Guidelines for performing skin tests with drugs in the investigation of cutaneous adverse drug reactions

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

Skin testing in patients with hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media - a European multicenter study

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

Skin testing in patients with hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media - a European multicenter study

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

Occupational Asthma to Detergent Protease Associated With a Late-Phase Neutrophilic Cutaneous Response

International audienceBackground: The relationships between asbestos exposure and colorectal cancer remain controversial. Objectives: We examined the association between asbestos exposure and colorectal cancer incidence. Methods: Volunteer retired workers previously exposed to asbestos were invited to participate in the French ARDCo screening program between 2003 and 2005. Additional data on risk factors for colorectal cancer were collected from the ARDCo-Nut subsample of 3,769 participants in 2011. Cases of colon and rectal cancer were ascertained each year through 2014 based on eligibility for free medical care following a cancer diagnosis. Survival regression based on the Cox model was used to estimate the relative risk of colon and rectal cancer separately, in relation to the time since first exposure (TSFE) and cumulative exposure index (CEI) to asbestos, and with adjustment for smoking in the overall cohort and for smoking, and certain risk factors for these cancers in the ARDCo-Nut subsample. Results: Mean follow-up was 10.2 years among 14,515 men, including 181 colon cancer and 62 rectal cancer cases (41 and 17, respectively, in the ARDCo-Nut subsample). In the overall cohort, after adjusting for smoking, colon cancer was significantly associated with cumulative exposure (HR = 1.14; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.26 for a 1-unit increase in ln-CEI) and ≥ 20–40 years since first exposure (HR = 4.67; 95% CI: 1.92, 11.46 vs. 0–20 years TSFE), and inversely associated with 60 years TSFE (HR = 0.26; 95% CI: 0.10, 0.70). Although rectal cancer was also associated with TSFE 20–40 years (HR = 4.57; 95% CI: 1.14, 18.27), it was not associated with ln-CEI, but these findings must be interpreted cautiously due to the small number of cases. Conclusions: Our findings provide support for an association between occupational exposure to asbestos and colon cancer incidence in men. Citation: Paris C, Thaon I, Hérin F, Clin B, Lacourt A, Luc A, Coureau G, Brochard P, Chamming’s S, Gislard A, Galan P, Hercberg S, Wild P, Pairon JC, Andujar P. 2017. Occupational asbestos exposure and incidence of colon and rectal cancers in French men: the Asbestos-Related Diseases Cohort (ARDCo-Nut). Environ Health Perspect 125:409–415; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP15

Flow-based basophil activation test in immediate drug hypersensitivity. An EAACI task force position paper

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.Funding for open access charge: Universidad de Málaga/CBUA. The authors would like to thank EAACI for their financial support in the development of this Task Force Position Paper

Sequential Assessment of Cell Cycle S Phase in Flow Cytometry: A Non-Isotopic Method to Measure Lymphocyte Activation In Vitro

Lymphocyte multiplication can be induced in vitro by mitogens or specific antigens, and is usually measured using isotopic methods involving tritiated thymidine. Cellular proliferation can also be analyzed by flow cytometry techniques based on cell cycle analysis through the measurement of DNA content. We applied this method to lymphocytes from 113 individuals, to evaluate lymphocyte proliferation after stimulation in vitro by a mitogen (phytohaemagglutinin, PHA) or a recall antigen (tetanus toxoid), using a kinetic approach with four points sequential measurements of the S and G2 phases over six days of culture. The proportion of cells in S phase after PHA stimulation was significantly higher than in controls overall and as early as on day three of the culture. Activation with a recall antigen significantly induced increasing S phase cell proportions up to day six. These data suggest that flow cytometric assessment of the S phase could be a useful alternative to isotopic methods measuring lymphocyte reactivity in vitro

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis: European expert consensus for diagnosis and management

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) is a rare, usually drug‐induced, acute pustular rash. Despite the lack of strong data supporting the effectiveness of topical or systemic corticosteroids in this drug reaction, they are widely used. More generally, there is no consensus on the diagnostic modalities and the management of patients with AGEP. We aimed to provide European expert recommendations for the diagnosis and management or patients with AGEP. Members of the ToxiTEN group of the European Reference Network (ERN)‐skin, all dermatologists and/or allergologists with expertise in drug reactions, elaborated these recommendations based on their own experience and on a review of the literature. Recommendations were separated into the following categories: professionals involved, assessment of the diagnosis of AGEP, management of the patient and allergological work‐up after the acute phase. Consensus was obtained among experts for the list of professionals involved for the diagnosis and management of AGEP, including the minimum diagnostic work‐up, the setting of management, the treatments, the modalities and the timing of allergological work‐up and follow‐up. European experts in drug allergies propose herein consensus on the diagnosis and management of patients with AGEP. A multidisciplinary approach is warranted, including dermatologists, allergologists and pharmacovigilance services