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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

Drug hypersensitivity includes allergic ( AR) and nonallergic reactions ( NARs) influenced by genetic predisposition. We performed a systematic review of genetic predictors of IgE-mediated AR and NAR with MEDLINE and PubMed search engine between January 1966 and December 2014. Among 3110 citations, the search selected 53 studies, 42 of which remained eligible. These eligible studies have evaluated genetic determinants of immediate reactions ( IR) to beta-lactams ( n = 19), NAR against aspirin ( n = 12) and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs ( NSAIDs) ( n = 8), and IR to biologics ( n = 3). We reported two genomewide association studies and four case-control studies on candidate genes validated by replication. Genes involved in IR to beta-lactams belonged to HLA type 2 antigen processing, IgE production, atopy, and inflammation, including 4 genes validated by replications, HLA- DRA, ILR4, NOD2, and LGALS3. Genes involved in NAR to aspirin belonged to arachidonic acid pathway, membrane-spanning 4A gene family, histamine production pathway, and pro-inflammatory cytokines, while those involved in NAR to all NSAIDs belonged to arachidonic acid pathway and HLA antigen processing pathway. ALOX5 was a common predictor of studies on NAR to both aspirin and NSAIDs. Although these first conclusions could be drawn, this review highlights also the lack of reliable data and the need for replicating studies in contrasted populations, taking into account worldwide allele frequencies, gene-gene interactions, and contrasted situations of environmental exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Polymorphisms of interleukin genes related to IgE production and inflammation are predictors of hypersensitivity to betalactam, but nothing is known on the influence of NOD genes, despite their association with inflammation and atopy. Objective To evaluate the association of NOD2 and NOD1 polymorphisms with betalactam allergy. Method We genotyped 3 polymorphisms of NOD2 and 1 of NOD1 in 368 Italian and 387 Spanish patients, compared with 368 and 326 controls, respectively. Results CT/ TT genotypes of rs2066845 of NOD2 predicted a lower risk in Italy ( P = 0.003), while WT/insC genotype of rs5743293 (also in leucine-rich repeat domain) predicted a higher risk in Spain ( P = 0.007). G allele of rs2066845 was associated with a higher level of IgE in the Italian population. Conclusion The mirrored influence of these NOD2 polymorphisms on betalactam allergy in two populations suggests a link with pathways of inflammation and/or atopy through mechanisms, which need to be clarified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Skin tests are of paramount importance for the evaluation of drug hypersensitivity reactions. Drug skin tests are often not carried out because of lack of concise information on specific test concentrations. The diagnosis of drug allergy is often based on history alone, which is an unreliable indicator of true hypersensitivity.To promote and standardize reproducible skin testing with safe and nonirritant drug concentrations in the clinical practice, the European Network and European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology ( EAACI) Interest Group on Drug Allergy has performed a literature search on skin test drug concentration in MEDLINE and EMBASE, reviewed and evaluated the literature in five languages using the GRADE system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. Where the literature is poor, we have taken into consideration the collective experience of the group.We recommend drug concentration for skin testing aiming to achieve a specificity of at least 95%. It has been possible to recommend specific drug concentration for betalactam antibiotics, perioperative drugs, heparins, platinum salts and radiocontrast media. For many other drugs, there is insufficient evidence to recommend appropriate drug concentration. There is urgent need for multicentre studies designed to establish and validate drug skin test concentration using standard protocols. For most drugs, sensitivity of skin testing is higher in immediate hypersensitivity compared to nonimmediate hypersensitivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In patients with cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADR), drug skin tests and re-challenge under hospital surveillance (RCH) are helpful. The aim of this study was to determine if patients with negative drug RCH can tolerate subsequent treatments with the same drugs. Patients and Methods: Patients with a negative RCH in the last 10 years answered a telephone questionnaire which was delivered by the same investigator in order to determine if subsequently the patients were able to tolerate the drug with which they had a negative RCH and also to study the reasons why the drugs were not taken again. Results: Six hundred and thirty-seven RCH were analyzed (349 patients, mean age 47 years), 134 drugs were taken again (group A) and 359 were not (group B). In group A, 12 reactions occurred in 10 patients (9%). In group B, drugs were not taken again because 76% of the patients evaluated for an intolerance to antibiotics or radiocontrast media did not require a new course of these products or because their general practitioner (GP) did not want to prescribe these drugs. Discussion: Ninety percent of the RCH (88.5% of the patients) with a CADR followed by investigations and a RCH have a good tolerance to subsequent treatment with the RC drug. The mechanisms involved in this intolerance despite negative RCH are discussed. Conclusion: The provocation test procedure, considered as useful by 88% of the patients, has a good negative predictive value. Furthermore, these investigations need to be accompanied by clear information on the patient and his GP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Iodinated contrast media cause both immediate and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions. The aim of this prospective study was to determine the specificity and sensitivity of skin tests in patients who have experienced such reactions. Methods: Skin prick, intradermal and patch tests with a series of contrast media were conducted in 220 patients with either immediate or nonimmediate reaction. Positive skin tests were defined according to internationally accepted guidelines. Seventy-one never-exposed subjects and 11 subjects who had tolerated contrast medium exposure, served as negative controls. Results: Skin test specificity was 96–100%. For tests conducted within the time period from 2 to 6 months after the reaction, up to 50% of immediate reactors and up to 47% of nonimmediate reactors were skin test positive. For immediate reactors, the intradermal tests were the most sensitive, whereas delayed intradermal tests in combination with patch tests were needed for optimal sensitivity in nonimmediate reactors. Contrast medium cross-reactivity was more common in the nonimmediate than in the immediate group. Interestingly, 49% of immediate and 52% of nonimmediate symptoms occurred in previously unexposed patients. Many of these patients were skin test positive, indicating that they were already sensitized at the time of first contrast medium exposure. Conclusions: These data suggest that at least 50% of hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media are caused by an immunological mechanism. Skin testing appears to be a useful tool for diagnosis of contrast medium allergy and may play an important role in selection of a safe product in previous reactors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nonallergic hypersensitivity and allergic reactions are part of the many different types of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Databases exist for the collection of ADRs. Spontaneous reporting makes up the core data-generating system of pharmacovigilance, but there is a large under-estimation of allergy/hypersensitivity drug reactions. A specific database is therefore required for drug allergy and hypersensitivity using standard operating procedures (SOPs), as the diagnosis of drug allergy/hypersensitivity is difficult and current pharmacovigilance algorithms are insufficient. Although difficult, the diagnosis of drug allergy/hypersensitivity has been standardized by the European Network for Drug Allergy (ENDA) under the aegis of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology and SOPs have been published. Based on ENDA and Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN, EU Framework Programme 6) SOPs, a Drug Allergy and Hypersensitivity Database (DAHD®) has been established under FileMaker® Pro 9. It is already available online in many different languages and can be accessed using a personal login. GA2LEN is a European network of 27 partners (16 countries) and 59 collaborating centres (26 countries), which can coordinate and implement the DAHD across Europe. The GA2LEN–ENDA–DAHD platform interacting with a pharmacovigilance network appears to be of great interest for the reporting of allergy/hypersensitivity ADRs in conjunction with other pharmacovigilance instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

All iodinated contrast media (CM) are known to cause both immediate (≤1 h) and nonimmediate (>1 h) hypersensitivity reactions. Although for most immediate reactions an allergic hypersensitivity cannot be demonstrated, recent studies indicate that the severe immediate reactions may be IgE-mediated, while most of the nonimmediate exanthematous skin reactions, appear to be T-cell mediated. Patients who experience such hypersensitivity reactions are therefore advised to undergo an allergologic evaluation. Several investigators have found skin testing to be useful in confirming a CM allergy, especially in patients with nonimmediate skin eruptions. If a patient with confirmed allergy to a CM needs a new CM exposure, a skin test negative CM should be chosen and premedication may be tried. However, none of these precautional measures is a guarantee against a repeat reaction. More research focusing on pathomechanisms, diagnostic testing and premedication is therefore clearly needed in order to prevent CM-induced hypersensitivity reactions in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We report on an unexpected sensitization to petrolatum diagnosed with the occurrence of multiple nonrelevant and false-positive drug patch-tests performed while investigating a patient suffering from many cutaneous adverse drug reactions. All the positive drug patch-tests were prepared with GILBERT® vaseline. This petrolatum reaction is positive as it was tested with five other brands of petrolatums a few months later. As the same petrolatums, but from different batches were tested, patch-tests with GILBERT® petrolatum were doubtful, while other petrolatums were positive. White petrolatum is a mixture of semisolid hydrocarbons of the methane series. The sensitizing impurities of petrolatum are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, e.g. phenanthrene derivatives. The purity of petrolatum depends on both the petroleum stock and on the production and packaging methods. Even if rare, contact sensitization to petrolatum can disturb the interpretation of drug patch-tests. It is necessary in the interpretation of drug patch-tests to test both in petrolatum and other vehicles and with all the different petrolatums used in preparing the material for drug patch-tests. So, it is essential to advise the patients sensitized to petrolatum to remove all the topical drugs, such as all the cosmetics, which contain petrolatum in their formulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the value of patch tests (PT) and cross reactions among calcium channel blockers (CCB) by performing drug skin tests in four patients who had developed a maculopapular rash (MPR) eight to 12 days after the beginning of a treatment with diltiazem. Suggested guidelines following the division of CCB into dihydropyridines and nondihydropyridines.

The article discusses cutaneous adverse drug reaction (CADR) caused by a substitute of generic drugs. Generic drugs have activity compounds that are similar to original drugs but their excipients can be different from quality and quantity. These excipients are responsible for CADR on patients. Information on the first case of CADR that occurred to a patient who had taken Zyloric pills is provided.

The article presents a case study of a 66-year-old man who was diagnosed with a drug-induced lichenoid reaction after he undergo kyphoplasty for his T9-T10 osteoporotic fractures. It mentions that an allergological tests were performed to the patient with an empty control patch which contains KyphX® HV-R (K). It says that two biopsies were performed two the patient in which the second biopsy was taken from the control patch site. The side effects of kyphoplasty is also discussed.

Skin tests are of paramount importance for the evaluation of drug hypersensitivity reactions. Drug skin tests are often not carried out because of lack of concise information on specific test concentrations. The diagnosis of drug allergy is often based on history alone, which is an unreliable indicator of true hypersensitivity.To promote and standardize reproducible skin testing with safe and nonirritant drug concentrations in the clinical practice, the European Network and European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Interest Group on Drug Allergy has performed a literature search on skin test drug concentration in MEDLINE and EMBASE, reviewed and evaluated the literature in five languages using the GRADE system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. Where the literature is poor, we have taken into consideration the collective experience of the group.We recommend drug concentration for skin testing aiming to achieve a specificity of at least 95%. It has been possible to recommend specific drug concentration for betalactam antibiotics, perioperative drugs, heparins, platinum salts and radiocontrast media. For many other drugs, there is insufficient evidence to recommend appropriate drug concentration. There is urgent need for multicentre studies designed to establish and validate drug skin test concentration using standard protocols. For most drugs, sensitivity of skin testing is higher in immediate hypersensitivity compared to nonimmediate hypersensitivity., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Nonallergic hypersensitivity and allergic reactions are part of the many different types of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Databases exist for the collection of ADRs. Spontaneous reporting makes up the core data-generating system of pharmacovigilance, but there is a large under-estimation of allergy/hypersensitivity drug reactions. A specific database is therefore required for drug allergy and hypersensitivity using standard operating procedures (SOPs), as the diagnosis of drug allergy/hypersensitivity is difficult and current pharmacovigilance algorithms are insufficient. Although difficult, the diagnosis of drug allergy/hypersensitivity has been standardized by the European Network for Drug Allergy (ENDA) under the aegis of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology and SOPs have been published. Based on ENDA and Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA(2)LEN, EU Framework Programme 6) SOPs, a Drug Allergy and Hypersensitivity Database (DAHD((R))) has been established under FileMaker((R)) Pro 9. It is already available online in many different languages and can be accessed using a personal login. GA(2)LEN is a European network of 27 partners (16 countries) and 59 collaborating centres (26 countries), which can coordinate and implement the DAHD across Europe. The GA(2)LEN-ENDA-DAHD platform interacting with a pharmacovigilance network appears to be of great interest for the reporting of allergy/hypersensitivity ADRs in conjunction with other pharmacovigilance instruments.