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

Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms Induced by Diosmin and Hesperidin: A Case Report

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a severe cutaneous adverse reaction which exhibits a diverse range of presentations. We described a 48-year-old man diagnosed with acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP)-like DRESS following the administration of diosmin and hesperidin. To our knowledge, diosmin and hesperidin-induced DRESS are exceptionally rare. This aims to raise awareness of potential severe cutaneous side effects in patients taking these agents.

Drug Rash with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms Syndrome Caused by Itraconazole in a 17-Year-Old Girl

Drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome is a severe adverse drug-induced hypersensitivity reaction. We report a case of DRESS syndrome in a 17-year-old female caused by itraconazole, confirmed by patch testing, that required treatment with both corticotherapy and cyclosporine. Our case highlights the importance of clinical suspicion of this syndrome in pediatric age and the novelty of an antifungal drug being identified as the culprit.

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms in a paediatric population: Interest of skin tests

BACKGROUND

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a severe adverse drug reaction. It is uncommon in the paediatric population and can be difficult to diagnose as its initial symptoms may mimic a viral infection.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the features of paediatric DRESS and to evaluate the interest of skin tests in identifying the causative drugs.

METHODS

It is a retrospective analysis (2004-2021) of DRESS cases diagnosed in paediatric patients. The DRESS diagnosis was defined using the RegiSCAR scoring. The skin tests were performed according to the ENDA recommendations.

RESULTS

We included 19 cases of DRESS occurred in 18 patients. Common clinical symptoms were exanthema and fever in 94.7% of cases each. The most commonly affected organ was the liver (84.2%). Among the implicated drugs, 16 were tested and skin tests were positive in 75%. To assess cross-reactivity and co-sensitization, skin tests with related and/or co-administered drugs were performed in eight patients. Among them, only one child had positive results.

CONCLUSION

Early diagnosis of DRESS and discontinuation of the incriminated drug might reduce the incidence of mortality in the paediatric population. Skin tests could be a safe and useful tool to identify the causative drug and assess cross-reactivity.

Tools for Etiologic Diagnosis of Drug-Induced Allergic Conditions

Drug hypersensitivity reactions are a serious concern in clinical practice because they can be severe and result in lifelong sequelae. An accurate diagnosis and identification of the culprit drug is essential to prevent future reactions as well as for the identification of safe treatment alternatives. Nonetheless, the diagnosis can be challenging. In vivo and in vitro tests can be helpful, although none are conclusive; therefore, the tests are not usually performed in isolation but as part of a diagnostic algorithm. In addition, some in vitro tests are only available in research laboratories, and standardization has not been fully accomplished. Collaborating research is needed to improve drug hypersensitivity reaction diagnosis. In this review, we update the current available in vivo and in vitro tools with their pros and cons and propose an algorithm to integrate them into clinical practice.

Post-acute phase and sequelae management of epidermal necrolysis: an international, multidisciplinary DELPHI-based consensus

BACKGROUND

Long-term sequelae are frequent and often disabling after epidermal necrolysis (Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN)). However, consensus on the modalities of management of these sequelae is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted an international multicentric DELPHI exercise to establish a multidisciplinary expert consensus to standardize recommendations regarding management of SJS/TEN sequelae.

METHODS

Participants were sent a survey via the online tool "Survey Monkey" consisting of 54 statements organized into 8 topics: general recommendations, professionals involved, skin, oral mucosa and teeth, eyes, genital area, mental health, and allergy workup. Participants evaluated the level of appropriateness of each statement on a scale of 1 (extremely inappropriate) to 9 (extremely appropriate). Results were analyzed according to the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

RESULTS

Fifty-two healthcare professionals participated. After the first round, a consensus was obtained for 100% of 54 initially proposed statements (disagreement index < 1). Among them, 50 statements were agreed upon as 'appropriate'; four statements were considered 'uncertain', and ultimately finally discarded.

CONCLUSIONS

Our DELPHI-based expert consensus should help guide physicians in conducting a prolonged multidisciplinary follow-up of sequelae in SJS-TEN.

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.

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.

Lab-Based Culprit Drug Identification Methods for Cutaneous Drug Eruptions: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Identification of culprit drugs when managing cutaneous drug eruptions is essential. Causality assessment methods (CAMs) have been proposed, including lab-based techniques. However, no consensus guidelines exist.

OBJECTIVES

To identify and map the functionality and feasibility of lab-based CAMs.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted to identify culprit drug identification methods. Publications on lab-based methods were analyzed. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched.

RESULTS

Twenty-five publications met inclusion criteria. Nine lab-based CAMs were studied, including lymphocyte transformation test, cytokine measurement (ELISpot, ELISA, beads array assay), modified IFN-ɣ ELISpot, CellScan, histamine release, granzyme B-ELISpot, intracellular granulysin, lymphocyte toxicity assay, and HLA allele genotyping. Diagnostic accuracy was reported for 8/9 methods. Clinical assessment and operational algorithms were commonly used as validation benchmarks. Lab-based methods were assessed at different phases of a drug eruption including in the acute (18.1%), recovery (27.3%), acute and recovery (27.3%), or an unspecified phase (27.3%). Lymphocyte transformation test (specificity 30% to 100%, sensitivity 27% to 73%) and cytokine measurement (specificity 76% to 100%, sensitivity 20% to 84%) were the most common methods studied.

CONCLUSIONS

Lab-based CAMs can be low-risk, effective, and complementary of clinical methods. High-quality studies are needed to adequately develop and validate these tools for clinical practice.

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.

Skin eruptions in children: Drug hypersensitivity vs viral exanthema

Childhood rashes or exanthemas are common and are usually relatively benign. There are many causes of rash in children, including mainly viruses, and less often bacterial toxins, drugs, allergens and other diseases. Viral exanthema often appears while children are taking a medication in the course of a viral infection; it can mimic drug exanthema and is perceived as a drug allergy in 10% of cases. In the vast majority of cases, the distinction between virus-induced and drug-induced skin eruption during the acute phase is not possible. The drugs most commonly implicated are beta-lactams (BL) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Viruses, commonly Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), human herpesvirus 6 (HHV6) and cytomegalovirus (CMV), and the bacterium, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, may cause exanthema either from the infection itself (active or latent) or because of interaction with drugs that are taken simultaneously. Determination of the exact diagnosis requires a careful clinical history and thorough physical examination. Haematological and biochemical investigations and histology are not always helpful in differentiating between the two types of exanthema. Serological and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays can be helpful, although a concomitant acute infection does not exclude drug hypersensitivity. A drug provocation test (DPT) is although considered the gold standard for the diagnosis and is not preferred by the patients. Skin tests are not well tolerated, and in vitro tests, such as the basophil activation test and lymphocyte transformation, are of low sensitivity and specificity and their relevance is debatable. Based on current evidence, we propose a systematic clinical approach for timely differential diagnosis and management of rashes in children who present a cutaneous eruption while receiving a drug.

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.

Diagnostic procedures & practices in drug allergy/hypersensitivity: a survey of 13 Asian countries

BACKGROUND

The issues and challenges in the diagnosis of drug allergy/hypersensitivity among children and adults in Asia are likely to be different from non-Asian countries.

OBJECTIVE

To study the diagnostic modalities used in the evaluation and management of drug allergy/drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) among member societies of the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology (APAAACI).

METHODS

A questionnaire comprising 41 questions was circulated electronically to member societies and individual members of APAAACI between January 23, 2020 and March 6, 2020.

RESULTS

Twenty-six respondents from 15 member societies and 1 individual member responded. European DHR guidelines were most commonly used. Skin prick and intradermal testing was used by 100%, with only 60% having access to commercial penicillin skin test reagents. In vitro-specific IgE tests were used by 75%, and basophil activation test by 56.3% for immediate DHR. Patch tests were used by 75% in contrast to lymphocyte transformation tests by 25% for nonimmediate DHR. Drug provocation tests were used by 68.8%, the most common indication being to exclude hypersensitivity where history/symptoms were not suggestive of drug hypersensitivity/allergy (93.3%). Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genotype testing was mandatory among 25% respondents before new carbamazepine prescriptions, and 8.3% for allopurinol prescriptions.

CONCLUSIONS

There was increased use of skin testing for iodinated contrast media hypersensitivity and patch testing for nonimmediate DHR. HLA genotype testing prior to new carbamazepine, allopurinol and abacavir prescriptions remain variable despite strong associations for severe cutaneous adverse reactions with Asian ethnicity. Results of this survey form a useful framework for developing educational and training needs and for improving access to drug allergy diagnostic and treatment modalities across APAAACI member societies.