Macrophage migration inhibition factor (MIF) in drug eruption

Halevy, Sima

doi:10.1001/archderm.126.1.48

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Challenge tests are potentially hazardous and in most clinical situations are not recommended. Due to these limitations several in vitro tests have been developed, with the intent to elucidate the different mechanisms of drug reactions, and to provide evidence for the association between a suspected drug and the adverse reaction (Wide and Juhlin 1971, Gimenez-Camarasa et al 1975, Watson et al 1978, Shoenfeld et al 1980, Shoenfeld 1982, Grunwald et al 1989, Halevy et al 1991, Halevy et al 2001, Sachs et al 2001, Goldberg et al 2004. The value of these in vitro tests are also limited in that the parent drug is used, and reactions occurring to drugs metabolites or to the drug associated with carrier proteins, are missed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Novel System to Diagnose Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions Employing the Cellscan—Comparison with Histamine Releasing Test and Inf‐γ Releasing Test

Goldberg

Gilburd

Kravitz

et al. 2005

Journal of Immunology Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There are several mechanisms to describe allergic drug reactions yet the methods to diagnose them are limited.Objective: To compare several conventional clinical and laboratory methods to diagnose skin reactions to drugs to a new method of diagnosing drug reactions by the CellScan system.Methods: The study entailed 21 patients who were diagnosed as suffering from drug eruptions, and 105 healthy controls with no history of drug allergy. The drugs were classified into two groups according to suspicion of causing drug allergy: high and low. Most of the patients were on more than one drug, leading to 41 patient -drug interactions (assays). Histamine releasing test (HRT), interferon (INF)-g releasing test and CellScan examination were performed on lymphocytes of the patients and controls.Results: The HRTwas interpreted as positive in 9 out of 18 (50%) patients and in 13 out of 35 (37%) assays. Based on the INF-g releasing test, positive results were observed in 16 out of 21 (76%) patients and in 24 out of 41 (59%) assays. In the CellScan test (CST), positive results were observed in 17 out of 21 (81%) patients and in 29 out of 41 (71%) assays. The rate of identifying the drug for eruption in the high suspicion level drugs was 9 out of 22 (41%) assays in the HRT, 20 out of 24 (83%) assays in the INF-g releasing test, and 21 out of 24 (87%) studies with the CellScan method. The rate of determining of the drug that caused the eruption in the low suspicion level drugs was 4 out of 13 (31%) in the HRT, 4 out of 17 (24%) assays in the INF-g releasing test, and 8 out of 17 (47%) analyses in the CST. When examined in the CellScan, 99 out of 105 (94%) controls were interpreted as negative.Conclusion: This preliminary study indicates that the CellScan seems to be an easy and promising method for the detection of drugs responsible for adverse skin reactions. In contrast to the HRTand to the Interferon-g secretion test, the CellScan method is characterized by its ability to track and monitor the reaction of individual cells. By measuring the kinetic parameters of selected cells before and after adding the suspected drug, we were able to identify the culprit drug. The CellScan method had the highest sensitivity, and the interferon-g secretion test had the highest specificity for detection of the culprit drug. In contrast, the analysis of 105 normal control sera disclosed a high specificity of 94% for the CellScan method.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Novel System to Diagnose Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions Employing the Cellscan—Comparison with Histamine Releasing Test and Inf‐γ Releasing Test

Goldberg

Gilburd

Kravitz

et al. 2005

Journal of Immunology Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 Drug-specific CD8ϩ T cells producing a T-helper 1 (Th1)type cytokine pattern are preferentially activated in delayedtype hypersensitivity (DTH) reactions, such as morbilliform and bullous exanthems, whereas drug-specific CD4ϩ Th2type cells are preferentially activated in immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions, such as urticarial exanthems. [4][5][6] Drug-related T-cell activity in CDRs may be assessed using in vitro tests, such as the lymphocyte transformation test, or lymphokine release tests, 7-9 such as the macrophage migration inhibition factor (MIF) test [10][11][12][13][14][15][16] and the leukocyte inhibitory factor (LIF) test. [17][18][19][20][21][22] The diagnostic role of these nonstandardized in vitro tests is still controversial.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The diagnostic role of the in vitro drug‐induced interferon‐γ release test in Stevens–Johnson syndrome

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This test may be of aid in the diagnosis of drug eruptions and in the identification of the offending agent. [43]…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Macrophage migration inhibitory factor as an incriminating agent in dermatological disorders

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) is a critical immunoregulatory pluripotent cytokine. It has been re-evaluated as a proinflammatory cytokine, pituitary hormone and glucocorticoid-induced immunoregulatory protein. MIF exists in human epidermis, especially in the basal layer and also is expressed constitutively by monocytes/macrophages, T cells, B cells, endocrine, and epithelial cells. In the field of dermatology, MIF is believed to be a detrimental factor in inflammatory dermatological diseases including atopic dermatitis (AD), psoriasis, vitiligo, pemphigus vulgaris, bullous pemphigoid (BP), alopecia areata (AA) as well as other conditions such as photoaging, and photocarcinigenesis. The objective of this review is to gather and summarize MIF related disorders in dermatology and present valuable information for readers and researchers.

show abstract

Macrophage migration inhibition factor (MIF) in drug eruption

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

A Novel System to Diagnose Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions Employing the Cellscan—Comparison with Histamine Releasing Test and Inf‐γ Releasing Test

A Novel System to Diagnose Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions Employing the Cellscan—Comparison with Histamine Releasing Test and Inf‐γ Releasing Test

The diagnostic role of the in vitro drug‐induced interferon‐γ release test in Stevens–Johnson syndrome

Macrophage migration inhibitory factor as an incriminating agent in dermatological disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About