Hypersensitivity reactions to antiepileptic drugs in children

Delayed Skin Testing for Systemic Medications: Helpful or Not?

Cutaneous adverse drug reactions collectively are delayed drug reactions such as morbilliform drug eruption and severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs). Morbilliform drug eruption may wane over time, be the result of drug viral interactions, and be amenable to slow reintroduction or rechallenge, whereas SCARs are HLA class I restricted, T-cell-mediated reactions that demonstrate durable immunity and warrant lifelong avoidance. SCARs such as drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, and generalized bullous fixed drug eruption often occur in the setting of multiple drugs dosed together. Collectively, they lead to significant morbidity, mortality, and drug safety concerns that could severely limit future treatment options. Currently, no single or combination of diagnostic tests for SCARs such as ex vivo or in vitro testing, in vivo (skin) testing, or other adjunctive tests such as HLA typing have 100% negative predictive value. In this "Controversies in Allergy Review" article, we review the current literature on delayed skin testing (patch and delayed prick/intradermal test) and critically assess the evidence base of its utility across different drugs and clinical phenotypes of delayed hypersensitivity reactions.

EAACI/ENDA position paper on drug provocation testing

In drug hypersensitivity, drug provocation testing (DPT), also called drug challenge, is the gold standard for investigation. In recent years, risk stratification has become an important tool for adjusting the diagnostic strategy to the perceived risk, whilst still maintaining a high level of safety for the patient. Skin tests are recommended before DPT but may be omitted in low-risk patients. The task force suggests a strict definition of such low-risk patients in children and adults. Based on experience and evidence from studies of allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics, an algorithm on how to adjust DPT to the risk, and when to omit skin tests before DPT, is presented. For other antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and other drugs, skin tests are poorly validated and DPT is frequently necessary. We recommend performing DPT with chemotherapeutics and biologicals to avoid unnecessary desensitization procedures and DPT with skin tests negative contrast media. We suggest DPT with anesthetics only in highly specialized centers. Specifics of DPT to proton pump inhibitors, anticonvulsants and corticosteroids are discussed. This position paper provides general recommendations and guidance on optimizing use of DPT, whilst balancing benefits with patient safety and optimizing the use of the limited available resources.

Immunological Mechanisms in Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are an inherent aspect of drug use. While approximately 80% of ADRs are predictable, immune system-mediated ADRs, often unpredictable, are a noteworthy subset. Skin-related ADRs, in particular, are frequently unpredictable. However, the wide spectrum of skin manifestations poses a formidable diagnostic challenge. Comprehending the pathomechanisms underlying ADRs is essential for accurate diagnosis and effective management. The skin, being an active immune organ, plays a pivotal role in ADRs, although the precise cutaneous immunological mechanisms remain elusive. Fortunately, clinical manifestations of skin-related ADRs, irrespective of their severity, are frequently rooted in immunological processes. A comprehensive grasp of ADR morphology can aid in diagnosis. With the continuous development of new pharmaceuticals, it is noteworthy that certain drugs including immune checkpoint inhibitors have gained notoriety for their association with ADRs. This paper offers an overview of immunological mechanisms involved in cutaneous ADRs with a focus on clinical features and frequently implicated drugs.

The efficacy and safety of first-line anti-seizure medications as substitution therapy for children with drug-resistant epilepsy: a randomized controlled trial protocol

Although many anti-seizure medications (ASMs) are available, treatment failure, known as drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE), still occurs in around 30% of children with epilepsy. Second-line ASMs are usually used as substitution therapy in DRE to control seizures, although international consensus is not available yet. Previous studies focus on comparing the ASMs, whether as add-on or substitution therapy, mainly conducted in newly diagnosed epilepsy. However, the study that investigated first-line ASMs as substitution therapy compared to second-line ones, particularly among DRE children, is still lacking. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) enrolling 102 participants, aged 1-18, at three referral hospitals in Indonesia will be conducted, dividing them into intervention and control groups. The intervention group will be treated with first-line ASMs as the substitution therapy, while the other in the control group will get second-line ASMs. The primary outcome measure is the proportion difference of responders between groups who get first-line and second-line ASMs in 14 weeks of intervention. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT05697614.

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.

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.

Delayed hypersensitivity to antiepileptic drugs in children

BACKGROUND

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are widely used for the treatment of epilepsy, but they can be associated with the development of mainly delayed/non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions (HRs). Although these reactions are usually cutaneous, self-limited, and spontaneously resolve within days after drug discontinuation, sometime HR reactions to AEDs can be severe and life-threatening.

AIM

This paper seeks to show examples on practical management of AED HRs in children starting from a review of what it is already known in literature.

RESULTS

Risk factors include age, history of previous AEDs reactions, viral infections, concomitant medications, and genetic factors. The diagnostic workup consists of in vivo (intradermal testing and patch testing) and in vitro tests [serological investigation to exclude the role of viral infection, lymphocyte transformation test (LTT), cytokine detection in ELISpot assays, and granulysin (Grl) in flow cytometry. Treatment is based on a prompt drug discontinuation and mainly on the use of glucocorticoids.

CONCLUSION

Dealing with AED HRs is challenging. The primary goal in the diagnosis and management of HRs to AEDs should be trying to accurately identify the causal trigger and simultaneously identify a safe and effective alternative anticonvulsant. There is therefore an ongoing need to improve our knowledge of HS reactions due to AED medications and in particular to improve our diagnostic capabilities.

Evaluation of drug patch tests in children

Background: Patch tests are used to diagnose nonimmediate T-cell-mediated drug hypersensitivity reactions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of patch tests performed with suspect drugs in children. Methods: Patients < 18 years of age who had a drug patch test at the pediatric allergy outpatient clinic of our hospital between January 2014 and January 2020 were included in the study. Age, sex, culprit drug(s), reaction characteristics, and patch test results were recorded from the patients' files. Results: A total of 105 drug patch tests were performed on 71 patients during the study period. The patients' median age was 7 years (interquartile range, 4-11 years), and 57.7% (n = 41) were boys. Twenty-three patients (32.3%) had severe cutaneous adverse reaction (Stevens-Johnson syndrome in 11, drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms in 9, and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis in 3 patients), 45 (63.3%) had maculopapular rashes, and 3 (4.2%) had fixed drug eruption. A total of 20 patch test results (28%) were positive: 18 of 44 patch tests (40.9%) with antiepileptic drugs and 2 of 48 patch tests (4.1%) with antibiotics. Positive results were obtained in 23% of the patch tests (6/26) in 20 patients with severe cutaneous adverse reactions and in 17.7% of the patch tests (14/79) in 51 patients with mild cutaneous reactions. No adverse reactions occurred during or after the patch tests. Conclusion: In our study, patch test positivity was more common with antiepileptic drugs and in patients with severe cutaneous drug reaction.

Advances and novel developments in drug hypersensitivity diagnosis

A correct diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) is very important for both the patient and health system. However, DHRs diagnosis is complex, time consuming, requires trained personnel, is not standardized for many drugs, involves procedures not exempt of risk, and in most cases lacks standardized in vivo and in vitro tests. Thus, there is an urgent need for improving the different approaches to diagnose patients with suspected DHRs. In this review, we have analyzed the advances performed in immediate and nonimmediate DHRs diagnosis during the last two years and obtained several conclusions: the significant heterogeneity in current practice among centers illustrates the need to re-evaluate, update, and standardize in vivo tests and protocols for the diagnosis and management of patients with suspected drug allergy. Regarding in vitro tests, the latest studies have focused on increasing their sensitivity or on establishing the sensitivity and specificity for the tests performed with new drugs. There seems to be a consensus about combining in vivo and in vitro tests as the best way to increase the diagnostic accuracy.