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

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.

Overlapping clinical presentation of Mycoplasma-induced rash and mucositis and drug-induced Stevens Johnson Syndrome: A case report

Introduction

Mycoplasma pneumoniae is a worldwide occurring common bacterial agent for community-acquired pneumonia especially in children and young people with high contagiousness. Extrapulmonary complications such as cardiopulmonary, gastrointestinal, neurological and mucocutaneous manifestations including Mycoplasma pneumoniae-induced rash and mucositis (MIRM) may occur especially in adults. MIRM is an important differential diagnosis of Stevens Johnson Syndrome (SJS). Both clinically present similar as mucocutaneous erosive eruptions but have different etiologies.

Case presentation

We present an atypical case of a 36-year-old female with overlapping clinical features of MIRM and SJS. The patient presented to our allergy-outpatient clinic after recovering from mucocutaneous erosive eruptions and receiving an allergy-passport upon discharge for all drugs administered during the course of treatment including a subsequent ban of all beta-lactam antibiotics and NSAIDs for the future resulting in a desperate patient and treating physicians. A positive result of Mycoplasma pneumoniae in the sputum culture upon discharge was unnoticed. An allergological work-up with skin testing and drug provocation testing with the culprit drugs and safe alternatives was performed which resulted negative. Therefore, a new allergy passport was issued with drug alternatives that the patient may use in the future. A diagnosis of MIRM was subsequently made.

Discussion

The present case report depicts the diagnostic algorithm in an atypical case with overlapping clinical features of a MIRM and SJS.

Conclusion

Patients with atypical mucocutaneous eruptions of possible allergological etiology should receive a careful allergological work-up in an experienced tertiary referral center to reduce the number of inadequate allergy passport distribution.

Skin testing as a biomarker in drug allergy

Despite the significant negative impact drug allergies can have on patient care, the diagnosis is largely based on clinical history, and there are limited diagnostic tests that can be done at the time of a reaction. Biomarkers are needed to improve the diagnosis and the identification of the culprit medication. Skin testing is the most useful biomarker for immediate- and delayed-type reactions available, but it is limited by its low sensitivity. To improve its accuracy and reproducibility, a standardized procedure must be used. For immediate-type reactions, penicillin skin testing is the most widely studied, and it can be used in patients with history of anaphylaxis or recent immunoglobulin E-mediated reaction or for whom there is a significant risk if a reaction were to occur, such as pregnancy. Skin testing is also important in allergy to platinum agents allowing for continued first-line therapy. For delayed-type reactions, patch testing and delayed intradermal testing, used in conjunction with clinical history, can help to improve identification of the culprit medication depending on the type of reaction. Other biomarkers including in vitro testing for specific immunoglobulin E, basophil activation test, lymphocyte transformation test, ELISpot, and genetic factors that increase the likelihood of reaction are under investigation, and they may be most helpful when used in combination with the clinical history and skin testing results.

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.

Drug patch testing in Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The data on patch testing (PT) to identify culprit medications in Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN) are limited to scattered case reports and small case series, without analysis of overall trends to inform clinicians of its utility, methodology, and safety.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of the practice of PT in SJS/TEN, quantify the positivity rate of common drug classes, and assess safety during testing.

METHODS

PubMed was searched from inception to 2021. Search terms included "patch testing" AND "SJS" OR "TEN" OR "Stevens-Johnson syndrome" OR "toxic epidermal necrolysis" OR "Lyell's syndrome."

RESULTS

There were 58 articles that met the inclusion criteria. In total, 82 patients underwent patch testing for SJS/TEN, resulting in 104 positive reactions to 49 unique medications. Antiepileptic drugs were responsible for 48.1% of the positive reactions; antibiotics, 28.8%; and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 6.7%. The positivity rates of antiepileptics, antibiotics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were 33.1%, 13.1%, and 21.9%, respectively. When accounting for suspected causality, these rates increased to 54.3%, 78.4%, and 54.5%, respectively. Three patients (3.7%), 2 of whom had human immunodeficiency virus infection and active tuberculosis, experienced systemic reactions during PT, which required only conservative treatment.

CONCLUSION

Published reports suggest that PT in SJS/TEN is useful and safe. Antiepileptic drugs have been tested most frequently and found to have the highest positivity rate. There is a critical need for large-scale studies with standardized methodology to obtain reproducible data on PT in SJS/TEN.

Management of Drug-Induced Epidermal Necrolysis (DEN) in Pediatric Patients: Moving from Drug-Induced Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, Overlap and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis to a Single Unifying Diagnosis of DEN

Pediatric Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) are rare but life-threating blistering diseases triggered by medications that affect the skin and mucosae. Drug-induced epidermal necrolysis is a better term for medication-triggered cases because there is a spectrum of disease severity that otherwise is divided into the separate entities of SJS, overlap SJS/TEN, and TEN. This manuscript reviews the management of drug-induced epidermal necrolysis (DEN), including diagnosis, investigations to exclude differential diagnoses, and treatment. Diagnosis of DEN relies on clinical features and a detailed medication history. The primary differential diagnosis is reactive infectious mucocutaneous eruption, which can be clinically distinguished by its disproportionate mucous membrane involvement relative to (sparse or absent) skin lesions. Identification and discontinuation of culprit medications is the mainstay of treatment of DEN. Early initiation of immunomodulatory therapy may prevent progression, reducing maximal disease severity and the risk of sequelae. A checklist approach to detailed management of DEN is proposed.

Results of patch testing in Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP): a literature review

The literature on positive patch test results in acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) is reviewed. 93 drugs were identified that have together caused 259 positive patch tests in 248 patients suffering from AGEP. The drug classes causing the highest number of reactions are beta-lactam antibiotics (25.9%), other antibiotics (20.8%), iodinated contrast media (7.3%) and corticosteroids (5.4%), together accounting for nearly 60% of all reactions. The highest number of reactions to individual drugs was to amoxicillin (n=36), followed by pristinamycin (n=25), diltiazem (n=14), amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (n=13), clindamycin (n=11) and iomeprol (n=8); 59 of the 93 drugs each caused a single case only. The "Top-10" drugs together caused over 50% of all reactions. The sensitivity of patch testing (percentage of positive reactions) in patients with AGEP is largely unknown, but may generally be around 50%, which also applies to pristinamycin. Patch testing in AGEP appears to be safe, although mild recurrence of AGEP skin symptoms or other rashes may occur occasionally. Clinical aspects of AGEP, including epidemiology, etiology and pathophysiology, clinical features, histology, treatment, and prognosis are briefly presented, as are diagnosing the disease and identifying the culprit drugs with patch tests, intradermal tests, in vitro tests, and challenge tests. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

The Role of Patch Testing in Evaluating Delayed Hypersensitivity Reactions to Medications

Confirming drug imputability is an important step in the management of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADR). Re-challenge is inconvenient and in many cases life threatening. We review the literature on ideal patch testing technique for specific CADRs. Testing should be performed approximately 3 months after the resolution of the eruption using standard patch testing techniques. Commercially available patch test preparations are available for a minority of drugs, so in most cases, testing should be performed with the drug at various recommended concentrations and in different vehicles. Testing to all known excipients, such as dyes, vehicles and preservatives is also important. Immunosuppressive medications should be discontinued or down titrated to the lowest tolerable dose to decrease the risk of false negative reactions. We provide an overview of expert recommendations and extant evidence on the utility of patch testing for identifying the culprit drug in common CADRs and for specific drug or drug classes. Overall, there appears to be significant variability in the patch test positivity of different drugs, which is likely the result of factors intrinsic to the drug such as dermal absorption (as a function of lipophilicity and molecular size) and whether the drug itself or a downstream metabolite is implicated in the immune reaction. Drugs with high patch test positivity rates include beta-lactam antibiotics, aromatic anticonvulsants, phenytoin, and corticosteroids, among others. Patch testing positivity varies both as a function of the drug and type of CADR. The sum of the evidence suggests that patch testing in the setting of morbilliform eruptions, fixed drug eruption, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, and possibly also drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome, photoallergic and eczematous reactions may be worthwhile, although utility of testing may vary on the specific drug in question for the eruption. It appears to be of limited utility and is not recommended in the setting of other complex CADR, such as SJS/TEN and leukocytoclastic vasculitis.

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.

Patch testing versus interferon-gamma release assay in evaluation of drug eruptions

Delayed-onset T-cell-mediated cutaneous adverse drug reactions are an uncommon but potentially serious result of medication exposures. Identification of culprit medications is crucial, but clinical diagnosis is often difficult. Patch tests and interferon-gamma release assays (IFNγ-RA) were previously reported as potentially useful ancillary tests, while rechallenges remain the reference standard test. We compared the number of positive test results with patch testing and IFNγ-RA for drugs implicated as possible causes of cutaneous reactions. Fifty-one patients with a suspected cutaneous drug eruption underwent patch testing and IFNγ-RA for suspected drugs. Participants were followed up at least 9 months after the onset of the rash with results compared with the clinical diagnosis. Forty-two patients presented with morbilliform/eczematous eruptions; five were diagnosed with fixed drug eruption (FDE) and four with erythema multiforme. None had positive patch testing to the drugs tested. A total of 8/51 (15.6%) patients had positive reaction by the IFNγ-RA, and an additional 11 (21.6%) patients had borderline results. Positive or borderline results were more likely in patients with FDE (80%) than morbilliform/eczematous eruptions (30.9%) or erythema multiforme (25%). Our study emphasizes the necessity of additional effective ancillary tests in the evaluation of drug eruptions and supports the use of IFNγ-RA for drug testing as a tool for identifying medications associated with cutaneous drug eruptions.

Patch tests in nonimmediate cutaneous adverse drug reactions: The importance of late readings on day 4

BACKGROUND

Patch tests (PTs) with two readings have been used for decades to identify the culprit drug in nonimmediate cutaneous adverse drug reactions (NICADRs), followed more recently by late reading of intradermal tests (IDTs). Some teams tend to perform PTs with only one reading before IDTs or even directly perform IDTs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the relevance of a late PT reading on day 4 (D4) in NICADRs.

METHODS

We retrospectively selected patients who had a PT for an NICADR between July 2014 and March 2020.

RESULTS

During the study period, 328 patients had a PT with available results. Among the 75 positive-PT patients with available data for the two readings, 41 (54.7%) had positive results on D2 and D4 and 34 (45.3%) had negative results on D2 but positive results on D4. No patient had positive results on D2 and negative results on D4.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that a D4 reading enhanced the PT-positive results. A positive PT result allows for reducing the number of IDTs, which are more difficult and costly to perform. Our series suggests that a late PT reading at D4 should be performed for exploring NICADRs.

Delabeling Delayed Drug Hypersensitivity: How Far Can You Safely Go?

Delayed immune-mediated adverse drug reactions (IM-ADRs) are defined as reactions occurring more than 6 hours after dosing. They include heterogeneous clinical phenotypes that are typically T-cell-mediated reactions with distinct mechanisms across a wide spectrum of severity from benign exanthems through to life-threatening cutaneous or organ-specific diseases. For mild reactions such as benign exanthem, considerations for delabeling are similar to immediate reactions and may include a graded or single-dose drug challenge with or without preceding skin or patch testing. Evaluation of challenging cases such as the patient who is on multiple drugs at the time a severe delayed IM-ADR occurs should prioritize clinical ascertainment of the most likely phenotype and implicated drug(s). Although not widely available and validated, procedures such as patch testing, delayed intradermal skin testing, and laboratory-based functional drug assays or genetic (human leukocyte antigen) testing may provide valuable information to further help risk stratify patients and identify the likely implicated and/or cross-reactive drug(s). The decision to use a drug challenge as a diagnostic or delabeling tool in a patient with a severe delayed IM-ADR should weigh the risk-benefit ratio, balancing the severity and priority for the treatment of the underlying, and the availability of alternative efficacious and safe treatments.

An Updated Review of the Diagnostic Methods in Delayed Drug Hypersensitivity

Delayed drug hypersensitivity reactions are clinically diverse reactions that vary from isolated benign skin conditions that remit quickly with no or symptomatic treatment, drug discontinuation or even continued drug treatment, to the other extreme of severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) that are associated with presumed life-long memory T-cell responses, significant acute and long-term morbidity and mortality. Diagnostic "in clinic" approaches to delayed hypersensitivity reactions have included patch testing (PT), delayed intradermal testing (IDT) and drug challenges for milder reactions. Patch and IDT are, in general, performed no sooner than 4-6 weeks after resolution of the acute reaction at the maximum non-irritating concentrations. Functional in vitro and ex vivo assays have largely remained the province of research laboratories and include lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) and cytokine release enzyme linked ImmunoSpot (ELISpot) assay, an emerging diagnostic tool which uses cytokine release, typically IFN-γ, after the patient's peripheral blood mononuclear cells are stimulated with the suspected drug(s). Genetic markers such as human leukocyte antigen have shown recent promise for both pre-prescription screening as well as pre-emptive and diagnostic testing strategies.

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.

Cross-reactivity in beta-lactams after a non-immediate cutaneous adverse reaction: experience of a reference centre for toxic bullous diseases and severe cutaneous adverse reactions

BACKGROUND

Cross-reactivity among beta-lactam antibiotics (BL) is essentially reported in immediate hypersensitivity.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate cross-reactivity beyond BLs in patients with non-immediate cutaneous adverse drug reaction (non-immediate CADR) managed in a dermatology reference centre of toxic bullous and severe CADRs.

PATIENTS/MATERIALS/METHODS

We conducted a retrospective single-centre study in consecutive patients consulting between 2010 and 2018 with an active BL-suspected non-immediate CADR and explored by cutaneous tests [patch tests (PT) and intradermal tests (P-IDR)] for at least three penicillin's subclasses and amino- and non-amino-cephalosporins (at least one aminocephalosporin). Cross-reactivity among subclasses was investigated for patients with positive tests.

RESULTS

We included 56 patients, among whom 46 amoxicillin-suspected were and seven cephalosporin-suspected. Twenty-nine had severe CADR, and 27 had non-immediate maculopapular exanthema (MPE). Twenty-two had positive tests (18 for AS and four for CS). Among the 18 positive amoxicillin-suspected, 10 (55.6%) showed cross-reactivity with one or more other BL: 9 (50%) with another penicillin and 3 (16.5%) with a non-aminocephalosporin. No amoxicillin- or cephalosporin-suspected patient showed cross-reactivity with aztreonam or carbapenems. P-IDR showed cross-reactivity only once.

CONCLUSION

After a suspected BL-induced non-immediate CADR, a large allergologic exploration is needed to confirm the diagnosis and evaluate cross-reactivity. In our population including cases of severe CADRs and MPE with late delay of onset, cross-reactivity was frequent and PT was sufficient to this purpose. The frequent cross-reactivity among penicillins encourages stopping this whole family and to test cephalosporins, aztreonam and carbapenems for which cross-allergies are rarer.

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.