Contact dermatitis from tioconazole with cross-sensitivity to other imidazoles

Antifungal hypersensitivity reactions and cross-reactivity patterns

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this article is to provide an updated understanding and evidence-based approach where possible for antifungal hypersensitivity. This includes recognition of clinical phenotype, implications for cross-reactivity and diagnostic, and management strategy for immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Antifungal hypersensitivity reactions can be classified according to their latency (immediate or delayed) and clinical phenotype. The majority of the cases described in the literature are delayed T-cell mediated reactions of various severities but immediate reactions consistent with non-Immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated mast cell activation and IgE-mediated reactions have also been described. Ancillary information such as skin testing, drug challenge and ex vivo experimental approaches can aid causality assessments and inform antifungal class cross-reactivity, which help optimize antifungal prescribing and stewardship.

SUMMARY

This review will update the clinician on mechanisms of drug hypersensitivity as well as providing a structured approach to the recognition, diagnosis and management of antifungal hypersensitivity reaction.

Diagnostic workup including CD203c-based basophil activation test in immediate hypersensitivity due to metronidazole and ornidazole and evaluation of cross-reactivity in between

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the diagnostic approaches for immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs) due to 5-nitroimidazole antibiotics. The aim was to evaluate the usefulness of in vivo tests and basophil activation test (BAT) for the diagnosis of IHRs due to metronidazole and ornidazole and to determine possible cross-reactivity in between.

METHODS

Forty-nine patients with a clear history of IHRs due to these drugs and 20 healthy subjects who were known to tolerate these drugs were included. Skin tests (STs) and single-blind placebo-controlled drug provocation tests (SBPCDPTs) were performed with both drugs whereas BAT was applied only with the culprit drug.

RESULTS

The most and least common reaction types were urticaria/angioedema (34.7%) and anaphylaxis (14.3%), respectively. SBPCDPTs were positive in 15 out of 47 patients, and only 7 had positive STs. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of STs for metronidazole/ornidazole were 33.3%/16.6%, 94.2%/97.3%, 60%/50%, and 84.6%/88.1%, respectively. BAT was positive in 12 out of 15 patients and negative in 10 control subjects, giving a sensitivity rate of 71.4% (CI, 29.0%-96.3%) for metronidazole and 83.3% (CI, 35.8%-99.5%) for ornidazole. The optimal concentration of both drugs for BAT was determined as 5 mg/mL. No cross-reactivity among two drugs was observed according to in vivo tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that SBPCDPT and BAT are both useful diagnostic tools for IHRs due to 5-nitroimidazole antibiotics and can be used as supplementary to each other. No cross-reactivity between metronidazole and ornidazole in IHRs exists.

Allergic contact dermatitis to topical antibiotics: Epidemiology, responsible allergens, and management

Topical antibiotics are widely used to treat cutaneous, ocular, and otic infections. Allergic contact dermatitis to topical antibiotics is a rare but well-documented side effect, especially in at-risk populations. The purpose of this article is to review the epidemiology, responsible allergens, and management of allergic contact dermatitis to topical antibiotics.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE

After completing this learning activity, participants should be able to describe the epidemiology of allergic contact dermatitis related to topical antibiotics; show knowledge of the most common allergenic topical antibiotics; and understand the allergenic cross-reactivity pattern amongst topical antibiotics.

Anaphylaxis to omeprazole

BACKGROUND

Omeprazole is a non-competitive inhibitor of the parietal cell enzyme H+-K--adenosine triphosphatase. To date, two cases of angioedema and urticaria and two cases of anaphylaxis from omeprazole have been published.

OBJECTIVE

To report a new patient with omeprazole-induced anaphylaxis demonstrated by skin tests and increased serum tryptase levels.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Elevated serum tryptase levels (5.1 U/L) were detected 6 hours after the onset of the anaphylaxis. Skin intradermal tests were positive with omeprazole i.v. (4 mg/mL), omeprazole capsules diluted in saline serum (20 mg/ mL), and lansoprazole (30 mg/mL). Serum specific IgE anti-omeprazole was negative.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the elevated serum tryptase levels and the positive skin test results, anaphylaxis was due to use of omeprazole. We think the adverse reaction to omeprazole was induced by an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity mechanism to omeprazole itself and not to a metabolite. We have also demonstrated crossreactivity, at least by skin tests, between omeprazole and lansoprazole.

A study of 72 patients with contact allergy to tioconazole

Over a 3 1/2 year period, from 1991 to 1994, we detected contact allergy to tioconazole in 72 patients by epicutaneous testing. During this period, tioconazole was included in the standard series of epicutaneous tests. Except for the first 6 months, the incidence of positive patch test reactions to tioconazole was over 1% of patients tested for contact allergy. As well as those tested with the standard series, 18 additional patients with tioconazole allergy were detected by direct testing with an imidazole patch test series. Of the various imidazole derivatives, tioconazole was the most important contact allergen. About half of patients with contact hypersensitivity to tioconazole, had additional contact allergies detected by the standard series. Men and women were equally affected. The present study suggests that tioconazole is an important contact allergen, which should be included into the patch test series in countries where it is used as a topical antifungal agent.

Contact allergy to imidazoles used as antimycotic agents

The present article reviews the literature (up to 1994) on contact sensitivity to imidazoles and presents the results obtained from 15 patients observed at the Contact Allergy Unit in Leuven. The frequency as well as the cross-reaction patterns described are analyzed. Although allergic contact reactions may have been missed in the past (mainly because of problems with the correct choice of vehicle for patch testing), they seem to be relatively infrequent in view of their widespread use. The imidazole derivatives most frequently reported to be allergens are miconazole, econazole, tioconazole, and isoconazole. As far as cross-reactivity is concerned, statistically significant associations were found in the patient data between miconazole, econazole, and isoconazole; between sulconazole, miconazole, and econazole; and also between isoconazole and tioconazole. Patients sensitive to phenylethyl imidazoles (except ketoconazole) needing antimycotic therapy should be advised to use ketoconazole, clotrimazole, bifonazole, or, perhaps, the new flutrimazole. Clearly, non-imidazole antifungals can also be used.

Metronidazole hypersensitivity

OBJECTIVE

To report a case of a possible hypersensitivity reaction induced by metronidazole.

CASE SUMMARY

An Asian woman with a history of recurrent vaginitis had previously developed localized erythema while on intravaginal metronidazole and nystatin. While receiving oral metronidazole for treatment of a current bacterial vaginosis, she developed chills, fever, generalized erythema, and a rash within 60 minutes of the first dose. Treatment with diphenhydramine was instituted. The following day while in the hospital, the patient's condition worsened; she experienced shortness of breath and increased edema of the extremities. Methylprednisolone was administered with diphenhydramine and her condition improved over the next 5 days. The patient's vaginitis was treated with gentian violet and she was discharged on a tapering dosage of prednisone.

DISCUSSION

Metronidazole-induced cutaneous reactions and systemic hypersensitivity reactions are reviewed. Alternatives to metronidazole and other potential cross-reactive drugs are suggested for the treatment of recurrent vaginitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the patient's initial reaction to metronidazole represented a rare event, written documentation and communication in the patient's native language may have prevented the subsequent severe hypersensitivity reaction.