Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis simulating toxic epidermal necrolysis: case presentation and literature review.
Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis
Beta-lactam antibiotics
Disease overlap
Severe cutaneous adverse drug reaction
Toxic epidermal necrolysis
Journal
Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
ISSN: 1710-1484
Titre abrégé: Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101244313
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
25
07
2019
accepted:
22
01
2020
entrez:
12
2
2020
pubmed:
12
2
2020
medline:
12
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) are severe cutaneous adverse reactions. These rare conditions differ in clinical presentation, pathological features, treatment and prognosis, but overlap has been described implying a challenging clinical management. We describe a case of overlap between TEN and AGEP probably secondary to beta-lactams in a 77-year-old patient treated for a complicated cholangitis. We review the diagnosis and the management of these two conditions. The diagnosis of TEN was suggested by the initial clinical presentation with severe hemodynamic instability, skin detachment, positive Nikolsky sign and mucosal involvement. However, the skin biopsy as well as the rapid improvement of the skin lesions were discriminative for AGEP. This indicated an overlap presentation. Unfortunately, the patient refused allergy investigations in order to find the culprit drug. Medical photographs, proper physical examination and histopathological results are integrated. Despite clinical features indicating a diagnosis of TEN, histopathology was conclusive for AGEP thus indicating a possible clinical-pathological overlap between the two conditions, a scarcely described situation in the medical literature. To our knowledge, this is one of the few cases that portrays a TEN-AGEP overlap probably secondary to Piperacillin Tazobactam. Understanding the immunological implications of these conditions can help us better distinguish and manage these severe reactions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) are severe cutaneous adverse reactions. These rare conditions differ in clinical presentation, pathological features, treatment and prognosis, but overlap has been described implying a challenging clinical management.
CASE PRESENTATION
METHODS
We describe a case of overlap between TEN and AGEP probably secondary to beta-lactams in a 77-year-old patient treated for a complicated cholangitis. We review the diagnosis and the management of these two conditions. The diagnosis of TEN was suggested by the initial clinical presentation with severe hemodynamic instability, skin detachment, positive Nikolsky sign and mucosal involvement. However, the skin biopsy as well as the rapid improvement of the skin lesions were discriminative for AGEP. This indicated an overlap presentation. Unfortunately, the patient refused allergy investigations in order to find the culprit drug. Medical photographs, proper physical examination and histopathological results are integrated.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Despite clinical features indicating a diagnosis of TEN, histopathology was conclusive for AGEP thus indicating a possible clinical-pathological overlap between the two conditions, a scarcely described situation in the medical literature. To our knowledge, this is one of the few cases that portrays a TEN-AGEP overlap probably secondary to Piperacillin Tazobactam. Understanding the immunological implications of these conditions can help us better distinguish and manage these severe reactions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32042284
doi: 10.1186/s13223-020-0407-5
pii: 407
pmc: PMC7001236
doi:
Types de publication
Case Reports
Langues
eng
Pagination
9Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2007 May;21(5):717-9
pubmed: 17448012
Dermatology. 1996;193(4):338-41
pubmed: 8993963
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019 Jan;143(1):66-73
pubmed: 30573342
Arch Dermatol. 2011 Jun;147(6):697-701
pubmed: 21690532
Clin Rheumatol. 2009 Dec;28(12):1449-52
pubmed: 19727917
J Immunol Res. 2017;2017:1503709
pubmed: 29445753
Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2017;174(2):108-111
pubmed: 29065395
Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2018 Jun;109(5):460-462
pubmed: 29402393
Eur J Dermatol. 2011 May-Jun;21(3):427-8
pubmed: 21515438
J Cutan Med Surg. 2017 Jul/Aug;21(4):351-355
pubmed: 28358593
Int J Dermatol. 2009 Aug;48(8):913-4
pubmed: 19659879
Int J Dermatol. 2014 Jan;53(1):e27-8
pubmed: 23452000
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019 Jan;7(1):219-227.e4
pubmed: 29800753
Ann Intern Med. 2004 May 18;140(10):795-801
pubmed: 15148066
Burns. 2005 May;31(3):383-7
pubmed: 15774300
Clin Exp Dermatol. 2016 Jul;41(5):561-2
pubmed: 26931079
Int J Dermatol. 2001 Jul;40(7):458-61
pubmed: 11679003
Acta Derm Venereol. 2013 Mar 27;93(2):212-4
pubmed: 22930254
Clin Exp Dermatol. 2012 Mar;37(2):188-9
pubmed: 21790730
Singapore Med J. 2008 Jun;49(6):507-10
pubmed: 18581028
Drug Saf. 2019 Aug;42(8):973-992
pubmed: 31020549
J Invest Dermatol. 2000 Aug;115(2):149-53
pubmed: 10951229
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Sep;81(3):749-757
pubmed: 31150704
Clin Exp Dermatol. 2015 Aug;40(6):688-9
pubmed: 25677856
JAAD Case Rep. 2018 Jan 16;4(2):123-125
pubmed: 29387760
Br J Dermatol. 2014 Dec;171(6):1539-45
pubmed: 24888401
Acta Derm Venereol. 2003;83(1):76-7
pubmed: 12636039
Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2016 Jan-Feb;107(1):23-33
pubmed: 26520037