Search

Background Drug skin tests are useful in aetiological analyses of cutaneous adverse drug reactions to determine if the drug can be rechallenged, or to avoid a cross-reaction with a substitute drug. Objectives To evaluate the negative predictive value of drug skin tests. Methods We retrospectively analysed the files of patients referred for drug reactions. We have enrolled those having strictly determined drug reactions with clinical features, delayed onset after drug intake, drug causality assessment, and negative drug skin tests followed by drug administration. Oral provocation tests or substitution tests with a drug of the same class as that suspected of causing the drug reactions were performed. Results From 1957 files analysed, 200 patients were included. After 403 patch tests, 403 prick tests and 304 intradermal tests, which were all negative, 260 oral provocation tests and 143 substitution tests were done; 307 different drugs were rechallenged. There were 42 positive drug re-administrations in 27 oral provocation tests and 15 substitution tests. The negative predictive value of our drug skin tests was 89·6%. The negative predictive value for beta-lactams was 87% for oral provocation tests and 96% for substitution tests, and for corticosteroids it was 100% and 74%, respectively. Conclusions  Negative drug skin tests do not eliminate the responsibility of a drug in drug reactions, and must be followed by drug re-administration under hospital surveillance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most severe forms of cutaneous adverse drug reactions is "drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms" (DRESS), hence subsequent avoidance of the causal drug is imperative. However, attribution of drug culpability in DRESS is challenging and standard skin allergy tests are not recommended due to patient safety reasons. Whilst incidence of DRESS is relatively low, between 1:1000 and 1:10 000 drug exposures, antibiotics are a commoner cause of DRESS and absence of confirmatory diagnostic test can result in unnecessary avoidance of efficacious treatment. We therefore sought to identify potential biomarkers for development of a diagnostic test in antibiotic-associated DRESS. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells from a "discovery" cohort (n  = 5) challenged to causative antibiotic or control were analyzed for transcriptomic profile. A panel of genes was then tested in a validation cohort (n  = 6) and compared with tolerant controls and other inflammatory conditions which can clinically mimic DRESS. A scoring system to identify presence of drug hypersensitivity was developed based on gene expression alterations of this panel. The DRESS transcriptomic panel identified antibiotic-DRESS cases in a validation cohort but was not altered in other inflammatory conditions. Machine learning or differential expression selection of a biomarker panel consisting of 6 genes (STAC, GPR183, CD40, CISH, CD4, and CCL8) showed high sensitivity and specificity (100% and 85.7%–100%, respectively) for identification of the culprit drug in these cohorts of antibiotic-associated DRESS. Further work is required to determine whether the same panel can be repeated for larger cohorts, different medications, and other T-cell-mediated drug hypersensitivity reactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anaphylaxis is a rare side-effect of COVID-19 vaccines. To (a) provide direct advice and reassurance to certain persons with a history of anaphylaxis/complex allergy, in addition to that available in national guidelines, and (b) to provide a medically supervised vaccination, a specialist regional vaccine allergy clinic was established. The main objective was to determine if risk stratification through history can lead to safe COVID-19 vaccination for maximum population coverage. A focused history was taken to establish contraindications to giving COVID-19 vaccines. People who reported a high-risk allergy history were given a vaccine not containing the excipient thought to have directly caused previous anaphylaxis. All vaccines were monitored for 30 min after administration. A total of 206 people were vaccinated between 6 July 2021 and 31 August 2021; Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) (n = 34), and Janssen (n = 172). In total, 78% were women. Ninety-two people (45%) reported a high-risk allergy history. There were no cases of anaphylaxis. Three people developed urticaria and one of these also developed transient tachycardia. One vaccinee developed a pseudoseizure. Two of 208 people (<1%) referred during this time declined vaccination based on personal preference, despite the assessment of low clinical risk. In our experience, all vaccines with high-risk allergy histories were administered Pfizer BioNTech or Janssen Covid-19 vaccines uneventfully following screening based on allergy-focussed history. Our data support that drug allergy is not associated with a higher risk of vaccine-related anaphylaxis but may act to guide the administration of alternate vaccines to people with polyethylene glycol/polysorbate 80/trometamol allergies or anaphylaxis after the first dose. Individuals with complex allergy histories have experienced COVID-19 vaccine delay and there have been many reports of both immediate and delayed reactions to prior COVID-19 vaccination doses. The study demonstrates a successful strategy for vaccinating the majority of people with documented allergy history, showing those deemed high-risk can be vaccinated safely following screening based on an allergy-focussed history, without need for allergy investigation (e.g. skin prick testing) prior to vaccination. The results of this study act as reassurance of vaccine safety and can be used to guide future community vaccination management of persons reporting drug/food allergy history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various topics within the issue including the skin patch tests, the lymphocyte proliferation assay, and the test sensitivity in drug allergy diagnosis.

Summary Background Rashes are a frequent conundrum in clinical practice as they may be reactive, drug induced or disease specific. Identification of the culprit drug is important as re-exposure may be harmful or even life-threatening and unnecessary avoidance of 'innocent' drugs leads to limitations of treatment options. Objective To objectify the cause of suspected cutaneous drug reactions in a large patient population. Method Over 5 years (2006-10), 612 patients with suspected cutaneous drug reactions were evaluated. Histology was assessed. About 200 patients were invited for complete work-up with skin tests (prick/intracutaneous testing and scratch/patch as indicated) and, if necessary, lymphocyte transformation tests (LTT). In special cases, drug provocation tests were conducted. Results A total number of 141 cases with suspected drug reaction underwent full work-up (age 6-86 years; 75% female, 25% male). In 107 cases (76%) a drug was identified whereas 34 (24%) were reactive rashes or had other causes. Mostly, cutaneous drug reactions were maculopapular rashes, urticaria/angio-oedema; less frequently, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, systemic drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema, toxic epidermal necrolysis and fixed drug eruptions were present. Of all the cutaneous drug reactions investigated, 39·8% were caused by antibiotics, 21·2% by anti-inflammatories, 7·6% by contrast media and 31·4% by others (oral antidiabetics, antimycotics, antipsychotics, antiepileptics and others). Conclusion Clinical assessment overestimates the role of drug allergies in cutaneous reactions. Assessment of suspected drug reactions can be greatly improved by thorough evaluation including dermatological and allergological work-up with skin testing and assays such as LTT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]