No abstract

Skin testing with the suspected compound has been reported to be helpful in determining the cause of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (ADRs), but the value and specificity of these tests need to be determined. In this study, 72 patients with presumed drug eruptions (27 maculopapular, 18 urticarial, seven erythrodermic, nine eczematous, four photosensitivity, three fixed drug eruptions, three with pruritus and one with acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis) were assessed. All had drug patch tests; 46 also had prick tests and 30 had intradermal tests (performed on hospitalized patients using a sterile solution of the suspected drug, diluted sequentially) with immediate and delayed readings. Among these patients, 52 (72%) had a positive skin test reaction, 43%, 24% and 67% in patch, prick and intradermal skin tests, respectively. The results of skin tests varied with the drug tested and with the clinical type of cutaneous ADR, as a significantly higher number of positive patch tests was observed in maculopapular rashes than in urticarial reactions (P = 0.001). This study supports the value of careful sequential drug skin testing in establishing the cause of cutaneous ADR. Guidelines are proposed for performing these tests, and these include the use of appropriate negative control patients to avoid false-positive results.

Delayed reactions to radio-contrast media (RCM) with positive skin tests are rare. We report the study of a series of 15 patients who presented delayed reactions to RCM, with an analysis of the clinical features and the results of standardized drug skin tests. Patch tests were performed with RCM and iodized antiseptics (IAs). If negative, prick tests were performed, followed by intradermal tests (IDTs), then intravenous administration under hospital surveillance. The main clinical features were maculopapular rashes or a macular rubella-like rashes. Patch tests were positive with RCM in 2 of 15 cases and with IAs in 4 of 15 cases. All the prick tests were negative. IDTs were positive at 24 h in 8 of 15 cases. 5 of 12 patients had a non-severe relapse of the rash upon receiving an RCM despite clearly negative skin tests with the readministered RCM. Visipaque cross-reacted with Iopamiron, Iomeron, Telebrix, Omnipaque, Xenetix and Hexabrix. Omnipaque cross-reacted with Hexabrix and Iopamiron. IDTs with delayed readings are of better value than patch tests in such patients. The readministration of RCM with negative IDTs must be performed with progressive amounts under hospital surveillance. Cross-reactions between various classes of RCM are frequent. The responsible epitopes are unknown. Iodine itself could be involved.

No abstract

Skin tests with drugs can be of value in investigating patients who have developed cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADR), but their specificity and relevance remain to be determined. A false-positive result on skin testing can happen if it is not compared to results in control subjects. When performing intradermal tests (IDT), we have determined the lowest concentrations that induce false-positive results for many drugs, including betalactam antibiotics, cephalosporins, other antibiotics or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Some drugs in their commercialized form contain sodium lauryl sulfate and can induce irritation when patch tested as such. When patch tested with colchicine at 10% in pet. or with a Cytotec pill (containing misoprostol) at 30% in pet., respectively, 80% of the 29 and 9 of the 10 negative controls developed false-positive results. Lastly, positive results of patch tests with drugs can be related to contact allergy to one of the components of the commercialized form of the drug, without any relevance to the investigation of a CADR, as observed in 2 cases with iodine or avocado oil.

The results suggest that topical morphine cannot be an alternative to morphine administered by other routes (subcutaneously or orally) in painful chronic skin ulcers. Stimulation of peripheral morphine receptors by systemic morphine could explain the difference between these results and those of previous studies.

No abstract

Following the second series of intravenous human immunoglobulins (IVIg; 0.4 g/kg) prescribed to treat a sensorimotor polyneuritis, a 28-year-old woman developed pompholyx that recurred after each of the following monthly treatments with IVIg. During the administration of the 10th series, the patient developed a typical baboon syndrome. Immunohistochemical studies of a skin biopsy revealed an unexpected epidermal expression of P-selectin, usually expressed by endothelial cells. Patch, prick and intradermal tests performed with IVIg on the back, arms and buttocks gave negative results on immediate and delayed readings. IVIg were re-administered, with the informed consent of the patient, and induced a generalized maculopapular rash. This is the first reported case of baboon syndrome induced by IVIg. Although extensive skin testing was performed, all test sites remained negative. We wonder whether IVIg could reproduce immunological mechanisms involved in the 3 types of systemic contact dermatitis (pompholyx, baboon syndrome and maculopapular rash), including the epidermal expression of P-selectin.