A Case of Acute Generalized Exanthematous Pustulosis by Cefixime with Oral Mucosal Involvement

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.

Signal Detection of Adverse Drug Reactions of Cephalosporins Using Data from a National Pharmacovigilance Database

This case-non-case study aims to detect signals not currently listed on cephalosporin drug labels. From 2009 to 2018, adverse event (AE) reports concerning antibacterial drugs (anatomical therapeutic chemical (ATC) code J01) in the Korea Adverse Events Reporting System (KAERS) database were examined. For signal detection, three indices of disproportionality, proportional reporting ratio (PRR), reporting odds ratio (ROR), and information component (IC), were calculated. The list of signals was compared with ADRs on the drug labels from the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, and South Korea. A total of 163,800 cephalosporin-AE combinations and 72,265 all other J01-AE combinations were analyzed. This study detected 472 signals and 114 new signals that are not included on the drug labels. Cefatrizine-corneal edema (PRR, 440.64; ROR, 481.67; IC, 3.84) and cefatrizine-corneal ulceration (PRR, 346.22; ROR, 399.70; IC, 4.40) had the highest PRR, ROR, and IC among all signals. Additionally, six serious AEs that were not listed on drug labels such as cefaclor-induced stupor (ten cases) and cefaclor-induced respiratory depression (four cases) were found. Detecting signals using a national pharmacovigilance database is useful for identifying unknown ADRs. This study identified signals of cephalosporins that warrant further investigation.