Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To analyse the clinical characteristics and sensitivity of an essential oil patch test series (EOS) in patients sensitized to their own essential oils (EOs). Method: We analysed the clinical data and patch test results obtained with the European baseline series (BSE) and an EOS, as well as the mode of use of EOs, through a questionnaire included in the patient file. Results: The study included 42 patients (79% women, average age 50 years) with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), 8 patients required hospitalization. All patients were sensitized to the EO they used, primarily lavender (Lavandula augustifolia, 8000‐28‐0), tea tree (Melaleuca alternifolia leaf oil, 68647‐73‐4), ravintsara (Cinnamomum camphora oil, 92201‐50‐8), and 2 cases were attributed to helichrysum (helichrysum italicum flower absolute, 90045‐56‐0). 71% had positive patch tests to fragrance mix I or II, 9 only to the EOS and 4 only with their personal EO. Interestingly, 40% of patients did not spontaneously mention the use of EOs, and only 33% received advice on their use at the time of purchase. Conclusion: Patch tests with the BSE, limonene and linalool HP, and oxidized tea tree oil is sufficient to detect most EO‐sensitized patients. The most important is to test the patient's own used EOs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anaphylaxis, which is rare, has been reported after COVID‐19 vaccination, but its management is not standardized. Method: Members of the European Network for Drug Allergy and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology interested in drug allergy participated in an online questionnaire on pre‐vaccination screening and management of allergic reactions to COVID‐19 vaccines, and literature was analysed. Results: No death due to anaphylaxis to COVID‐19 vaccines has been confirmed in scientific literature. Potential allergens, polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbate and tromethamine are excipients. The authors propose allergy evaluation of persons with the following histories: 1—anaphylaxis to injectable drug or vaccine containing PEG or derivatives; 2—anaphylaxis to oral/topical PEG containing products; 3—recurrent anaphylaxis of unknown cause; 4—suspected or confirmed allergy to any mRNA vaccine; and 5—confirmed allergy to PEG or derivatives. We recommend a prick‐to‐prick skin test with the left‐over solution in the suspected vaccine vial to avoid waste. Prick test panel should include PEG 4000 or 3500, PEG 2000 and polysorbate 80. The value of in vitro test is arguable. Conclusions: These recommendations will lead to a better knowledge of the management and mechanisms involved in anaphylaxis to COVID‐19 vaccines and enable more people with history of allergy to be vaccinated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Skin tests, including patch tests (PTs), prick tests, and intradermal tests (IDTs), are useful in identifying the culprits of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs), and determining safer, alternative drugs. PTs have a low sensitivity but are valuable in investigating maculopapular exanthema (MPE), as well as severe CADR, including toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), Stevens‐Johnson syndrome (SJS), and in particular, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). To ensure their specificity, at least 10 control tests should be performed. Prick tests are mainly used in the evaluation of immediate‐type hypersensitivity and can be performed with all drugs, except opiates. IDTs can be used to explore immediate and delayed‐type hypersensitivity, if an injectable form of the drug exists. Except for SJS/TEN, IDTs should be performed by injecting 0.02 mL of the drug. We here provide a practical, up‐to‐date review on the use of these skin tests in the work‐up of CADRs. Numerous negative controls for drug PTs, as well as criteria for the immediate and delayed positivity of prick tests and IDT, are included. It should be emphasized that a negative result never excludes the potential responsibility of a drug in a CADR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT A number of works have been focused on the study of polymers microtacticity and the probability of iso-, syndio-, and atactic arrangement of monomers such as polypropylene and poly(methacrylic esters) before the 1980s. This type of study was fewer in the last four decades despite the importance of stereochemical knowledge of macromolecules in the biomedical field. NMR analysis was the invaluable tool for the study of stereochemistry. This work detailed the synthesis and the physicochemical and microtacticity characterizations of new semicrystalline and amorphous polyesters, poly(3-allyl-3-methylmalic acid) (PAlMMLA) derivatives which are part of the poly(malic acid) family. This polymer is biodegradable and biocompatible. It can also be chemically modified for a possible combination with bioactive molecules. It can be synthesized from chiral product leading a stereoregular and semicrystalline structure. In the case of a racemic starting product, the obtained macromolecular structure is amorphous. Semi-crystalline polyester presented a highly diisotactic structure. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2017, 55, 2408-2418 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Few studies have been published on the histopathology of cutaneous adverse drug reactions ( CADR), and most of these lack information on skin allergological tests. The histopathology of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms ( DRESS) is also seldom described. The purpose of our study was to examine six types of well-documented CADR (maculopapular exanthema, DRESS, fixed drug eruption, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis [ TEN], and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis) using histopathology and immunohistochemistry to evaluate the expression of granulysin, a key molecule in TEN. Methods We retrospectively included 106 skin biopsies performed in proven cases of CADR (by chronological investigation, single attributable drug, or/and skin tests). All slides were reviewed, and microscopic changes were analyzed using a standardized form. Granulysin expression was studied by immunohistochemistry. Results In DRESS, we observed spongiosis, edema, and basal vacuolization, with rare necrotic keratinocytes and constant lymphocytic infiltrate in the superficial dermis. Eosinophils were often present, and pustules were found in 15% of cases. Necrotic keratinocytes are often absent in maculopapular exanthema. Granulysin was expressed in six types of CADR with a trend toward more intense expression in DRESS and TEN. Conclusion We detailed further about the histopathology of DRESS. Granulysin expression was observed in all CADR with a marked overlap of expression pattern between the six types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Various optically active (4 R)-alkyloxycarbonyl-3,3-dialkyl-2-oxetanones as monomers were synthesized from L-( S)-malic acid in six steps to prepare a new family of stereopolyesters for biomedical applications. The synthesis began with an esterification followed of a dialkylation in the aim to introduce hydrophobic groups as methyl or reactive group as allyl. Then, a saponification has permitted to obtain the corresponding diacids that reacted with appropriate alcohols to furnish different monoesters. The last and most important step was activation of hydroxyl group of monoesters with the asymmetric carbon configuration inversion according to the Mitsunobu reaction. Thus, this reaction has provided lactones from monoesters with 100% enantiomeric excess which was confirmed by 1H NMR and by the synthesis of corresponding isotactic and semicrystalline homopolyesters. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2015, 53, 2586-2597 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case study of a 28-year-old woman who had history of pruritic erythematous scaly dermatitis on both hands and on the neck, after keeping a rabbit as pet. She fed her rabbit with chicory leaves, dandelion, hay, and dry food, and the dermatitis disappeared when the patient stopped feeding her rabbit with chicory.

Keywords: allergic contact dermatitis; CAS no. 78336-31-9; case report; copolymers; cosmetic products; PEG-22/dodecyl glycol copolymer; PEG-45/dodecyl glycol copolymer EN allergic contact dermatitis CAS no. 78336-31-9 case report copolymers cosmetic products PEG-22/dodecyl glycol copolymer PEG-45/dodecyl glycol copolymer 213 215 3 08/04/23 20230901 NES 230901 We report a case of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by PEG-22/dodecyl glycol copolymer and PEG-45/dodecyl glycol copolymer contained in two different "skin-repairing" creams. Allergic contact dermatitis, CAS no. 78336-31-9, case report, copolymers, cosmetic products, PEG-22/dodecyl glycol copolymer, PEG-45/dodecyl glycol copolymer Allergic contact dermatitis caused by PEG-22 and PEG-45 dodecyl glycol copolymers in two skin-repairing creams. [Extracted from the article]

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) is a rare, usually drug‐induced, acute pustular rash. Despite the lack of strong data supporting the effectiveness of topical or systemic corticosteroids in this drug reaction, they are widely used. More generally, there is no consensus on the diagnostic modalities and the management of patients with AGEP. We aimed to provide European expert recommendations for the diagnosis and management or patients with AGEP. Members of the ToxiTEN group of the European Reference Network (ERN)‐skin, all dermatologists and/or allergologists with expertise in drug reactions, elaborated these recommendations based on their own experience and on a review of the literature. Recommendations were separated into the following categories: professionals involved, assessment of the diagnosis of AGEP, management of the patient and allergological work‐up after the acute phase. Consensus was obtained among experts for the list of professionals involved for the diagnosis and management of AGEP, including the minimum diagnostic work‐up, the setting of management, the treatments, the modalities and the timing of allergological work‐up and follow‐up. European experts in drug allergies propose herein consensus on the diagnosis and management of patients with AGEP. A multidisciplinary approach is warranted, including dermatologists, allergologists and pharmacovigilance services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a letter to the editor discussing paradoxical urticaria reactions to H1-antihistamines. The authors report on nine patients with paradoxical urticaria who experienced hives from different classes of H1-antihistamines. The cause of this reaction is still unclear, but it may be related to mast cell degranulation or disruption of the arachidonic acid metabolism pathway. Physicians should be aware of this diagnosis and perform an allergy work-up, including skin testing, in patients suspected of having paradoxical urticaria. The letter includes a table summarizing the clinical characteristics and allergy work-up of the identified cases. [Extracted from the article]

Background: An aqueous antiseptic containing "chlorhexidine digluconate/benzalkonium chloride/benzyl alcohol" (CBB) is widely used in France. The only previous documented study dealing with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to this antiseptic is one small case series in children. The French Vigilance Network for Dermatology and Allergy (REVIDAL‐GERDA) has collected many cases in the last few years. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical and sensitization profiles of patients diagnosed with ACD to CBB. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of patients with contact dermatitis to CBB and positive tests to CBB and/or at least one of its components. All patients had to be tested with all components of CBB. Results: A total of 102 patients (71 adults and 31 children) were included. The lesions were extensive in 63% of patients and 55% had delayed time to diagnosis. CBB patch tests were positive in 93.8% of cases. The allergen was identified in 97% of patients, mainly benzyl alcohol in adults (81.7%) and chlorhexidine digluconate in children (54.8%). About 32.4% of the patients were sensitized to several components. Conclusion: CBB is a cause of ACD at all ages. The components of the antiseptic should be tested. The sensitization profile seems to be different between adults and children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The occurrence of a new AEs with neurological involvement during the reintroduction of an anti-CD25, in a patient who previously would have had a DRESS, has nothing to do with our study involving DRESS induced by xenobiotics. Finally, any side-effects occurring during slow drug re-introductions in our patients were scrupulously recorded and described, and no patient had neurological involvement. The discussion of a relapse of a DRESS due to an anti-CD25 with neurological involvement without liver or renal involvement is purely hypothetical and has no relation to our study. [Extracted from the article]

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are invaluable therapeutic options in a variety of dyspeptic diseases. In addition to their well‐known risk profile, PPI consumption is related to food and environmental allergies, dysbiosis, osteoporosis, as well as immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). The latter, although a rare event, around 1%–3%, due to the extraordinarily high rate of prescription and consumption of PPIs are related to a substantial risk. In this Position Paper, we provide clinicians with practical evidence‐based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of HSRs to PPIs. Furthermore, the unmet needs proposed in the document aim to stimulate more in‐depth investigations in the topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diagnosing immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) can pose a significant challenge and there is an urgent need for safe and reliable tests. Evidence has emerged that the basophil activation test (BAT), an in vitro assay that mirrors the in vivo response, can be a complementary test for many drugs. In this position paper, members of Task Force (TF) "Basophil activation test in the evaluation of Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions" from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) present the data from a survey about the use and utility of BAT in IDHRs in Europe. The survey results indicate that there is a great interest for using BAT especially for diagnosing IDHRs. However, there are still main needs, mainly in the standardization of the protocols. Subsequently consensus‐based recommendations were formulated for: (i) Technical aspects of BAT in IDHRs including type of sample, management of drugs, flow cytometry protocols, interpretation of the results; and (ii) Drug‐specific aspects that should be taken into account when performing BAT in relation to betalactams, neuromuscular blocking agents, fluoroquinolones, chlorhexidine, opioids, radio contrast media, chemotherapeutics, biological agents, nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs, COVID vaccine, and excipients. Moreover, aspects in the evaluation of pediatric population have also been considered. All this indicates that BAT offers the clinician and laboratory a complementary tool for a safe diagnostic for IDHRs, although its place in the diagnostic algorithm depends on the drug class and patient population (phenotype, geography, and age). The standardization of BAT is important for generalizing this method beyond the individual laboratory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the emergence of doxycycline-induced fixed drug eruption (FDE), a common adverse reaction characterized by red patches on the skin or mucosa. FDE is typically associated with drugs like paracetamol, antibiotics, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. However, recent cases have shown that doxycycline, commonly used for post-exposure prophylaxis (PeP) against sexually transmitted infections (STIs), can also induce FDE. The article presents 15 cases of doxycycline-induced FDE, with most cases occurring within the past 6 months. The authors recommend in situ repeated open application tests (ROAT) to confirm the diagnosis and avoid oral provocation tests (OPT), which can carry risks. They also suggest that all cyclin antibiotics, including doxycycline, be contraindicated for safety reasons. The article emphasizes the importance of recognizing doxycycline-induced FDE, particularly in cases of genital lesions that could be misdiagnosed as STIs. [Extracted from the article]

A recent survey of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Drug Allergy Interest Group (DAIG) on how European allergy specialists deal with beta‐lactam (BL) hypersensitivity demonstrated a significant heterogeneity in current practice, suggesting the need to review and update existing EAACI guidelines in order to make the diagnostic procedures as safe and accurate, but also as cost‐effective, as possible. For this purpose, a bibliographic search on large studies regarding BL hypersensitivity diagnosis was performed by an EAACI task force, which reviewed and evaluated the literature data using the GRADE system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. The updated guidelines provide a risk stratification in BL hypersensitivity according to index reaction(s), as well as an algorithmic approach, based on cross‐reactivity studies, in patients with a suspicion of BL hypersensitivity and an immediate need for antibiotic therapy, when referral to an allergist is not feasible. Furthermore, the update addresses availability and concentrations of skin test (ST) reagents, ST and drug provocation test (DPT) protocols, and diagnostic algorithms and administration of alternative BL in allergic subjects. Specifically, distinct diagnostic algorithms are suggested depending on risk stratification of the patient into high and low risk based on the morphology and chronology of the reaction, immediate (ie, occurring within 1‐6 hours after the last administered dose) or nonimmediate (ie, occurring more than 1 hour after the initial drug administration), and the reaction severity. Regarding the allergy workup, the main novelty of this document is the fact that in some low‐risk nonimmediate reactions ST are not mandatory, especially in children. For DPT, further studies are necessary to provide data supporting the standardization of protocols, especially of those regarding nonimmediate reactions, for which there is currently no consensus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 145 patients, revaccination was performed with the culprit vaccine, which was well tolerated in 126 of the patients, and 15 of the patients had an alternative COVID-19 vaccine (other mRNA vaccine for 12), which was well tolerated in 13 of the patients (Figure 1). Keywords: allergy; anaphylaxis; COVID-19-mRNA vaccines EN allergy anaphylaxis COVID-19-mRNA vaccines 2320 2323 4 08/02/23 20230801 NES 230801 To the Editor, The mechanisms of allergic reactions to COVID-19-mRNA vaccines have not been elucidated. One hundred and sixty patients (84%) were revaccinated (122 under antihistamine premedication), 139 patients (87%) had good tolerance, and 30 patients refused further COVID-19 vaccination. [Extracted from the article]

Allergic contact dermatitis, case report, cosmetics, patch tests A 53-year-old woman experienced a widespread eczema after application of two Tamanu oils on insect bites, with positive patch test results to the two Tamanu oils at 1% in olive oil. Keywords: allergic contact dermatitis; case report; cosmetics; patch tests EN allergic contact dermatitis case report cosmetics patch tests 99 100 2 06/14/22 20220701 NES 220701 Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to Tamanu oil is rare, but two recent cases underline that an increase in frequency of use could bring out more cases of ACD to this vegetable oil. [Extracted from the article]

The relatively lower crystallinity and random orientation of quantum well structures hinder carrier transport and limit the performance of formamidinium (FA) based low‐n 2D perovskite devices. In this work, the crystallization and quantum well orientation are fine tuned to achieve efficient low‐n FA based Ruddlesden–Popper perovskite solar cells. The effects of different ionic additives on the crystallization, orientation, and photovoltaic performance of FA based low‐n 2D perovskites are comparatively investigated. It is found that NH4+ and SCN− can significantly retard the heterogeneous crystallization of low‐n phases in the intermediate state, and drive the templated growth of quantum well structure with vertical orientation. The optimized photovoltaic device based on (BA)2(FA)3Pb4I13 achieved a power conversion efficiency (PCE) of 18.14%, setting the highest record for FA‐based low‐n 2D perovskite solar cells as far as it is known (average n = 4). The unencapsulated device exhibited excellent stability and maintained 93.3% of its original PCE at 85 °C, and 86.3% at 1 Sun illumination after 720 h in humid ambient condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT This article presents the synthesis of a new family of synthetic isotactic polyesters derived from poly(( S)-3,3-dimethylmalic acid) (PDMMLA). These polyesters are prepared via the lactone route bearing functionalized groups in its main or side chain. The aim of this work is twofold: metabolism and stereochemistry. First, the synthesis of these new polyesters is chosen to provide biodegradable polyesters biocompatible and bioassimilable by the human body. Next, the molecular chain of this family contains a stereogenic center in the aim to provide 100% isotactic homopolymers and copolymers (statistical and block). Finally, these polymers have been characterized by several analytical techniques: FTIR, 1H and 13C NMR, SEC, DSC, and TGA. The greatest importance will be given to the 13C NMR and DSC to principally confirm the stereoregularity and crystallinity of these stereopolyesters. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2016, 54, 1495-1507 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: The repeated open application test (ROAT) is an adjuvant investigation measure to patch testing in the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. ESCD recommends a 15 days duration but its overall duration varies according to publications and patients hardly adhere to prolonged ROAT duration beyond 1 week. Materials and Methods: The Dermatology and Allergy Group of the French Society of Dermatology performed a prospective study with the aim of determining the best duration for the ROAT. Results: A total of 328 ROAT results were collected for topical products, including cosmetics (60%) and topical medications (31.1%). Fifty‐nine (18%) ROATs were positive, and 16 (5%) were doubtful. All the positive ROATs occurred within 10 days, with a median time to positivity of 3 days. Conclusion: According to our results, a minimum duration of 10 days is necessary to achieve a positive ROAT to a topical product. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Older adults, especially men and/or those with diabetes, hypertension, and/or obesity, are prone to severe COVID‐19. In some countries, older adults, particularly those residing in nursing homes, have been prioritized to receive COVID‐19 vaccines due to high risk of death. In very rare instances, the COVID‐19 vaccines can induce anaphylaxis, and the management of anaphylaxis in older people should be considered carefully. An ARIA‐EAACI‐EuGMS (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma, European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, and European Geriatric Medicine Society) Working Group has proposed some recommendations for older adults receiving the COVID‐19 vaccines. Anaphylaxis to COVID‐19 vaccines is extremely rare (from 1 per 100,000 to 5 per million injections). Symptoms are similar in younger and older adults but they tend to be more severe in the older patients. Adrenaline is the mainstay treatment and should be readily available. A flowchart is proposed to manage anaphylaxis in the older patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immediate and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) have been reported to occur in a frequency of about 0.5%‐3% of patients receiving nonionic ICM. The diagnosis and management of these patients vary among guidelines published by various national and international scientific societies, with recommendations ranging from avoidance or premedication to drug provocation test. This position paper aims to give recommendations for the management of patients with ICM hypersensitivity reactions and analyze controversies in this area. Skin tests are recommended as the initial step for diagnosing patients with immediate and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions; besides, they may also help guide on tolerability of alternatives. Re‐exposition or drug provocation test should only be done with skin test‐negative ICMs. The decision for performing either re‐exposition or drug provocation test needs to be taken based on a risk‐benefit analysis. The role of in vitro tests for diagnosis and pretreatment for preventing reactions remains controversial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several complications have been described, including intravascular injection of hyaluronic acid (HA).[1] Current management of intravascular HA injection is based on early injection of hyaluronidase[2] which should be performed as soon as possible and mandatorily within 72 h of the procedure. A 54-year-old woman, who had received a well-tolerated HA injection 3 years earlier, underwent bilateral HA injections into the nasolabial folds at a private dermatologist's office. Intra-arterial facial injection of hyaluronic acid complicated by Nicolau's dermatitis: Treatment with iloprost. [Extracted from the article]

Colchicine appeared to be more effective in cases of significant neutrophilic infiltrate: 42.85% effectiveness in NU group (clinical remission in 12 patients) versus 6.25% in CSU group. Neutrophilic urticaria was defined by an inflammatory dermal infiltrate composed of at least 60% PNN, without leukocytoclasia/vasculitis, averaging 50% and 70% reported in the literature,4,5 which is more reliable than a number of PNN per field of observation. Neutrophilic Urticaria or Urticaria With Predominantly Neutrophilic Inflammatory Infiltrate: Study of Its Clinical and Histopathologic Characteristics and Its Possible Association With Rheumatic Disease. [Extracted from the article]

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), a respiratory tract infection caused by a novel human coronavirus, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, leads to a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations ranging from asymptomatic cases to patients with mild and severe symptoms, with or without pneumonia. Given the huge influence caused by the overwhelming COVID‐19 pandemic affecting over three million people worldwide, a wide spectrum of drugs is considered for the treatment in the concept of repurposing and off‐label use. There is no knowledge about the diagnosis and clinical management of the drug hypersensitivity reactions that can potentially occur during the disease. This review brings together all the published information about the diagnosis and management of drug hypersensitivity reactions due to current and candidate off‐label drugs and highlights relevant recommendations. Furthermore, it gathers all the dermatologic manifestations reported during the disease for guiding the clinicians to establish a better differential diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions in the course of the disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are associated with high global morbidity and mortality. Cutaneous T cell–mediated reactions classically occur more than 6 hours after drug administration and include life‐threatening conditions such as toxic epidermal necrolysis, Stevens‐Johnson syndrome, and hypersensitivity syndrome. Over the last 20 years, significant advances have been made in our understanding of the pathogenesis of DHRs with the identification of human leukocyte antigens as predisposing factors. This has led to the development of pharmacogenetic screening tests, such as HLA‐B*57:01 in abacavir therapy, which has successfully reduced the incidence of abacavir hypersensitivity reactions. We have completed a PRISMA‐compliant systematic review to identify genetic associations that have been reported in DHRs. In total, 105 studies (5554 cases and 123 548 controls) have been included in the review reporting genetic associations with carbamazepine (n = 31), other aromatic antiepileptic drugs (n = 24), abacavir (n = 11), nevirapine (n = 14), trimethoprim‐sulfamethoxazole (n = 11), dapsone (n = 4), allopurinol (n = 10), and other drugs (n = 5). The most commonly reported genetic variants associated with DHRs are located in human leukocyte antigen genes and genes involved in drug metabolism pathways. Increasing our understanding of genetic variants that contribute to DHRs will allow us to improve diagnosis, develop new treatments, and predict and prevent DHRs in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(C) Positive prick test with undiluted Desomedine on delayed reading at day 2 (same prick test as in B) gl Prick tests were performed with undiluted Desomedine (hexamidine 0.1%), and these confirmed both immediate and delayed type hypersensitivity on immediate (Figure 1B) and delayed readings on day (D)2 (Figure 1C). Although allergic contact dermatitis in response to antiseptics is common, we should be aware that occasionally this may co-exist with immediate-type hypersensitivity, and also with molecules frequently sold over the counter. Keywords: case report; delayed hypersensitivity; hexamidine; immediate hypersensitivity EN case report delayed hypersensitivity hexamidine immediate hypersensitivity 580 582 3 10/22/21 20211101 NES 211101 CASE REPORT A 66-year-old man with a history of arterial hypertension (treated by dietary approaches only), allergic rhinitis, asthma, and atopic dermatitis, developed a grade II anaphylactic reaction 5 minutes after the first intranasal application of hexamidine (Desomedine, Chauvin Bausch & Lomb laboratory, Montpellier, France) for a cold. [Extracted from the article]

Four pediatric patients with SLC29A3 mutations treated with tocilizumab (anti-IL-6 receptor) have been reported.2,3 We report the first case of adult HS successfully treated with tocilizumab. Dear Editor, H syndrome (HS) is a rare autosomal recessive genodermatosis due to a mutation in the gene SLC29A3 encoding for the human equilibrative nucleoside transporter-3 (hENT3). New treatment options are necessary for HS because of its potential major functional impact. [Extracted from the article]

Thereby, the similar patch test profile results in our five patients support the hypothesis that TBHQ is a good marker for NSO allergy through a TQ sensitization. Keywords: allergic contact dermatitis; Cas number 1948-33-0; patch test; Nigella sativa oil; tert-butylhydroquinone; thymoquinone EN allergic contact dermatitis Cas number 1948-33-0 patch test Nigella sativa oil tert-butylhydroquinone thymoquinone 447 449 3 05/06/21 20210601 NES 210601 Use of complementary and alternative medicine has increased in industrialized countries.1,2 I Nigella sativa i oil (NSO), used as an herbal medicine for thousands of years, has drawn interest for its immunoregulatory, antimicrobial, cardiovascular, and antitumoral properties.3 Although patients expect alternative medicine to be safe,4 allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and bullous dermatitis with NSO have been reported.5,6 The hypothesis that thymoquinone (TQ), its major component, is the causative substance of allergic reaction to NSO was proposed,7 but thymoquinone is not yet available in France for patch tests. These five cases and the previously published one support the hypothesis that due to chemical similarities with TQ, which is supposed to be the responsible for NSO sensitization, TBHQ would be a good marker for NSO allergy. [Extracted from the article]

Mineral oils and waxes are mixtures of predominantly saturated hydrocarbons consisting of straight‐chain, branched and ring structures with carbon chain lengths greater than C14. They have been used for many decades in skin and lip care cosmetic products due to their excellent skin tolerance as well as their high protecting and cleansing performance and broad viscosity options. In contrast to vegetable oils, mineral oils are non‐allergenic since they are highly stable and not susceptible to oxidation or rancidity. They have a long history of safe use which is confirmed by clinical and epidemiological data. In Europe, mineral oils are only permitted in cosmetics if compliant with purity specifications on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and safety requirements laid down in the European pharmacopoeia and the EU cosmetics regulation EC/1223/2009. The high quality of these mineral oils is assured by robust quality assurance and a refining/purification process designed to exclude substances with carcinogenic potential and to minimize the presence of mineral oil aromatic hydrocarbons. Given their highly lipophilic properties, mineral oils do not penetrate human skin and, thus, are not systemically bioavailable in the body. Moreover, no significant changes in the skin and no effects on any internal organ system have been reported and attributed to the topical application of refined mineral oils. Regarding potential oral exposure from cosmetic lip care products, Cosmetics Europe, the European trade association for the cosmetics and personal care industry, has advised cosmetic manufacturers to only use mineral oil fractions for which recognized food acceptable daily intake (ADI) values apply. The estimated dose of mineral oils ingested via lip care products contributes to <10% of the ADI value and should therefore be considered of no toxicological concern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An accurate diagnosis of β‐lactam (BL) allergy can reduce patient morbidity and mortality. Our aim was to investigate the availability of BL reagents, their use and test procedures in different parts of Europe, as well as any differences in the diagnostic workups for evaluating subjects with BL hypersensitivity. A survey was emailed to all members of the EAACI Drug Allergy Interest Group (DAIG) between February and April 2016, and the questionnaire was meant to study the management of suspected BL hypersensitivity. The questionnaire was emailed to 82 DAIG centres and answered by 57. Amoxicillin alone or combined to clavulanic acid were the most commonly involved BL except in the Danish centre, where penicillin V was the most frequently suspected BL. All centres performed an allergy workup in subjects with histories of hypersensitivity to BL: 53 centres (93%) followed DAIG guidelines, two national guidelines and two local guidelines. However, there were deviations from DAIG recommendations concerning allergy tests, especially drug provocation tests. A significant heterogeneity exists in current practice not only among countries, but also among centres within the same country. This suggests the need to re‐evaluate, update and standardize protocols on the management of patients with suspected BL allergy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which examined the safety and value of gradual drug re-challenge strategy to identify well-tolerated and important drug following a drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). Also cited are DRESS as a severe cutaneous adverse drug reaction (SCAR), the use of positive skin tests to determine drug with adverse reactions, and the major re-challenged drugs including antimicrobial drugs and radiocontrast media.

The article focuses on the gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCA) around the rate of hypersensitivity reaction (HS). It discusses the aim of evaluating the skin tests and intravenous provocation test (IPT), how skin prick tests (PTs) were performed and then intradermal tests were performed if negative.

Aims: Linear immunoglobin A (IgA) bullous dermatosis is a rare autoimmune dermatosis considered spontaneous or drug‐induced (DILAD). We assessed all DILAD cases, determined the imputability score of drugs and highlighted suspected drugs. Methods: Data for patients with DILAD were collected retrospectively from the French Pharmacovigilance network (from 1985 to 2017) and from physicians involved in the Bullous Diseases French Study Group and the French Investigators for Skin Adverse Reactions to Drugs. Drug causality was systematically determined by the French imputability method. Results: Of the 69 patients, 42% had mucous membrane involvement, 20% lesions mimicking toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), 21% eosinophil infiltrates and 10% keratinocytes necrosis. Direct immunofluorescence, in 80%, showed isolated linear IgA deposits. Vancomycin (VCM) was suspected in 39 cases (57%), 11 had TEN‐like lesions, as compared with three without VCM suspected. Among the 33 patients with a single suspected drug, 85% had an intrinsic imputability score of I4. Among them, enoxaparin, minocycline and vibramycin were previously unpublished. For all patients, the suspect drug was withdrawn; 15 did not receive any treatment. First‐line therapy for 31 patients was topical steroids. Among the 60 patients with available follow‐up, 52 achieved remission, 10 without treatment. Four patients experienced relapse, four died and five had positive accidental rechallenges. Conclusions: There is no major clinical difference between DILAD and idiopathic linear IgA bullous dermatosis, but the former features a higher prevalence of patients mimicking TEN. VCM, suspected in more than half of the cases, might be responsible for more severe clinical presentations. We report three new putative drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the diagnosis of hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) to iodinated contrast media (ICM) is challenging when based on clinical history and skin tests. It mentions the objective of this study was to determine the negative predictive value (NPV) for skin tests as compared with the intravenous provocation tests (IPT) 50 mL; and also mentions the IPT was reduced to 10 mL with glomerular filtration rate (GFR).

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are common, and the skin is by far the most frequently involved organ with a broad spectrum of reaction types. The diagnosis of cutaneous DHRs (CDHR) may be difficult because of multiple differential diagnoses. A correct classification is important for the correct diagnosis and management. With these guidelines, we aim to give precise definitions and provide the background needed for doctors to correctly classify CDHR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: allergic contact dermatitis; alternative medicine; black cumin; essential oil; Nigella sativa oil; t-butylhydroquinone; thymoquinone EN allergic contact dermatitis alternative medicine black cumin essential oil Nigella sativa oil t-butylhydroquinone thymoquinone 132 134 3 07/27/20 20200801 NES 200801 Thymoquinone (TQ), the main constituent of I Nigella sativa i L. oil (NSO), was investigated for therapeutic use in different diseases for its antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antiproliferative, and proapoptotic properties.1 Several cases of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and bullous eruption from NSO have been published, and the hypothesis of TQ being the causative substance was suggested but not confirmed.2,3 We report a case of ACD caused by NSO with a positive patch test to TQ. Strong or extreme-positive patch-test reactions were observed to NSO (++/++), I t i ert-butylhydroquinone (TBHQ) (++/++) (in the cosmetic series), carvone (++/++), amyl cinnamal (-/++), and TQ (+++/+++) (Figure 1). Allergic contact dermatitis, alternative medicine, black cumin, essential oil, Nigella sativa oil, t-butylhydroquinone, thymoquinone. [Extracted from the article]

Atopic Dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, relapsing inflammatory skin disease that carries a significant burden of disease and patient quality-of-life impairment. Several disorders known or supposed to be associated with AD were collected: atopic manifestations, cardiometabolic diseases, neuropsychiatric disorders, auto-immune or inflammatory diseases, addictions, neoplasia and patient-reported past skin infections. [Extracted from the article]

Background: There are few population‐based studies assessing the prevalence of skin diseases. Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of five chronic skin inflammatory diseases, i.e. atopic dermatitis (AD), psoriasis, alopecia areata (AA), vitiligo and hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) in France, using validated self‐diagnostic questionnaires. Methods: Population‐based study using a representative sample of the French general population aged more than 15 years and sampling with replacement design. All participants were asked (ii) to fill in a specific questionnaire including socio‐demographic characteristics, (ii) to declare if they have been diagnosed with one or more skin problem or skin diseases during their life, and (iii) to fill in five validated self‐reported questionnaires for AD, psoriasis, AA, vitiligo and HS. Results: A total of 20.012 adult participants responded to the questionnaire of whom 9760 were men (48.8%) and 10.252 (51.2%) were women. We identified a prevalence of 4.65% for AD (931 individuals), 4.42% for psoriasis (885 individuals), 1.04% for AA (210 individuals), 0.46% for vitiligo (93 individuals) and 0.15% for HS (29 individuals), respectively. Limitations: Questionnaire‐based study and possible disease misclassifications. Conclusion: This is the largest population‐based study aiming to estimate the prevalence of five chronic skin inflammatory diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Eyelids are frequent sites of contact dermatitis. No prospective study focused on eyelid allergic contact dermatitis (EACD) has yet been published, and this topic has never been studied in French patients. Objectives: To prospectively evaluate the usefulness of an eyelid series in French patients patch tested because of EACD, and to describe these patients. Methods: We prospectively analysed standardized data for all patients referred to our departments between September 2014 and August 2016 for patch testing for suspected EACD as the main reason. All patients were patch tested with an eyelid series, the European baseline series (EBS), the French additional series, and their personal products. Patch testing with additional series and repeated open application tests (ROATs) or open tests were performed if necessary. A standardized assessment of the relevance was used, and the analysis of the results was focused on patients having positive test results with a current certain relevance. Results: Two‐hundred and sixty‐four patients (238 women and 26 men) were included. Three‐hundred and twenty‐two tests gave positive results in 167 patients, 84 of whom had currently relevant reactions: 56 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the EBS, 16 had currently relevant positive test reactions to their personal products, 8 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the French additional series, and 4 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the eyelid series. Sixty‐seven per cent of all relevant cases were related to cosmetic products. The most frequent allergens with current relevance were methylisothiazolinone (10.2%), fragrance mix I (3%), nickel (2.7%), hydroxyperoxides of linalool (2.7%) and limonene (2.3%), and Myroxylon pereirae (2.3%). Current atopic dermatitis was found in 9.5% of patients. The duration of dermatitis was shorter (23.2 vs 34.2 months; P = .035) in patients with currently relevant test reactions. The percentage of currently relevant tests remained the same when atopic patients or dermatitis localized only on the eyelids were taken into account. Conclusion: In French patients, testing for EACD with the extended baseline series and personal products, also including ROATs and use tests, appears to be adequate, considering the currently relevant positive test reactions. The regular addition of an eyelid series does not seem to be necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) affect an unknown proportion of the general population, and are an important public health problem due to their potential to cause life-threatening anaphylaxis and rare severe cutaneous allergic reactions. DHR evaluations are frequently needed in both ambulatory and hospital settings and have a complex diagnosis that requires a detailed clinical history and other tests that may include in vitro tests and in vivo procedures such as skin tests and drug provocation tests. Although over the years both European and U.S. experts have published statements on general procedures for evaluating DHRs, a substantial discordance in their daily management exists. In this review, we highlight both the differences and the similarities between the European and U.S. perspectives. While a general consensus exists on the importance of skin tests for evaluating DHRs, concordance between Americans and Europeans exists solely regarding their use in immediate reactions and the fact that a confirmation of a presumptive diagnosis by drug provocation tests is often the only reliable way to establish a diagnosis. Finally, great heterogeneity exists in the application of in vitro tests, which require further study to be well validated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Hypersensitivity to acetylsalicylic acid ( ASA) constitutes a serious problem for subjects with coronary artery disease. In such subjects, physicians have to choose the more appropriate procedure between challenge and desensitization. As the literature on this issue is sparse, this study aimed to establish in these subjects clinical criteria for eligibility for an ASA challenge and/or desensitization. Methods Collection and analysis of data on ASA challenges and desensitizations from 10 allergy centers, as well as consensus among the related physicians and an expert panel. Results Altogether, 310 subjects were assessed; 217 had histories of urticaria/angioedema, 50 of anaphylaxis, 26 of nonimmediate cutaneous eruptions, and 17 of bronchospasm related to ASA/nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs ( NSAID) intake. Specifically, 119 subjects had index reactions to ASA doses lower than 300 mg. Of the 310 subjects, 138 had an acute coronary syndrome ( ACS), 101 of whom underwent desensitizations, whereas 172 suffered from a chronic ischemic heart disease ( CIHD), 126 of whom underwent challenges. Overall, 163 subjects underwent challenges and 147 subjects underwent desensitizations; 86 of the latter had index reactions to ASA doses of 300 mg or less. Ten subjects reacted to challenges, seven at doses up to 500 mg, three at a cumulative dose of 110 mg. The desensitization failure rate was 1.4%. Conclusions In patients with stable CIHD and histories of nonsevere hypersensitivity reactions to ASA/ NSAIDs, an ASA challenge is advisable. Patients with an ACS and histories of hypersensitivity reactions to ASA, especially following doses lower than 100 mg, should directly undergo desensitization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Argan is used worldwide in numerous cosmetic products, as this fruit is supposed to have many beneficial properties on health. New cases of allergy can be expected with the growing use of argan. We investigated all workers (9) employed by a cosmetic factory and exposed to argan powder to identify possible allergies related to exposure to argan powder. Methods Patients were investigated in the occupational disease department and, according to their symptoms, underwent pulmonary function testing, methacholine challenge, specific inhalation challenge to argan powder, skin prick tests, and immunoblotting analysis. Results We report three cases of occupational asthma to argan powder and a probable case of rhinitis. Fifteen argan proteins were recognized by the patients' IgE. Identification of proteins, cross-reactions to nuts, and ELISA inhibition tests suggested that some argan allergens can cross-react in vitro with hazelnut allergens, including 11S globulin and vicilin. Conclusion High-level exposure to argan powder should be considered to be a potential cause of IgE-mediated allergy, and workers handling argan powder should be carefully investigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]