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]

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]

Delayed reactions to iodine contrast media (CM) account for 1-3% of patients with adverse reactions to iodine CM. The cellular and molecular mechanisms of these reactions remain poorly documented. Although most of these reactions are T cell mediated, the involvement of dendritic cells (DC) has not been investigated sufficiently. To determine whether the T cell response to iodixanol requires DC as antigen-presenting cell and, more particularly, to evaluate the changes induced by iodixanol on DC maturation and in vitro production of cytokines after drug stimulation in patients with maculopapular exanthema. Peripheral blood lymphocytes, immature monocyte-derived DC (imDC) and skin biopsies were obtained from patients with delayed reactions to iodixanol and tolerant subjects. We studied the consequences of the interaction between DC, lymphocytes and iodixanol by phenotype analysis, proliferation and cytokine production. A T-cell-mediated reaction was evidenced in patient biopsies, with a lymphocyte-rich, peri-vascular infiltrate. Iodixanol induced maturation of imDC from patients but not from controls, with expression of the co-stimulatory markers CD83, CD86 and CD40 and an increase in mean fluorescence intensity of CD80, CD86 and HLA-DR. In the absence of DC, positive cell proliferation to iodixanol was detected in only one patient while the addition of DC produced a positive test in five of the six patients. Similarly, the increase in cytokines (IFN-γ, IL-2, IL-6, IL-1b and TNF-α) was higher when imDC were introduced into the culture together with the culprit drug. These results provide evidence for a DC-mediated mechanism in delayed allergic reactions to CM, influencing T cell proliferation and cytokine production. These new insights will be helpful for designing immunotherapeutic strategies and in vitro diagnostic tests of CM-delayed reactions. Cite this as: C. Antunez, A. Barbaud, E. Gomez, S. Audonnet, S. Lopez, R.-M. Guéant-Rodriguez, I. Aimone- Gastin, F. Gomez, M. Blanca and J.-L. Guéant, Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 2011 (41) 657-664. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Patch testing with the suspected compound has been reported to be helpful in determining the cause of a cutaneous adverse drug reaction (CADR) and in studying the pathophysiological mechanisms involved. The main advantages of drug patch tests are that they can be done with no hospital surveillance because they induce only rarely adverse reactions and that any commercialized form of a drug can be used. In contrast, intradermal tests can be performed only with injectable forms or with a pure and sterile form of the drug. It is advised to perform drug patch tests during the 6 months following the CADR as we do not know whether positive results will persist. Due to the possibility that a low concentration might yield false negative results, drug patch tests have to be performed with rather high concentrations of the commercialized form of the drug, mostly diluted at 30% in petrolatum and/or in water. For some drugs and severe CADR, it is necessary to tests with lower concentrations or in other vehicles. Drug patch tests are positive in ca. 32–50% of patients who have developed a CADR. The clinical relevance of drug patch tests depends on the clinical features of the CADR (valuable in testing generalized eczema, systemic contact dermatitis, maculopapular rash, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, fixed drug eruption) and on the involved drug. As false positive results can be observed, it is always necessary to consider the relevance of any positive drug patch test. Their specificity and their negative predictive value have not been yet determined. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Occupational dermatitis (irritant dermatitis, contact urticaria and contact eczema) is frequent among healthcare workers. Irritant hand dermatitis, the most common occupational dermatitis, occurs often in individual who work in a humid environment, who handle disinfectants, and who are required to wash their hands frequently; atopic dermatitis is a risk factor for this condition. Natural rubber latex present in rubber gloves is the most common cause of contact urticaria. Contact eczema can be induced by rubber accelerators (for example, thiurams) present in gloves, and also by disinfectants (glutaraldehyde, dodecyldimethylammonium), disinfectants and detergents, hand creams, acrylates (in dentists), and echography gels. Nurses sometimes develop contact dermatitis to drugs they handle; these allergies should be diagnosed by appropriate skin testing because sensitized individuals may develop a severe, generalized cutaneous adverse reaction if they are subsequently exposed systemically to the sensitizing drug. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Recent studies have emphasized the value of drug patch tests, in addition to, prick and intradermal tests to determine the molecule responsible for cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADR), also known as drug eruptions. The value of drug patch tests depends on the clinical features of the CADR, and they are valuable in the investigation of drug reactions, such as generalized eczema, systemic contact dermatitis, maculopapular rashes, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and fixed drug eruptions. Their sensitivity also depends on the particular drug involved. Guidelines for performing prick, ID and patch tests, published in 2001, are analyzed in the present article. We also report on the information published more recently on how to perform the tests, how to interpret them, new drugs reported to yield positive reactions and, finally, how to define the relevance and the specificity of drug patch tests in the workup of cutaneous drug allergies. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Skin testing with a suspected drug has been reported to be helpful in determining the cause of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADR). Many isolated reports of positive drug skin tests are published, but without detailed information concerning the clinical features of the CADR and the method used in performing drug skin tests, such data are not very informative. A working party of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD) for the study of skin testing in investigating cutaneous adverse drug reactions, has proposed the herein-reported guidelines for performing skin testing in CADR in order to standardize these procedures. In each reported case, the imputability of each drug taken at the onset of the CADR and a highly detailed description and characterization of the dermatitis need to be given. Drug skin tests are performed 6 weeks to 6 months after complete healing of the CADR. Drug patch tests are performed according to the methods used in patch testing in studying contact dermatitis. The commercialized form of the drug used by the patient is tested diluted at 30% pet. (pet.) and/or water (aq.). The pure drug is tested diluted at 10% in pet. or aq. In severe CADR, drug patch tests are performed at lower concentrations. It is also of value to test on the most affected site of the initial CADR. Drug prick tests are performed on the volar forearm skin with the commercialized form of the drug, but with sequential dilutions in cases of urticaria. Intradermal tests (IDT) are performed with sterile sequential dilutions (10–4, 10–3, 10–2, 10–1) of a pure sterile or an injectable form of the suspected drug with a small volume of 0.04 ml. Drug skin tests need to be read at 20 min and also later at D2 and D4 for patch tests, at D1 for prick tests and IDT. All these tests also need to be read at 1 week. The success of skin tests varies with the drug tested, with a high % of positive results, for example, with betalactam antibiotics,... [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]

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]

Keywords: acyclovir; adverse drug reaction; allergic contact dermatitis; antiviral drugs; case report; drug allergy EN acyclovir adverse drug reaction allergic contact dermatitis antiviral drugs case report drug allergy 203 205 3 02/25/21 20210301 NES 210301 CASE REPORT A 27-year-old woman was referred to our department because of a 1-year history of recurrent episodes of edema and eczema of the face. 7 Vernassiere C, Barbaud A, Trechot PH, Weber-Muller F, Schmutz JL. Systemic acyclovir reaction subsequent to acyclovir contact allergy: which systemic antiviral drug should then be used? Acyclovir, adverse drug reaction, allergic contact dermatitis, antiviral drugs, case report, drug allergy. [Extracted from the article]

Table of contents: Poster walk 11: miscellaneous drug hypersensitivity 2 (P92–P94, P96–P101) P92 16 years of experience with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) Javier Dionicio Elera, Cosmin Boteanu, Maria Aranzazu Jimenez Blanco, Rosario Gonzalez‐Mendiola, Irene Carrasco García, Antonio Alvarez, Jose Julio Laguna Martinez P93 Allergy evaluation of quinolone induced adverse reactions Jaume Martí Garrido, Carla Torán Barona, Carolina Perales Chorda, Ramón López Salgueiro, Miguel Díaz Palacios, Dolores Hernández Fernández De Rojas P94 Bupropion‐induced acute urticaria and angioedema, a case report Emre Ali Acar, Ayse Aktas, Aylin Türel Ermertcan, Peyker Temiz P96 Delayed type hypersensitivity and study of cross‐reactivity between proton‐pump inhibitors Chien‐Yio Lin, Chung‐Yee Rosaline Hui, Ya‐Ching Chang, Chih‐Hsun Yang, Wen‐Hung Chung P97 Diagnostic work‐up in suspected hypersensitivity to proton‐pump inhibitors: looking at cross‐reactivity Fabrícia Carolino, Diana Silva, Eunice Dias De Castro, Josefina R. Cernadas P98 Management of infusion‐related hypersensitivity reactions to enzyme replacement therapy for lysosomal diseases Luis Felipe Ensina, Carolina Aranda, Ines Camelo Nunes, Alex Lacerda, Ana Maria Martins, Ekaterini Goudouris, Marcia Ribeiro, José Francisco Da Silva Franco, Leandra Queiroz, Dirceu Solé P99 Management of insulin allergy with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion Ceyda Tunakan Dalgiç, Aytül Zerrin Sin, Fatma Düsünür Günsen, Gökten Bulut, Fatma Ömür Ardeniz, Okan Gülbahar, Emine Nihal Mete Gökmen, Ali Kokuludag P100 Off‐label use of icatibant for management of serious angioedema associated with angiotensin inhibitors Ana M. Montoro De Francisco, Talía Mª De Vicente Jiménez, Adriana M. Mendoza Parra, Angella M. Burgos Pimentel, Amelia García Luque P101 Thiocolchicoside anaphylaxis: an unusual suspect? Luis Amaral, Fabricia Carolino, Leonor Carneiro Leão, Eunice Castro, Josefina Cernadas Poster walk 12: betalactam hypersensitivity (P102–P111) P102 A curious delayed reading: a case report of a β‐lactam allergy in a child Nicole Pinto, Joana Belo, João Marques, Pedro Carreiro‐Martins, Paula Leiria‐Pinto P103 Betalactam‐induced hypersensitivity: a 10‐years' experience Amel Chaabane, Haifa Ben Romdhane, Nadia Ben Fredj, Zohra Chadly, Naceur A. Boughattas, Karim Aouam P104 Cefazolin hypersensitivity: towards optimized diagnosis Astrid P. Uyttebroek, Chris H. Bridts, Antonino Romano, Didier G. Ebo, Vito Sabato P105 Clavulanic acid allergy: two cases report Anabela Lopes, Joana Cosme, Rita Aguiar, Tatiana Lourenço, Maria‐João Paes, Amélia Spínola‐Santos, Manuel Pereira‐Barbosa P106 Diagnosis of betalactam allergy in an allergy department Cíntia Rito Cruz, Rute Pereira Dos Reis, Elza Tomaz, Ana Paula Pires, Filipe Inácio P107 Diagnostic work‐up of 410 patients with suspicion of betalactam antibiotic hypersensitivity Filipe Benito‐Garcia, Inês Mota, Magna Correia, Ângela Gaspar, Marta Chambel, Susana Piedade, Mário Morais‐Almeida P108 Immediate selective hypersensitivity reactions to clavulanic acid Alla Nakonechna, Yurij Antipkin, Tetiana Umanets, Fernando Pineda, Francisca Arribas, Volodymyr Lapshyn P109 Prevalence and incidence of penicillin hypersensitivity reactions in Colombia Pablo Andrés Miranda, Bautista De La Cruz Hoyos P110 Selective sensitization to amoxicilin and clavulanic acid Jose Julio Laguna Martinez, Aranzazu Jimenez Blanco, Javier Dionicio Elera, Cosmin Boteanu, Rosario Gonzalez‐Mendiola, Marta Del Pozo P111 Infliximab‐specific T cells are detectable also in treated patients who have not developed anti‐drug antibodies Alessandra Vultaggio, Francesca Nencini, Sara Pratesi, Andrea Matucci, Enrico Maggi Poster walk 13: biologicals, local anesthetics, others (P112–P118) P112 A case report of allergic immediate systemic reaction to adalimumab and certolizumab Ceyda Tunakan Dalgiç, Fatma Düsünür Günsen, Gökten Bulut, Fatma Ömür Ardeniz, Okan Gülbahar, Emine Nihal Mete Gökmen, Aytül Zerrin Sin, Ali Kokuludag P113 Allergy to local anesthetics: negative predictive value of skin tests Ivana Cegec, Danica Juricic Nahal, Viktorija Erdeljic Turk, Matea Radacic Aumiler, Ksenija Makar Ausperger, Iva Kraljickovic, Iveta Simic P114 Cutaneous adverse reactions of molecular targeted agents: a retrospective analysis in 150 patients in our department Yukie Yamaguchi, Tomoya Watanabe, Megumi Satoh, Tomohiko Tanegashima, Kayoko Oda, Hidefumi Wada, Michiko Aihara P115 Generalized paralysis induced by local lidocaine injection Jaechun Jason Lee, Jay Chol Choi, Hwa Young Lee P116 Hypersensitivity to local anaesthetics: a 10 year review Rosa‐Anita Rodrigues Fernandes, Emília Faria, Joana Pita, Nuno Sousa, Carmelita Ribeiro, Isabel Carrapatoso, Ana Todo Bom P117 Local anaesthetics: a rare culprit in hypersensitivity reactions Ana Rodolfo, Eunice Dias‐Castro, Josefina Cernadas P118 Stevens–Johnson syndrome in clinical practice: a variant of clinical course Marina Voronova Poster walk 14: RCM (P119–P128) P119 13 cases of severe anaphylactic reactions due to radiocontrast media Jaume Martí Garrido, Ramon Lopez Salgueiro, Diana Kury Valle, Verónica Pacheco Coronel, Carolina Perales Chordá, Dolores Hernandez Fernandez De Rojas P120 Anaphylactic shock after administration of iodinated contrast medium during cardiac catheterization Roselle Catherine Yu Madamba, Marta Ferrer, Maria Jose Goikoetxea, Carmen D'Amelio, Amalia Bernad, Olga Vega, Gabriel Gastaminza P121 Anaphylactic shock and cardiac arrest induced by gadolinium‐based contrast agents Beatriz Pola Bibián, Marina Lluncor Salazar, Gemma Vilà Nadal, Ana María Fiandor Roman, Javier Dominguez Ortega, Miguel Gonzalez Muñoz, Santiago Quirce Gancedo, Maria Rosario Cabañas Moreno P122 Anaphylaxis to gadobenate and cross‐reactivity to other gadolinium‐based contrast agents in two patients Kathrin Scherer Hofmeier P123 Anaphylaxis to glatiramer acetate in a patient with multiple sclerosis Fabrícia Carolino, Vladyslava Barzylovych, Josefina R. Cernadas P124 Delayed hypersensitivity reaction to radiocontrast media Fabrícia Carolino, Diana Silva, Leonor Leão, Josefina R. Cernadas P125 Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms induced by iodixanol Gemma Vilà‐Nadal, Beatriz Pola, Marina Lluncor, Ana Fiandor, Teresa Bellón, Javier Domínguez, Santiago Quirce P126 Electronic consultation support system for radiocontrast media hypersensitivity changes clinician's behavior Min‐Suk Yang, Sun‐Sin Kim, Sae‐Hoon Kim, Hye‐Ryun Kang, Heung‐Woo Park, Sang‐Heon Cho, Kyung‐Up Min, Yoon‐Seok Chang P127 Hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media: skin testing and follow‐up Danica Juricic Nahal, Ivana Cegec, Viktorija Erdeljic Turk, Iva Kraljickovic, Matea Radacic Aumiler, Ksenija Makar Ausperger, Iveta Simic P128 Would iodine allergy exist? Clémence Delahaye, Jenny Flabbee, Julie Waton, Olivia Bauvin, Annick Barbaud Poster walk 15: MPE/type 4 (P129–P137) P129 Delayed hypersensitivity cutaneous reactions: a case/control study from a tunisian database Karim Aouam, Najah Ben Fadhel, Zohra Chadly, Nadia Ben Fredj, Naceur A. Boughattas, Amel Chaabane P130 Delayed hypersensitivity reactions to cephalosporins: a review of seven cases Joana Cosme, Anabela Lopes, Amélia Spínola‐Santos, Manuel Pereira‐Barbosa P131 Diclofenac induced allergic contact dermatitis: case series of four patients Sandra Jerkovic Gulin, Anca Chiriac P132 Late‐onset maculopapular rash to irbesartan Bárbara Kong Cardoso, Elza Tomaz, Regina Viseu, Filipe Inácio P133 Nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions to betalactams: a retrospective analysis Ana Moreira, Susana Cadinha, Ana Castro Neves, Patricia Barreira, Daniela Malheiro, J. P. Moreira Da Silva P134 Occupational airborne contact dermatitis to omeprazole Ružica Jurakic‐Toncic, Suzana Ljubojevic, Petra Turcic P135 Ornidazole‐induced fixed drug eruption confirmed by positive patch test on a residual pigmented lesion Liesbeth Gilissen, Sara Huygens, An Goossens P136 Repeated delayed reaction induced by amoxicillin and amoxicillin clavulanate Inmaculada Andreu, Ramon Lopez‐Salgueiro, Alicia Martinez Romero, Pau Gomez Cabezas P137 Systemic photosensitivity from fenofibrate in a patient photo‐sensitized to ketoprofen Liesbeth Gilissen, An Goossens Poster walk 16: HLA genetics (P138–P146) P138 A copy number variation in ALOX5 and PTGER1 is associated with nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs induced urticaria and/or angioedema Pedro Ayuso Parejo, Maria Del Carmen Plaza‐Serón, Inmaculada Doña, Natalia Blanca López, Carlos Flores, Luisa Galindo, Ana Molina, James Richard Perkins, Jose Antonio Cornejo‐García, José Augusto García‐Agúndez, Elena García‐Martín, Paloma Campo, María Gabriela Canto, Miguel Blanca P139 Association of galectin‐3 (LGALS3) single nucleotide polymorphisms with non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs‐induced urticaria/angioedema José Antonio Cornejo‐Garcia, Inmaculada Doña, Rosa María Guéant‐Rodríguez, Natalia Blanca‐López, María Carmen Plaza‐Serón, Raquel Jurado‐Escobar, Esther Barrionuevo, María Salas, María Luisa Galindo, Gabriela Canto, Miguel Blanca, Jean‐Louis Guéant P140 Detection of T cell responses to ticlopidine using peripheral blood mononuclear cells from HLA‐A*33:03+ healthy donors Toru Usui, Arun Tailor, Lee Faulkner, John Farrell, Ana Alfirevic, B. Kevin Park, Dean J. Naisbitt P141 Epistasis approaches to identify novel genes potentially involved in NSAIDs hypersensitivity James Richard Perkins, Jose Antonio Cornejo García, Oswaldo Trelles, Inmaculada Doña, Esther Barrionuevo, María Salas, María Auxiliadora Guerrero, Miguel Blanca, Alex Upton P142 Genetic predisposition of cold medicine related SJS/TEN with severe ocular complications Mayumi Ueta, Hiromi Sawai, Chie Sotozono, Katushi Tokunaga, Shigeru Kinoshita P143 HLA‐B*13:01 and dapsone induced hypersensitivity in Thai population Chonlaphat Chonlaphat Sukasem, Patompong Satapornpong, Therdpong Tempark, Pawinee Rerknimitr, Kulprapat Pairayayutakul, Jettanong Klaewsongkram P144 HLA‐B*15:02 alleles and lamotrigine‐induced cutaneous adverse drug reactions in Thai Chonlaphat Sukasem, N. Koomdee, T. Jantararoungtong, S. Santon, A. Puangpetch, U. Intusoma, W. Tassaneeyakul, V. Theeramoke P145 HLA‐B*38:01 and HLA‐A*24:02 allele frequencies in Spanish patients with lamotrigine‐induced SCARs Teresa Bellón, Elena Ramirez, Alberto Manuel Borobia, Hoi Tong, Jose Luis Castañer, Francisco José De Abajo P146 Overrepresentation of a class II HLA haplotype in severe hypersensitivity type I reactions to carboplatin Violeta Régnier Galvao, Rebecca Pavlos, Elizabeth Mckinnon, Kristina Williams, Alicia Beeghly‐Fadiel, Alec Redwood, Elizabeth Phillips, Mariana Castells Poster walk 17: in vivo diagnosis + sIgE (P147–P154) P147 Absence of specific Ig‐e against beta‐lactams 9 months after an allergic reaction to amoxicillin‐clavulanic acid Elisa Boni, Marina Russello, Marina Mauro P148 Drug provocation tests in suspected opioid allergy Kok Loong Ue, Krzysztof Rutkowski P149 Improvement to the specific IgE cut‐off in the assess of β‐lactamic allergy Victor Soriano Gomis, Jorge Frances Ferre, Angel Esteban Rodriguez, Vicente Cantó Reig, Javier Fernandez Sanchez P150 Initial false negative specific IgE to gelatin in a patient with gelatin‐induced anaphylaxis Christine Breynaert, Erna Van Hoeyveld, Rik Schrijvers P151 Inmediate reactions to beta‐lactam antibiotics: pattern of skin test response over the time Jose Julio Laguna Martinez, Rosario Gonzalez Mendiola, Javier Dionicio Elera, Cosmin Boteanu, Aranzazu Jimenez Blanco, Marta Del Pozo, Raquel Fuentes Irigoyen P152 New fluorescent dendrimeric antigens for the evaluation of dendritic cell maturation as a test to detect allergy reactions to amoxicillin Daniel Collado, Yolanda Vida, Francisco Najera, Ezequiel Perez‐Inestrosa, Pablo Mesa‐Antunez, Cristobalina Mayorga, María José Torres, Miguel Blanca P153 Positive skin test or positive specific IgE to penicillin does not predict penicillin allergy Line K. Tannert, Charlotte G. Mortz, Per Stahl Skov, Carsten Bindslev‐Jensen P154 Significance of skin testing and in vitro‐analysis of neuromuscular blocking agents in diagnosis of perioperative drug hypersensitivity: evaluation of a negative control population Wolfgang Pfützner, Hannah Dörnbach, Johanna Visse, Michele Rauber, Christian Möbs Poster walk 18: in vitro/ex vivo (P155–P158, P160–P164) P155 Diagnostic value of the lymphocyte toxicity assay (LTA) and the in vitro platelet toxicity assay (IPTA) for β‐lactam allergy Abdelbaset A. Elzagallaai, Lindsey Chow, Awatif M. Abuzgaia, Michael J. Rieder P156 Enzyme linked immunospot assay used in the diagnosis of severe cutaneous adverse reactions to antimicrobials Alec Redwood, Jason Trubiano, Rebecca Pavlos, Emily Woolnough, Kaija Stautins, Christina Cheng, Elizabeth Phillips P157 Evaluation of in vitro diagnostic methods for identifying the culprit drugs in drug hypersensitivity Kenichi Kato, Hiroaki Azukizawa, Takaaki Hanafusa, Ichiro Katayama P158 Ex‐vivo expanded skin‐infiltrating T cells from severe drug eruptions are reactive with causative drugs: a possible novel method for determination of causative drugs Toshiharu Fujiyama, Hideo Hashizume, Takatsune Umayahara, Taisuke Ito, Yoshiki Tokura P160 In vitro release of IL‐2, IL‐5 and IL‐13 in diagnosis of patients with delayed‐type nickel hypersensitivity Mira Silar, Mihaela Zidarn, Helena Rupnik, Peter Korosec P161 Single cell analysis of drug responsive T cells; identification of candidate drug reactive T cell receptors in abacavir and carbamazepine hypersensitivity Alec James Redwood, Kaija Strautins, Katie White, Abha Chopra, Katherine Konvinse, Shay Leary, Rebecca Pavlos, Simon Mallal, Elizabeth Phillips P162 Specificity and sensitivity of LTT in DRESS: analysis of agreement with the Spanish pharmacovigilance system probability algorithm Rosario Cabañas, Elena Ramirez, Ana María Fiandor, Teresa Bellón P163 The role of interleukin‐22 in β‐lactam hypersensitivity Andrew Sullivan, Paul Whitaker, Daniel Peckham, B. Kevin Park, Dean J. Naisbitt P164 Vancomycin‐specific T cell responses and teicoplanin cross‐reactivity Wei Yann Haw, Marta E. Polak, Carolann Mcguire, Michael R. Ardern‐Jones Poster walk 19: BAT and biomarkers (P165–P173) P165 A combination of early biomarkers useful for the prediction of severe ADRs Yumi Aoyama, Tetsuo Shiohara P166 Basophil activation test in the diagnostic approach of reactions during general anaesthesia Ana Moreira, Susana Cadinha, Patrícia Barreira, Ana Castro Neves, Daniela Malheiro, Sara Correia, J. P. Moreira Da Silva P167 IL‐10 can be related to successful desensitization Asli Gelincik, Semra Demir, Fatma Sen, Hamza Ugur Bozbey, Muge Olgac, Derya Unal, Raif Coskun, Bahauddin Colakoglu, Suna Buyuozturk, Esin Çatin‐Aktas, Gunnur Deniz P168 Immediate reactions to proton pump inhibitors: value of basophil activation test Maria Salas, Jose Julio Laguna, Esther Barrionuevo, J. Dionicio, Tahia Fernandez, R. Gonzalez‐Mendiola, I. Olazabal, Maria Dolores Ruiz, Miguel Blanca, Cristobalina Mayorga, Maria José Torres P169 Improvement of the elevated tryptase criterion to discriminate IgE from non‐IgE mediated allergic reactions Gabriel Gastaminza, Alberto Lafuente, Carmen D'Amelio, Amalia Bernad, Olga Vega, Roselle Catherine Madamba, M. Jose Goikoetxea, Marta Ferrer, Jorge Núñez P170 Low expression of Tim‐3 could serve as a biomarker for control and diagnose maculopapular exanthema induced by drugs Tahia Diana Fernández, Inmaculada Doña, Francisca Palomares, Rubén Fernández, Maria Salas, Esther Barrionuevo, Maria Isabel Sanchez, Miguel Blanca, Maria José Torres, Cristobalina Mayorga P171 Role of basophil activation test using two different activation markers for the diagnosis of allergy to fluoroquinolones Esther Barrionuevo, Tahía Fernandez, Arturo Ruiz, Adriana Ariza, Maria Salas, Inmaculada Doña, Ana Molina, Miguel Blanca, Maria Jose Torres, Cristobalina Mayorga P172 The importance of basophil activation test in anaphylaxis due to celecoxib Amalia Bernad Alonso, Carmen D'Amelio Garófalo, Olga Vega Matute, Marta Ferrer Puga, María José Goikoetxea Lapresa, Roselle Catherine Yu Madamba, Gabriel Gastaminza Lasarte P173 The role of basophil activation test in the diagnosis of immediate type drug hypersensitivity to betalactam antibiotics Antonia Thinnes, Hans F. Merk, Jens Malte Baron, Martin Leverkus, Galina Balakirski Poster walk 20: TCR recognition, cellular (P174–P183) P174 Characterisation of the effect of co‐inhibitory signalling on the activation of drug‐derived antigen‐specific T‐cells Andrew Gibson, Monday Ogese, Lee Faulkner, B. Kevin Park, Dean J. Naisbitt P175 Characterization of drug hapten‐specific T cell responses in piperacillin hypersensitive patients Zaid Al‐Attar, Fiazia Yaseen, Xiaoli Meng, Rozalind Jenkins, Paul Whitaker, Daniel Peckham, Lee Faulkner, John Farrel, Kevin Park, Dean Naisbitt P176 Characterization of the response of T‐cells to telaprevir and its metabolite in normal volunteers Zaid Al‐Attar, Khetam Alhilali, Yanni Xue, John Farrell, Lee Faulkner, Kevin Park, Dean Naisbitt P177 Characterization of the T cell receptor signatures of drug‐responsive T cells Patricia Illing, Nicole Mifsud, Heidi Fettke, Jeffrey Lai, Rebecca Ho, Patrick Kwan, Anthony Purcell P178 Defining the signals between hepatocytes and immune cells in idiosyncratic drug‐induced liver injury (DILI) Monday O. Ogese, Lee Faulkner, B. Kevin Park, Catherine Betts, Dean J. Naisbitt P179 Development of novel chemicals that do not bind to HLA‐B*57:01 or activate CD8 + T‐cells through modification of the 6‐amino cyclopropyl group of abacavir Paul Thomson, John Farrell, Mohammad Alhaidari, Neill Berry, Paul M. O'Neill, B. Kevin Park, Dean J. Naisbitt P180 Generation and characterization of dapsone‐ and nitroso‐dapsone‐specific T‐cell clones using lymphocytes from healthy volunteers Abdulaziz Alzahrani, Monday O. Ogese, John Farrell, Lee Faulkner, Andrew Gibson, Arun Tailor, B. Kevin Park, Dean J. Naisbitt P181 Identification of benzylpenicillin‐hapten peptides responsible for naïve T‐cell activation and immunization of allergic patients to penicillin Marie Eliane Azoury, Lucia Fili, Rami Bechara, Noémie Scornet, Cathy Nhim, Richard Weaver, Nancy Claude, Delphine Joseph, Bernard Maillere, Paola Parronchi, Marc Pallardy P182 Massive expansion of clonotypic and polycytotoxic CD8+ T cells in toxic epidermal necrolysis Axel Patrice Villani, Aurore Rozières, Benoît Bensaïd, Mathilde Tardieu, Floriane Albert, Virginie Mutez, Tugba Baysal, Marc Pallardy, Janet Maryanski, Jean‐François Nicolas, Osami Kanagawa, Marc Vocanson P183 Pharmaco‐immunological synapse of HLA‐drug‐TCR in SCAR Shuen‐Iu Hung Poster walk 21: new in vitro methods, haptens, etc. (P184–P194) P184 Amoxicillin‐clavulanate forms distinct multiple haptenic structures on human serum albumin in patients Xiaoli Meng, Arun Tailor, Caroline J. Harrison, Rosalind E. Jenkins, Paul Whitaker, Neil S. French, Dean J. Naisbitt, B. Kevin Park P185 Dendrimeric antigens for studying the influence of penicillin determinants orientation on IgE recognition Maria Isabel Montañez, Cristobalina Mayorga, Francisco Najera, Adriana Ariza, Tahia D. Fernandez, Maria Salas, Angela Martin‐Serrano, Miguel Blanca, Ezequiel Perez‐Inestrosa, Maria Jose Torres P186 Dendrimeric antigens on solid supports: designed materials for IgE quantification Yolanda Vida, Maria Isabel Montañez, Noemi Molina, Daniel Collado, Francisco Najera, Adriana Ariza, Maria Jose Torres, Cristobalina Mayorga, Ezequiel Perez‐Inestrosa P187 Development of a screening assay for drug hypersensitivity using naïve T cells from donors with seven different HLA class I risk alleles Lee Faulkner, Sally Wood, Ana Alfirevic, Munir Pirmohamed, Dean J. Naisbitt, B. Kevin Park P188 Different patterns of recognition of structures derived from amoxicillin by IgE antibodies from patients with immediate hypersensitivity reactions to betalactams Adriana Ariza, Cristobalina Mayorga, María Isabel Montañez, María Salas, Inmaculada Doña, Ángela Martín‐Serrano, Ezequiel Pérez‐Inestrosa, Dolores Pérez‐Sala, Miguel Blanca, Antonio E. Guzmán, María José Torres P189 High‐resolution typing of HLA polymorphism and T‐cell receptor repertoire for severe adverse drug reactions based on the cost‐effective next‐generation sequencing approaches Tai‐Ming Ko, Yuan‐Tsong Chen, Jer‐Yuarn Wu P190 Identification and fate of intracellular proteins haptenated by amoxicillin Francisco J. Sánchez‐Gómez, Juan M. González‐Morena, Yolanda Vida, Ezequiel Pérez‐Inestrosa, Miguel Blanca, María J. Torres, Dolores Pérez‐Sala P191 In vitro detection of terbinafine protein adducts Arun Tailor, Toru Usui, Yanni Xue, Xiaoli Meng, Dean J. Naisbitt, B. Kevin Park P192 MicroRNAs dysregulation in PBMCs from drug hypersensitivity patients during drug challenge in vitro Alejandra Monroy Arreola, Jesus Agustin Badillo Corona, Silvia Mendez Flores, Judith Dominguez Cherit, Dean J. Naisbitt, Noe Valentin Duran Figueroa, Jose Luis Castrejon Flores P193 NSAIDs‐exacerbated cutaneous disease: high throughput gene expression profiling José Antonio Cornejo‐García, James Perkins, Natalia Blanca‐López, Diana Pérez‐Alzate, Raquel Jurado‐Escobar, Inmaculada Doña, Gador Bogas, María J. Torres, Gabriela Canto, Miguel Blanca P194 Utility of skin tests in non‐immediate reactions to amoxicillin Luis Mario Tubella Marti, Fernando Pineda De La Losa, Francisca Arribas Poves, Jaime Tubella Lopez, Teodora Lopez Santiago [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Fluindione is an oral vitamin K antagonist (indanedione derivative) exclusively marketed in France and Luxembourg, known to have immuno-allergic adverse effects such as hepatitis, fever or interstitial nephritis. A few cases of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) have been reported with fluindione. The aim of the present study was to investigate fluindione-induced DRESS cases reported in France and to describe their characteristics. Methods: We searched for potential cases of DRESS with fluindione reported in the French pharmacovigilance database since 2000. Results: Thirty-six cases of DRESS were included and concerned 17 women and 19 men. The mean age was 65 years (median: 68 years, range: 28-95 years). Kidneys and liver were the most frequent organs involved. Thirty-five cases were serious. In 5 cases, the effect was life-threatening. Most of the patients recovered. Fluindione was the only medicine suspected in 26 cases. Skin patch tests, performed in 10 cases, were positive with fluindione in 9 cases. Conclusions: Fluindione is not known to be a frequent cause of DRESS. However, the number of reports found is probably underestimated. The seriousness of DRESS, as all immuno-allergic adverse effects, contraindicates fluindione reintroduction. Coumarinic derivatives are the alternatives in patients who need oral anticoagulant treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comments on cutaneous adverse drug reactions. What causes adverse drug reactions; The diagnosis of drug allergy and the identification of the offending agent being a clinical exercise; Mention of a study by A. Barbaud and colleagues of inpatients with adverse reactions to confirm that a drug reaction did occur; The use of skin patch testing; The necessity for standardization of allergens; The suggestion that skin testing for systemic drug allergy is experimental.

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]

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]

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. Drug patch tests (DPTs) with medicaments suspected of causing an allergic reaction represent a method of diagnostic testing that is low risk; DPTs can reproduce delayed hypersensitivity to drugs, and entail only a moderate re-exposure of patients to potential offending drugs. We assessed the non-irritating concentrations of DPTs and determined the amounts of active ingredient (AI) contained in the drugs used in the tests. Objectives. The objectives were to assess the non-irritating concentration of DPTs and determine the amounts of active ingredient (AI) contained in the drugs used in the tests. Methods. From a retrospective, single-centre study of all patients investigated during a 6-year period with a drug eruption, each potentially responsible drug was tested with the commercially available preparation diluted to 30% in water, petrolatum, or alcohol. Data collection was performed with a customized computer database. For each type of DPT studied, the numbers of positive and negative test results were recorded. The amount of AI contained in the DPT (as a percentage) was then calculated after weighing of each tablet. Results. Of the 5558 DPTs studied, all were non-irritant. The average concentration of AI was 9.8%; 25% of DPTs had an AI concentration of <2%, and 25% had an AI concentration of >16%. The AI concentration ranged from 0.05% (digoxin) to 30% (paracetamol lyophilisate). Conclusion. These data provide thresholds for the non-irritating concentration of AI of 68 different drugs, and thresholds for the non-irritating dilution for 82 drugs, and will help to standardize DPT methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background We evaluated the value of skin tests and the efficacy of a 12-step desensitization protocol to pegylated interferon ( IFN) in patients with generalized drug eruptions due to IFNs. Methods A retrospective study (1998-2009) was followed by a cross-sectional clinical study conducted prospectively (2009-2011). All patients received a dermatological clinical examination and skin tests. Twelve-step IFN desensitization was proposed for patient with active hepatitis C and no alternative therapy. Results Twenty-six patients (13 males, mean age, 53.5 years) had generalized reactions to IFNs; 21 were treated with IFN-α and 5 with IFN-β. Moreover, 21 patients had skin tests. Intradermal tests ( IDTs) were positive after an average of 72 h. Cross-reactivity between peg- IFN-α2a and peg- IFN-α2b was observed in 5/10 cases in the prospective study. In 16 of 26 cases, IFN treatment was stopped. In 8 of 16 cases of diffuse eczematous drug eruption, treatment was continued. The corticosteroid and antihistamine were sufficient in 4/8 cases. In three other cases, topical tacrolimus was highly effective. In 3 of 16 cases in which treatment were stopped, patients underwent the early resumption of peg- IFN-α. These three patients had positive tests with peg- IFN-α2a and peg- IFN-α2b and successfully completed the tolerance induction protocol for peg- IFN-α2b. Tolerance induction involved a weekly dose of peg- IFN and a gradual increase in the recovery of an antiviral C. Clinical tolerance was excellent, and the patients' viral load C became negative. Conclusions Our study demonstrates the benefit of allergy testing in cases of generalized drug reactions to IFN, cross-reactivities in a single class of IFNs and the importance of delayed IDT reading. We report for the first time the effectiveness of 12-step desensitization with peg- IFN. [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 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]

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]