Patch testing and cross sensitivity study of adverse cutaneous drug reactions due to anticonvulsants: A preliminary report

Genotyping for HLA risk alleles versus patch tests to diagnose anti-seizure medication induced cutaneous adverse drug reactions

Aim: To provide a comparison of genotyping for HLA risk alleles versus patch testing to determine which of these two tests is a better diagnostic tool for cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions caused by anti-seizure medication. Methods: A literature study was performed in PubMed to assess the sensitivity and specificity of HLA genotyping and patch tests for identifying anti-seizure medication induced cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions. Results: This study shows that HLA-B*15:02 genotyping shows high sensitivity for carbamazepine-induced SJS/TEN, especially in Han Chinese and Southeast Asian patients (66.7-100.0%) whereas the sensitivity of patch tests (0.0-62,5%), HLA-A*31:01 (0-50%) and HLA-B*15:11 (18.2-42.9%) are lower. On the contrary, for carbamazepine and phenytoin induced DRESS, patch tests (respectively 70.0-88.9% and 14.3-70.0%) show higher sensitivity than HLA tests (0-66.7% and 0-12.7%). Also for lamotrigine-induced DRESS patch tests perform better than HLA-B*15:02 (33.3-40.0 versus 0%). For anti-seizure medication induced MPE and for oxcarbazepine-induced SCARs more studies are needed. Conclusion: Use of HLA-B genotyping may aid clinicians in the diagnosis of carbamazepine, phenytoin, lamotrigine and oxcarbazepine induced SJS/TEN, particularly in Han Chinese and Southeast Asian patients. On the other hand, patch tests seem to perform better in the diagnosis of carbamazepine and phenytoin induced DRESS.

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.

The Role of Patch Testing in Evaluating Delayed Hypersensitivity Reactions to Medications

Confirming drug imputability is an important step in the management of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADR). Re-challenge is inconvenient and in many cases life threatening. We review the literature on ideal patch testing technique for specific CADRs. Testing should be performed approximately 3 months after the resolution of the eruption using standard patch testing techniques. Commercially available patch test preparations are available for a minority of drugs, so in most cases, testing should be performed with the drug at various recommended concentrations and in different vehicles. Testing to all known excipients, such as dyes, vehicles and preservatives is also important. Immunosuppressive medications should be discontinued or down titrated to the lowest tolerable dose to decrease the risk of false negative reactions. We provide an overview of expert recommendations and extant evidence on the utility of patch testing for identifying the culprit drug in common CADRs and for specific drug or drug classes. Overall, there appears to be significant variability in the patch test positivity of different drugs, which is likely the result of factors intrinsic to the drug such as dermal absorption (as a function of lipophilicity and molecular size) and whether the drug itself or a downstream metabolite is implicated in the immune reaction. Drugs with high patch test positivity rates include beta-lactam antibiotics, aromatic anticonvulsants, phenytoin, and corticosteroids, among others. Patch testing positivity varies both as a function of the drug and type of CADR. The sum of the evidence suggests that patch testing in the setting of morbilliform eruptions, fixed drug eruption, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, and possibly also drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome, photoallergic and eczematous reactions may be worthwhile, although utility of testing may vary on the specific drug in question for the eruption. It appears to be of limited utility and is not recommended in the setting of other complex CADR, such as SJS/TEN and leukocytoclastic vasculitis.

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.

Hypersensitivity reactions to antiepileptic drugs in children

BACKGROUND

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) can cause hypersensitivity reactions in children. These reactions are mainly cutaneous, self-limiting, and benign, but life-threatening severe cutaneous adverse reactions can occur. Infections can lead to skin eruptions and mimic drug hypersensitivity reactions, if a drug is taken at the same time. The aims of our study were to confirm or rule out the diagnosis of hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs in children and to detect an infection which mimics these reactions.

METHODS

A prospective survey was conducted in a group of 100 children with histories of hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs by performing patch tests, delayed-reading intradermal test, and, in case of negative results, challenge test. In all children, a study was performed to detect infections by viruses or Mycoplasma pneumoniae.

RESULTS

Maculopapular exanthema and delayed-appearing urticaria were the most reported hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs. Sixty-six (66%) of 100 children had confirmed hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs. Fifty-nine children had positive patch test. No children had positive challenge tests. The most common AEDs causing hypersensitivity reactions were carbamazepine (45.4%) and lamotrigine (43.6%). Thirty-two children had positive tests for viruses or M pneumoniae, and nine of them had also a positive allergy work-up.

CONCLUSION

Considering that there are no specific tests to distinguish between a viral infection and hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs in the acute phase, a diagnostic work-up should be performed in all children with suspected hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs, as well as infectious agent study, to remove a false label of hypersensitivity.

Recent developments in drug hypersensitivity in children

Introduction: Drug allergy is an important public health problem that causes 0.4-10.3% of hospital admissions in children. The epidemiology, clinical spectrum, diagnosis, and management of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) differ in pediatric and adult patients. However, the same algorithms used in adults have often been applied in the pediatric population due to a lack of evidence in the literature. Areas covered: In this review, we aimed to discuss recent developments in the area of pediatric DHRs based on the growing body of literature advancing our understanding of the epidemiology, clinical aspects, and diagnostic approaches to DHRs in children. Expert opinion: Misdiagnosis, under-diagnosis, and self-diagnosis are common problems related to drug allergies in children. Viral infections are particularly frequent in children and make diagnosis difficult. Identifying true DHR is a key step in the management of drug allergy in children. Therefore, a complete allergy work-up with standardized drug allergy tests is necessary. In order to eliminate non-standardized tests, future studies including larger numbers of children should be conducted to determine more accurate standardized tests for diagnosing DHRs in the pediatric population.

Drug Rash with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms Syndrome Presenting After the Initiation of Staphylococcus hominis Infectious Endocarditis Treatment: A Case Report and Updated Review of Management Considerations

We present the case of a 62-year-old Caucasian man who was being treated for mitral valve endocarditis via a six-week course of vancomycin. On Day 32 of the treatment, he developed an erythematous, pruritic, desquamating, and painful rash covering 80% of the total body surface area and intermittent fevers. Laboratory findings included leukocytosis with peripheral blood eosinophilia and elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, and serum creatinine. Although the patient only completed five weeks of antibiotics, the decision was made to not complete the six-week antibiotic course due to suspicion of vancomycin-induced drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). The patient was then given 80 mg of intramuscular triamcinolone (Kenalog) and advised to apply topical 0.1% triamcinolone twice per day. At the three-month follow-up, the rash, leukocytosis, eosinophilia, and renal dysfunction had resolved. Clinicians must maintain a high index of suspicion for vancomycin-induced DRESS in patients with rash and eosinophilia for early recognition and treatment. DRESS syndrome treatment typically involves discontinuing the causative drug and promptly administering steroids. However, there is a therapeutic dilemma in administering steroids during the course of an active infection. Therefore, this article serves two purposes. First, this case report highlights our approach towards managing a patient with DRESS and concurrent infectious endocarditis. Second, we include a review of the management considerations when prescribing pulsed steroids so that clinicians have a single source as a practical guide towards reducing the potentially severe systemic sequelae in DRESS syndrome and its associated treatment.

Current Perspectives on Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis

Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) are considered a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction to drugs. They represent true medical emergencies and an early recognition and appropriate management is decisive for the survival. SJS/TEN manifest with an "influenza-like" prodromal phase (malaise, fever), followed by painful cutaneous and mucous membrane (ocular, oral, and genital) lesions, and other systemic symptoms. The difference between SJS, SJS/TEN overlap, and TEN is defined by the degree of skin detachment: SJS is defined as skin involvement of < 10%, TEN is defined as skin involvement of > 30%, and SJS/TEN overlap as 10-30% skin involvement. The diagnosis of different degrees of epidermal necrolysis is based on the clinical assessment in conjunction with the corresponding histopathology. The mortality rates for SJS and TEN have decreased in the last decades. Today, the severity-of-illness score for toxic epidermal necrolysis (SCORTEN) is available for SJS/TEN severity assessment. Drugs with a high risk of causing SJS/TEN are anti-infective sulfonamides, anti-epileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs of the oxicam type, allopurinol, nevirapine, and chlormezanone. Besides conventional drugs, herbal remedies and new biologicals should be considered as causative agents. The increased risk of hypersensitivity reactions to certain drugs may be linked to specific HLA antigens. Our understanding of the pathogenesis of SJS/TEN has improved: drug-specific T cell-mediated cytotoxicity, genetic linkage with HLA- and non-HLA-genes, TCR restriction, and cytotoxicity mechanisms were clarified. However, many factors contributing to epidermal necrolysis still have to be identified, especially in virus-induced and autoimmune forms of epidermal necrolysis not related to drugs. In SJS/TEN, the most common complications are ocular, cutaneous, or renal. Nasopharyngeal, esophageal, and genital mucosal involvement with blisters, erosions as well as secondary development of strictures also play a role. However, in the acute phase, septicemia is a leading cause of morbidity and fatality. Pulmonary and hepatic involvement is frequent. The acute management of SJS/TEN requires a multidisciplinary approach. Immediate withdrawal of potentially causative drugs is mandatory. Prompt referral to an appropriate medical center for specific supportive treatment is of utmost importance. The most frequently used treatments for SJS/TEN are systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulins, and cyclosporine A.