Search

Summary Background Drug patch tests (PTs) can reproduce delayed hypersensitivity to drugs and entail a moderate re-exposure of patients to offending drugs. Objectives To determine the value of PTs for identifying the responsible drug in severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions (SCARs) such as acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) and Stevens–Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN). Methods In a multicentre study, PTs were conducted on patients referred for DRESS, AGEP or SJS/TEN within 1 year of their SCAR. All drugs administered in the 2 months prior to and the week following the onset of the SCAR were tested. Results Among the 134 patients included (48 male, 86 female; mean age 51·7 years), positive drug PTs were obtained for 24 different drugs. These included positive tests for 64% (46/72) of patients with DRESS, 58% (26/45) of those with AGEP and 24% (4/17) of those with SJS/TEN, with only one relapse of AGEP. The value of PTs depended on the type of drug and the type of SCAR (e.g. carbamazepine was positive in 11/13 DRESS cases but none of the five SJS/TEN cases). PTs were frequently positive for beta lactams (22 cases), pristinamycin (11 cases) and in DRESS with pump proton inhibitors (five cases), but were usually negative for allopurinol and salazopyrin. Of 18 patients with DRESS, eight had virus reactivation and positive PTs. In DRESS, multiple drug reactivity was frequent (18% of cases), with patients remaining sensitized many years later. Conclusions PTs are useful and safe for identifying agents inducing SCAR.

Skin testing with the suspected compound has been reported to be helpful in determining the cause of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (ADRs), but the value and specificity of these tests need to be determined. In this study, 72 patients with presumed drug eruptions (27 maculopapular, 18 urticarial, seven erythrodermic, nine eczematous, four photosensitivity, three fixed drug eruptions, three with pruritus and one with acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis) were assessed. All had drug patch tests; 46 also had prick tests and 30 had intradermal tests (performed on hospitalized patients using a sterile solution of the suspected drug, diluted sequentially) with immediate and delayed readings. Among these patients, 52 (72%) had a positive skin test reaction, 43%, 24% and 67% in patch, prick and intradermal skin tests, respectively. The results of skin tests varied with the drug tested and with the clinical type of cutaneous ADR, as a significantly higher number of positive patch tests was observed in maculopapular rashes than in urticarial reactions (P = 0.001). This study supports the value of careful sequential drug skin testing in establishing the cause of cutaneous ADR. Guidelines are proposed for performing these tests, and these include the use of appropriate negative control patients to avoid false-positive results.

Specific cutaneous lesions are a rare occurrence in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). The concurrent association of blistering skin lesions similar to those in bullous pemphigoid (BP), even though a rare event, suggests that BP may be a paraneoplastic syndrome. We report an 86-year-old man who had a refractory anaemia with excess bone marrow blasts in transformation, who developed a generalized pruritic blistering eruption. Immunohistopathological tests showed subepidermal blisters with linear deposits of IgG and C3 along the basement membrane zone of the epidermis surrounding a tumoral dermal infiltrate of CD13+ and CD15+ cells. Immunoblotting studies using epidermal extracts revealed circulating IgG antibodies against three protein bands: a 210-215 kDa band, a 180 kDa band which co-migrated with the BP 180 antigen, and a 190 kDa band. The tumour infiltrate may have revealed antigenic determinants which led to the onset of BP. The concept of paraneoplastic pemphigoid remains to be either confirmed or invalidated by further epidemiological studies.