Article

Guidelines for performing skin tests withdrugs in the investigation of cutaneous adverse drug reactions: Proposed by the Working party of the ESCD for the study of skin testing in investigating cutaneous adverse drug reactions

Dermatology Department, Hopital Fournier, 54000 Nancy, France.
Contact Dermatitis (Impact Factor: 2.93). 01/2001; 45(6). DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0536.2001.450601.x

ABSTRACT 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, pristinamycin, carbamazepine and tetrazepam on patch testing, or with betalactam antibiotics and heparins on delayed readings of IDT. The results of drug skin tests also depend on the clinical features of the CADR. The use of appropriate control patients is necessary to avoid false-positive results.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
10 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) with recombinant human idursulfase is effective for the treatment of Hunter syndrome, mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS) type II. However, various adverse events can occur by the infusion of idursulfase. The purpose was to evaluate the occurrence of infusion-related allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, to idursulfase in patients with MPS II receiving ERT and to elucidate its possible mechanism. METHODS: A total of 34 patients with MPS II were enrolled to receive ERT with Elaprase(®) at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg intravenously once a week. Information regarding the symptoms, frequency, and timing of anaphylaxis during treatment was analyzed. Presence of anti-idursulfase IgE antibody was assessed by skin prick test (SPT) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Western blotting was performed to confirm the reaction between idursulfase and specific IgE. RESULTS: Three patients (8.8%) showed anaphylaxis by infusion of idursulfase. No deaths occurred during the study. Anti-idursulfase IgE antibody was detected by SPT and ELISA. Immunoblotting with patients' sera and Elaprase(®) showed a single band of specific IgE binding to the protein around 70 kD, and idursulfase did not display amino acid sequence homology to known allergens. SPT with idursulfase demonstrated positive results in all patients with anaphylaxis. However, we failed to reveal any risk factors for the development of infusion-related immediate-type allergic reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Anaphylaxis related to infusion of idursulfase is mediated by anti-idursulfase IgE antibody, which might be produced by de novo synthesis. SPT is useful in predicting the occurrence of anti-idursulfase IgE-mediated anaphylaxis during infusion.
    Allergy 04/2013; · 5.88 Impact Factor
  • Pediatric Allergy and Immunology 09/2013; · 3.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To study the diagnostic and treatment modalities used in drug allergy/hypersensitivity among members of the World Allergy Organization (WAO). A questionnaire comprising 39 questions was circulated electronically to member societies, associate member societies, and regional and affiliate organizations of WAO between June 29, 2009, and August 9, 2009. Eighty-two responses were received. Skin testing was used by 74.7%, with only 71.4% having access to penicillin skin test reagents. In vitro-specific IgE tests were used by 67.4%, and basophil activation test was used by 54.4%. Lymphocyte transformation tests were used by 36.8% and patch tests by 54.7%. Drug provocation tests were used by 68.4%, the most common indication being to exclude hypersensitivity where history/symptoms were not suggestive of drug hypersensitivity/allergy (76.9%). Rapid desensitization for chemotherapy, antibiotics, or biologic agents was used by 69.6%. Systemic corticosteroid was used in the treatment of Stevens-Johnson syndrome by 72.3%, and high-dose intravenous immunoglobulins in toxic epidermal necrolysis by 50.8%. Human leukocyte antigen screening before prescription of abacavir was used by 92.9% and before prescription of carbamazepine by 21.4%. Results of this survey form a useful framework for developing educational and training needs and for improving access to drug allergy diagnostic and treatment modalities across WAO member societies.
    World Allergy Organization Journal 12/2011; 4(12):257-70.

Full-text (3 Sources)

View
19 Downloads
Available from
May 30, 2014