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

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

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

Drug allergy

Drug allergy encompasses a spectrum of immunologically-mediated hypersensitivity reactions with varying mechanisms and clinical presentations. This type of adverse drug reaction (ADR) not only affects patient quality of life, but may also lead to delayed treatment, unnecessary investigations, and even mortality. Given the myriad of symptoms associated with the condition, diagnosis is often challenging. Therefore, referral to an allergist experienced in the identification, diagnosis and management of drug allergy is recommended if a drug-induced allergic reaction is suspected. Diagnosis relies on a careful history and physical examination. In some instances, skin testing, graded challenges and induction of drug tolerance procedures may be required

Associations of airway inflammation and responsiveness markers in non asthmatic subjects at start of apprenticeship

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Bronchial Hyperresponsiveness (BHR) is considered a hallmark of asthma. Other methods are helpful in epidemiological respiratory health studies including Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide (FENO) and Eosinophils Percentage (EP) in nasal lavage fluid measuring markers for airway inflammation along with the Forced Oscillatory Technique measuring Airway resistance (AR). Can their outcomes discriminate profiles of respiratory health in healthy subjects starting apprenticeship in occupations with a risk of asthma?</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Rhinoconjunctivitis, asthma-like symptoms, FEV1 and AR post-Methacholine Bronchial Challenge (MBC) test results, FENO measurements and EP were all investigated in apprentice bakers, pastry-makers and hairdressers not suffering from asthma. Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) was simultaneously conducted in relation to these groups and this generated a synthetic partition (EI). Associations between groups of subjects based on BHR and EI respectively, as well as risk factors, symptoms and investigations were also assessed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Among the 441 apprentice subjects, 45 (10%) declared rhinoconjunctivitis-like symptoms, 18 (4%) declared asthma-like symptoms and 26 (6%) suffered from BHR. The mean increase in AR post-MBC test was 21% (sd = 20.8%). The median of FENO values was 12.6 ppb (2.6-132 range). Twenty-six subjects (6.7%) had EP exceeding 14%. BHR was associated with atopy (p < 0.01) and highest FENO values (p = 0.09). EI identified 39 subjects with eosinophilic inflammation (highest values of FENO and eosinophils), which was associated with BHR and atopy.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Are any of the identified markers predictive of increased inflammatory responsiveness or of development of symptoms caused by occupational exposures? Analysis of population follow-up will attempt to answer this question.</p

Allergic Reactions to Local Anesthetics in Dental Patients: Analysis of Intracutaneous and Challenge Tests

Some dental patients have histories of adverse reactions to local anesthesia. The aim of the present study was to investigate the frequency of allergy to local anesthetics of dental patients who had histories of adverse reactions to local anesthesia based on the results of allergy tests in our institute over a period of 5 years. We investigated the past medical records of dental patients retrospectively, and twenty patients were studied. Three of the 20 showed a positive or false-positive reaction in the intracutaneous test, and one patient showed a false-positive reaction in the challenge test. Our results suggest that the frequency of allergy to local anesthetics is low even if patients have histories of adverse reactions to local anesthesia. However, allergy tests of local anesthetics should be performed in patients in whom it is uncertain whether they are allergic