear, as neither antigen/allergen-driven inflammation nor clonal expansion is involved. Most delayed-DHRs are due to p-i (pharmacologic interaction of drugs with immune receptors). These are off-target activities of drugs with immune receptors that result in various types of T-cell stimulation, some of which involve excessive IL-5 production. Functional and phenotypic studies of T-cell clones and their TCR-transfected hybridoma cell lines revealed that some p-i-induced drug stimulations occur without CD4/ CD8 co-receptor engagement. The CD4/CD8 co-receptors link Lck (lymphocyte-specific protein tyrosine kinase) and LAT (linker for activation of T cells) to the TCR. Alteration of Lck or LAT can result in a TCR signalosome with enhanced IL-5 production. Thus, if a more affine TCR-[drug/peptide/HLA] interaction allows bypassing the CD4 co-receptor, a modified Lck/LAT activation may lead to a TCR signalosome with elevated IL-5 production. This "IL-5-TCR-signalosome" hypothesis could also explain eosinophilia in superantigen or allo-stimulation (graft-versus-host disease), in which evasion of CD4/CD8 co-receptors has also been described. It may open new therapeutic possibilities in certain eosinophilic diseases by directly targeting the IL-5-TCR signalosome.

Viral infections and drug hypersensitivity

Virus infections and T-cell-mediated drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) can influence each other. In most instances, systemic virus infections appear first. They may prime the reactivity to drugs in two ways: First, by virus-induced second signals: certain drugs like β-lactam antibiotics are haptens and covalently bind to various soluble and tissue proteins, thereby forming novel antigens. Under homeostatic conditions, these neo-antigens do not induce an immune reaction, probably because co-stimulation is missing. During a virus infection, the hapten-modified peptides are presented in an immune-stimulatory environment with co-stimulation. A drug-specific immune reaction may develop and manifest as exanthema. Second, by increased pharmacological interactions with immune receptors (p-i): drugs tend to bind to proteins and may even bind to immune receptors. Without viral infections, this low affine binding may be insufficient to elicit T-cell activation. During a viral infection, immune receptors are more abundantly expressed and allow more interactions to occur. This increases the overall avidity of p-i reactions and may even be sufficient for T-cell activation and symptoms. There is a situation where the virus-DHR sequence of events is inversed: in drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), a severe DHR can precede reactivation and viremia of various herpes viruses. One could explain this phenomenon by the massive p-i mediated immune stimulation during acute DRESS, which coincidentally activates many herpes virus-specific T cells. Through p-i stimulation, they develop a cytotoxic activity by killing herpes peptide-expressing cells and releasing herpes viruses. These concepts could explain the often transient nature of DHR occurring during viral infections and the often asymptomatic herpes-virus viraemia after DRESS.

Systemic allergic dermatitis (systemic contact dermatitis) from pharmaceutical drugs: A review

The literature on systemic allergic dermatitis (SAD; also known as systemic contact dermatitis) is reviewed. Both topical drugs (from absorption through mucosae or skin) and systemic drugs (oral, parenteral, rectal) may be responsible for the disorder. The topical route appears to be rare with 41 culprit topical drugs found to cause SAD in 95 patients. Most reactions are caused by budesonide (especially from inhalation), bufexamac, and dibucaine. SAD from systemic drugs is infrequent with 95 culprit drugs found to cause SAD in 240 patients. The drugs most frequently implicated are mitomycin C, methylprednisolone (salt, ester), and hydrocortisone (salt). The largest group of culprit drugs consisted of corticosteroids (19%), being responsible for >30% of the reactions, of which nearly 40% were not caused by therapeutic drugs, but by drug provocation tests. The most frequent manifestations of SAD from drugs are eczematous eruptions (scattered, widespread, generalized, worsening, reactivation), maculopapular eruptions, symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE [baboon syndrome]) and widespread erythema or erythroderma. Therapeutic systemic drugs hardly ever cause reactivation of previously positive patch tests and infrequently of previous allergic contact dermatitis. The pathophysiology of SAD has received very little attention. Explanations for the rarity of SAD are suggested.

Hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe the clinical entities, underlying mechanisms and diagnostic approach of hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids, emphasizing new data concerning hypersensitivity reactions to systemically administered corticosteroids.

RECENT FINDINGS

Reactions after topical corticosteroid administration to the skin have been known for decades, appearing as an eczematous lesion and with diagnosis by patch testing. However, new data have appeared about cutaneous symptoms after inhaled and systemically administered corticosteroids. In fact, T-cell involvement in a generalized maculopapular exanthema induced by inhaled budesonide has recently been demonstrated by lymphocyte transformation tests. Moreover, T-cell involvement has also been shown in skin biopsies from a group of patients with urticaria and maculopapular exanthema after systemically administered corticosteroids, with detection of a significant increase in the expression of interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), and a significant decrease in interleukin-4 and GATA-3 when samples obtained during the drug provocation test reaction were compared with samples from the resolution phase. In immediate allergic reactions to corticosteroids, an immunoglobulin E (IgE) response has recently been shown by skin testing, ImmunoCAP and basophil-activation tests.

SUMMARY

Generalized cutaneous symptoms after corticosteroid administration occur with both IgE and T-cell involvement. Skin testing, in-vitro testing and drug provocation tests are useful diagnostic tools.

Oral Prednisolone Induced Acute Generalized Exanthematous Pustulosis due to Corticosteroids of Group A Confirmed by Epicutaneous Testing and Lymphocyte Transformation Tests

BACKGROUND

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) is a rare cutaneous eruption which is often provoked by drugs.

CASE REPORT

We report 2 cases of AGEP which showed rapidly spreading pustular eruptions accompanied by malaise, fever and neutrophilia after the administration of systemic prednisolone (corticosteroid of group A, hydrocortisone type). The histological examination showing neutrophilic subcorneal spongiform pustules was consistent with the diagnosis of AGEP. In both cases the rash cleared within a week upon treatment with topical steroids (corticosteroid of group D1, betamethasonedipropionate type and corticosteroid of group D2, hydrocortisone-17-butyrate type). Three months after recovery, the sensitization to corticosteroids of group A was confirmed by epicutaneous testing and positive lymphocyte transformation tests.

CONCLUSION

These cases show that systemic corticosteroids can induce AGEP and demonstrate that epicutaneous testing and lymphocyte transformation tests may be helpful in identifying the causative drug. Our data support previous reports indicating an important role for drug-specific T cells in inducing neutrophil inflammation in this disease.

Nonimmediate reactions to systemic corticosteroids suggest an immunological mechanism

BACKGROUND

Administration of corticosteroids (CS) by different routes may cause varying types of allergic reactions, thereby hampering their further use in affected patients. In order to verify an immunological involvement we evaluated a group of patients with symptoms compatible with nonimmediate allergic reactions to CS.

METHODS

Studies included patch and intradermal tests, immunohistochemical studies and controlled administration to reproduce the response. The cytokines interleukin (IL)-4, interferon (IFN)-gamma and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha were quantified in peripheral blood during the response.

RESULTS

Of 32 subjects evaluated presenting nonimmediate urticaria or exanthema, 21 were finally considered positive after re-exposure. The drugs most frequently involved were betamethasone and dexamethasone. Fewer than half the patients responded to prednisolone whilst some responded to three or more CS. Hydrocortisone and deflazacort were well tolerated by all the patients. Subjects with a positive intradermal or patch test had a perivascular mononuclear cell infiltrate with the presence of CD4 and CD8 lymphocytes positive for CD45RO+ (memory) and CD69 (activation marker) cells. Monitoring peripheral blood during the acute response showed expression of IFN-gamma and TNF-alpha, with downregulation of IL-4.

CONCLUSION

Adverse systemic responses to different CS are suggestive of a nonimmediate reaction. The symptoms elicited together with the immunlogical studies suggest a T-cell mediated response. The response to closely related CS was especially marked between betamethasone and dexamethasone, whereas hydrocortisone and deflazacort were well tolerated.

New advances in severe adverse drug reactions

Every new drug has the potential for causing cutaneous adverse drug reactions. Usually the clinical pattern is well known and has been described in association with other drugs; new entities, however, are described frequently. This article reviews several of them.