In situ patch and repeated open application test for fixed drug eruption: a multicenter study.

drug challenge drug patch tests fixed drug eruption in situ patch tests in situ repeated open application test

Journal

The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice
ISSN: 2213-2201
Titre abrégé: J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101597220

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
18 Oct 2023
Historique:
received: 21 07 2023
revised: 26 09 2023
accepted: 10 10 2023
medline: 21 10 2023
pubmed: 21 10 2023
entrez: 20 10 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Few studies have evaluated allergy work-up in fixed drug eruption (FDE) in a large population. To evaluate the sensitivity of a standardized allergy workup for diagnosing the cause of fixed drug eruption, with a focus on in situ repeated open application tests (in situ ROAT). In a retrospective multicenter study, we analyzed the practice of conducting a complete allergy workup for the etiological diagnosis of FDE. It consisted of three steps: is patch tests (in situ PT) for all cases except pure mucosal involvement, followed by in situ ROAT if in situ PT results were negative, and finally a drug challenge (DC). In situ ROAT involved daily application of the suspected drug on a previously affected FDE site for 7 days. Out of 98 suspected FDE cases, 61 patients (median age 61 years, male/female ratio 1.8) with a complete allergy workup were included. In 4 cases, even the DC yielded negative results. Among the remaining 57 patients with a positive workup, implicated drugs included paracetamol (12 cases), betalactams (11 cases), imidazoles (9 cases, including 5 with metronidazole), NSAIDs (8 cases), iodinated contrast media (4 cases), cotrimoxazole (3 cases), and various other drugs in 10 patients. The diagnosis was confirmed by in situ PT in 17/54 cases (31.5%), in situ ROAT in 14/40 cases (35%) (with 4 cases showing remote reactivation of FDE sites), and DC in 26 cases. The sequential allergy workup involving successively in situ PT, in situ ROAT, and DC is a reliable and safe method for diagnosing the cause of FDE. In situ tests exhibited a sensitivity of over 50%.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Few studies have evaluated allergy work-up in fixed drug eruption (FDE) in a large population.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the sensitivity of a standardized allergy workup for diagnosing the cause of fixed drug eruption, with a focus on in situ repeated open application tests (in situ ROAT).
METHODS METHODS
In a retrospective multicenter study, we analyzed the practice of conducting a complete allergy workup for the etiological diagnosis of FDE. It consisted of three steps: is patch tests (in situ PT) for all cases except pure mucosal involvement, followed by in situ ROAT if in situ PT results were negative, and finally a drug challenge (DC). In situ ROAT involved daily application of the suspected drug on a previously affected FDE site for 7 days.
RESULTS RESULTS
Out of 98 suspected FDE cases, 61 patients (median age 61 years, male/female ratio 1.8) with a complete allergy workup were included. In 4 cases, even the DC yielded negative results. Among the remaining 57 patients with a positive workup, implicated drugs included paracetamol (12 cases), betalactams (11 cases), imidazoles (9 cases, including 5 with metronidazole), NSAIDs (8 cases), iodinated contrast media (4 cases), cotrimoxazole (3 cases), and various other drugs in 10 patients. The diagnosis was confirmed by in situ PT in 17/54 cases (31.5%), in situ ROAT in 14/40 cases (35%) (with 4 cases showing remote reactivation of FDE sites), and DC in 26 cases.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
The sequential allergy workup involving successively in situ PT, in situ ROAT, and DC is a reliable and safe method for diagnosing the cause of FDE. In situ tests exhibited a sensitivity of over 50%.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37863314
pii: S2213-2198(23)01139-X
doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2023.10.021
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Auteurs

Hélène Traineau (H)

Médecine Sorbonne Université, Service de dermatologie et d'allergologie, Hôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Paris, France.

Brigitte Milpied (B)

CHU de Bordeaux, Service de Dermatologie, Hôpital Saint André, Bordeaux, France.

Angèle Soria (A)

Cimi-Paris Inserm 1135, AP-HP. Sorbonne Université, Hôpital Tenon, Service de dermatologie et allergologie, 75020, Paris, France.

Haudrey Assier (H)

Service de Dermatologie, AP-HP, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France.

Florence Tetart (F)

Service de Dermatologie, CHU de Rouen, Rouen France.

Claire Bernier (C)

Service de Dermatologie, CHU de Nantes, Nantes, France.

Marie-Christine Ferrier Le Bouëdec (MC)

CHU de Clermont Ferrand, Service de Dermatologie, Hôpital Estaing, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

Gwendeline Gener (G)

Service de Dermatologie, AP-HP, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France.

Flore Kurihara (F)

Médecine Sorbonne Université, Service de dermatologie et d'allergologie, Hôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Paris, France.

Olivia Bauvin (O)

Service de Dermatologie, CHU de Rouen, Rouen France.

Juliette Delauney (J)

CHU d'Angers, Service de Dermatologie, Centre hospitalier de Cholet, Angers, France.

Emmanuelle Amsler (E)

Médecine Sorbonne Université, Service de dermatologie et d'allergologie, Hôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Paris, France.

Corina Bara (C)

Service de Dermatologie, centre hospitalier du Mans, Le Mans, France.

Fabien Pelletier (F)

Service de Dermatologie, CHU de Besançon, Besançon, France.

Aude Valois (A)

Service de Dermatologie, Hôpital d'instruction des armées Sainte Anne, Toulon, France.

Florence Castelain (F)

Service de Dermatologie, CHU de Besançon, Besançon, France.

Tullia de Risi Pugliese (T)

Médecine Sorbonne Université, Service de dermatologie et d'allergologie, Hôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Paris, France.

Aurore Hamelin (A)

Médecine Sorbonne Université, Service de dermatologie et d'allergologie, Hôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Paris, France.

Annick Barbaud (A)

Médecine Sorbonne Université, Service de dermatologie et d'allergologie, Hôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Paris, France. Electronic address: annick.barbaud@aphp.fr.

Classifications MeSH