Non-irritant concentrations and amounts of active ingredient in drug patch tests

Hypersensitivity reactions to proton pump inhibitors. An EAACI position paper

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are invaluable therapeutic options in a variety of dyspeptic diseases. In addition to their well-known risk profile, PPI consumption is related to food and environmental allergies, dysbiosis, osteoporosis, as well as immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). The latter, although a rare event, around 1%-3%, due to the extraordinarily high rate of prescription and consumption of PPIs are related to a substantial risk. In this Position Paper, we provide clinicians with practical evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of HSRs to PPIs. Furthermore, the unmet needs proposed in the document aim to stimulate more in-depth investigations in the topic.

In Situ Patch Test and Repeated Open Application Test for Fixed Drug Eruption: A Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated allergy workup in fixed drug eruption (FDE) in a large population.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the sensitivity of a standardized allergy workup for diagnosing the cause of FDE, with a focus on in situ repeated open application tests (ROATs).

METHODS

In a retrospective multicenter study, we analyzed the practice of conducting a complete allergy workup for the etiological diagnosis of FDE. It consisted of 3 steps: in situ patch tests (PTs) for all cases except pure mucosal involvement, followed by in situ ROAT if in situ PT results were negative, and finally a drug challenge (DC). The in situ ROAT involved daily application of the suspected drug on a previously affected FDE site for 7 days.

RESULTS

Of 98 suspected FDE cases, 61 patients (median age 61 y; male-to-female ratio 1.8) with a complete allergy workup were included. In 4 cases, even the DC yielded negative results. Among the remaining 57 patients with a positive workup, implicated drugs included paracetamol (12 cases), β-lactams (11 cases), imidazoles (9 cases, including 5 with metronidazole), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (8 cases), iodinated contrast media (4 cases), cotrimoxazole (3 cases), and various other drugs in 10 patients. The diagnosis was confirmed by in situ PT in 17 of 54 cases (31.5%), in situ ROAT in 14 of 40 cases (35%) (with 4 cases showing remote reactivation of FDE sites), and DC in 26 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The sequential allergy workup involving successively in situ PT, in situ ROAT, and DC is a reliable and safe method for diagnosing the cause of FDE. In situ tests exhibited a sensitivity of over 50%.

Delayed-type allergic reaction to furazolidone: A case report and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Furazolidone is a nitrofuran antimicrobial agent used in the treatment of bacterial and protozoal infections. Hypersensitivity to furazolidone is rarely reported and only eight cases have been documented in English since 1967.

OBJECTIVES

To report a 24-year-old man who developed exanthematous drug eruptions in general and swelling sensation of the hands after first dose of oral administration of medicines for Helicobacter pylori infection 7 h later, who was finally confirmed with delayed-type IV allergic reaction to furazolidone by provocation tests. And to review the existing literature.

METHODS

Thorough clinical examination, prick, intradermal, and patch tests, drug provocation tests were performed in the patient.

RESULTS

Skin tests of all used drugs were negative. Drug provocation tests to furazolidone resulted to be positive.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians should be aware that furazolidone may induce delayed-type allergic reactions; diagnostic approaches should be taken to identify the responsible drug when multiple medications were used concurrently.

Utility and Safety of Skin Tests in Drug Reaction With Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms (DRESS): A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Determination of culprit drug in drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is crucial. Skin tests have been used, although it remains unclear how sensitive these are.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the value of skin tests in the assessment of drug causality in DRESS.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for publications from 1996 onward of skin tests (skin prick test = SPT, patch test = PT, intradermal test = IDT) performed in clearly defined DRESS cases. Outcomes of testing, drug culpability assessments, and challenge test data were extracted.

RESULTS

A total of 17 articles met inclusion criteria. In 290 patients with DRESS, patch testing was most frequent (PT = 97.2% [n = 282], IDT = 12.4% [n = 36], SPT = 3.1% [n = 9]). Positive results were noted in 58.4% (n = 160 of 282) of PTs, 66.5% of IDTs, and 25% of SPTs. When confidence of drug causality was high (n = 73 of 194), testing did not correlate well with clinical suspicion: PTs, 37.6%; IDTs, 36.5%. Direct comparison of skin testing with provocation testing (n = 12) showed 83.3% correlation. Positive IDT results were reported in 8 negative PT cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Skin tests, particularly PTs and IDTs, have been reported as tools for diagnosis of causal drugs in DRESS. Heterogeneity in methodology, results analysis, and reporting of cohorts make meta-analysis to determine sensitivity and specificity of published literature impossible and highlight weaknesses in the field. We propose that international collaboration is essential to harmonize the methodology and reporting measures from hypersensitivity testing studies in larger cohorts.

Skin Testing and Drug Provocation Tests in Epidermal Necrolysis: A French Experience

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on the use of skin testing, other than patch testing, and challenges in the evaluation of epidermal necrolysis (EN), including Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis.

OBJECTIVE

To report a French multicenter experience in skin testing and challenges in EN, and investigate the factors associated with tests' positivity.

METHODS

All patients who were evaluated by patch tests (PTs), skin prick tests, intradermal tests (IDTs), or drug provocation tests (DPTs) for EN between 2010 and 2020 were retrospectively included through 2 French drug reaction networks.

RESULTS

In total, 113 patients were included from 8 centers. Median (interquartile range) time from EN to hypersensitivity workup was 7.9 months (5.1-15 months). All patients had PTs, 17 (15%) had skin prick tests or IDTs with delayed readings and 32 (28.3%) had DPTs. One mild reaction occurred after a DPT. Overall, 22 patients (19.5%) had positive PTs, and the only factors associated with positivity were Algorithm of Drug Causality for Epidermal Necrolysis (ALDEN) score and drug class. Only 1 IDT was positive but considered irrelevant. The DPTs were never performed to prove responsibility of a highly suspected drug but were used to confirm current tolerance of needed medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Allergological workup in EN, performed by specialists involved in EN, seems safe. Skin tests, although of limited sensitivity, can be helpful for considering the reintroduction of essential drugs according to a benefit-to-risk decision. We propose an algorithm for approaching hypersensitivity testing in patients with EN, to be adapted to each patient.

Patch testing in Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS): a literature review

The literature on positive patch test results in drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is reviewed. 105 drugs were identified that have together caused 536 positive patch tests in 437 patients suffering from DRESS. By far most reactions (n=145) were caused by carbamazepine, followed by amoxicillin, isoniazid, phenytoin, ethambutol, fluindione, phenobarbital, rifampicin, and ceftriaxone; 43 drugs each caused a single case only. The drug classes causing the highest number of reactions are anticonvulsants (39%), beta-lactam antibiotics (20%), antituberculosis agents (11%), non-beta-lactam antibiotics (6%) and iodinated contrast media (5%). The sensitivity of patch testing (percentage of positive reactions) is high for anticonvulsants (notably carbamazepine), beta-lactam antibiotics (notably amoxicillin) and possibly iodinated contrast media. Allopurinol and sulfasalazine frequently cause DRESS, but never give positive patch tests. Patch testing in DRESS appears to be safe, although mild recurrence of DRESS symptoms, mostly skin reactions, may not be rare. Multiple drug hypersensitivity was found to occur in 16% of all patients, but it is argued that the true frequency is (far) higher. Clinical aspects of DRESS, including diagnosing the disease and identifying culprit drugs (patch tests, intradermal tests, in vitro tests, challenge tests) are also provided, emphasizing the role of patch testing. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Patch Testing in Drug Eruptions: Practical Aspects and Literature Review of Eruptions and Culprit Drugs

ABSTRACT

There is overwhelming evidence that many delayed cutaneous adverse drug reactions (beginning >6 hours after drug intake) are mediated by delayed-type (type IV) hypersensitivity, including maculopapular eruptions, erythroderma, symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema/baboon syndrome, eczematous eruptions, fixed drug eruptions, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms/drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome. Therefore, after resolution of the reaction, patch tests should be performed as first diagnostic method to identify the culprit drug(s). This article provides tools to perform drug patch tests properly and safely, discussing clinical history, indications, procedure, drug patch test materials, sensitivity, the meaning of negative patch tests, and safety of the procedure. In addition, a literature review of eruptions and culprit drugs is provided in tabular format.

An EAACI Task Force report on allergy to beta-lactams in children: Clinical entities and diagnostic procedures

Beta-lactam (BL) allergy suspicion is common in children and constitutes a major public health problem, with an impact on patient's health and on medical costs. However, it has been found that most of these reactions are not confirmed by a complete allergic workup. The diagnostic value of the currently available allergy tests has been investigated intensively recently by different groups throughout the world. This has led to major changes in the management of children with a suspected BL allergy. Particularly, it is now well accepted that skin tests can be skipped before the drug provocation test in children with a benign non-immediate reaction to BL. However, there is still a debate on the optimal allergic workup to perform in children with a benign immediate reaction. In addition, management of children with severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions remains difficult. In this review, based on a selection of the most relevant studies found in the literature, we will review and discuss the diagnosis of different forms of BL allergy in children.

Role of in vivo and in vitro Tests in the Diagnosis of Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions (SCAR) to Drug

Severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCAR) are life-threatening conditions including acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). Diagnosis of causative underlying drug hypersensitivity (DH) is mandatory due to the high morbidity and mortality upon re-exposure with the incriminated drug. If an underlying DH is suspected, in vivo test, including patch tests (PTs), delayed-reading intradermal tests (IDTs) and in vitro tests can be performed in selected patients for which the suspected culprit drug is mandatory, or in order to find a safe alternative treatment. Positivity of in vivo and in vitro tests in SCAR to drug varies depending on the type of reaction and the incriminated drugs. Due to the severe nature of these reactions, drug provocation test (DPT) is highly contraindicated in patients who experienced SCAR. Thus, sensitivity is based on positive test results in patients with a suggestive clinical history. Patch tests still remain the first-line diagnostic tests in the majority of patients with SCAR, followed, in case of negative results, by delayed-reading IDTs, with the exception of patients with bullous diseases where IDTs are still contra-indicated. In vitro tests have shown promising results in the diagnosis of SCAR to drug. Positivity is particularly high when the lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) is combined with cytokines and cytotoxic markers measurement (cyto-LTT), but this still has to be confirmed with larger studies. Due to the rarity of SCAR, large multi-center collaborative studies are needed to better study the sensitivity and specificity of in vivo and in vitro tests.

Towards a more precise diagnosis of hypersensitivity to beta-lactams - an EAACI position paper

A recent survey of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Drug Allergy Interest Group (DAIG) on how European allergy specialists deal with beta-lactam (BL) hypersensitivity demonstrated a significant heterogeneity in current practice, suggesting the need to review and update existing EAACI guidelines in order to make the diagnostic procedures as safe and accurate, but also as cost-effective, as possible. For this purpose, a bibliographic search on large studies regarding BL hypersensitivity diagnosis was performed by an EAACI task force, which reviewed and evaluated the literature data using the GRADE system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. The updated guidelines provide a risk stratification in BL hypersensitivity according to index reaction(s), as well as an algorithmic approach, based on cross-reactivity studies, in patients with a suspicion of BL hypersensitivity and an immediate need for antibiotic therapy, when referral to an allergist is not feasible. Furthermore, the update addresses availability and concentrations of skin test (ST) reagents, ST and drug provocation test (DPT) protocols, and diagnostic algorithms and administration of alternative BL in allergic subjects. Specifically, distinct diagnostic algorithms are suggested depending on risk stratification of the patient into high and low risk based on the morphology and chronology of the reaction, immediate (ie, occurring within 1-6 hours after the last administered dose) or nonimmediate (ie, occurring more than 1 hour after the initial drug administration), and the reaction severity. Regarding the allergy workup, the main novelty of this document is the fact that in some low-risk nonimmediate reactions ST are not mandatory, especially in children. For DPT, further studies are necessary to provide data supporting the standardization of protocols, especially of those regarding nonimmediate reactions, for which there is currently no consensus.

Controversies in drug allergy: Testing for delayed reactions

Controversies exist with regard to in vivo approaches to delayed immunologically mediated adverse drug reactions, such as exanthem (maculopapular eruption), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and fixed drug eruptions. In particular, widespread differences exist between regions and practice on the availability and use of intradermal and patch testing, the standard drug concentrations used, the use of additional drugs in intradermal and patch testing to help determine cross-reactivity, the timing of testing in relation to the occurrence of the adverse drug reaction, the use of testing in specific phenotypes, and the use of oral challenge in conjunction with delayed intradermal and patch testing to ascertain drug tolerance. It was noted that there have been advances in the science of delayed T cell-mediated reactions that have shed light on immunopathogenesis and provided a mechanism of preprescription screening in the case of HLA-B*57:01 and abacavir hypersensitivity and HLA-B*15:02 and carbamazepine Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis in Southeast Asian subjects. Future directions should include the collaboration of large international networks to develop and standardize in vivo diagnostic approaches, such as skin testing and patch testing, combined with ex vivo and in vitro laboratory approaches.

Update on Quinolone Allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Quinolones are a group of synthetic antibiotics widely use as first-line treatment for many infections. There has been an increase in the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions to quinolones in recent years, likely due to increased prescription. The purpose of this review is to summarize the clinical pictures, the methods used for diagnosing and the management of allergic reactions to quinolones.

RECENT FINDINGS

Allergic reactions to quinolones can be immediate or delayed, being anaphylaxis and maculopapular exanthema respectively the most frequent clinical entities. A precise diagnosis is particularly difficult since clinical history is often unreliable, skin tests can induce false-positive results, and commercial in vitro test are not well validated. Therefore, drug provocation testing is considered the gold standard to establish diagnosis, which is not a risk-free procedure. Cross-reactivity between quinolones is difficult to predict due to the small number of patients included in the few published studies. Moreover, hypersensitivity to quinolones has also been associated with beta-lactam and neuromuscular blocking agent allergies, although further studies are needed to understand the underlying mechanisms. Avoidance of the culprit quinolone is indicated in patients with a diagnosis of hypersensitivity to these drugs. When quinolone treatment is the only therapeutic option available, desensitization is necessary. This review summarizes the complex diagnostic approach and management of allergic reactions to quinolones.

Patch testing in non-immediate cutaneous adverse drug reactions: value of extemporaneous patch tests

BACKGROUND

Patch testing following a standardized protocol is reliable for identifying the culprit drug in cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs). However, these patch tests (PTs) require pharmaceutical material and staff, which are not always easily available.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate an extemporaneous PT method in CADRs.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed data for all patients referred to our department between March 2009 and June 2013 for patch testing after a non-immediate CADR. The patients who supplied their own suspected drugs were tested both with extemporaneous PTs and with conventional PTs. Extemporaneous PTs involved a nurse crushing and diluting the drug in pet. in a ratio of approximately one-third to two-thirds. Standardized PTs were performed according to guidelines, with commercial drugs diluted to 30% or with active ingredients diluted to 10%. We analysed the data for the two PT methods in terms of the number of positive test reactions, drugs tested, and type of CADR for patients in whom the two PT methods were used.

RESULTS

In total, 75 of 156 patients underwent the two PT procedures, including 91 double tests. Overall, 21 tests gave positive reactions with the two methods, and 69 other tests gave negative results with the two methods.

CONCLUSION

Our series yielded results similar to those of published series concerning the types of CADR and the drugs responsible. Our results suggest that, for CADRs, if a patient supplies a suspected drug but if the pharmaceutical material and staff are not available for conventional PTs, extemporaneous PTs performed by the nurse with the commercial drug used by the patient can be useful and reliable.

Non-immediate Cutaneous Reactions to Beta-Lactams: Approach to Diagnosis

Non-immediate cutaneous reactions (i.e., occurring at least 1 h after the initial drug administration), particularly maculopapular exanthemas and urticarial eruptions, are common during beta-lactam treatments. A T cell-mediated pathogenic mechanism has been demonstrated in some cutaneous reactions, such as maculopapular exanthema, fixed drug eruption, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, and drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome. In the diagnostic work-up, patch testing is useful, together with delayed-reading intradermal testing. Patch tests are a simple and safe diagnostic tool, which in the case of severe reactions should be used as the first line of investigation. However, patch tests are less sensitive than intradermal tests, which are preferable in subjects with mild reactions. Lymphocyte transformation or activation tests and enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assays can be used as complementary tests. In selected cases of mild or moderate reactions, displaying negative results in the aforesaid allergy tests, a graded challenge with the implicated beta-lactam can be performed.

Management of allergy to penicillins and other beta-lactams

The Standards of Care Committee of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) and an expert panel have prepared this guidance for the management of immediate and non-immediate allergic reactions to penicillins and other beta-lactams. The guideline is intended for UK specialists in both adult and paediatric allergy and for other clinicians practising allergy in secondary and tertiary care. The recommendations are evidence based, but where evidence is lacking, the panel reached consensus. During the development of the guideline, all BSACI members were consulted using a Web-based process and all comments carefully considered. Included in the guideline are epidemiology of allergic reactions to beta-lactams, molecular structure, formulations available in the UK and a description of known beta-lactam antigenic determinants. Sections on the value and limitations of clinical history, skin testing and laboratory investigations for both penicillins and cephalosporins are included. Cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins is discussed in detail. Recommendations on oral provocation and desensitization procedures have been made. Guidance for beta-lactam allergy in children is given in a separate section. An algorithm to help the clinician in the diagnosis of patients with a history of penicillin allergy has also been included.

Pathogenesis and diagnosis of delayed-type drug hypersensitivity reactions, from bedside to bench and back

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) have been present since the advent of drugs. In particular T-cell mediated delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions represent a heterogeneous clinical entity with a diverse pathogenesis and result in a considerable burden of morbidity and mortality not only driven by the reactions themselves but also by the use of alternatives which are sometimes less effective or even more dangerous. Diagnostic procedures rely on clinical history, skin testing and potential provocation testing, whereas validated in vitro diagnostic procedures are still lacking for most of them. Recent work in the field of pharmacogenomics combined with basic scientific research has provided insights in the pathogenesis of abacavir and carbamazepine hypersensitivities linked with certain human leucocyte antigen risk alleles. Nevertheless, important scientific questions on how other DHR arise and how host-drug interactions occur, remain unanswered. Recent work indicates an intricate relation between host, drug and pathogens in severe cutaneous and systemic reactions and provides more insights in the role of regulatory T-cells and viral reactivation in these reactions. In this review we focus on type IV delayed-type DHR, and address recent advances in the pathogenesis, pharmacogenomics, and diagnosis of these reactions with an emphasis on the understandings arising from basic research.

European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing - recommendations on best practice

The present guideline summarizes all aspects of patch testing for the diagnosis of contact allergy in patients suspected of suffering, or having been suffering, from allergic contact dermatitis or other delayed-type hypersensitivity skin and mucosal conditions. Sections with brief descriptions and discussions of different pertinent topics are followed by a highlighted short practical recommendation. Topics comprise, after an introduction with important definitions, materials, technique, modifications of epicutaneous testing, individual factors influencing the patch test outcome or necessitating special considerations, children, patients with occupational contact dermatitis and drug eruptions as special groups, patch testing of materials brought in by the patient, adverse effects of patch testing, and the final evaluation and patient counselling based on this judgement. Finally, short reference is made to aspects of (continuing) medical education and to electronic collection of data for epidemiological surveillance.