Contact allergy to corticosteroids

Recognizing and Managing Allergic Contact Dermatitis: Focus on Major Allergens

Patch testing is the reference standard for the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. Identification and avoidance of culprit allergens are essential in the treatment of this disease. Each year, new allergens are identified as emerging or important. The authors discuss allergens that are common, enduring, emergent, incompletely recognized, and controversial for the practicing allergist and dermatologist. This Clinical Management Review will encompass a review of fragrances, preservatives, rubber, acrylates, metals, and medications; their common sources of exposure; controversies in diagnosis and patch testing; management and how to avoid those allergens. This review will also include practical aspects of diagnosis and management and will provide resources that can be used as guidance for physicians and patients on nickel, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, and fragrance, the most common allergens positive on patch testing.

Iron-based metal-organic framework/graphene oxide composite electrodes for efficient flow-injection amperometric detection of dexamethasone

A highly stable flow-injection amperometric sensor for dexamethasone (DEX) was developed using a pencil graphite electrode (PGE) modified with Fe-based metal organic frameworks, MIL-100(Fe) and graphene oxide composite materials (MIL-100(Fe)/GO). Scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, transmission electron microscopy, powder X-ray diffraction, and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy were used to characterize the MIL-100(Fe) composites. The MIL-100(Fe)/GO-modified PGE (denoted MIL-100(Fe)/GO/PGE) was further electrochemically characterized using cyclic voltammetry. As an electrode material, MIL-100(Fe) is a sensing element that undergoes oxidation from Fe(ii)-MOF to Fe(iii)-MOF, and GO possesses high conductivity and a large surface area, which exhibits high absorbability. In the presence of DEX, Fe(iii) is reduced, which accelerates electron transfer at the electrode interface. Therefore, DEX can be quantitatively detected by analyzing the anodic current of MIL-100(Fe). When coupled with amperometric flow injection analysis, excellent performance can be obtained even when a low detection potential is applied (+0.10 V vs. Ag/AgCl). The concentration was linear in the range 0.10-5.0 μM and 0.010-5.0 mM with LOD of 0.030 μM based on 3(sd/slope). The modified electrode also exhibited a remarkably stable response under optimized conditions, and up to 55 injections can be used per electrode. The sensor exhibits high repeatability, reproducibility, and anti-interference properties when used for DEX detection. The effective determination of dexamethasone in real pharmaceutical and cosmetic samples demonstrated the feasibility of the electrochemical sensor, and the results were in good agreement with those obtained from the HPLC-DAD analysis. Acceptable percentage recoveries from the spiked pharmaceutical and cosmetic samples were obtained, ranging from 93-111% for this new method compared with 84-107% for the HPLC-DAD standard method.

Positive patch testing to the corticosteroid series: a clinical conundrum

Hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids represent a clinical paradox as one would not expect such reactions to compounds with anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects. Here we present the case of a patient with positive patch test results to the corticosteroid series.

Electrophilic Reactivity of Sulfated Alcohols in the Context of Skin Sensitization

The surfactant sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), although consistently positive in the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) for skin sensitization, shows no evidence of being a human sensitizer and is often described as a false positive, lacking structural alerts for sensitization. However, there is evidence of the cinnamyl sulfate anion being the metabolite responsible for the sensitization potential of cinnamyl alcohol to humans and in animal tests. Here, manufacturing chemistry data and physical organic chemistry principles are applied to confirm that SLS is not reactive enough to sensitize, whereas sensitization to cinnamyl alcohol via cinnamyl sulfate is plausible. Sensitization data for several other primary alcohols, including geraniol, farnesol, and possibly hydrocortisone, are also consistent with this mechanism. It seems possible that biosulfation may play a wider role than has previously been recognized in skin sensitization.

Contact allergy to corticosteroids: Is the European baseline series sufficient?

BACKGROUND

Patients are consecutively screened for contact allergy to corticosteroids with budesonide and tixocortol-21-pivalate in the European baseline series. Centres using TRUE Test also include hydrocortisone-17-butyrate. A supplementary corticosteroid patch test series is used in case of suspicion of corticosteroid contact allergy or when a marker of corticosteroid contact allergy is positive.

OBJECTIVE

The aims were to evaluate (1) the efficacy of corticosteroids in the TRUE Test and (2) co-sensitization patterns.

METHODS

This retrospective study analysed patients patch tested with TRUE Test corticosteroids plus supplementary corticosteroid series in the period 2006-2020 at the Department of Dermatology and Allergy Centre, Odense University Hospital.

RESULTS

Of 1852 patients tested, 119 were sensitised to TRUE Test corticosteroids and supplementary testing found additional reactions to other corticosteroids in 19 of 119 patients. TRUE Test corticosteroids gave more positive and stronger reactions compared to allergens in petrolatum/ethanol. Fourteen percent of sensitised patients were co-sensitised to multiple corticosteroid groups. Baeck group 3 corticosteroids accounted for 9 of 16 patients not identified by TRUE Test.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide, hydrocortisone-17-butyrate, and tixocortol-21-pivalate in combination are sensitive corticosteroid markers. In case of clinical suspicion of corticosteroid contact allergy, patch testing with supplementary corticosteroids is highly recommended.

Immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids - prevalence, diagnosis and treatment

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids, which are anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive agents used for the treatment of various diseases including allergic disorders, can induce immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions. Although these reactions are not common, due to the wide usage of corticosteroid medications, corticosteroid hypersensitivity reactions are clinically important.

OBJECTIVE

In this review, we summarise the prevalence, pathogenetic mechanism, clinical manifestations, risk factors, diagnostic and therapeutic approach for corticosteroid-induced hypersensitivity reactions.

METHODS

An integrative review of the literature was conducted using PubMed searches (mainly large cohort-based studies) regarding the different aspects of corticosteroid hypersensitivity.

RESULTS

Hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids can be immediate or delayed and can follow all modes of corticosteroid administration. Prick and intradermal skin tests are useful diagnostic tools for immediate hypersensitivity reactions, patch tests are useful for delayed hypersensitivity reactions. According to the diagnostic tests an alternative (safe) corticosteroid agent should be administered.

CONCLUSION

Physicians of all medical disciplines should be aware that corticosteroids can cause (paradoxically) immediate or delayed allergic hypersensitivity reactions. The diagnosis of such allergic reactions is challenging since it is often difficult to distinguish between hypersensitivity reactions and deterioration of the basic inflammatory disease (e.g., worsening of asthma or dermatitis). Thus, a high index of suspicion is needed in order to identify the culprit corticosteroid.

Reevaluating Corticosteroid Classification Models in Patient Patch Testing

Importance

Individuals with allergic contact dermatitis to one topical corticosteroid may also react to other corticosteroids. Corticosteroid classification models have been proposed to predict such copositivity, recommend representative screening corticosteroids, and guide allergen avoidance.

Objective

To use patient data to determine copositivity patterns between corticosteroids and evaluate against previous corticosteroid classification models.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This qualitative study included a retrospective analysis of the Mayo Clinic Contact Dermatitis Group corticosteroid patch test data from 2010 to 2019. Among patients undergoing patch testing with the Mayo Clinic's standard or steroid series who consented to research participation, 5637 patients were included in the analysis. Copositivity rates were determined between corticosteroids and analyzed by hierarchical clustering for comparison to previous classification models.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The frequency of patch test positivity to each of the analyzed corticosteroids was noted and compared with previously published patch test positivity rates. Copositivity rates between each pair of corticosteroids were determined, and overall copositivity patterns were analyzed and evaluated against known steroid classes.

Results

A total of 49 472 individual patches were applied to 5637 patients, testing 18 corticosteroids. Patch test positivity rates ranged between 0.3% and 4.7%. The fluocinonide positivity rate corresponded to the highest copositivity rate with other corticosteroids (mean [SD], 50.7% [26.1%]). Tixocortol-21-pivalate, 0.1%, and tixocortol-21-pivalate, 1%, positivity rates corresponded to the lowest copositivity rates (mean [SD], 4.1% [1.7%] and 3.6% [1.4%], respectively). Hierarchical clustering elucidated patterns that did not support previous corticosteroid classification models.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this qualitative study, copositivity rates were variable between corticosteroids, and overall patch test positivity for allergy to topical corticosteroids was rare. Previously published corticosteroid classifications are not supported by real patient-derived data and may not be accurate in predicting corticosteroid copositivity.

Prevalence of contact allergy to corticosteroids in a Danish patient population

Background

Allergic contact dermatitis to corticosteroids can be a challenging diagnosis as corticosteroids are used in the treatment of dermatitis. The prevalence of contact allergy to corticosteroid varies between previous studies.

Objective

To study the prevalence of sensitization to budesonide, tixocortol‐21‐pivalate and hydrocortisone‐17‐butyrate in a Danish patient population from 2006‐2020, cross‐sensitization, risk factors and clinical relevance.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of patch test data and MOAHLFA index was performed among 6823 patients consecutively patch tested with TRUE test as part of the baseline series.

Results

A positive patch test for corticosteroids was found in 185 patients (1.2% budesonide, 1.6% tixocortol‐21‐pivalate, 1.0% hydrocortisone‐17‐butyrate) without gender difference. For women, the prevalence of tixocortol‐21‐pivalate sensitization increased significantly from 1.3% in 2006–2008 to 2.9% in 2018–2020. Tixocortol‐21‐pivalate sensitization had more frequently clinical relevance in women (61.3%) compared to men (34.5%). Age above 40 years was positively associated to corticosteroid sensitization. Budesonide and hydrocortisone‐17‐butyrate accounted for 67.7% of co‐sensitizations.

Conclusions

The prevalence of corticosteroid sensitization was 2.7%. Age was the only risk factor for corticosteroid sensitization. The frequency of corticosteroid sensitization was stabile over time except for tixocortol‐21‐pivalate sensitization for women. About one third of sensitized patients had co‐sensitizations to other corticosteroid groups.

Allergic Contact Dermatitis From Topical Drugs: An Overview

ABSTRACT

Allergic contact dermatitis from topical drugs is frequent and is seen in 10% to 17% of patients patch tested for suspected contact dermatitis. More than 360 drugs have been implicated as contact allergens, of which-generally-antibiotics, corticosteroids, local anesthetics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the most frequent culprits. This article provides an overview of allergic contact dermatitis to topical drugs, discussing their prevalence of sensitization, predisposing factors, clinical manifestations (both typical and atypical), the drugs described as allergens, cross-reactivity and coreactivity, and diagnostic procedures.

Steroid Phobia: Is There a Basis? A Review of Topical Steroid Safety, Addiction and Withdrawal

There is a growing concern amongst patients about topical corticosteroid (TCS) side effects, with increasing discussion of topical steroid addiction (TSA) and topical steroid withdrawal (TSW) particularly on social media platforms. However, the acceptance of TSA/TSW as a distinct condition remains controversial within the dermatological community. We conducted a literature search using PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Embase and Web of Science to identify original articles addressing TSA/TSW. We described the definition and reported clinical features of TSA/TSW including its classification into erythemato-edematous and papulopustular subtype. To assess the validity of TSA/TSW, we summarised and objectively appraised the postulated mechanisms for this condition, including tachyphylaxis, dysregulation of glucocorticoid receptors, rebound vasodilation and impaired skin barrier leading to a cytokine cascade. Understanding the evidence including its limitations and uncertainties highlights areas for future research and helps medical practitioners better counsel and provide care to patients who may be experiencing or who have concerns about TSA/TSW.

Allergy against Steroids in Ocular Inflammation

Allergy to steroids is an uncommon and harmful condition that leads to a decrease in treatment options and increase in morbidity due to the suboptimal disease control. It can manifest as an immediate response or a delay manifestation. Worsening of underlying condition and not treatment response can indicate corticosteroids hypersensitivity as well. Despite its low prevalence, all clinicians should be aware of this condition and know the treatment options. This narrative review attempts to update information about corticosteroid allergy and we present a case of a patient with the diagnosis of Vogt Koyanagi Harada Syndrome with a history of steroids allergy, as an example, to integrate this information to the ocular inflammation field.

A Permanent Hair Loss in a Patient with Hypersensitivity to Intralesional Triamcinolone Injection

Despite multiple possible side effects, mesotherapy with a diverse mixture of unapproved products has been performed for the treatment of hair loss. In this case report, we present a rare case of permanent hair loss due to an allergic reaction from a mesotherapy mixture including triamcinolone acetonide. The patient showed a positive intradermal allergic skin test result for triamcinolone and therefore was diagnosed with scarring alopecia due to delayed type IV hypersensitivity to corticosteroid. This case study suggests that dermatologists should always be fully aware that both IgE-mediated and non-IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions from the corticosteroids as well as their mesotherapy excipients are possible in an effort to prevent irreversible adverse event from the mesotherapy.

Pediatric drug hypersensitivity: which diagnostic tests?

Along with the anamnesis and clinical evaluation, diagnostic tests are one of the mainstream key points in the evaluation and management of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR). A wide knowledge gap, both in diagnosis and management of pediatric DHR, must be filled.  Only a few published studies evaluated sensitivity and specificity of skin and in vitro tests in children. However, selected case series show that diagnostic work-up for adults could be useful, with some limitations, in pediatric age. Indeed, despite improvement in in vivo and in vitro diagnosis, drug provocation test remains the gold standard in pediatric age, too. Unmet needs in children include multi-centric studies on incidence of DHR, utility and feasibility of in vivo and in vitro diagnostic tests and specifically dedicated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of DHR in children.

Contact allergy in the population of patients with chronic inflammatory dermatoses and contact hypersensitivity to corticosteroids

INTRODUCTION

Clinical studies indicate that contact allergy to glucocorticosteroids (GCS) is not rare and has been increasingly reported over the past decade. Among the risk factors for developing contact hypersensitivity to topical corticosteroids, chronic inflammatory skin diseases and polyvalent contact allergy seem to be most important.

AIM

To present the structure of contact allergy in the population of patients with chronic inflammatory dermatoses (CID) and contact hypersensitivity to corticosteroids.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-seven patients with contact allergy to GCS and chronic inflammatory dermatoses were patch tested with 28 European Baseline Series allergens and 8 corticosteroid allergens. This study group consisted of 5 patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), 15 patients with contact eczema (CE) and 7 with chronic leg eczema (CLE). Nineteen (70.4%) patients were females and 8 (29.6%) were males.

RESULTS

In the study group, the most sensitizing non-steroidal allergens were nickel sulfate (51.8%), cobalt chloride (33.3%) and balsam of Peru (29.6%). The most sensitizing corticosteroid allergens were budesonide (77.8%), betamethasone valerate and clobetasol propionate (55.5% each). A total of 77.8% of patients allergic to GCS also showed sensitivity to at least one non-steroidal allergen from the European Baseline Series.

CONCLUSIONS

The most important risk factors for developing contact allergy to corticosteroids appear to be chronic inflammatory dermatoses, long disease duration, extended on-and-off topical corticosteroid use, patients presenting two or more positive patch test results and polyvalent contact allergy to metal salts and to other non-steroidal haptens.

Anaphylaxis following intralesional triamcinolone acetonide (Kenacort) injection

Intralesional triamcinolone acetonide injection is indicated for multiple skin conditions such as keloid scars, alopecia areata, and hypertrophic lichen planus. Immediate hypersensitivity reaction remains uncommon. We report on a 24-year-old woman who had received multiple intralesional injections with triamcinolone acetonide (Kenacort) plus lidocaine for keloid scar treatment without any reaction for the previous 10 years. The immediate reaction occurred 15 minutes after injection, with numbness on her face and 5 minutes later with urticaria on her chest wall and upper extremities, together with hypotension (blood pressure of 90/60 mmHg). Allergology workup revealed positive skin prick test for triamcinolone acetonide (Kenacort). Skin tests for other corticosteroids (hydrocortisone, methylprednisolone, and dexamethasone), excipients (carboxymethylcellulose, benzyl alcohol, and polysorbate 80) and lidocaine were negative, including subcutaneous challenge for lidocaine and oral challenge for carboxymethylcellulose. IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction must be considered in cases of multiple applications of triamcinolone acetonide injection.

Immediate and Delayed Hypersensitivity Reactions to Corticosteroids: Evaluation and Management

Corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory medications used widely to treat allergic inflammation. Although the endocrine and gastrointestinal side effects of corticosteroids have been described, the occurrence of immediate hypersensitivity reactions and delayed contact dermatitis due to corticosteroids remains under-recognized. Hypersensitivity reactions can occur to a corticosteroid itself, or to the additives and vehicles in corticosteroid preparations. Skin testing and oral graded challenge can help confirm the suspected culprit agent in immediate hypersensitivity reactions and help identify an alternative tolerated corticosteroid. Patch testing can help identify the culprit agents in delayed hypersensitivity contact dermatitis. Cross-reactivity patterns have not been observed for immediate hypersensitivity reactions as they have been for delayed contact dermatitis. Sensitization in contact dermatitis exhibits cross-reactivity patterns based on corticosteroid structure. We review the current understanding regarding the clinical presentation, evaluation, and management of immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids.

Delayed hypersensitivity reaction to intralesional triamcinolone acetonide following treatment for alopecia areata. Intradermal testing

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitivity reactions to intralesional corticosteroids are very rare and have been infrequently reported. Patch testing is considered the gold standard for diagnosing contact allergic dermatitis. However, intradermal testing is thought to be more accurate and sensitive in selected cases.

MAIN OBSERVATION

We describe a case of a delayed hypersensitivity reaction to intralesional triamcinolone acetonide following the treatment of alopecia areata. Patch testing to triamcinolone was negative but intradermal testing with a small volume of the same reagent elicited a strong reaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Patch testingmay be unsuccessful in detecting delayed reactions to intralesional corticosteroids. In such cases intradermal testing at a non-cosmetically sensitive sitemay be a useful diagnostic tool.

Hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids

Hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids (CS) are rare in the general population, but they are not uncommon in high-risk groups such as patients who receive repeated doses of CS. Hypersensitivity reactions to steroids are broadly divided into two categories: immediate reactions, typically occurring within 1 h of drug administration, and non-immediate reactions, which manifest more than an hour after drug administration. The latter group is more common. We reviewed the literature using the search terms "hypersensitivity to steroids, adverse effects of steroids, steroid allergy, allergic contact dermatitis, corticosteroid side effects, and type I hypersensitivity" to identify studies or clinical reports of steroid hypersensitivity. We discuss the prevalence, mechanism, presentation, evaluation, and therapeutic options in corticosteroid hypersensitivity reactions. There is a paucity of literature on corticosteroid allergy, with most reports being case reports. Most reports involve non-systemic application of corticosteroids. Steroid hypersensitivity has been associated with type I IgE-mediated allergy including anaphylaxis. The overall prevalence of type I steroid hypersensitivity is estimated to be 0.3-0.5%. Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is the most commonly reported non-immediate hypersensitivity reaction and usually follows topical CS application. Atopic dermatitis and stasis dermatitis of the lower extremities are risk factors for the development of ACD from topical CS. Patients can also develop hypersensitivity reactions to nasal, inhaled, oral, and parenteral CS. A close and detailed evaluation is required for the clinician to confirm the presence of a true hypersensitivity reaction to the suspected drug and choose the safest alternative. Choosing an alternative CS is not only paramount to the patient's safety but also ameliorates the worry of developing an allergic, and potentially fatal, steroid hypersensitivity reaction. This evaluation becomes especially important in high-risk groups where steroids are a life-saving treatment. The assessment should be done when the patient's underlying condition is in a quiescent state.

Unique topics and issues in rheumatology and clinical immunology

Clinicians are facing unexpected issues in everyday practice, and these may become counterintuitive or challenging. Illustrative examples are provided by the hypersensitivity to universally used immunosuppressants such as corticosteroids or antibiotics such as beta-lactam. Secondly, additional issues are represented by the discovery of new pathogenetic mechanisms involved in rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis or other chronic inflammatory diseases, genomic susceptibility to enigmatic diseases such as giant cell arteritis, or the shared role of specific mediators such as semaphorins. Third, the therapeutic armamentarium has dramatically changed over the past decade following the introduction of biotechnological drugs, and new mechanisms are being proposed to reduce adverse events or increase the drug effectiveness, particularly on cardiovascular comorbidities. Finally, rare diseases continue to represent difficult cases, as for Cogan's syndrome, with limited literature available for clinical recommendations. For these reason, the present issue of Clinical Reviews in Allergy and Immunology is timely and dedicated to these and other unique topics in clinical immunology and allergy. The aim of this issue is thus to help clinicians involved in internal medicine as well as allergists and clinical immunologists while discussing new pathways that will prove important in the near future.

Anaphylaxis induced by oral methylprednisolone in a 10-year-old boy

Corticosteroids are potent anti-inflammatory and anti-allergic agents used in the treatment of various inflammatory diseases, including allergic diseases. Allergic reactions caused by corticosteroids, however, have been reported. Among these, delayed reactions to topical steroids are more common, whereas immediate reactions to systemic steroids are rare. Herein, we report the case of a 10-year old boy with methylprednisolone-induced anaphylaxis, in which the patient had a positive oral challenge test result. Physicians should be aware of the possibility of anaphylaxis or other allergic hypersensitivity in response to corticosteroids.

Immediate and delayed hypersensitivity to systemic corticosteroids: 2 case reports

BACKGROUND

Both immediate, type I reactions and delayed hypersensitivity, type IV reactions to systemic corticosteroid preparations have been reported. Type I reactions are rare, with delayed hypersensitivity reactions being slightly more common.

CASES

A 33-year-old woman presented repeatedly to the emergency department with asthma attacks. She developed pruritus and hives approximately 30 minutes after the administration of parenteral corticosteroids. Her respiratory status deteriorated approximately 6 hours after she received the corticosteroids. An acute eczematous dermatitis on her face, neck, and upper body appeared 24 hours after administration of the corticosteroids. The dermatitis peaked at 72 hours. Intradermal testing to Solu-Medrol, Solu-Cortef, prednisone, and Decadron confirmed a type I, anaphylactoid reaction. The dermatitis that presented 24 hours after administration of the parenteral corticosteroids is consistent clinically with a type IV delayed hypersensitivity reaction to the corticosteroids. A second patient, a 51-year-old woman, developed urticarial lesions that lasted approximately 30 minutes, immediately after intralesional triamcinolone injections for keloid scars. Intradermal testing was performed. She showed a positive reaction to triamcinolone confirming a type I allergy to this steroid.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to consider an allergy to corticosteroids in patients with worsening anaphylactic symptoms after administration of systemic corticosteroids.

Methylprednisolone sodium succinate-associated macroglossia in a critically ill patient

Allergic hypersensitivity reactions are a rare adverse effect of corticosteroids. Previous reports have identified patients who developed symptoms of urticaria, dyspnea, hypotension, bronchospasm, and angioedema occurring within minutes to an hour after corticosteroid administration. A 35-year-old woman is described who developed an atypical reaction of isolated macroglossia after receiving intravenous methylprednisolone sodium succinate for myasthenic crisis. Macroglossia was identified on day 2 of therapy and worsened through day 5. On day 5, she was transitioned to prednisone 50 mg daily administered by feeding tube. Tongue swelling improved by day 7 and on day 10, the patient was extubated. The patient required reintubation due to stridor, but received a tracheostomy and was weaned off mechanical ventilation by day 15. The reaction was not confirmed with skin-prick tests, intradermal tests, or a drug rechallenge; however, she had previously received and tolerated all other drugs administered during this time. Due to the timing of administration and onset of symptoms, we feel this adverse drug reaction was likely due to administration of methylprednisolone. Applying the Naranjo adverse drug reaction probability scale to this case, a score of six was obtained, indicating a probable association between the administration of methylprednisolone and the development of macroglossia. As intravenous corticosteroids are often used in the treatment of allergic reactions, they may be overlooked as a cause of macroglossia and other allergic reactions; therefore, practitioners need to be aware of the possibility of this adverse effect secondary to corticosteroid administration. In the event of methylprednisolone sodium succinate-induced macroglossia, alternative nonesterified corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone or prednisone, should be considered if continuation of therapy is required.

Corticosteroid cross-reactivity: clinical and molecular modelling tools

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids have been classified into following four cross-reacting groups in function of their contact-allergenic properties: A, B, C and D, the last subdivided into D1 and D2. Recent data indicate that C(16)-methylated and nonmethylated molecules need to be distinguished, the latter selectively binding with arginine to form stable cyclic adducts and producing considerably more positive reactions than the former. This study compares molecular modelling and patch-test results to determine cross-reactivity patterns.

METHODS

The patch-test results obtained with 66 corticosteroid molecules in 315 previously sensitized subjects were analysed and correlated with modelling and clustering in function of the electrostatic and steric fields of these molecules.

RESULTS

The classification obtained after in silico hydrolysis of C(21) and C(17) esters was selected with an optimal cut into three clusters: the patients who reacted positively to cluster 2 (halogenated molecules from group B, with C(16)/C(17) cis ketal or diol structure) and cluster 3 (halogenated molecules from groups C and D1, C(16)-methylated) also reacted to cluster 1 (molecules mostly from groups A and D2, without C(16)-methyl substitution or halogenation and budesonide). The reverse, however, was not the case.

CONCLUSION

Two patient profiles with probably different areas of immune recognition are identified as follows: the profile 1 patients were allergic to the frequently positively reacting cluster 1 only, for whom electrostatic fields (molecular charge) seem important; the profile 2 patients reacted to clusters 1 and 2 and/or 3, for whom steric fields (structure) are determinant and who probably presented a global recognition of the corticosteroid skeleton. A modified classification is thus proposed.

'Empty sella syndrome': a case of a patient with sodium succinate hydrocortisone allergy

OBJECTIVE

We present the case of a woman with 'empty sella syndrome' who experienced generalized urticaria after the administration of sodium succinate hydrocortisone in two episodes.

METHODS

The patient underwent an allergological evaluation (prick, intradermal, and patch tests) with hydrocortisone sodium succinate, hydrocortisone acetate, hydrocortisone, hydrocortisone sodium phosphate, methylprednisolone hemisuccinate, methylprednisolone, and preservatives held in the formulation of sodium succinate hydrocortisone (sodium phosphate and methyl-p-oxybenzoate). The basophil activation test (BAT) was also performed with hydrocortisone. The single-blind i.m. challenge test was performed with hydrocortisone sodium phosphate in 4 days.

RESULTS

Skin test with hydrocortisone sodium succinate and methylprednisolone hemisuccinate was positive. On the contrary, allergological tests performed with other formulations of the same steroids and preservatives were negative. These results showed an immediate-type allergy to succinate ester. BAT was not helpful to improve our diagnostic work-up because our patient was a 'nonresponder.' Therefore, the patient underwent successfully to a challenge test with hydrocortisone sodium phosphate.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with succinate ester allergy can tolerate alternative corticosteroids without ester.