Metronidazole Induced Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reaction- A Systematic Review of Descriptive Studies

BACKGROUND

A substantial number of research studies on metronidazole-related cutaneous symptoms have recently been published. Our objective was to identify and evaluate descriptive studies that described metronidazole-related skin manifestations, therapeutic interventions, and consequences.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was carried out in the PubMed, Scopus, and grey literature databases from inception to April 2022 without any constraints, as well as a snowball search in Google and a search in Google Scholar. Descriptive articles describing metronidazole-related cutaneous manifestations were considered for the review. Two distinct reviewers carried out the research selection, data extraction, and quality assessment; any discrepancies were resolved by consensus with the third reviewer.

RESULTS

About 24 out of 4648 descriptive studies, including 26 patients (20 Female patients and 6 male patients), were included in this review. The included studies comprised a range of ages from 16 to 78 years old. Metronidazole was indicated for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis, trichomoniasis, sepsis, anti-infection therapy, perforated appendicitis, rosacea, vaginal discharge, dysentery, acne rosacea, trichomonal vaginitis, lichen planus, liver abscess, facial rosacea, intestinal amoebiasis, and gingivitis. Fixed drug eruption was the most common skin manifestation which was reported in 7 cases included in this review. Cutaneous manifestations were ameliorated by cessation of the offending drug and by apportioning antihistamines, topical steroids, parenteral corticosteroids, emollients, and topical moisturizers.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians and healthcare professionals should be cognizant of the potential cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs) induced by metronidazole to mitigate fatal circumstances. The management of the CADRs appears to respond effectively with immediate drug discontinuation and supportive therapy.

Old dog begging for new tricks: current practices and future directions in the diagnosis of delayed antimicrobial hypersensitivity

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Antimicrobials are a leading cause of severe T cell-mediated adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The purpose of this review is to address the current understanding of antimicrobial cross-reactivity and the ready availability of and evidence for in-vitro, in-vivo, and ex-vivo diagnostics for T cell-mediated ADRs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent literature has evaluated the efficacy of traditional antibiotic allergy management, including patch testing, skin prick testing, intradermal testing, and oral challenge. Although patch and intradermal testing are specific for the diagnosis of immune-mediated ADRs, they suffer from drug-specific limitations in sensitivity. The use of ex-vivo diagnostics, especially enzyme-linked immunospot, has been highlighted as a promising new approach to assigning causality. Knowledge of true rates of antimicrobial cross-reactivity aids empirical antibiotic choice in the setting of previous immune-mediated ADRs.

SUMMARY

In an era of increasing antimicrobial resistance and use of broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy, ensuring patients are assigned the correct 'allergy label' is essential. Re-exposure to implicated antimicrobials, especially in the setting of severe adverse cutaneous reaction, is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The process through which an antibiotic label gets assigned, acted on and maintained is still imprecise. Predicting T cell-mediated ADRs via personalized approaches, including human leukocyte antigen-typing, may pave future pathways to safer antimicrobial prescribing guidelines.

Co-existing sensitivity to metronidazole and isothiazolinone

A 68-year-old woman developed allergic contact dermatitis to topical metronidazole gel as proven by positive patch tests to the gel and to metronidazole. She was also allergic to methylchloroisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone (MC/MI). The similarity between the two molecules and the fact that the patient reacted to the gel after the very short incubation period of 1 day (i.e. not long enough for acquiring an active sensitization) makes the possibility of a cross-reaction between these substances very plausible. As the isothiazolinones are widely used and comprise an important and relatively frequent cause of allergic contact dermatitis, a cross-reactivity with metronidazole means that perhaps there should have been more cases of metronidazole allergy is more common than the current literature suggests.

Fixed drug eruption following metronidazole therapy and the use of topical provocation testing in diagnosis

Fixed drug eruption is characterized by recurrent well-defined lesions appearing in the same location each time the drug responsible is taken. A number of agents have been implicated. Metronidazole, a nitroimidazole agent widely used for its antibacterial and antiprotozoal activity, has been reported only rarely as the causative agent. We describe a patient with FDE due to metronidazole in whom we were able to induce the clinical and histological features of FDE by topical provocation testing. In agreement with the published literature we commend the use of topical provocation testing as a possible first-line investigation in the diagnosis of FDE. This may avoid the need for subsequent oral provocation testing and therefore the prevention of possible adverse sequelae.

Assessment of contact allergen cross-reactivity by retesting

At former allergic contact dermatitis reaction sites retesting causes augmented hyper-reactivity, characterized by an accelerated onset within a few hours. This expression of 'local skin memory' has been ascribed to locally persisting allergen-specific effector/memory T cells. To verify this hypothesis, we investigated whether accelerated retest reactivity also occurs with cross-reactive allergens. Guinea pigs were immunized with either or both 2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB) and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), and primary skin tests to these and cross-reactive methacrylic compounds were performed 12-21 days later. Subsequently, new skin tests were conducted 3 weeks later both at the former test ('retest') and contralateral, non-pretreated test ('control') sites, and skin test readings started 2 h later. Retest reactivity was evaluated by comparing retest and contralateral control reactions. Both contact sensitizers, HEMA and DNCB, induced strong retest reactivity, peaking at 4-6 h. Fully allergen-specific retest reactivity was observed when primary skin tests had been postponed until 21 days after immunization, most probably reflecting loss of accumulation of irrelevant allergen-primed T cells at that time. As hypothesized, retesting with various methacrylate congeners at primary HEMA, but not DNCB, skin test sites showed early hyperreactivity strengths in line with those observed earlier in conventional cross-reactivity studies. These results, therefore, support the view that local skin memory exhibits allergen specificity through residual allergen-primed T cells. Because the retesting procedure is readily applicable in clinical practice, it provides a tool not only for confirmation of doubtful contact allergic skin reactions, but also for distinguishing between true cross-reactivity and coincident multiple sensitization in man.