Delayed hypersensitivity to corticosteroids in a series of 315 patients: clinical data and patch test results

Recognizing and Managing Allergic Contact Dermatitis: Focus on Major Allergens

Patch testing is the reference standard for the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. Identification and avoidance of culprit allergens are essential in the treatment of this disease. Each year, new allergens are identified as emerging or important. The authors discuss allergens that are common, enduring, emergent, incompletely recognized, and controversial for the practicing allergist and dermatologist. This Clinical Management Review will encompass a review of fragrances, preservatives, rubber, acrylates, metals, and medications; their common sources of exposure; controversies in diagnosis and patch testing; management and how to avoid those allergens. This review will also include practical aspects of diagnosis and management and will provide resources that can be used as guidance for physicians and patients on nickel, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, and fragrance, the most common allergens positive on patch testing.

Contact allergy to corticosteroids: Is the European baseline series sufficient?

BACKGROUND

Patients are consecutively screened for contact allergy to corticosteroids with budesonide and tixocortol-21-pivalate in the European baseline series. Centres using TRUE Test also include hydrocortisone-17-butyrate. A supplementary corticosteroid patch test series is used in case of suspicion of corticosteroid contact allergy or when a marker of corticosteroid contact allergy is positive.

OBJECTIVE

The aims were to evaluate (1) the efficacy of corticosteroids in the TRUE Test and (2) co-sensitization patterns.

METHODS

This retrospective study analysed patients patch tested with TRUE Test corticosteroids plus supplementary corticosteroid series in the period 2006-2020 at the Department of Dermatology and Allergy Centre, Odense University Hospital.

RESULTS

Of 1852 patients tested, 119 were sensitised to TRUE Test corticosteroids and supplementary testing found additional reactions to other corticosteroids in 19 of 119 patients. TRUE Test corticosteroids gave more positive and stronger reactions compared to allergens in petrolatum/ethanol. Fourteen percent of sensitised patients were co-sensitised to multiple corticosteroid groups. Baeck group 3 corticosteroids accounted for 9 of 16 patients not identified by TRUE Test.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide, hydrocortisone-17-butyrate, and tixocortol-21-pivalate in combination are sensitive corticosteroid markers. In case of clinical suspicion of corticosteroid contact allergy, patch testing with supplementary corticosteroids is highly recommended.

Analysis of Positive Patch Test Allergens in Allergic Contact Dermatitis Patients with Atopic Dermatitis

BACKGROUND

There has been debate regarding whether patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) have an altered frequency of contact allergen sensitization. Increased exposure to topical medications and moisturizers as well as impaired skin barrier function increase the risk of contact sensitization, whereas the Th2-skewed inflammatory pathway of AD is associated with a reduced risk.

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective study was performed to determine the characteristics of contact sensitization in allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) patients with a current or past history of AD.

METHODS

A clinical record review was conducted for patients referred to Ewha Womans University Medical Center, for patch tests between March 2017 and March 2021. We compared the rates of contact sensitization between ACD patients with and without AD.

RESULTS

In total, 515 patch test results were reviewed and divided into the AD group (n=53) and non-AD group (n=462). The AD group showed decreased any-allergen positivity (1+, 2+, or 3+) (56.6%) compared to the non-AD group (72.9%) (p=0.013). The positivity rate for budesonide was significantly higher in the AD group (p=0.011), while the prevalence of a positive result for balsam of Peru was higher in the non-AD group (p=0.036). Nickel sulfate, cobalt chloride, and potassium dichromate were the most common sensitized allergens in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows a decreased prevalence of contact sensitization in AD patients compared to non-AD patients. Clinicians should be aware of the risk of corticosteroid allergies in ACD patients with history of AD.

Immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids - prevalence, diagnosis and treatment

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids, which are anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive agents used for the treatment of various diseases including allergic disorders, can induce immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions. Although these reactions are not common, due to the wide usage of corticosteroid medications, corticosteroid hypersensitivity reactions are clinically important.

OBJECTIVE

In this review, we summarise the prevalence, pathogenetic mechanism, clinical manifestations, risk factors, diagnostic and therapeutic approach for corticosteroid-induced hypersensitivity reactions.

METHODS

An integrative review of the literature was conducted using PubMed searches (mainly large cohort-based studies) regarding the different aspects of corticosteroid hypersensitivity.

RESULTS

Hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids can be immediate or delayed and can follow all modes of corticosteroid administration. Prick and intradermal skin tests are useful diagnostic tools for immediate hypersensitivity reactions, patch tests are useful for delayed hypersensitivity reactions. According to the diagnostic tests an alternative (safe) corticosteroid agent should be administered.

CONCLUSION

Physicians of all medical disciplines should be aware that corticosteroids can cause (paradoxically) immediate or delayed allergic hypersensitivity reactions. The diagnosis of such allergic reactions is challenging since it is often difficult to distinguish between hypersensitivity reactions and deterioration of the basic inflammatory disease (e.g., worsening of asthma or dermatitis). Thus, a high index of suspicion is needed in order to identify the culprit corticosteroid.

Prevalence of contact allergy to corticosteroids in a Danish patient population

Background

Allergic contact dermatitis to corticosteroids can be a challenging diagnosis as corticosteroids are used in the treatment of dermatitis. The prevalence of contact allergy to corticosteroid varies between previous studies.

Objective

To study the prevalence of sensitization to budesonide, tixocortol‐21‐pivalate and hydrocortisone‐17‐butyrate in a Danish patient population from 2006‐2020, cross‐sensitization, risk factors and clinical relevance.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of patch test data and MOAHLFA index was performed among 6823 patients consecutively patch tested with TRUE test as part of the baseline series.

Results

A positive patch test for corticosteroids was found in 185 patients (1.2% budesonide, 1.6% tixocortol‐21‐pivalate, 1.0% hydrocortisone‐17‐butyrate) without gender difference. For women, the prevalence of tixocortol‐21‐pivalate sensitization increased significantly from 1.3% in 2006–2008 to 2.9% in 2018–2020. Tixocortol‐21‐pivalate sensitization had more frequently clinical relevance in women (61.3%) compared to men (34.5%). Age above 40 years was positively associated to corticosteroid sensitization. Budesonide and hydrocortisone‐17‐butyrate accounted for 67.7% of co‐sensitizations.

Conclusions

The prevalence of corticosteroid sensitization was 2.7%. Age was the only risk factor for corticosteroid sensitization. The frequency of corticosteroid sensitization was stabile over time except for tixocortol‐21‐pivalate sensitization for women. About one third of sensitized patients had co‐sensitizations to other corticosteroid groups.

Systemic allergic dermatitis (systemic contact dermatitis) from pharmaceutical drugs: A review

The literature on systemic allergic dermatitis (SAD; also known as systemic contact dermatitis) is reviewed. Both topical drugs (from absorption through mucosae or skin) and systemic drugs (oral, parenteral, rectal) may be responsible for the disorder. The topical route appears to be rare with 41 culprit topical drugs found to cause SAD in 95 patients. Most reactions are caused by budesonide (especially from inhalation), bufexamac, and dibucaine. SAD from systemic drugs is infrequent with 95 culprit drugs found to cause SAD in 240 patients. The drugs most frequently implicated are mitomycin C, methylprednisolone (salt, ester), and hydrocortisone (salt). The largest group of culprit drugs consisted of corticosteroids (19%), being responsible for >30% of the reactions, of which nearly 40% were not caused by therapeutic drugs, but by drug provocation tests. The most frequent manifestations of SAD from drugs are eczematous eruptions (scattered, widespread, generalized, worsening, reactivation), maculopapular eruptions, symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE [baboon syndrome]) and widespread erythema or erythroderma. Therapeutic systemic drugs hardly ever cause reactivation of previously positive patch tests and infrequently of previous allergic contact dermatitis. The pathophysiology of SAD has received very little attention. Explanations for the rarity of SAD are suggested.

Allergic Contact Dermatitis From Topical Drugs: An Overview

ABSTRACT

Allergic contact dermatitis from topical drugs is frequent and is seen in 10% to 17% of patients patch tested for suspected contact dermatitis. More than 360 drugs have been implicated as contact allergens, of which-generally-antibiotics, corticosteroids, local anesthetics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the most frequent culprits. This article provides an overview of allergic contact dermatitis to topical drugs, discussing their prevalence of sensitization, predisposing factors, clinical manifestations (both typical and atypical), the drugs described as allergens, cross-reactivity and coreactivity, and diagnostic procedures.

Patch testing of budesonide in Italy: The SIDAPA baseline series experience, 2018-2019

BACKGROUND

Budesonide was included in the European Baseline Series in 2000 as the most suitable marker forcorticosteroid hypersensitivity. In the last two decades, a decreasing trend of budesonide allergy has been observed.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the prevalence of positive patch test reactions to budesonide in a large, Italian patch test population, characterizing patients according to MOAHLFA index and evaluating the benefit with extended readings of budesonide patch test.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patient demographics and patch test results over a 2-year period (2018-2019) was performed at 14 patch test clinics in Italy.

RESULTS

Ninety out of 14 544 (0.6%) patients reacted to budesonide 0.01% pet.. Positive reactions were mild in 54.4% and late readings at day 7 showed new positive reactions in 37.8% of patients. The MOAHLFA index showed a significant positive association with male gender, atopic dermatitis, and age >40 years and a significant negative association with hand and face dermatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

We documented a low prevalence of budesonide allergy in Italy, confirming its decreasing trend recently reported in the literature. Nevertheless, budesonide needs to be maintained in the baseline series for its good ability to detect corticosteroid sensitization.

Allergic contact dermatitis in children and proposal for an Australian Paediatric Baseline Series

BACKGROUND

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is an increasingly common diagnosis in children. The objectives of this study were to review our experience with ACD in children in tertiary settings, to ascertain the spectrum of allergens in this population and to subsequently propose the first Australian Paediatric Baseline Series for patch testing.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patch test data from 1993 to 2017 from two tertiary referral patch-testing centres in Melbourne, Victoria.

RESULTS

A total of 511 children were patch tested during the study period. Of these, 58.3% (298/511) of children tested had a positive patch test, and 65.1% (194/298, or 38.0% of the total) had a relevant positive patch test. The most common relevant patch test reactions were fragrance mix, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) and methylisothiazolinone (MI), Myroxylon pereirae, nickel sulphate, and colophonium.

CONCLUSION

Allergic contact dermatitis is not uncommon in children, and patch testing should be considered in children with suspected ACD or with recalcitrant atopic dermatitis. Based on our experience over 25 years, we propose the first Australian Paediatric Baseline Series.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Hoarseness (Dysphonia) (Update)

Objective

This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on treating patients who present with dysphonia, which is characterized by altered vocal quality, pitch, loudness, or vocal effort that impairs communication and/or quality of life. Dysphonia affects nearly one-third of the population at some point in its life. This guideline applies to all age groups evaluated in a setting where dysphonia would be identified or managed. It is intended for all clinicians who are likely to diagnose and treat patients with dysphonia.

Purpose

The primary purpose of this guideline is to improve the quality of care for patients with dysphonia, based on current best evidence. Expert consensus to fill evidence gaps, when used, is explicitly stated and supported with a detailed evidence profile for transparency. Specific objectives of the guideline are to reduce inappropriate variations in care, produce optimal health outcomes, and minimize harm. For this guideline update, the American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation selected a panel representing the fields of advanced practice nursing, bronchoesophagology, consumer advocacy, family medicine, geriatric medicine, internal medicine, laryngology, neurology, otolaryngology–head and neck surgery, pediatrics, professional voice, pulmonology, and speech-language pathology.

Action Statements

The guideline update group made strong recommendations for the following key action statements (KASs): (1) Clinicians should assess the patient with dysphonia by history and physical examination to identify factors where expedited laryngeal evaluation is indicated. These include, but are not limited to, recent surgical procedures involving the head, neck, or chest; recent endotracheal intubation; presence of concomitant neck mass; respiratory distress or stridor; history of tobacco abuse; and whether the patient is a professional voice user. (2) Clinicians should advocate voice therapy for patients with dysphonia from a cause amenable to voice therapy. The guideline update group made recommendations for the following KASs: (1) Clinicians should identify dysphonia in a patient with altered voice quality, pitch, loudness, or vocal effort that impairs communication or reduces quality of life (QOL). (2) Clinicians should assess the patient with dysphonia by history and physical examination for underlying causes of dysphonia and factors that modify management. (3) Clinicians should perform laryngoscopy, or refer to a clinician who can perform laryngoscopy, when dysphonia fails to resolve or improve within 4 weeks or irrespective of duration if a serious underlying cause is suspected. (4) Clinicians should perform diagnostic laryngoscopy, or refer to a clinician who can perform diagnostic laryngoscopy, before prescribing voice therapy and document/communicate the results to the speech-language pathologist (SLP). (5) Clinicians should advocate for surgery as a therapeutic option for patients with dysphonia with conditions amenable to surgical intervention, such as suspected malignancy, symptomatic benign vocal fold lesions that do not respond to conservative management, or glottic insufficiency. (6) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, botulinum toxin injections for the treatment of dysphonia caused by spasmodic dysphonia and other types of laryngeal dystonia. (7) Clinicians should inform patients with dysphonia about control/preventive measures. (8) Clinicians should document resolution, improvement or worsened symptoms of dysphonia, or change in QOL of patients with dysphonia after treatment or observation. The guideline update group made a strong recommendation against 1 action: (1) Clinicians should not routinely prescribe antibiotics to treat dysphonia. The guideline update group made recommendations against other actions: (1) Clinicians should not obtain computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for patients with a primary voice complaint prior to visualization of the larynx. (2) Clinicians should not prescribe antireflux medications to treat isolated dysphonia, based on symptoms alone attributed to suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), without visualization of the larynx. (3) Clinicians should not routinely prescribe corticosteroids for patients with dysphonia prior to visualization of the larynx. The policy level for the following recommendation about laryngoscopy at any time was an option: (1) Clinicians may perform diagnostic laryngoscopy at any time in a patient with dysphonia.

Disclaimer

This clinical practice guideline is not intended as an exhaustive source of guidance for managing dysphonia (hoarseness). Rather, it is designed to assist clinicians by providing an evidence-based framework for decision-making strategies. The guideline is not intended to replace clinical judgment or establish a protocol for all individuals with this condition, and it may not provide the only appropriate approach to diagnosing and managing this problem. Differences from Prior Guideline (1) Incorporation of new evidence profiles to include the role of patient preferences, confidence in the evidence, differences of opinion, quality improvement opportunities, and any exclusion to which the action statement does not apply (2) Inclusion of 3 new guidelines, 16 new systematic reviews, and 4 new randomized controlled trials (3) Inclusion of a consumer advocate on the guideline update group (4) Changes to 9 KASs from the original guideline (5) New KAS 3 (escalation of care) and KAS 13 (outcomes) (6) Addition of an algorithm outlining KASs for patients with dysphonia

Contact allergy in the population of patients with chronic inflammatory dermatoses and contact hypersensitivity to corticosteroids

INTRODUCTION

Clinical studies indicate that contact allergy to glucocorticosteroids (GCS) is not rare and has been increasingly reported over the past decade. Among the risk factors for developing contact hypersensitivity to topical corticosteroids, chronic inflammatory skin diseases and polyvalent contact allergy seem to be most important.

AIM

To present the structure of contact allergy in the population of patients with chronic inflammatory dermatoses (CID) and contact hypersensitivity to corticosteroids.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-seven patients with contact allergy to GCS and chronic inflammatory dermatoses were patch tested with 28 European Baseline Series allergens and 8 corticosteroid allergens. This study group consisted of 5 patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), 15 patients with contact eczema (CE) and 7 with chronic leg eczema (CLE). Nineteen (70.4%) patients were females and 8 (29.6%) were males.

RESULTS

In the study group, the most sensitizing non-steroidal allergens were nickel sulfate (51.8%), cobalt chloride (33.3%) and balsam of Peru (29.6%). The most sensitizing corticosteroid allergens were budesonide (77.8%), betamethasone valerate and clobetasol propionate (55.5% each). A total of 77.8% of patients allergic to GCS also showed sensitivity to at least one non-steroidal allergen from the European Baseline Series.

CONCLUSIONS

The most important risk factors for developing contact allergy to corticosteroids appear to be chronic inflammatory dermatoses, long disease duration, extended on-and-off topical corticosteroid use, patients presenting two or more positive patch test results and polyvalent contact allergy to metal salts and to other non-steroidal haptens.

Review: allergic contact stomatitis

Allergic contact stomatitis (ACS) is an oral mucosal immunoinflammatory disorder variably characterized clinically by erythematous plaques, vesiculation, ulceration, and/or hyperkeratosis and by pain, burning sensation, or itchiness. ACS is brought about by a T cell-mediated, delayed hypersensitivity immune reaction generated by a second or subsequent contact exposure of an allergen with the oral mucosa, in a genetically susceptible, sensitized subject. Lichenoid contact reaction is a variant of ACS brought about by direct contact with the oral mucosa of certain metals in dental restorations. The features of ACS are neither clinically nor histopathologically specific, so the diagnosis is usually presumptive and can only be confirmed by resolution of the inflammation after withdrawal or removal of the suspected causative allergen. When ACS is suspected but an allergen cannot be identified, patch testing is necessary. In persistent cases, topical corticosteroids are the treatment of choice, but for severe and extensive lesions, systemic corticosteroid and systemic antihistamines may be indicated. In this short review, we highlight the clinical, immunologic, and histopathological features of ACS, and provide some guidelines for diagnosis and management.

Immediate and Delayed Hypersensitivity Reactions to Corticosteroids: Evaluation and Management

Corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory medications used widely to treat allergic inflammation. Although the endocrine and gastrointestinal side effects of corticosteroids have been described, the occurrence of immediate hypersensitivity reactions and delayed contact dermatitis due to corticosteroids remains under-recognized. Hypersensitivity reactions can occur to a corticosteroid itself, or to the additives and vehicles in corticosteroid preparations. Skin testing and oral graded challenge can help confirm the suspected culprit agent in immediate hypersensitivity reactions and help identify an alternative tolerated corticosteroid. Patch testing can help identify the culprit agents in delayed hypersensitivity contact dermatitis. Cross-reactivity patterns have not been observed for immediate hypersensitivity reactions as they have been for delayed contact dermatitis. Sensitization in contact dermatitis exhibits cross-reactivity patterns based on corticosteroid structure. We review the current understanding regarding the clinical presentation, evaluation, and management of immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids.

Skin test concentrations for systemically administered drugs -- an ENDA/EAACI Drug Allergy Interest Group position paper

Skin tests are of paramount importance for the evaluation of drug hypersensitivity reactions. Drug skin tests are often not carried out because of lack of concise information on specific test concentrations. The diagnosis of drug allergy is often based on history alone, which is an unreliable indicator of true hypersensitivity.To promote and standardize reproducible skin testing with safe and nonirritant drug concentrations in the clinical practice, the European Network and European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Interest Group on Drug Allergy has performed a literature search on skin test drug concentration in MEDLINE and EMBASE, reviewed and evaluated the literature in five languages using the GRADE system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. Where the literature is poor, we have taken into consideration the collective experience of the group.We recommend drug concentration for skin testing aiming to achieve a specificity of at least 95%. It has been possible to recommend specific drug concentration for betalactam antibiotics, perioperative drugs, heparins, platinum salts and radiocontrast media. For many other drugs, there is insufficient evidence to recommend appropriate drug concentration. There is urgent need for multicentre studies designed to establish and validate drug skin test concentration using standard protocols. For most drugs, sensitivity of skin testing is higher in immediate hypersensitivity compared to nonimmediate hypersensitivity.

Systemic contact dermatitis to corticosteroids

BACKGROUND

Although unexpected and paradoxical, allergic hypersensitivity to corticosteroids is a common finding, delayed-type reactions being much more frequently encountered than the immediate-type ones. Although the skin is the main sensitization and elicitation route, other routes, amongst them systemic administration of corticosteroids may exceptionally be involved.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency, clinical presentation and cross-reactivity patterns for allergic reactions following systemic administration of corticosteroids amongst patients with identified and investigated 'contact allergy' to corticosteroids.

METHODS

We reviewed clinical data, patch test results and sensitization sources in patients who reacted positively to corticosteroids tested in the K.U. Leuven Dermatology department during an 18-year period.

RESULTS

Sixteen subjects (out of 315 with CS delayed-type hypersensitivity) presented with allergic manifestations due to systemic administration of corticosteroids. Most patients reacted to molecules from the three groups of the recently reappraised classification.

CONCLUSION

The reactions observed seem to be in most cases 'systemic contact dermatitis' due to oral or parenteral re-exposure of sensitized individuals with the respective corticosteroids previously applied topically. Moreover, most patients seem to be able to react to any corticosteroid molecules and therefore need a systematic individualized evaluation of their sensitization/tolerance profile.