Bose R, Finstad A, Ogbalidet S, Boshra M, Fahim S. Lab-Based Culprit Drug Identification Methods for Cutaneous Drug Eruptions: A Scoping Review.
J Cutan Med Surg 2022;
26:291-296. [PMID:
35086349 DOI:
10.1177/12034754211073667]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Identification of culprit drugs when managing cutaneous drug eruptions is essential. Causality assessment methods (CAMs) have been proposed, including lab-based techniques. However, no consensus guidelines exist.
OBJECTIVES
To identify and map the functionality and feasibility of lab-based CAMs.
METHODS
A scoping review was conducted to identify culprit drug identification methods. Publications on lab-based methods were analyzed. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched.
RESULTS
Twenty-five publications met inclusion criteria. Nine lab-based CAMs were studied, including lymphocyte transformation test, cytokine measurement (ELISpot, ELISA, beads array assay), modified IFN-ɣ ELISpot, CellScan, histamine release, granzyme B-ELISpot, intracellular granulysin, lymphocyte toxicity assay, and HLA allele genotyping. Diagnostic accuracy was reported for 8/9 methods. Clinical assessment and operational algorithms were commonly used as validation benchmarks. Lab-based methods were assessed at different phases of a drug eruption including in the acute (18.1%), recovery (27.3%), acute and recovery (27.3%), or an unspecified phase (27.3%). Lymphocyte transformation test (specificity 30% to 100%, sensitivity 27% to 73%) and cytokine measurement (specificity 76% to 100%, sensitivity 20% to 84%) were the most common methods studied.
CONCLUSIONS
Lab-based CAMs can be low-risk, effective, and complementary of clinical methods. High-quality studies are needed to adequately develop and validate these tools for clinical practice.
Collapse